Cedric's Big Mix: 2010-12-12

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Democratic Party motto is: Nepoltism

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CADAVERS NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID PUSHED THROUGH THE TAX CUTS -- FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BUSH TAX CUTS -- THIS WEEK BUT REFUSED TO JOIN BARRY O FOR A SIGNING CERMONY IN A BRAVE STAND ON PRINCIPLE.

NANCY WAS TOO BUSY ENSURING THAT HER USELESS DAUGHTER WAS APPOINTED THE HEAD OF YOUNG DEMOCRATS. NOTED ONE OBSERVER, "AT 42, SHE'S A LITTLE OLD TO BE CONSIDERED A YOUNG DEMOCRAT." THE REPLY, OF COURSE, IS: WELL HAVE YOU LOOKED AT HER MOTHER?

CHRISTINE PELOSI'S NEW JOB CONTINUES THE LONG TRADITION OF NEPOTISM IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHERE LEADERS AND 'LEADERS' ENSURE THAT THEIR UNEMPLOYABLE CHILDREN GET CUSHY JOBS SUCH AS PUTTING SON-OF-TOM NATHAN DASCHLE IN CHARGE OF THE DGA -- AN ORGANIZATION WHOSE SOLE TASK IS TO ELECT DEMOCRATS AS STATE GOVERNORS. AND WE ALL SAW HOW THAT WORKED OUT.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with Iraqi refugees, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has announced its objection to Europe's forced returns of Iraqi refugees. Spokesperson Melissa Fleming states, "UNHCR strongly reiterates its call on countries to refrain from deporting Iraqis who originate from the most perilous parts of the country." UNHCR adds, "In the latest incident, Sweden on Wednesday forcibly returned a group of some 20 Iraqis to Baghdad, including five Christians originally from the Iraqi capital. Fleming, speaking to journalists in Geneva, said UNHCR staff in Baghdad had since interviewed three of the Christians and three Arab Muslims among the group. One of the Christian men said he escaped Iraq in 2007 after militiamen threatened to kill him. He travelled through several countries in the Middle East and Europe before reaching Sweden, where he applied for asylum." And as wrong and as bad as that is, The Local reports that the Swedish government deported one 52-year-old male to Iraq . . . but he wasn't from Iraq. He was from Iran.

The latest wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians began October 31st with the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad in which at least seventy people were killed and another seventy injured. Since then, Baghdad and Mosul especially have been flashpoints for violence aimed at Iraqi Christians with many fleeing -- and many fleeing to the KRG. UNHCR spokesperson Melissa Fleming noted today, "This forced return comes at a time when our five offices in Iraq are noting a significant increase in Christians fleeing Baghdad and Mosul to the Kurdistan Regional Government Region and Ninewa plains [in the north." She cited 68 as the number of people killed in the October 31st attack on the church. Joe Sterling (CNN) notes 70 were killed (53 of which were Iraqi Christians). Fleming explained 1,000 families as the number that has left Baghdad and Mosul for northern Iraq. She also noted that Iraqi Christians are also fleeing to Jordan, Lebanon and Syria with UNHCR offices in each country registering an increase in the "number of Iraqi Christians arriving and contacting UNHCR for registration and help." She put the efforts of the European countries doing these forced deportations into perspective when she noted one Iraqi Christian male in Jordan had been forcibly returned to Iraq "just days beforehand" by a European country she didn't identify. He "left the church minutes before the bombing took place." No, (I'm saying this) it is not safe for Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. If they want to, every one has the right to live their lives as they see fit. But no host country should be forcing Iraqi refugees to return to Iraq. Katherine T. Phan (Christian Post) covers the statements: "The agency expressed dismay that Sweden forcibly repatriated this week a group of 20 Iraqis, including 5 Christians from Baghdad, after their applications for asylum were rejected." Martin Chulov (Guardian) notes that the figures Fleming offered on Iraqi Christians leaving the country were seen as too low by the head of the country's Christians Endowment Group's Abdullah al-Naftali who says, "I can tell you that the numbers the UN are citing are too low. We have recorded a 213% increase in normal departures since the church massacre. It is not a slow, or steady exodus -- it is a rapid one."

October 31st started the latest wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians. Latest wave. For a look at key moments in earlier waves, BBC News offers a timeline here. Stephanie Nebehay (Reuters) notes that, before the start of the Iraq War, there were 1.5 million Christians in Iraq and that the number has fallen to approximately 850,000. Aaron Howard (Jewish Herald-Voice) quotes the Univerisy of Chicago Medical Center's Dr. Elmer Abbo who is also the executive director for Assyrian American National Coalition, "I will clearly say this: What is happening in Iraq is, at the minimum, ethnic cleansing. Other people will say it is genocide,e ven if the numbers are not there, because the Assyrians are being killed in a deliberate and strategic way. We're being oppressed to the point where we're being pushed out of the country. Sometimes, it is under direct force where people come to your door and say 'convert, be killed or leave.' Those are the options. Whenever there's a church bombing, it says: You are not welcome here. Leave, or we will kill you." Asia News notes that, in addition to barrier being erected around churches in Baghdad and Mosul, there will be checkpoints and that, "The Christmas celebrations will consist of masses and small parties within the boundaries of the parishes, but there is frustration among the faithful." Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes, Father Georges Jahola of Mosul stating, "Christians are being extinguished in Iraq, while Iraq remains Muslim. [And people want to leave due to safety] They see that there is no longer a place for Christians in Iraq. Even for us as a Church, we cannot deny it." Rebecca Santana (Associated Press) speaks with Ban Daub who was at Our Lady of Salvation Church with her nephew when it was attacked October 31st and she states, "We are afraid for our sons and our children. There is no life in Baghdad for the Christians." The editorial board for the Orange County Register offers, "It may be that it will prove impossible for a Christian community to thrive in an Iraq that is officially Muslim, and that almost all Iraqi Christians will eventually flee. That would be sad; some of the oldest Christian monasteries in the world are in Iraq. It would not, however, be unprecedented. In 1948, after the establishment of the state of Israel, almost all of Iraq's Jews fled the country."

Wednesday's snapshot included:

Meanwhile Shashank Bengali (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Iraq closed another chapter on the Saddam Hussein era Wednesday when the United Nations Security Council lifted most of the sanctions that it had imposed after the late ex-dictator's invasion of Kuwait 20 years ago." Obvious benefit? $700 million from the oil-for-food program is about to be "into Iraq's escrow account". Previously, they couldn't touch the money. File it under "I'll have what Joe's snorting," BBC News reports that US Vice President Joe Biden -- who chaired the meeting -- declared, "Iraq is on the cusp of something remarkable -- a stable, self-reliant nation." Where have we heard that before?

That's really all that was worth saying. A number of articles were written -- some passing as analysis, none worth linking to. But Hoshyar Zebari, Foreign Minister of Iraq, held a press briefing after the meeting and I am surprised his remarks weren't covered. We'll note his opening statement in full:

Well today was a momentus day for Iraq. And a happy day. After years of being sanctioned by the Security Council resolution due to the agressions, the beligerance of Saddam's regime, I think today we close a chapter, a dark chapter. And today's session? So the passage of three security resolutions demonstrated the international support for Iraq to get rid of previous sanctions and restrictions on its sovereignty and independence. So my country and I'm personally very, very delighted to have this support. We are overwhelmed by this support. And I think this shows Iraq is coming back truly to its rightful place among the community of nations. Iraq has been a founding member of the United Nations and many other organizations and I think today is a great day for the people of Iraq, for the country. Still we have some way to go to be completely free of Chapter 7. That is, we need to fulfill our obligations toward our brotherly country Kuwait. I think today event will give us momentum in fact to address all remaining issues with Kuwait under Chapter 7, to close that chapter in a good faith and a mutual trust between our two nations. This will be the task of the of the new Iraqi government which is in the forming and it's formation is imment. It would be announced very, very soon, it wouldn't be weeks, it would be days. And this issue of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait will be a top priority for the next government to address it.

Evenlyn Leopold (Huffington Post) does one of the better reports which was published today:

Specifically, the meeting on Wednesday adopted three resolutions: on weapons of mass destruction, on ending the oil-for-food program and on ending immunities that protected Baghdad from claims during the Saddam Hussein era.

Iraq has signed prohibitions against chemical and biological weapons and cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog. One resolution allows it to develop a civilian nuclear program, although the Council in February said Iraq first had to ratify an agreement, the so-called Additional Protocol that would allow intrusive inspections by the IAEA. Parliament has not ratified yet and the resolution requires it to do so as soon as possible.

Another resolution formally shut down the mismanaged oil-for-food program, which was supposed to bring in supplies to ordinary Iraqis suffering under sanctions. France abstained on this measure, concerned that it did not sufficiently protect BNP Paribus, the Paris-based bank, which handled payments. And a third resolution dissolves in June a special supervised fund over how oil revenues are spent and protected Iraq from legal claims. About $22 million in claims are still outstanding.

But resolutions concerning Kuwait were left intact, including compensating for stolen items and demarcating the border, especially the waterways. 5 percent of the Iraq's oil revenues will continue to be earmarked for Kuwait.

And my praise is for the reporting (she also has several opinions throughout which are a little to Up With Democratic People for me). Outside the US media, Reidar Visser (Iraq and Gulf Analysis) offered his take on US efforts:

First, the Obama administration played a key role in Sunnifying the Iraqi nationalism of Iraqiyya so that it could be more acceptable to Iran: By encouraging Iraqiyya to accept a junior, "Sunni" role in a power-sharing arrangement for the next government where the Iranian-supported Shiite parties clearly have the upper hand, Washington basically gave Iran what it wanted in Iraq in terms of a politics defined in sectarian fronts. To add insult to injury advisers to Obama went on to spin the US involvement in the affair as a triumph of American diplomacy against Iran! Today the US government went a little further: To celebrate the latest "progress", it decided it was time for the UN Security Council to give up some of what little remains of outside-world leverage in Iraq, including a formal termination of the oil-for-food programme and restrictions relating to weapons of mass destruction.

At the press briefing, Zebari was asked about his future in the next government of Iraq and his reply was, "Well I'm here as the Foreign Minister of Iraq now."

A power-sharing agreement has allowed Nouri al-Maliki a crack at forming the government. He needs to nominate cabinet minister and get Parliament to vote in his nominees and he has eight days left to do that. There are a few tiny cracks emerging as the clock ticks. First up, the Kurds. Over the weekend, KRG president Massoud Barzani spoke of Kurdish independence. Some feigned shock. Hiwa Osman (Rudaw) explores the remarks and context today:

Once again, the people of Kurdistan have realized that neither the media nor those who raised a brouhaha over President Barzani's statement about self-determination seem to have understood or want to understand what the new Iraq is about.
Barzani has been under fire for publicly stating that Kurds have a right to self-determination, an argument that is not new. He was simply repeating a long-held Kurdish position on self-determination.
This should not have shocked anyone -- but the exaggerated, critical response to Barzani's statement shows that the new reality of Iraq is not accepted by everyone.

Again, this was news when it happened and remains news now. Barzani's party (KDP) won in the July 2009 elections, destroyed Jalal Talabani's party (PUK), due to the fact that Barzani knows not to call Kurdish independence a "dream" that won't and can't come true. It was a signal to Kurds in Iraq and across the globe and it's part of the leveraging that the US press is ignoring but is going on currently as Barzani attempts to play maybe-we-walk to force Nouri to make additional concessions to the Kurds or risk tanking his shot at a second term as prime minister.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The cult can't stand on their own

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

THEY HAVE TO LEARN TO BEG BEFORE THEY CAN DEMAND . . . APPARENTLY.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Last night on WBAI, Joy of Resistance (available in the WBAI archives for 89 days from today) found host Fran Luck addressing the topic of "Swedish and US rape laws and the current wave of misogny that has surfaced in response to rape allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" with attorney Jill Filipovic. Excerpt:

Fran Luck: We're going to be looking at some of the aspects that haven't been discussed very much, certainly in the leftist media, about -- or in the right wing media, only in the feminist media -- about some of the kind of side effects of the rape accusations against Julian Assange that have kind of brought up huge amounts -- almost dust clouds -- of misogyny that, amazing, has been all over the internet. And we're going to look at that and we're also going to look at Swedish law on rape with Jill who is a feminist lawyer as well as being a blogger for Feministe. I was first alerted to this when I began to see these huge amounts of just absolutely evil posts calling, oh, God, talking about women as just these revenge motivated monsters, acting out of jealousy, all of the tropes, everything that women in court rooms have to confront when they are accusing men of rape, okay, their characters are defamed, etc. Now my position on this whole thing is that I don't know what happened. I don't know if Assange is guilty of these charges, I don't know that he is not. I know many people feel the circumstances are suspicious and I agree with that. I also am very much rooting for WikiLeaks and I think what they're doing is absolutely marvelous for the world. However, you know, that doesn't mean that their founder is a wonderful person. We don't know. He may be wonderful in some aspects and not in others. I think we need to keep an open mind to both sides. I certainly am not going to dismiss any rape allegations by any woman. So, Jill, what's your take on this?

Jill Filipovic: Well I think that's right. I think that part of the problem with the Julian Assange accusations is that there's become such a cult of personality around Assange himself that he's now so tied to the WikiLeaks project that any criticism of him at all is seen as somehow feeding into this right-wing target that's been painted on his back. You know, I think we can all agree Assange is under fire and he is in a very difficult situation and he is heading up what I believe is a very valuable project. We can believe that and also realize that life is complicated and he can head up a very valuable project and also potentially have done some very bad and illegal things. We can also withhold judgment on whether or not he's guilty. And, at the same time, we can withhold judgment on whether or not the women who have accused him of rape are just making up their accusations.

Fran Luck: Mm-hmm. I know the lawyer for the two woman has said his clients have been assaulted twice. "First physically, before being sacrificed to a malevolent online attack." And the women were having a very tough time and we know one of them has now fled which has some people saying, 'Well the charges weren't real, that proves it." And, you know, as a feminist I can understand caving under that kind of pressure, that kind of assault. Another target has been the government of Sweden and the laws of Sweden. There's been a lot of misrepresentation. I mean, all over the internet, there are posts that say: 'Oh! A man can be arrested for not wearing a condom in Sweden.' Which is also very funny, right? Tell us why.

Jill Filipovic: Right. I mean that is such an incredible mischaracterization. You know, what I think has happened, there's been a series of, I think, over-reliance on statements made by Julian Assange's criminal defense attorneys. I believe they're the ones who first used that phrase "sex by surprise" which isn't actually a crime in Sweden, isn't a legal term in Sweden. A lot of the reporting on it is centered around one tabloid, Daily Mail article that used the "sex by surprise" term and that also basically said that these accusations are about a broken condom and a lady who was mad because a condom broke when, if you actually read what the Swedish prosecutors have said in public -- which isn't a whole lot, but they've made the charges pretty clear, is that one of the women says that she was physically held down during sex and Assange also refused to wear a condom. And the second woman says that Assange had sex with her without a condom while she was asleep. That's very different than: The condom broke and we all agreed we would just keep going and the next morning I have -- what a right-wing blogger called --'buyer's remorse' and so I'm going to report this man for rape. These are crimes that involve physical force, that involve lack of consent, that are serious crimes and that would be considered crimes -- that would be considered sex crimes and sexual assault in place other than Sweden which has been sort of painted as the lefty feminist out of control country when in fact their rape laws are entirely reasonable.

Fran Luck: Why don't you talk about their rape laws and how they differ from US rape laws.

Jill Filipovic: Sure. I'm not an expert in Swedish rape laws so I don't want to put forth the idea that I'm issuing some sort of expert Swedish opinion here. But I have read the Swedish penal code and I have been doing a good deal of reading of how rape is treated in Sweden and, you know, it's clear that in Sweden they have what would sort of be our first degree rape law which is forceful sexual intercourse and then they also have a law that covers sexual coercion. So a law that basically says if there's a lack of consent, if sex is coerced, then that's a sex crime. And I think that is sort of what fits into a lot of what we've been talking about here in the Assange case which is that one of the accusers has said that the incident started out consensually and that at some point consent was withdrawn and Assange didn't stop. When you actually think about how that plays out, if you're having sex with someone consensually and then you say "No stop" because the condom broke or because it hurts or because something just went wrong, most people are going to stop at that point. The only person that's not going to stop at that point really is going to be a rapist. And it's not such an out there thought that consent should be able to be withdrawn at any point during sex. The idea that consent can be withdrawn -- even after sex has commenced -- is not the law across the United States. It's the law in some states, it's not the law in others. In a lot of states, it's very unclear whether or not you can withdraw consent. You know, in the US, we really hang a lot on the idea of force when it comes to rape and sexual assault.

Fran Luck: In our laws.

Jill Filipovic: In our laws. And I think in our culture as well. But legally we pin a lot on this force issue and the way that consent tends to be used in rape trials and in rape cases is with the defendant saying 'well she consented' as a defense. You don't see a lot of folks being prosecuted based on the idea that the woman did not consent. Instead, what you see is you see the prosecution focusing on the force issue, you know, whether or not there was violence involved, how much, how much force was used, how much force you can prove. You know, there aren't -- The idea of consent and a lack of consent translates into assault is just not really part of American legal culture which I think has led to a lot of confusion and, I think, a lot of the derision of Swedish laws.

Fran Luck: Mmm-hmm. What's the basic philosophical difference between basing your rape laws on lack of consent versus force?

Jill Filipovic: I think the basic philosophical difference is how you view sex versus how you view crimes and violence. As someone who is a big proponent of a "Yes Mean Yes" model of consent -- affirmative consent -- my view is that sex is something that should be fun for everyone involved. That sex is great. And people should like it. And they should have fun with it. And, you know, at the point where you are creating sexual assault laws that don't just say any sex without consent isn't assault but instead say, "Eh, if you don't consent that's maybe not assault. You have to physically do violence to someone, you have to hold someone down, you have to hit them, you have to punch them, you have to threaten them with a weapon and only then are we going to say that you broke a law, to me, is a really sexually unhealthy way to view the world, to view sex." And I think that a much better model and a much clearer model for all of us would assume that sex is something that shared, something positive. And as much as I hate to compare women's bodies to objects, you know if I leave a hundred dollar bills out on my table it doesn't mean that just because you're in my house you get to take that and walk away and then claim that because I didn't say that you couldn't have it, that I gave it to you. It's a little bit of an icky metaphor.

Fran Luck: So-so here we are with Sweden being just vilified and being seen by many misogynist men as home of these crazed radical feminists who -- which another wonderful term, I think --

Jill Filipovic: "Leftist, atrocious sluts" is what one blog post call them.

Fran Luck: Oh, okay. Yeah, we have some examples. You know, here's one. "She is one" -- I guess they're talking about one of the rape accusers, "She is one of the many Swedish women who advocate using false rape charges in the name of gender equality. In other words, she's a complete raving lunatic and should be" I can't say this, something-"slapped and subsequently put in jail." And in another one, one of these women is called a psychotic bitch and Sweden is a" another word I can't say, a word that goes with the word "whipped." What you're saying when a woman is dominating a man, that it's that kind of country. So this is all over the internet and in reality there laws are really -- should be -- they should be honored because they are kind of advanced. So I wanted to -- I did want to talk about that.

Again, for those who can enjoy online streaming, the episode is available in the WBAI archives for 89 days. Fran's other guests were Susan J. Douglas, Lu Baily and Amanda Marcotte. The next installment of Joy of Resistance will air January 5th. Trina caught the broadcast and noted, "On The Issues magazine was mentioned repeatedly thoughout the show so I'm giving a link to that in case listening/streaming audio doesn't work for you (due to equipment issues or hearing issues) and you can read a number of strong articles including a few by some of the guests."

Henry Chu (Los Angeles Times) reports, "After nine days in jail, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was granted bail Thursday in a politically charged case concerning alleged sex crimes in Sweden. [. . .] But he must surrender his passport, submit to monitoring by an electronic tag, abide by a curfew and report to the police daily." BBC News adds he will be staying at the home of Vaughan Smith. BBC News' Maddy Savage reported on the day for PRI's The Takeaway: "Dramatic scenes in the last few minutes as supporters outside the court are cheering and screaming in joy at the decision. What happened here is that the decision to grant Julian Assange bail has been upheld following an appeal by prosecutors and this means that he should be able to leave jail shortly". Al Jazeera quotes Assange stating, "I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter and to reveal as we get it, which we have not yet, the evidence from these allegations." Generally speaking, a defendent sees evidence during a trial.

At The Atlantic, David Samuels writes, "Julian Assange and Pfc Bradley Manning have done a huge public service by making hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. government documents available on Wikileaks -- and, predictably, no one is grateful. Manning, a former army intelligence analyst in Iraq, faces up to 52 years in prison. [. . .] It is dispiriting and upsetting for anyone who cares about the American tradition of a free press to see Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gibbs turn into H.R. Haldeman, John Erlichman and John Dean." You know what? It is dispiriting and upsetting for anyone who cares about the American tradition of innocent until proven guilty to see David Samuels convict Bradley Manning.

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 7th, 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 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." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. As Daniel Ellsberg reminded from the stage in Oakland last September, "We don't know all the facts." But we know, as Ellsberg pointed out, that the US military is attempting to prosecute Bradley. Paul Courson (CNN) notes Bradley is a suspect and, "He has not admitted guilt in either incident, his supporters say." Cameron Joseph (National Journal) reports that Daniel Ellsberg was at the White House today "chained to its snowy gates as part of a protest organized by Veterans for Peace [. . .] Ellsberg was one of dozens arrested, the Associated Press reported." David Jackson (USA Today) explains, "It's cold and snowy in Washington, D.C., but that didn't stop protestors from showing up at the White House today to demonstrate against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Police appeared to arrest an unknown number of protestors as they sought to chain themselves to the White House fence." UPI offers a photo essay of the protest by Kevin Dietsch. David Swanson's War Is A Crime offers video of the protest. Paul Courson (CNN) states 131 is the number of activists arrested and cites US Park Police spokesperson David Schlosser as the source for that number. At Stop These Wars (umbrella group for the various groups and individuals organizing the action) it's noted, "131 veterans and others were arrested December 16 in front of the White House. Preliminary gallery of photos here. More to come."

He makes sure GE's happy

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

WHAT DOES BEING A TOP 20 2008 CONTRIBUTOR TO THE CAMPAIGN OF BARRY O GET YOU?

APPARENTLY THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS YOUR COLLECTION AGENCY SERVICE.

IRAQ'S PRIME MINISTER NOURI AL-MALIKI WAS DELINQUENT IN HIS COUNTRY'S ELECTRIC BILL FROM G.E. INSTEAD OF SENDING OUT A LETTER ANNOUNCING THAT SERVICE WILL STOP IN 30 DAYS, G.E. WAS ABLE TO USE U.S. DIPLOMATIC STAFF TO LEAN ON NOURI AND GET THE BILL PAID.

REACHED FOR COMMENT THIS MORNING, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O INSISTED THE QUID PRO QUO BETWEEN G.E. AND HIMSELF WAS NO BIG DEAL BECAUSE "THEY REALLY DO BRING GOOD THINGS TO LIFE. LOOK, AMERICA GOT ME!"

HE FURTHER ADDED THAT NO ONE NEEDED TO BE ALARMED, "IT'S NOT LIKE WE DEMANDED THE MONEY ALL AT ONCE. WE DID ALLOW NOURI TO SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Ewen MacAskill (Guardian) breaks big news on one of the Big Six of Big Oil. According to a March 23, 2009 US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, Nouri al-Maliki told US officials that the California-based multi-national Chevron Corporation had been in negotiations with the Iranian government in Tehran. The official is Patricia Butenis. She is currently the US Ambassador to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of Maldives. When Nouri passed on the information to her, she was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Baghdad. In the cable, she wrote: "With regards to hydrocarbons, the PM [Nouri] asked for the US position on direct contracts with US firms and on US firms developing cross-border fields on the Iran border. The PM said he is currently in negotiations with Chevron to develop various oilfields to include a cross-border oilfield with Iran (NFI). The PM claimed that Chevron had told him that it had already raised the issue of a cross-border development with Tehran as well. (Note: We have no independent confirmation of this: end note.)"

The cable documents that Butenis and Nouri also discussed General Electric -- specifically whether or not GE would be receiving their payments (for electricity -- no dollar amounts are noted) and notes Nouri "said that the contracts would be paid even if it had to come out of their own salaries." The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that Nouri, if he moves from prime minister-designate to prime minister, will pull down $360,000 a year -- and that if the power-sharing deal holds, Allawi will make the same. $360,000 is a great deal of money, especially for a 'leader' who hasn't been able to provide either safety or basic services. What services GE's providing and what cost would also be interesting to know. The cable also notes that Nouri doesn't trust the Iraqi police and rejected the notion (presented by the US military) that the Iraqi military should be used for "external threats" and the police should be used for policing. In his post, Nouri controls the Iraqi army which may be why he dismissed the US suggestions.

We'll note this section of the cable on the now former US Ambassador to Iraq Chris Hill (no, he didn't last very long, did he?) and Butenis is "CDA":

Turning to the CDA, the PM asked about the arrival of Ambassador Hill. The CDA said that Ambassador Hill will have confirmation hearings in the Senate on March 25 and that, hopefully, he would arrive in Iraq sometime in April. The Qhopefully, he would arrive in Iraq sometime in April. The PM asked the CDA if she foresaw any problems. She responded that some Senators had expressed concern with Ambassador Hill's lack of experience in the Middle East and over his negotiations with North Korea. She said that Ambassador Hill had already met with Senators McCain and Graham to address such concerns. She expressed optimism that he would be confirmed by the Senate, noting that he was one of the Department's most accomplished diplomats. The PM said that he had discussed Ambassador Hill with President Obama when they last spoke and that President Obama said that Ambassador Hill "had his complete confidence" and that he is "the right man for the job." The PM told the CDA that "we welcome him to Iraq."

Tonight on WBAI, Joy of Resistance airs from nine to ten p.m. (and streams live online) and among the guests will be Jill Filipovic to address the topic of "Swedish and US rape laws and the current wave of misogny that has surfaced in response to rape allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange." (Other guests will be Susan J. Doulgas, Lu Baily and Amanda Marcotte.) On this week's Law and Disorder Radio (aired Monday on WBAI and around the country thoughout the week), hosts Michael Ratner and Michael S. Smith discussed WikiLeaks. Excerpt:

Michael Ratner: Michael, there's been zillions of words and articles about WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. And, of course, in this country he's looked at as a pariah despite the fact that every newspaper in the country is covering what he has done and he's obviously made a major contribution toward our understanding of how our government runs but give us a second on your political take on what you think of WikiLeaks.

Michael S. Smith: You know why I like him? I like him for the same reason I liked it when the Russian revolutionaries opened the books and all the czars secret diplomacy and they showed how the First World War was an imperialist war and they showed the secret deals between France and England and the Russian czar on how to divide up the Ottoman Empire once they won the first great war of the 20th century, the first great imperial slaughter. They wanted to divide up the Ottoman Empire. And in 1916, they had a treaty called the Sykes-Picot Treaty where they racked up all this rich Ottoman stuff between France and England.

Michael Ratner: But even then, Michael, let's just say it wasn't just rich Ottoman stuff, it was oil because what was happening was the ships were turning from coal -- where they need fueling stations all over -- to oil burning. And they recognized that, so when the First World War -- during it, actually -- They were goign to divide up the oil in the Middle East.

Michael S. Smith: Oil. You remember when they stupidly called the war against Iraq "Operation Iraqi Liberation"? O-I-L. And they realized they'd made a dumb mistake and they changed it. It's still about oil.

Michael Ratner: So let's put it into perspective. You're saying the First World War is really about imperial overreach. The second example we have is, of course, the Pentagon Papers.

Michael S. Smith: Same thing.

Michael Ratner: Same thing. Again about showing the lies about the war. Supposedly to help the Vietnamese people, whatever b.s., to stop Communism. But of course it was about the US in the Far East and its role in the Far East and what Ellsberg was able to do. Now let's compare it here. What have we seen in these documents to Wiki that makes you also see that really what he has exposed here is imperial overreach?

Michael S. Smith: Well he's shown the nature of these governments that the United States installed and props up in both oil-rich Iraq, carbon-rich Afghanistan. And that's what's horrifying people like [US Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton. The secrets are coming out. The nature of these governments. How they talk to each other. WikiLeaks provided a service. They opened the books on America's secret dealings the same way Russian revolutionaries opened the books up in 1917. That's what's driving these people crazy. They're threatening not just to prosecute him for espionage. That's the soft line. The right-wing commentators on Fox News and people like Sarah Palin are calling for his death, they're inciting violence.

Michael Ratner: Let's go back here. And I was thinking to myself when you and I were talking earlier, why I like what he's done so much. And I think you put your finger on it. That here the US goes into the Middle East and into Central Asia -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran now it's looking like Yemen --

Michael S. Smith: Yemen.

Michael Ratner: -- and it's saying, 'We're doing this because we want to stop terrorism' -- and, of course, that's another question about how this makes terrorism grow -- 'but we want to stop terrorism.' And, of course, Bush said for awhile we want to bring democracy to Iraq. And what these cables do is demonstrate that really this is a central corp of the US mission right now: To control the oil resources and other resources of the Middle East. And they show that the US is doing it sometimes overtly -- of course it lies about Iraq and Afghanistan -- but sometimes it's doing it so that the American people don't even know that it's doing it. And that's Yemen, where it said to the Yemenese, 'Claim that you're doing that bombing even though they all have our names on them.' Or it says that the claims by the government publicly that Iran is helping the Taliban when, in fact, the secret cables show that that wasn't the case, that they didn't have any evidence on that. So what you're seeing from these cables is the focus on where US hegemonic empire is concentrated and how they're lying to the American people about what the US is doing there. So the American people can't even object to the wars. They can't even protest because half of them they don't even know about.

Michael S. Smith: Well that's exactly right and what I really like about WikiLeaks is that it enables the American people to have information on an equal basis as the secret bureaucrats. That's the basis of democracy. Having a free press, that's the basis of democracy. Characters like Joe Lieberman trying to cut of WikiLeaks at the knees shows just how they despise democracy -- what [Noam] Chomsky said to us when we talked to him last week -- they despise democracy and that's why they despise Julian Assange.

Michael Ratner: And I think we do want to say something about the charges of rape and sexual assault going on in Sweden. Charges like that have to, of course, be taken very seriously and have to be investigated. I would hope that everybody's in agreement about that. But in this case, what you also see is a series of questions that make you wonder why it's being treated in a certain way. And, of course, question number one is that he was in Sweden, right, Michael?

Michael S. Smith: He was there for six weeks trying to give his side of the story and they woulnd't talk to him.

Michael Ratner: So then he leaves Sweden, they know he leaves Sweden, he goes to the United Kingdom. They [Sweden] then begin the issuance of a warrant for him -- a warrant not to pick him up on the actual charge, because he hasn't actually been indicted yet --

Michael S. Smith: That's right.

Michael Ratner: -- but just to answer questions. And he was willing to answer those questions by a video monitor, by going to the Swedish embassy. But, no, they want to bring him back to Sweden. And he's going to be facing extradition now to Sweden.

Michael S. Smith: You know why I think they want to bring him back to Sweden? It's easier to get him out of Sweden than it is to get him out of England. England has much stronger tradition of guaranteeing liberty and extradition than Sweden has. They want to snatch him and bring him back here and put him in handcuffs and parade him in front of a federal judge and in front of all the major networks. That's what they want to do.

As the Michaels demonstrate, you can discuss WikiLeaks -- and even Julian Assange -- without trashing the two women. Some other people need to take note. Last week, we repeatedly touched on this topic. We'll touch on it again because "I know he's ___" whatever really don't know a damn thing. But we know them. We know two things about them, in fact.

1) We know that if they were publishing at the early part of the '00s, they were publishing in Larry Fl**t's trashy Hu**ler magazine. That would be Amy Goodman and a whole host of lefty 'friends.' So are we really surprised that these people who thought it was 'cool' to publish in that smut magazine would be attacking women who may have been raped? No, we're not surprised at all. (FYI, Amy did a little collection plate spiel today which is why we're starting with this. She's smart enough not to go that far on her own show but she went that far and beyond while begging for money live over the airwaves.)

2) We know that this group of people told us Scott Ritter was innocent and just framed by the Bush administration because Ritter was telling the truth about the Iraq War. Pig Ritter, in fact, was brought up by Glenn Greenwald. Now if Pig Ritter were only arrested for being a child predator in April 2001 and June 2001, people could debate the issue and whether or not a man caught explaining (to what he thought was an underage girl) that he wanted to first meet up at McDonalds where she could watch him beat off in the men's room and then they could see where the 'magic' next took them (the dollar menu and men's room at Wendys?) but that's not all, is it?

"Scott Ritter was framed by the Bush administration to hush him up! He's innocent!" That was the cry. But Bush left office in January 2009. And Scott Ritter got busted for being a sexual predate a third time: November 2009. Bush was long gone. And what Iraq War secret was Ritter sitting on at that time that made him a victim of targeting? Let's go to Andrew Scott of Ritter's local paper, Pocono Record:

Officer Ryan Venneman was posing as 15-year-old "Emily" in an online chat room when he was contacted by someone using the name "Delmarm4fun." This person, later identified as Ritter, told "Emily" he was a 44-year-old male from Albany, N.Y.

"Emily" told Ritter she was a 15-year-old girl from the Poconos, at which point Ritter asked for a picture other than the one "Emily" had posted on her account. Ritter then sent her a link to his Web camera and began to masturbate on camera.

"Emily" asked Ritter for his cell phone number, which he provided.

Ritter again asked "Emily" how old she was. Told she was 15, Ritter said he didn't realize she was 15 and turned off his webcam, saying he didn't want to get in trouble.

Ritter told "Emily" he had been fantasizing about having sex with her, to which she replied: "Guess you turned it off ..."

Ritter then said: "You want to see it finish," reactivated his

webcam and continued masturbating and ejaculated on camera.

And to think he was taken off cable TV. Imagine the fun Rachel Maddow could have with footage of that! Glenn-Glenn at Salon December 1st: "I genuinely have no opinion of the validity of those allegations, but what I do know -- as John Cole notes -- is this: as soon as Scott Ritter began telling the truth about Iraqi WMDs, he was publicly smeared with allegations of sexual improprieties. As soon as Eliot Spitzer began posing a real threat to Wall Street criminals, a massive and strange federal investigation was launched over nothing more than routine acts of consensual adult prostitution, ending his career (and the threat he posed to oligarchs)." Here's what we know, Glenn-Glenn, if Scott Ritter were Scott Smith, he'd be looking at a three-strikes-you're-out-policy. Instead, he's traded on his diplomatic work, 'stress,' his wife's 'nerves' (I'm referring to what his attorney pitched in the 2001 arrests) to walk away. Hopefully, he won't this time. As for Eliot, some of us called it out in real time. It was a political hit job. The woman involved accused him of no harm so it was also a private matter in this site's opinion. But we noted it was a hit job and we noted -- loudly -- stop sending us your crap and 'funnies' about the arrest. We didn't link to that garbage.

Eliot was taken out. Now he was stupid enough to have sex outside of marriage while holding a public office and making people uncomfortable. Julian may be Eliot. He may be Scott Ritter. If, like Amy Goodman, you'd defended and defended Scott Ritter, maybe you might want to sit this one out because shame still drapes over you like a tacky, knock-off.

RTT News reports, "An appeal launched by Swedish prosecutors against a lower court decision to grant bail to WikiLeaks found Julian Assange would be heard at Britain's High Court in London on Thursday, according to court officials." Luke Harding (Guardian) believes Julian will be out on bail tomorrow. That's really it in terms of Julian unless you're a sexist at The Nation magazine who now live blogs "WikiLeaks." Well, not really WikiLeaks. Julian Assange -- he live blogs Julian Assange. The Nation ignored the WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs release in October. But toss in sexual assault and the chance to go to town on two women, and suddenly The Nation is interested in the soap opera around Julian. That they can almost handle 'live blogging' for. Stan Goff (Feral Scholar) has made a point to play fair -- as have many of his readers such as askod who makes the following important points:

The wise thing for Wikileaks to do would be to change their spokesperson while the legal process runs its course. The accusations were made in August, if a change of spokesperson had been done in October there would have been nothing to smear it with now. That it appears unable to do so does not speak well for its viability as an organization.

No, it does not. Nor does the tabloid coverage and yellow journalism from some defenders do much to help the organization. Julian Assange is not Daniel Ellsberg. Even if Daniel himself says so, it doesn't make true and we should damn well be smart enough to know better. Daniel Ellsberg did a brave thing. Julian Assange is a publisher similiar to the New York Times and the Washington Post (and others) with the Pentagon Papers. It is not the same role, it is not the same risks. If WikiLeaks is a 'journalist' -- one of the many arguments being made -- then it is actually a journalist in the way a book publisher is. It's not reporting, it's not analyzing. That's why it farms those documents out to news outlets. If it's a journalist (I'm fine for calling it a journalist), it's in the role of publisher. Some of the defenders appear to believe if they hurl enough spitballs, something's going to stick to the wall. All it does is confuse the issue.

Bradley Manning may be the issue. The US militiary seems to think so. For anyone not up to speed, 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 7th, 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 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." Manning has been convicted in the public square despite the fact that he's been convicted in no state and has made no public statements -- despite any claims otherwise, he has made no public statements. Manning is now at Quantico in Virginia, under military lock and key and still not allowed to speak to the press. As Daniel Ellsberg reminded from the stage in Oakland last September, "We don't know all the facts." But we know, as Ellsberg pointed out, that the US military is attempting to prosecute Bradley. Glenn Greenwald (Salon) sketches out some new details of Bradley's imprisonment:

Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old U.S. Army Private accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of that crime, nor of any other crime. Despite that, he has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico, Virginia for five months -- and for two months before that in a military jail in Kuwait -- under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture. Interviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning's detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed, establishes that the accused leaker is subjected to detention conditions likely to create long-term psychological injuries.

[. . .]

The U.S. ought at least to abide by minimal standards of humane treatment in how it detains him. That's true for every prisoner, at all times. But departures from such standards are particularly egregious where, as here, the detainee has merely been accused, but never convicted, of wrongdoing. These inhumane conditions make a mockery of Barack Obama's repeated pledge to end detainee abuse and torture, as prolonged isolation -- exacerbated by these other deprivations -- is at least as damaging, as violative of international legal standards, and almost as reviled around the world, as the waterboard, hypothermia and other Bush-era tactics that caused so much controversy.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

When life gives you lemons, throw them at people

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O RECEIVED A LEGAL SET BACK IN A RULING AGAINST OBAMACARE.

BUT A ONE-TIME LECTURER IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, BARRY O KNEW JUST WHAT TO DO: IGNORE THE RULING.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

"Can Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki create unity in Iraq?" wondered Marlam Saleh on Middle East Today (Press TV) this weekend where she was joined by Iraqi political analyst Bassem Abu Tabeekh, the National Alliance's Intifad Kanbar and Notre Dame University's Eugene Dabbous. Excerpt:

Marlam Saleh: What has allowed for this deadlock to somehow end? We have all three leaders being named but now Mr. Maliki has a lot on his hands. Can we say that the issue of civil war was a major threat before? And do you think now it does still exist?

Bassem Abu Tabeekh: Well hello to you, to your TV, your guests and thank you for inviting us today. Actually all this now, the new situation in Iraq. And the elected the speaker man for the Parliament and the prime minister and the minister of Iraq -- the president of Iraq. All this been agreed in Kurdistan which is whole package. Before they went to the Parliament, they agreed who's going to be in which. Now Alawi having been elected to have the strategic council in Iraq now the problem is going to be Alawi can be given order or only advise the government? This is the only situation now. He trying and doing -- He tried to break the agreement which is all the members of all the politicians and the prime minister and the president of Iraq and the chairman all agreed on all the deal in Kurdistan, northern Iraq, that is all accepted Now Allawi try to break it to get more benefit and more advance -- advance for him. Now this civil war, now, there's some politician, they try to raise the voice, tojust give signal to the Iraqis is going to be a problem and give pressure to al-Maliki and others that no civil war will be. We had the situation. America tried to do that but they failed. and another neighboring country, they don't want to beat Iraq back into -- international community tried to make civil war in Iraq. Everybody happy and they don't want to beat Iraq. There is a law in Iraq and with the law --

Marlam Saleh: Allow me -- allow me to get Mr. Intifad Kanbar's take because he is in Baghdad of course. He could give us a general perspective. Mr. Intifad Kanbar, what can you tell us about the talks taking place right now? We've heard Mr. Maliki's bloc. They're saying that they have made concessions in order to let this work. And you heard Mr. Bassem Abu Tabeekh saying that, no, actually Mr. Allawi could be standing in the way of an agreement. What do you think?

Intifad Kanbar: Well this is going to be -- we were trying to make it -- a partnership, a national partnership, government which we are hoping and working very hard to include, not excluse everyone in this government including Al Iraqiya. However, some of the demands by some factions within Iraqiya are quite unacceptable by some -- by the Iraqi National Alliance and others; therefore, it's making it more difficult to have full participation of Iraqiya. But I'm cautiously optimistic that Iraqiya will participate on a large scale in the government. I think the question 'What is the fate of Mr. Ayad Allawi?' I think his position will be in question. Specifically on the issue of the formation of the Council of Higher Policies which may contradict the Constitution and may require an amendment in the Constitution which takes two years. All that will be formed in a way that is going to have an advisory role, not an executive role. Something that I'm not sure Mr. Allawi will accept.

Marlam Saleh: Yes, now some would say that the Kurdish president is a barrier to the Iraqi Arab identity. What do you think about that?

Intifad Kanbar: The -- Iraq in it's majority, the majority of the population in Iraq, yes, is Arab. But Iraq is a mix and we don't believe in the idea of minority. Every number of people in Iraq have equal rights and there's no rights for the majority and rights for the minority. Therefore Iraq is a country that has a combination of Kurds, Armenians, Chaldeanians, Assyrians and all -- Mandaeisms, Yazidians and those people have equal rights in accordance with the Constitution that has been ratified and approved by the Iraqi people. Thererfore, Iraq identy -- Iraq has an Arab side but there is a distinguished Iraqi identity which represents all this moasic of the Iraqi identitiy.

Today Alsumaria TV reports that the Iraqi Parliament has yet again delayed a session. They were supposed to deliberate today but they've postponed it until Saturday -- not that they were up for hardest working legislative body or anything before the latest move. The big agenda item being pushed back? The issue of the National Council for Strategic Policies which is supposed to be headed by Ayad Allawi. If it is not an independent body with independent powers, Allawi has stated he will walk out on the government. As noted yesterday, Omar (Iraq The Model) has offered an English translation of the (or a) bill proposing the creation of the NCSP. Lara Jakes (AP) reports Allawi's spokesperson states he will be joining the government being put together.

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now nine months, seven days and counting. Thursday November 25th, Nouri was finally 'officially' named prime minister-designate. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) explained, "In 30 days, he is to present his cabinet to parliament or lose the nomination." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) added, "Even if Mr. Maliki meets the 30-day deadline in late December -- which is not a certainty, given the chronic disregard for legal deadlines in Iraqi politics -- the country will have spent more than nine months under a caretaker government without a functioning legislature. Many of Iraq's most critical needs -- from basic services to investment -- have remained unaddressed throughout the impasse." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) offered, "He has an extremely difficult task ahed of him, these next 30 days are going to be a very tough sell for all of these parties that all want something very important in this government. It took a record eight months to actually come up with this coalition, but now what al-Maliki has to do is put all those people in the competing positions that backed him into slots in the government and he has a month to day that from today."

As the stalemate continues, David Ignatius (Washington Post) reports:

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met here Monday with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and urged him to start planning now for a "long-term strategic partnership" in which the United States will continue training the Iraqi military and police, and providing other, unspecified security assistance. Mullen said later that Maliki seems to want such a relationship, "but the direction hasn't been worked out."
The biggest story about Iraq may be what hasn't happened. There were widespread fears that when U.S. troops pulled out of Iraqis cities in mid-2009, the country would slip back toward civil war. That didn't happen. The same fears were expressed when the last combat troops departed this summer. It didn't happen then, either.

He goes on to offer a balance portrait of Nouri (that is balance when you're describing a thug) but surprisingly, he seems unaware of the rumors that there's a scramble to curry Tehran's favor among numerous Shi'ites. Ahmed Chalabi is only the one with the loosest lips who is supposedly stating that if Nouri fails at the 30-day deadline, Jalal Talabani will be naming him (Chalabi) as the next prime minister-designate. Since Chalabi is also angling for a key post in Nouri's cabinet, it's surprising how many are repeating this rumor. Ibrahim Jafari is also mentioned as someone in contact with Tehran as an alternative to Nouri. Today the White House issued the following:

Vice President Biden and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon met today with General Lloyd Austin III, Commanding General of the United States Forces-Iraq (USF-I), to review political and security developments in Iraq. They discussed the progress Iraq has made toward providing for its own security. Tomorrow, the Vice President will chair a United Nations Security Council High-Level Meeting on Iraq, the purpose of which is to recognize and reinforce the tremendous progress that the Republic of Iraq has made and to discuss ways in which Members can continue to support Iraq's government and people. On Friday at the White House, the Vice President will chair his monthly Principals meeting on Iraq.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Monday Lectures From Moron

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECIDED TO LECTURE THE NATION ON COMPROMISE, "BUT THAT'S THE NATURE OF COMPROMISE: SACRIFICING SOMETHING THAT EACH OF US CARES ABOUT TO MOVE FORWARD ON WHAT MATTERS TO US ALL."

SOME SAY "COMPROMISE" . . . OTHERS SAY ANOTHER BROKEN CAMPAIGN PROMISE, OTHERS SAY SPINELESS, OTHERS SAY COWARD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraqi political parties agreed to allocate 16 ministries including two sovereign ministries to the National Alliance, an informed source told Alsumaria News. Al Iraqiya List is expected to get nine ministries while Kurdistan Parties Coalition will get four ministries, the source said." Wednesday is the deadline Nouri gave himself (and should have been the actual deadline) to form a government. Over the weekend, he announced he wouldn't make that deadline -- a replay of April 2006. As the Iraq War nears the eight year mark, claims of progress are refuted daily by Iraq's inability to form an executive government nine months after elections. Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister-designate, swore he'd form the government by December 15th. AP quoted him stating, "We are facing a constitutional deadline and we will not tolerate exceeding it." Of course you won't, it's a Constitutional deadline. If you miss it, if you past the 30-day limit, the Constitution demands that the President immediately name a new prime minister-designate. That's not 30 days a few extra hours or maybe a few extra days. That's a hard 30 day dealine written into the country's constitution. It's not debatable.

Which doesn't mean he won't try to ignore it. Nouri's pattern suggests that he would. But if the international community goes along with it, just drop the damn pretense that anyone ever wanted Iraq to be a democracy. In order for Nouri to stay in charge these last months, the will of the people and the votes had to be ignored. Those are key components in a democracy. If Nouri's going to trash the Constitution to remain in power, the international community will be publicly confessing that the Iraq War never had any altruistic motives.

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted in August, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, "The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. " After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet -- sort of. Sort of because he didn't nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in "For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq" (New York Times), only with "muscular" assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they'd knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That's very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents -- including within his own alliance -- will look the other way if he can't fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, "With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, "Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts - some of which will likely go to Iraqiya - and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran." The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now nine months, six days and counting. Thursday November 25th, Nouri was finally 'officially' named prime minister-designate. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) explained, "In 30 days, he is to present his cabinet to parliament or lose the nomination." Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) added, "Even if Mr. Maliki meets the 30-day deadline in late December -- which is not a certainty, given the chronic disregard for legal deadlines in Iraqi politics -- the country will have spent more than nine months under a caretaker government without a functioning legislature. Many of Iraq's most critical needs -- from basic services to investment -- have remained unaddressed throughout the impasse." Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) offered, "He has an extremely difficult task ahed of him, these next 30 days are going to be a very tough sell for all of these parties that all want something very important in this government. It took a record eight months to actually come up with this coalition, but now what al-Maliki has to do is put all those people in the competing positions that backed him into slots in the government and he has a month to day that from today."

The power-sharing agreement is in trouble and the Kurds remain one of the more public fissures. To put the power-sharing agreement together, Nouri promised to finally hold the census and referendum he'd long stalled on (it should have been held in 2007 per the Constitution). But having declared that the census would take place at the start of this month, after being named prime minister-designate, he quickly broke that promise -- again. The rank and file Kurds were furious, the same with the international Kurdish community was.

It's the sort of fury that bit Jalal Talabani in the rear when he declared, "The ideal of a united Kurdistan is just a dream written in poetry" back in March of 2009. He's been paying for that ever since. It's among the reasons why his party did so poorly in the July 2009 elections. Massoud Barzani's party benefitted from drawing a clear line and stating that they still supported Kurdish independence. (US outlets have just ignored the entire Kurdish story, by the way.) Massoud Barzani is the KRG President and he's once again playing the game better than Jalal. (Which is why his party, the Kurdistan Democratic Party is currently the dominant force in KRG politics.) Saturday Shamal Aqrawi (Reuters) reported, "Iraqi Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani said on Saturday that his semi-autonomous region has the right to self-determination and to the disputed city of Kirkuk, which is located above some of Iraq's largest oil reserves. The fate of Kirkuk is one of the main issues of contention between the Kurdish region and the central government in Baghdad, which are locked in disputes over land and some of the world's richest oilfields." "Main issues of contention." So where's the coverage from US outlets? AFP added:

On the subject of Kirkuk, Barzani pointedly told the audience that "when it returns to the region... we will make Kirkuk an example of coexistence, forgiveness and joint administration, but we cannot bargain on its identity."
The region first attained a modicum of autonomy in 1974, but Barzani's father and then-leader of the KDP, Mulla Mustafa Barzani, returned to war with the Baghdad government rather than accept that limited autonomy.
Kurdistan won greater freedom after the 1991 Gulf War, but Barzani and Talabani, the region's other dominant political leader, waged war for control of smuggling routes that provided valuable tariff revenue while former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was still in power.

Today, Alsumaria TV reports that KRG President Massoud Barazani's call for self-determination Saturday have been walked back. By Barazani? No, so ignore it. Barazani rules the KRG and does he makes statements like he did on Saturday and, when they get walked back, someone else does it. In a few months, he'll give a sit-down interview -- as has been his pattern -- and we'll refine his statements from Saturday (self-determination for the KRG, Kirkuk belongs to the KRG) but he won't actually retract anything. Which is why other outlets aren't putting a great deal of weight behind the walk back. Today's Zaman this morning led with, "Iraqi Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani has said that his semi-autonomous region has the right to self-determination and to the disputed city of Kirkuk, which is situated on top of some of Iraq's largest oil reserves." Barzani is the head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Hurriyet Daily News reports on the six-day congress the KDP is holding ("its first congress since 1999") to discuss the status and the future of the political party. It would be foolish to disown the remarks and the sort of thing that Jalal Talabani would do -- and has regularly done which explains the PUK's dismal showing in the July 2009 elections. Salam Faraj (AFP) reports that Barzani's "drawn the ire of the country's Sunni and Shiite Arab leaders, who argue that it presages a break-up of Iraq." That's not worrying to Barzani who is not dependent upon votes from outside the KRG. The perception that he has angered them, in fact, only strengthens him in the KRG.

"THIS JUST IN! BROKEN PROMISES!"
"He makes promises he doesn't keep"

Cedric's Big Mix