Friday, January 06, 2012

NYT unravels

We tried to be nice in yesterday's snapshot. For all the good it does.

Via CNN, the five Americans killed in a January 2007 attack by the League of Righteous:

Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama.

And when Michael S. Schmidt's report online at the New York Times was published early yesterday evening, we didn't call him out in the snapshot. We played nice and just left it, in the snapshot, at, "We need to provide backstory because, sadly, US press outlets don't know how many Americans were killed by the terrorist group."

Five, Schmidt, not four. But we were kind and no good deed goes unpunished so Schmidt teamed with Jack Healy for the final version of the report and chose to 'improve' on getting the number wrong by leaving out the five completely.

That's offensive in so many ways.

In terms of news, it's offensive because the League of Righteous has long trumpeted the attack. In terms of news, it's offensive because five of the fallen are rendered invisible. (The reported claim that the League of Righteous killed a solider during the US reposturing phase do not make up for that -- especially due to the fact that the reporters leave him nameless as well.)

In terms of the newspaper, it's offensive because the paper actually received credit for something it did right. Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s" in June 2009. It caused a ripple. It's become much more than that. Among the groups we speak to are military and military families. And the five have become a growing issue since the White House decided to let those responsible for the deaths of US service members walk. Like the attack on the USS Cole, this is something that brews and bubbles and largely remains out of the media's view because the media refuses to explore it at any real length. And Rubin and Gordon were getting credit for their article, as was the paper itself. (When we speak, I always give credit to writers by name.) More people had heard of the report than read it but it helped the paper's image. And now we get Healy and Schmdit undoing the goodwill as well as undercutting the work of their colleagues.

What were they thinking? (Oh, that's right, they weren't.)

The article's pretty much embarrassing throughout. For example? Let's go with this sentence: "The militant group, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, broke away from the fierce Shiite militia commanded by the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who has strong ties to Tehran." With no further notes of 'ties to Tehran,' the implication is that Moqtada has them but not the League of Righteous. The sentence after the 'ties to Iran' seems to imply that, "The American military has long maintained that the group, led by a former spokesman for Mr. Sadr, Qais al-Khazali, was trained and financed by Iran's elite Quds Force -- something that Iran denies. " The paper will insist, "We included the allegation about ties to Iran by the League." The paper presented Moqtada as tied to Iran with no qualifiers, no 'people say,' nothing. It was treated as established fact, in the report, that Moqtada has ties to Iran. In the same article, in the same paragraph, the wording and claims were presented to suggest that they were inconclusive when it comes to the League of Righteous.

October 20th, Niqash interviewed "chief negotiator of the League of Righteous" Salam al-Maliki. Excerpt.

NIQASH: Who does the League look to for religious authority and the issuing of fatwas, the directives issued by Islamic religious leaders?

Al-Maliki: The league enjoys a lot of support from leading religious authorities such as Grand Ayatollah Kazem al-Husseini al-Haeri and Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi [Editor’s note: both reside in Iran]. Many religious authorities believe in the importance of armed resistance. But our legitimacy is primarily based on the injustices done to the Iraqi people who have now put their trust in the Islamic resistance.

[. . .]

NIQASH: What is the nature of the relationship between the league and Iran?


Al-Maliki: The Islamic Republic [of Iran] embraces resistance efforts in the region and it maintains good relations with various factions in the Arab world. So this is what the League has in common with the Islamic Republic.

Is anyone else feeling that Schmidt and Healy put about as much time into their 'report' as Gail Collins puts into her bad columns? It doesn't even appear that the two are familiar with Rubin and Gordon's original report in 2009.

In terms of established facts -- established within the paper's own page previously -- this is an awful article. Possibly, they spent too much time trying to get statements (there's a wide variety of chatters, some on the record, some not) about how it relates to the political crisis today. That's a noble effort but it's cheapened when you forget to cover the 2007 attack in which 5 US service members were killed. That's all the more true when you write of the 2009 release from US imprisonment of two of the leaders but 'forget' to tell why they were imprisoned to begin with.

It's also insulting when you write, "On Thursday, Asaib Ahl al-Haq made another conciliatory gesture, saying it would release the body of a British bodyguard, Alan McMenemy, who was kidnapped in 2007 with four others, only one of whom was released alive."

As noted in yesterday's snapshot, his loved ones went on television and publicly begged the League. The Telegraph of London quoted Rosaleen McMenemy stating, ""It's now been three years since he's been held captive, which is 1,096 days. This is far too long for myself and our two children and I would ask those holding him to please show mercy and compassion and return him to us immediately and unconditionally. You've showed compassion by releasing his four colleagues and I would ask you to do the same for my family to bring closure to this." Not only did that take place in 2010, but in July 2011, the League made statements publicly that Alan McMenemy was still alive, when they had killed him years before. They misled the loved ones and did so deliberately. They killed Alan McMenemy, they tortured his family with their games after. It's really out of bounds to call their current offer a "conciliatory gesture."

One quote the reporters didn't go for is the most important one. Reuters quotes US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey on the latest claims of wanting peace by the League, "We've heard it before."

The following community sites -- plus Antiwar.com, Chocolate City, Jane Fonda and The Diane Rehm Show -- updated last night and this morning:




army_mil-73865-2010-05-19-060544

(Troy Yocum photo taken by John Crosby)

Hike for our Heroes is a non-profit started by Iraq War veteran Troy Yocum who hiked across the country to raise awareness and money for veterans issues. Modell's Sporting Goods raised over a quarter of a million dollars for the cause. Yesterday, a shoe company announced their contribution:



SKECHERS Presents Iraq War Veteran and Hike for Heroes' Troy Yocum with More Than $120,000 in Support of the Active Heroes Foundation

MANHATTAN BEACH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 5, 2012-- SKECHERS USA, Inc. (NYSE:SKX), a global leader in the footwear industry, today announced that it raised more than $120,000 for military families through its nationwide network of SKECHERS retail stores. The 2011 fundraising drive was in support of Iraq War veteran Troy Yocum's Hike for Heroes campaign, which raised awareness and funds for military families in need as the former soldier walked across America.

SKECHERS president Michael Greenberg presents Iraq War veteran and Hike for Heroes founder Troy Yocu ...

SKECHERS president Michael Greenberg presents Iraq War veteran and Hike for Heroes founder Troy Yocum with a donation check at the SKECHERS flagship store in Manhattan Beach, California. (Photo: Business Wire)

“I’m extremely grateful that SKECHERS stepped up to provide vast exposure to this important cause,” began Troy Yocum, who was joined by his wife Mareike for part of his 7,880 mile journey. “Many military families in need will benefit from the donations made by the SKECHERS Foundation and SKECHERS customers across the country—many of whom may not have known about this cause if they hadn’t been informed about the donation opportunity in SKECHERS’ retail stores.”

“Troy Yocum is an inspiration to men and women of all ages,” began Michael Greenberg, president of SKECHERS. “After bravely serving his country in Iraq, this selfless man is now devoting his life to helping the families of his fellow soldiers who risk their lives to protect our freedom. I was extremely moved by Troy’s story, and felt compelled to help his cause through SKECHERS’ vast network of retail stores. Our loyal customers felt inspired to make donations to Troy’s campaign, and we’re extremely proud that SKECHERS raised such a large amount of funds to support military families.”

The SKECHERS Foundation will mark this fundraising achievement by presenting a $122,285 check to Yocum for the Active Heroes charity foundation at the footwear company's flagship retail store in Manhattan Beach, Calif. on Thursday, January 5.

Since the Hike for Heroes campaign began in April 2010, Troy has raised more than a million dollars for the Active Heroes foundation. His journey will continue as long as U.S. military families require assistance. Troy and Mareike plan to hike another 1,500 miles in 2012 through National Forests and at special events from coast to coast, with the ultimate goal of raising $5 million to directly benefit military families in need.

SKECHERS has a long history of supporting and leading charitable efforts around the globe. The annual SKECHERS Pier to Pier Friendship Walk benefits children with special needs and education. In addition, the Company’s BOBS from SKECHERS footwear line donates a pair of new shoes to a child in need for every pair of BOBS sold.

ABOUT THE SKECHERS FOUNDATION

The SKECHERS Foundation was established to provide families around the world with the necessities and skills to succeed in life. In addition to organizing the SKECHERS Pier to Pier Friendship Walk, the SKECHERS Foundation funds tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations that provide education and job training, shoes, clothing, fitness and nutrition guidance to communities in need.

ABOUT SKECHERS USA, Inc.

SKECHERS USA, Inc., based in Manhattan Beach, California, designs, develops and markets a diverse range of footwear for men, women and children under the SKECHERS name, as well as under several uniquely branded names. SKECHERS footwear is available in the United States via department and specialty stores, Company-owned SKECHERS retail stores and its e-commerce website, and over 100 countries and territories through the Company’s global network of distributors and subsidiaries in Canada, Brazil, Chile, Japan and across Europe, as well as through joint ventures in Asia. For more information, please visit www.skechers.com, and follow us on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SKECHERS) and Twitter (twitter.com/SKECHERSUSA).



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





















Posted by at

Thursday, January 05, 2012

I Hate The War

Michael V. Hayden was a CIA director under Bush (2006 - 2009). He has a piece at CNN that a visitor e-mailed to the public account and asked if I'd link to it? Yes. It almost made the snapshot but (a) I didn't have time to read it and (b) there was too much to include in the snapshot already.
The column can be found here and this is what I feel the strongest section is:

With that agreement unextended and now expired, al-Maliki appears to be acting out the darkest shadows of his own past. Over the last months, he has reneged on a power-sharing agreement with Sunnis in several key ministries, arrested hundreds of suspected Baathists (read Sunni oppositionists) and -- as the last American troops were leaving Iraq and fresh from an audience in the Oval Office -- he has now ordered the arrest of his own Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, for alleged "terrorism."

Along with all of this, al Qaeda in Iraq greeted the U.S. withdrawal with a series of deadly bombings against largely Shiite targets. Al Qaeda was always expected to take advantage of the "seam" created by the handoff of counterterrorism operations from American to Iraqi control, but now even a badly weakened al Qaeda can exploit the sense of Sunni vulnerability that al-Maliki's actions have created.

The situation may yet be salvaged. America is not without tools. Ambassador Jim Jeffrey cut short his holiday home leave to return to Iraq and, as he has in the past, he will no doubt use his considerable skills in an attempt to defuse the situation. But the ambassador will have fewer tools at his disposal.


The point of his column is that he believes the US military left Iraq too soon and he notes Stephen Biddle's piece asserting the US military helped in Kosovo by being on the ground and remaining on the ground.

This is me guessing, I believe he's expressing that a small number (12,000 or less -- and it may be much much less) should have remained for a few years more. I say that I'm guessing because he's clear that he believes the US military left too soon but as for how many should have stayed in his opinion or for how long, he doesn't address that. Because he is former military (he's a retired general), I'm going with 12,000 as his top number. (As was made clear in hearing after hearing last year, the US military brass -- generals -- favored a 12,000 as the number of US troops they wanted kept in the country.)

That's his view. He doesn't need to provide a number or a length of time to have a valid opinion.

I disagree with it.

No, the illegal war never should have started. Once it started, the point should have been to get out quickly. Many War Hawks would go along with that. There's a whole cottage industry of how the Bush administration screwed up war for future presidents by staying too long. The thinking there is that if, for example, Bush had pulled US troops out at the end of May 2003 (the US invaded in March 2003), it could have been a 'success' and led to more wars. Instead, a quagmire was created.

Again, there's a whole cottage industry around that, bad, awful 'documentaries' like No Exit, for example.

But that's not why I say the White House should have pulled the military out quickly.

I say it because the US military was not a peace keeping force. It was used to protect exiles that US was installing. These people would not have been the choice of Iraqis.

People say I pick too much on Nouri -- and have said that since 2006. He's a thug. I've said that since 2006 and that's based on a great deal more than media accounts or information from the State Dept. But Allawi or whomever, any of the exiles, they wouldn't have been supported by the people of Iraq.

The people of Iraq were not allowed to pick rulers. The US government said, "You can't pick this group." Then they decided who could run and they decided who they would support (and US support almost always translated in victory). So you end up with a large group of people being ruled by a small group who largely lived out of Iraq for decades.

They have no common insterests.

Remember the move to Canada nonsense?

No?

The Supereme Court decided the 2000 election. They gave it to Bully Boy Bush who came in second to Al Gore. That was outrageous to many people (myself included). Some of them decided they'd leave the country and move to Canada and become citizens there.

Fine. If that's your choice, I hope you're happy in Canada but, since you're no longer American, I also hope you'll do something instead of focus on the US because those of us who chose to stay and fight really don't need the help of people who fled.

Now it's 2020. Iraq invades the US. And while we're being asked to identify ourselves in some form (Democrat or Republican?) and our biometrics are being taken, Iraq brings in all these people who've lived in Canada for over 15 years.

And says to us, "Okay, choose your leader!" [From these exiles who moved to Canada.]

No. We wouldn't do that.

The US military was not doing democracy in Iraq. It can't. That's not what it's trained in. They're trained to fight. And after the initial invasion, that power was used to ensure that the Nouris, all those exiles, and the government being imposed by the US, could grow ever more entrenched as a result is occupation.

The Iraqis have a right to decide their lives, not to have imposed upon them.

At this site, we have always supported immediate and full withdrawal. (And we don't believe that's happened today.) But I've never said, "An then every one gets along perfectly and all live in harmony."

I've always stated that violence would most likely follow a US departure.

And it's rotten that people are being killed but it's completely understandable. A lot more will likely die. That's because a group of people are now entrenched and they don't represent Iraqis. How do Iraqis dislodge these US-imposed rulers?

One way is violence. So it's not at all surprising that violence would take place.

Another way that they could dislodge US-imposed rulers would be at the ballot box.

However, the US refused to send that message.

In 2010, Iraqi's voted. And their choice was Iraqiya. And the Constitution meant that Iraqiya should have had first crack at forming a government (Cabinet) and someone from Iraqiya should have been named prime minister-designate (and given 30 days to name a Cabinet or be replaced by another prime minister-designate).

But the White House backed Nouri whose State of Law did not come in first. And who won out? The people of Iraq? The voters?

No, the White House and Nouri.

Barack Obama pissed on the Iraqi Constitution. He pissed on the will of the Iraqi people.

The White House should have supported the election results.

Iraq is, at best, a fledging democracy.

And yet the lesson the White House elected to impart was that the rule of law doesn't matter, the Constitution didn't matter, the will of the voters didn't matter.

In Iraq, people did risk their lives to vote. Barack said that on December 12th and he's correct. He left out the part about people risking their lives to run for office. He left that out because Nouri was the one targeting Iraqiya, banning candidates, imprisoning them and someone was murdering them. All in the lead up to the election.

A lot was risked for elections and what happened?

Nouri remained prime minister.

Jalal Talabani remained President.

Tareq al-Hashemi remained the Sunni Vice President.

Adel Abdul Mahdi remained the Shi'ite Vice President.

(As 2011 went along Iraq would end up with three vice presidents but we're not going there and getting lost in a sidebar. Adeal Abdul Mahdi resigned his post in May.)

So a lot of people risked a lot and the results were that the country should have seen change.

Yet all the top positions remained exactly the same.

When the White House sent that message, they made the use of violence to alter outcomes look like a much better option to those seeking change. That's on the White House.


Immediate and full withdrawal because Iraqis need to sort out their country. The US staying for a year or ten was only going to delay that from taking place. What's going on now was always a possibility and, most likely, became a sure thing once the US changed White House occupants and President Barack Obama decided that Bush's thug was someone the US needed to continue supporting, Iraqi voters and the Constitution be damned.



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!)

December 23rd, 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:


1512

(Yes, the number's back up. If you're lost refer to "And the war drags on . . ." from Sunday.)

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




Posted by at

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, January 5, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, bombs slam Iraq, the League of Righteous is "honestly sorry" for killing a British citizen several years ago (and for lying this summer that he was still alive?), the political crisis continues, Nouri saw 'terrorists' trying to overthrow the government but now they're being released, and more.
 
 
On this week's. Black Agenda Radio, hosted by Glen Ford and Nellie Bailey, (airs each Monday at 4:00 pm EST on the Progressive Radio Network), Iraq was noted.  Excerpt.
 

 
Nellie Bailey: But first, the US and its allies were on a military offensive in 2011 except in Iraq where the Americans were forced to withdraw almost all of their uniformed forces.  But that doesn't mean the Americans are gone.  We spoke with Tony Monteiro, professor of African American Studies at Temple University in Philadelphia.
 
Tony Monteiro: Don't forget the bulk of the troops might be out of Iraq but they're not out of the region.  When you look at the Obama administration's policy, it is a continuation of the neo-conservative policy of the Bush administration and those policies were defined by the objective of regime change and bringing democracy -- so-called -- to the Middle East.  And Iraq was supposed to be the first domino and the most important domino to fall in this respect. Now the other side of that is while they're allegedly moving out of Iraq, of course the troops are in Kuwait and other parts of the Persian Gulf.  But the US is ramping up its war talk against Iran.  Iran is a neighbor of Iraq.  In fact, Iran sits between Iraq and Afghanistan.  So, it is my opinion that this thing is not over.  That the US, and this is of course Vice President Biden's point of view, the United States should reserve the option of going back into Iraq.  And certainly with the Maliki government under increasing stress and opposition, that government is not beond -- in the not too distant future -- calling for the American troops to come back. And I guess the third thing I would say is that a lot of this has to do with the 2012 election.  After the election, all best are off, we have a new set of options.  And we can not forget that the largest US Embassy in the world is in Baghdad, Iraq -- over 17,000 so-called diplomats but mainly CIA, military intelligence.  So Iraq is not over by a long shot.
 
Glen Ford: The US had a long list of nations marked for regime change.  There has been regime change in Libya  and it appears that the United States and the Europeans are intent on making regime change in Syria.
 
Tony Monteiro: And you know, even if they do not bring about complete regime change, they want to make these states -- such as Libya, such as Syria, such as Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq -- failed states, states that in order to even exist or to function must rely on the United States and NATO. So you have this attempt on the part of the United States and NATO to manage a political, social and economic chaos in the Middle East.
 
Political, social and economic chaos pretty much describes the Iraq rocked today by bombings.  An Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers shares (at Inside Iraq), "As an Iraqi citizen, I wouldn't really care about our politicians and their fight because I never felt for a moment that any of them represents me or any regular people but the only thing that pushes me to care is the fuel of this fight. Since the political fight ignited between the Iraqi politicians, poor Iraqis were always the fuel that inflames it.  Hundreds of thousands were killed or missed since 2003 and God knows when the bath of blood would stop in my bleeding country. Prayers of mothers, fathers and sons couldn't stop the blood shedding because their political brothers always pray for more blood for political gains since fuel is always available and cheap as they believe."
 
Baghdad was again slammed with explosions. Early on Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) explained, "A series of bombings in Baghdad left 24 dead and dozens wounded Thursday, intensifying fears of an increase in sectarian violence in the midst of a political crisis." BBC News (link has text and video) adds, "The ministry told the BBC that at least 66 people were wounded in the blasts, which occurred in the capital's Sadr City and Kadhimiya neighbourhoods." Lee Moran (Daily Mail) notes things kicked off with a motorcycle bombing, then a roadside bombing followed by two more bombings.

Adrian Blomfield (Telegraph of London) observes, "For the second time in a fortnight, the Iraqi capital echoed to the wail of ambulance sirens as the fragility of the country's threadbare confessional consensus was exposed once again." Blomfield's noting the December 22nd Baghdad bombings: "Dan Morse and Aziz Alwan (Washington Post) count 17 bombings, 65 dead and 207 injured while Kareem Raheem (Reuters) notes the death toll has risen to 72." With attacks elsewhere in Iraq, the final death toll passed that.
 
In addition to the Baghdad bombings, southern Iraq was also targeted. Early on,
AP counted 30 dead in a southern Iraq bombing. AFP stated it was a Nasiriyah roadside boombing. In addition to the 30 dead, Adrian Blomfield (Telegraph of London) reported the Nasiriyah bombing has left seventy-two injured. Reuters noted government officials said it wasn't a roadside bombing, it was a suicide bombing.  Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) would report later in the day that the bomber wore a suicide vest and note that the pilgrims killed were making a pilgrimage to Karbala "to commemorate the Arbaeen religious ritual, the climax of which will be on Jan. 13.  Arbaeen is the end of 40 days of mourning for the Imam Hussein, the Prophet Muhammed's grandson who was killed at the battle of Karbala in 680 A.D."   Reuters notes 29 dead from Baghdad bombings (68 injured) and 44 dead in the Nassiriya bombing (81 injured) for a total of 73 dead (74 if the suicide bomber is counted).  In addition, Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 child (five women were injured) and 1 man was shot dead in Mosul (with another man, his brother, left injured).
 
As the violence continues, so does the political crisis. Raheem Salman and Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) quote Iraqi political analyst Dhiya Shikerchi stating, "Definitely . . . there is a relationship between these explosions and the political crisis, but it doesn't mean necessarily that one of the sides in the crisis is directly responsible.  Maybe there is a third side that is exploiting this crisis to fulfill its agenda to return Iraq to sectarian strife."   Ibrahim Kalin (Today's Zayman via Ikhwanweb) reminds:
 
After the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Shiites of Iraq and the Kurds saw a historic opportunity to have equal representation.  This is fair enough. But it is a grave mistake to depict the Saddam era as "Sunni" and to seek the building o a new Shiite identity based on animosity towards the Sunnis. Luckily, this is not the position of the vast majority of Shiites of Iraq.  Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for instance, has resisted such temptations and played a key role in lowering tensions between Shiite and Sunni Iraqis.
 
Reporting from Baghdad, Dahr Jamail (Al Jazeera -- link is video) declared, "These latest attacks highlight just how serious the political deadlock in Iraq has become and only days after the last US forces left the country.  Once again, it's the Iraqis who have been killed and injured.  The victims of a dispute that only Iraq's politicians, whether Sunni or Shia, can resolve."  It wasn't supposed to be this way.  It was only December 12th that Nouri al-Maliki and US President Barack Obama were at the White House and Barack was singing the praises of the US-backed thug.
 
US President Barack Obama: Today, I'm proud to welcome Prime Minister Maliki -- the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic Iraq. We're here to mark the end of this war; to honor the sacrifices of all those who made this day possible; and to turn the page -- begin a new chapter in the history between our countries -- a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. Iraq faces great challenges, but today reflects the impressive progress that Iraqis have made.  Millions have cast their ballots -- some risking or giving their lives -- to vote in free elections.  The Prime Minister leads Iraq's most inclusive government yet.  Iraqis are working to build institutions that are efficient and independent and transparent.
 
Except for "today," pretty much everything Barack said was a lie.  Now yesterday Barack found a way to appoint yet another man to a position.  When the left wanted Elizabeth Warren in that position, Barack didn't know how to appoint her.  But then he really doesn't appoint many women to positions of power.  Which is how he could lie that, "The Prime Minister leads Iraq's most inclusive government yet."  Barack's overweight flunky Jay Carney mentioned Warren in the White House press briefing today, "Richard Cordray is, as she herself has said, the right man for the job -- the right person for the job -- and enormously qualified."  No, Warren never called him "the right man for the job."  But how telling of this White House, so known for its sexism (see Ron Suskind's Confidence Men), that their spokesperson would have to correct himself in front of the press corps and how telling on the press corps that most will never report his telling (Freudian?) slip.
 
So it's no surprise that Barack would be praising the "diversity" when even women in President Jalal Talabani's family are publicly calling out Nouri's Cabinet (which, when originally named, didn't have one woman in it).
 
A "democratic" Iraq?  If "democratic" means following the rule of law or the Constitution, forget it.  (See yesterday's snapshot on Nouri's latest efforts to break the Constitution.)  If "democratic" means a country that values free speech, forget it.  Nouri's attacked activists, had then kidnapped and tortured throughout 2011 and the same for journalists.  How sad that Barack cheapened the White House by inviting that thug into it.
 
"Millions have cast their ballots," declared Barack, "some risking or giving their lives -- to vote in free elections."
 
Yes, they did.  And in those March 2010 elections they clearly made Iraqiya their first choice.  Ayad Allawi's slate came in first.  Not a "Sunni" slate or a "Shia" slate, a mixed slate that was not about sectarianism.  Some, like Allawi, were Shia.  Some, like Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi, were Sunni.  And in choosing Iraqiya, Iraqis were saying they wanted a national identity, they were done with sectarianism.  Which is why Nouri al-Maliki's political slate came in second.  But the White House wouldn't abide by the will of the Iraqi people or by the Iraqi constitution.  Instead the White House demanded that Nouri stay on as prime minister.  So maybe Barack Obama should quit lying about "free elections"? 
 
Now, he wants you to know, Iraq's working on being efificent, independent and transparent.  It shouldn't be too hard for them to improve on that last one.  In December Transparency International their latest rankings of 182 nation-states.  Number one would be most transparent, number 182 would be least.  Where did Iraq come in?  Number 175.  There aren't a lot of spots it can drop down too.  This was at the start of December (December 3rd) and yet there was Barack on December 12th, lying yet again.
 
Upon returning to Iraq from DC, Nouri promptly ordered the homes of political rivals to be circled with tanks.  Then he had Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq, Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and their bodyguards pulled off an airplane to the KRG on December 18th.  All but three bodyguards were released and the plane was allowed to take off.  December 19th, with al-Hashemi in the KRG for meetings, Nouri had a warrant sworn out on him for terrorism.   December 21st, Nouri held a press conference.  Journalist Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor and Al Jazeera) Tweeted it.
 
janearraf jane arraf
#Iraq's. #Maliki says judiciary to decide whether confessions were coerced - now trying to explain why they were televised first then.
21 Dec
 
janearraf jane arraf
#Iraq's #Maliki rejects VP Hashemi's call for Arab observers in terrorism investigation - says won't tolerate outside interference
21 Dec
 
janearraf jane arraf
#Iraq's #Maliki on defensive in increasingly baffling statements on #Hashemi - 'does any high-ranking official ever say he's innocent?'
21 Dec
 
The the Fifth Clause of Article 19 from the Iraqi Constitution:
 
 
The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial.  The accused may not be tried on the same crime for a second time after acquittal unless new evidence is produced.
 
 
It's a point Nouri fails to grasp.  Repeatedly.  Nouri is also calling for al-Mutlaq to be stripped of his position. al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq are both Sunnis as well as members of Iraqiya. Iraqiya is the political slate, led by Ayad Allawi, which came in first in the 2010 parliamentary elections. (Nouri's own State of Law came in second. They are political rivals.) Al Rafidayn notes the Kurdistan Alliance has declared that they will not support firing al-Mutlaq. (To strip al-Mutlaq of his position would require Parliament to agree with Nouri's proposal.) al-Hashemi is currently a house guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. This has so enraged State of Law that they've taken to calling Talabani a "terrorist" (which led to the Kurdish Alliance walking out on a session of Parliament Tuesday). Al Mada reports that State of Law is admitting that, despite rumors (mainly started and circulated by State of Law), Nouri has no terrorism files on either al-Mutlaq or Ayad Allawi.

Jalal Talabani has been calling for a national conference to address the political crisis. State of Law is stating it should happen mid-month. For months, Iraqiya, the Kurds and the National Alliance have called on Nouri to reinstate the US-brokered Erbil Agreement that ended Political Stalemate I. The parties came together in Erbil and agreed to a variety of concessions. It was agreed Nouri would continue as prime minister (despite his slate's second place showing). That's the only element Nouri honored. As soon as he was named prime minister-designate, he trashed the agreement.  Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) notes:

Iraqiya, a cross-sectarian as well as Sunni-backed bloc, castigated the al-Maliki government, saying it had shunned cooperation despite the power-sharing arrangement.
It said it is considering sending a request to parliamentary leaders to withdraw support for al-Maliki and come up with a new prime minister to form a post-occupation government.
There have also been mounting calls for federalism from at least three predominantly Sunni provinces. Al-Maliki has called federalism a recipe for the partitioning of Iraq.
The bloc loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a key ally to al-Maliki, has called for the dissolution of parliament and early elections.
 
Tuesday KRG President Massoud Barzani met with US Senator Joe Lieberman .  Wednesday Barzani met with the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler.  Al Rafidayn reports that Barzani has joined the call for a national conference to address the political crisis.  Jalal Talabani has been calling for a national conference to address the political crisis. State of Law is stating it should happen mid-month. For months, Iraqiya, the Kurds and the National Alliance have called on Nouri to reinstate the US-brokered Erbil Agreement that ended Political Stalemate I. The parties came together in Erbil and agreed to a variety of concessions. It was agreed Nouri would continue as prime minister (despite his slate's second place showing). That's the only element Nouri honored. As soon as he was named prime minister-designate, he trashed the agreement.
At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland declared, "With regard to your larger question about our involvement in trying to support the Iraqis in settling their disputes peacefully through political means, as we've said for a number of days now, Ambassador Jeffrey's been very active, Vice President Biden's been active, in encouraging Iraqi politicians to talk to each other, to meet. And as I've said, we are quite encouraged that a number of Iraqi politicians are also calling for such a meeting which we hope takes place soon."  Leaving aside the intelligence in the statement or not in the statement, if the remark seems unremarkable, it's because Nuland and Mark C. Toner have been offering variations on it for weeks now.  And the State Dept thinking is that reporters will grow bored and stop asking.  That would work at the White House.  It may not at the State Dept because the State Dept press corps is a bit more mature and doesn't require training wheels on their Blackberries. 
 
More on the topic of terrorists only let's jump to real ones and then we'll come back to the ones Nouri just 'knows' exist.  This is a story of dead Americans and dead Brits.  We need to provide backstory because, sadly, US press outlets don't know how many Americans were killed by the terrorist group.  So we'll flashback and, in the midst of the flashback, we'll flashback again.  This "****" will designate the start of the excerpt and this "****" will also designate the end of it.  (The snapshot is reposted and it can be confusing on other community sites where they sometimes put the whole thing in bold.)  So dropping back to July 9, 2011:
 
*************
Earlier we were mentioning the little scamp Ali al-Lami who was killed a few weeks back. A terrorist, in fact. The US military held him for awhile. They held others with the Shi'ite thug group the League of Righteous. They're responsible for the deaths of 5 American service members. Maybe more. But 5 they are known to have killed.

And Barack let their leader and some of his followers go in a deal in the summer of 2009 -- a deal that the families of the 5 fallen soldiers were not consulted on or even given a heads up to -- because Barack didn't want to be president of the United States. That was too small for Barry. He needed -- his ego needed -- a world stage. So when the British needed something to get their 5 citizens kidnapped by the League freed, Barry said, "Screw dead Americans who were killed doing a job their government ordered them to do, I'm going to free the League -- this rag-tag group of killers -- because I don't give a damn about the safety of Iraqis and because I want to get in good with England."

So Barry released them and, as usual from Princess Tiny Meat, his 'grand gesture' fell quickly. Because the addiction to the Kool-Aid was still so high in 2009, let's drop back we'll drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot with the realization that some who looked the other way in real time will now be outraged:

***********This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it." ******



Agreed. Not only did Barry betray the fallen, he demonstrated yet again no one should trust him at the adult table by himself. His 'big' deal resulted in only one living British citizen released. Three corpses were released.

The fifth kidnapped victim?

Though Barry's 'big' deal was supposed to free all five, the League, years later, is now insisting they want a new deal (and figure Barry's just the pushover to give it to them?). Al Mada reports they have issued a statement where they savage the US government for not honoring -- and quickly honoring -- the agreement made with them. As a result, they say Alan McMenemy will not be released.

Peter Moore, the only one released alive, was a computer tech working in Iraq. Four British bodyguards were protecting him. The bodyguards were McMenemy, Jason Swindlehurst, Alec MacLachlan and Jason Cresswell. The families of the four have continued to publicly request that Alan McMenemy be released.

They condemn the "procrastionation" of the US government after the deal was made and state that a promise was also broken when "US forces did not stop attacks" -- apparently Barack made very grand promises -- so now Alan McMenemy will not be released. The statement is credited to Akram al-Ka'bi.

What the statement really does is demonstrate what many condemned in 2009: The US government, the administration, entered into an agreement that did not benefit the US or Iraq. They freed known killers from prison. Killers of Iraqis, killers of American citizens. There was nothing to be gained by that act for Iraq or the US. At some point, history will ask how Barack Obama thought he was fulfilling his duties of commander in chief by making such an ignorant move?
 
************
 
We're out of flashback and back in the present.  To briefly recap, the group killed 5 Americans.  Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, not of the United Kingdom.  But instead of pursuing justice for the five Americans killed in Iraq -- killed in a country their government sent them to -- he decided to do a solid for England and release the terrorists.  He didn't even have the decency to see that the families of the five fallen Americans got a heads up. 
 
Now we're going to December 17th, last month, when Charlie Savage (New York Times) reported on what was termed "a move likely to unleash a political backlash inside the United States."  What was he reporting on?  The White House's decision to release Ali Musa Daqduq to the Iraqi government, the man "accused of helping to orchestrate a January 2007 raid by Shiite militants who wore U.S.-style uniforms and carried forged identity cards.  They killed five U.S. soldiers -- one immediately and four others who were kidnapped and later shot and dumped beside a road."  Reporting on it the same day, Matt Apuzzo (AP) noted the reactions of two US senators.
 
Senator Mark Kirk (in a letter before the release): "Daqduq's Iranian paymasters would like nothing more than to see him transferred to Iraqi custody, where they could effectively pressure for his escape or release. We truly hope you will not let that happen."
 
Senator Saxby Chambliss (after news broke of the release): "Rather than ensure justice for five American soldiers killed by Hezbollah terrorist Ali Musa Daqduq, the administration turned him over to Iraq, once again completely abdicating its responsibility to hold on to deadly terrorists. Given Iraq's history of releasing detainees, I expect it is only a matter of time before this terrorist will be back on the battlefield."
 
The League is back in the news cycle today.  Duncan Gardham (Telegraph of London) reports that they're offering to finally return the body of Alan McMenemy who the UK government has assumed was dead. Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian -- link is text and video) quotes, ringleader Qais al-Khazali declaring,   "The brothers told me that those four bodyguards tried to escape … they took advantage of a negligent moment and took the weapon of one of their guards and the clash ensued and led to this result. We honestly are sorry for that incident,"
 
Oh, are you honestly sorry?  Really?  For months, for years, you've let the loved ones of Alan McMenemy continue to hope he might turn up alive. While others found out the truth about their loved ones, you left them hanging even though they went on TV and publicly pleaded for an answer.  For those who may have forgotten, in May 2010, Frank Gardner (BBC News) reported:


The wife of the only British hostage still missing in Iraq has appealed to his kidnappers to end her ordeal on the anniversary of his abduction.
Gunmen abducted five men including security guard Alan McMenemy, from Glasgow, exactly three years ago.
Rosaleen McMenemy has urged those holding him to show "mercy and compassion".
Only one of the men has been released alive, while the bodies of three others have been returned to Britain.

The Telegraph of London quoted Rosaleen McMenemy stating, ""It's now been three years since he's been held captive, which is 1,096 days. This is far too long for myself and our two children and I would ask those holding him to please show mercy and compassion and return him to us immediately and unconditionally. You've showed compassion by releasing his four colleagues and I would ask you to do the same for my family to bring closure to this."
20 months after she makes that public plea, they think they can show up and claim to be "honestly sorry"?
 
They're "honestly sorry" today, they claim.  They say the four body guards all died in the same attack?  That would have been years ago.  And yet just last July, what did they do? Al Mada reported on it, the headline said it all "League of Righteous: Fifth Hostage Alive, We Want Our Prisoners."  They declared Alan  McMenemy was alive and that they were not going to release him because they were icked off with the US holding some of their members.
 
Having tortured Alan McMenemy's loved ones repeatedly over the years by leaving them in the dark, the League of Righteous declared in October that he was still alive and now the family of Alan McMenemy learns that he's been dead for at least three years.  And the terrorist want to claim to be "honestly sorry"?  (AFP's Hassan Abdul Zahra, "The group said in July that it would not hand over McMenemy's body, in a statement worded to suggest he was still alive. Britain believes he has been killed.")
 
For those who missed it, radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has been on a recent tear  denouncing the League  repeatedly.  Sunday, Alarab Online reported, "Anti-US Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr sharply criticised an offshoot of his movement on Sunday, accusing them of killing Iraqi soldiers and policemen and being beholden to neighbouring Iran.  It is the first time Sadr, who is himself judged by critics as close to Tehran, has publicly stated that Asaib Ahel al-Haq, or the League of the Righteous, is supported by the Islamic Republic."  Three days prior, Yusuf al-Murtada (AK News) reported:
 
The cleric Moqtada al-Sadr launched an attack on the participation of the League of the Righteous (Ahl al-Haq) in the political process, describing it as a group of "murderers" that "follows no religion".
[. . .]
The League of the Righteous announced about its participation in the ongoing political process in the country and its leader Qais al-Khazali in Najaf alluded to the organization not disarming after 2011.
Sadr said: "Didn't I tell you that they are the Chair's lovers? They are a group of murders that follows no religion."

Moqtada denounced them on one of his trips to Iraq last year noting that they were out of control.  That was not the start of the split which is thought to have taken place around 2007.  Despite the split, their "negotiator" (Salam al-Maliki)insisted to Niqash last October that the rupture had been healed.  That does not appear to be the case.  Their 2007 split, supposedly, had to do with actions Moqtada disapproved of.  (Remember, they start under him.  One of the umbrella groups he was denouncing last year.)  His claims have been that they were targeting Iraqi civilians and that his movement did not support that.  He further insists that they refused to stop attacking Iraqi civilians and, at that point, the break began.  There are some Moqtada supporters who insist it was the League's actions that caused Nouri to attack Sadr strong holds in Basra and the Sadr City section of Baghdad in early 2008.  Those defending the League tend to stress that they are among many Sadrist groups who have had to fend for themselves while their leader (Moqtada) was in Iran and that his fly-over visits to Iraq to criticize them underscores how out of touch with Iraqi life he is.  They are among the groups who have hoped to replace Moqtada as a leader of Iraqi resistance.
 
From the real terrorists of the League of Righteous to the 'terrorists' that only Nouri can see.  It was with great drama (and melodrama) that Nouri repeatedly commented on the "terrorists" and "Ba'athists" that he was 'forced' to arrest because they were plotting an overthrow of the government. His spokesperson insisted the information was solid and had come from the newly installed Libyan government. Dropping back to the October 27th snapshot:

But back to those eyes and ears al-Asadi was claiming, Al Mada reveals that the government is stating their source for the 'tips' about the alleged Ba'athist plot to take over Iraq came from the Transitional Government of Libya. The so-called rebels. A number of whom were in Iraq killing both Iraqis and US troops and British troops, several years ago. And supposedly prepping to rule Libya currently so you'd assume they had their hands full.


Tim Arango (New York Times) maintains that "secret intelligence documents" were discovered by the so-called 'rebels' that provided a link between Libya's late president Muammar Gaddafi and Ba'ath Party members and that Mahmoud Jibril made a trip to Baghdad to turn over the info. Jibril was acting prime minister who stepped down October 23rd. (We're back to when puppet regimes meet!) One would have assumed he had other things to focus on. It's also curious that this 'rebel' would have 'learned' after the fall of Tripoli of a plot. Curious because, unlike a number of 'rebel' leaders in Libya, Langley didn't ship Jibril in from Virginia, he was Gaddafi's hand picked head of the National Economic Development Board (2007 to 2011). One would assume he would have been aware of any big plot long before the so-called rebels began the US war on Libya.



So it says a great deal about the leadership (or lack of) Nouri offers when Al Mada reports that hundreds of those arrested are now being released. And that officials say the government is expected to release every one arrested. When the arrests started taking place weeks ago, the press estimate was over 500, with some noting over 700 but most going with the lower figure. Dar Addustour informs 820 Iraqis were arrested.

Critics of the arrests noted that it appeared Nouri was targeting Sunnis. And the arrests touched off a wave of anger and a desire for independence from Nouri. Thursday, October 27th, Salahuddin Province's council voted to go semi-autonomous. Monday, December 13th, Diyala Province's council passed a decision for the province to become semi-autonomous. Semi-autonomous would make them like the three provinces that compose the Kurdistan Regional Government (Erbil, Dahuk and Sulaymaniyah) and take them out of Baghdad's control (meaning Nouri's control). If Nouri's goal (longterm) was to keep Iraq cohesive, the arrests were a huge error.

Finally, like Mike, we'll note the Center for Constitutional Rights statement on the NDAA:

January 4, 2012, New York -- In response to President Obama's New Year's Eve signing of the controversial National Defense Authorization Act, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) issued the following statement:
"The Center for Constitutional Rights strongly condemns the U.S. Congress for passing, and President Obama for signing, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which effectively endorses war without end and makes indefinite military detention without charge or trial a permanent feature of the American legal system. This is the first time since the McCarthy Era that Congress has written indefinite detention into law. We had hoped that President Obama -- a constitutional law professor and believer in the aspirational course of American justice -- would uphold his promise to veto this radical law that threatens to roll back both decades-old legislation enacted to combat McCarthy-era excesses and 19th-century limitations on domestic military policing. At the same time that heroic activists in the Arab world are risking their lives to rid themselves of the remnants of their authoritarian and militaristic regimes, the United States is embracing practices contrary to the basic aspirations of any constitutional democracy.
The NDAA reauthorizes and extends the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which has been used to justify the detention of men at Guantanamo without charge or trial for the past ten years. The NDAA also goes further and broadens the range of activities that warrant indefinite detention to include undefined 'substantial support' for terrorism. In addition, the NDAA contains no geographic limitation and allows the president to indefinitely detain even American citizens. President Obama did pledge in a signing statement not to use this law to detain American citizens but this provides little comfort, as signing statements have no legal force and he has repeatedly failed to uphold similar promises in the face of political pressure -- including his pledge to close Guantanamo within his first year in office. More important, even if President Obama were to keep this promise, the law authorizes a future President, such as a President Romney, President Bachman, or President Perry, to use this authorization in the most aggressive manner available.
Whatever ambiguity the legislation creates regarding the detention of American citizens, it clearly requires the military detention of non-citizens suspected of an association with al Qaeda or suspected of having committed terrorist acts, even within the territorial United States. The U.S. Army, rather than civilian law enforcement, will be required to make arrests on U.S. soil; and military detention, not the basic constitutional guarantees of our civilian justice system must be deployed. No one should be held indefinitely without the opportunity to challenge their detention. Human rights are not limited by citizenship.
The NDAA continues to place utterly unnecessary and onerous obstacles to closing Guantanamo. The law prohibits the president from transferring anyone to the U.S. for trial, and also prohibits the transfer of innocent detainees to their home countries or to third countries willing to resettle them unless the Defense Department effectively guarantees the detainee will never again commit wrongdoing. According to the Defense Department, these conditions are nearly impossible to satisfy, which effectively prevents the transfer and resettlement of 89 men -- over half of the 171 currently detained in Guantanamo -- who have been unanimously cleared for release by the CIA, FBI, NSC, and Defense Department. Even as we are contemplating a peace deal with the Taliban and have, according to the Defense Department, largely vanquished al Qaeda, the NDAA guarantees that the U.S. carry on a dangerous war paradigm into a second decade."
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

 
 
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)