Cedric's Big Mix: 2012-12-09

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Freddy-Boo-Boo is Glitzy

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

FREDDY KAPLAN IS THE HONEY-BOO-BOO OF THE GAS BAG SET, FOREVER LIFTING UP HIS SHIRT, STICKING OUT HIS BELLY AND SNAPPING, "I'M SASSY!"

SOMETIMES ADDING, "I'M SASSY BECAUSE I'M STUPID!" AND SOMETIMES SAYING, "ME FREDDY-BOO-BOO, CHILD!'

AND HE IS. TAKE THIS MEANDERING PIECE WHERE HE TRIES TO REWORK CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O'S RECENT DEFEAT INTO A WIN.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, FREDDY-BOO-BOO TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I WISH I COULD BE GLITZY, GIRLFRIEND! I'D LOVE TO BE A PAGEANT GAY PIG!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

US House Rep Lynn Woolsey was one of the creators of the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House of Representatives. Alongside other brave voices in the House like Maxine Waters, Woolsey stood firmly against the Iraq War. She did not seek re-election this year and this week spoke on the House floor about war and peace (video here).

US House Rep Lynn Woolsey: Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in public life and even before, nothing has motivated me more than a desire to end wars and violent conflict. When I was a small girl saying bedtime prayers or making a birthday wish blowing out the candles, I always asked for world peace. So no surprise that, over a decade ago, I opposed the Iraq War before it even started. It was appalling that we would invade a nation that hadn't provoked us, that had nothing to do with 9-11 and did not have weapons of mass destruction. It was a lonely fight at that time. But I didn't do it to be loved. It was a matter of principle. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and I formed the triad, Woolsey, Waters and Lee, to organize our opposition. We held forums, we developed an Out Of Iraq Caucus, we traveled around the country. And in January 2005, I offered the first amendment here on the House floor calling for our troops to be brought home. Some of my own party thought that it was a mistake, that we wouldn't get any votes or enough votes and that we would be embarrassed. Well I told them that even if I were the only one voting to bring our troops home, I would not be embarrassed. Well as it happened, we got 128 bi-partisan votes that very first time. So you see, Mr. Speaker, when you lead, people follow. Because a handful of progressive leaders and progressives in our country that were vocal and fearless, eventually public opinion turned. It turned against the Iraq War. It turned towards peace. If we and other outspoken political advocates hadn't ignored conventional wisdom and hadn't pressed for peace, the war in Iraq could still be going on today. In April, Mr. Speaker, of 2004, I began speaking on this very spot of the House floor about my very strong anti-Iraq War convictions. Eventually, these speeches focused on Afghanistan where we've now been waging war for more than 11 years despite more than 2,000 Americans dead and nearly $600 billion wasted. Even though, we are undermining our own interests and failing to bring security and stability to Afghanistan. Over the last eight-plus-years, I've spoken here nearly every day that I could to drive home what a moral disaster and strategic failure these wars have been. When constituents and others call or come up to me and thank me, I say, "But we're still there." I don't deserve thanks until all of our troops are home. You know, Mr. Speaker, because you've been here for many of them, my speeches haven't been just about bringing our troops home. They've offered a new vision for global engagement. From here, I've outlined my Smart Security Platform which calls for development in diplomacy instead of invasions and occupations, civilian surges instead of military surges. Smart Security means helping other nations educate their children, care for their sick and strengthen their democratic institutions. Smart Security says we can make America safe by building international goodwill, by empowering people with humanitarian assistance instead of sending troops or launching drone attacks. It's the right thing to do. It's the smart thing to do. And it costs pennies on the dollar compared to military force. So, Mr. Speaker, today I'm delivering that message for the 444th time and my final time on the House floor to speak on five minute special order. This is the last of my special order speeches on war and peace and Smart Security. I'm retiring from Congress at the end of this year and I believe part of my legacy will be that I worked diligently for peace and a safer world. So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge that sometimes I've been accused of wanting a perfect world but I consider that a compliment. Our founders strove for a more perfect union. Why shouldn't we aim for a perfect world? You see, I'm perfectly and absolutely certain that if we don't work towards a perfect world we won't ever come close to providing a safe, healthy and secure world for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. So I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my wonderful staff who have helped me over the last twenty years to work for a perfect world which means peace, health and security for all. I yield back. Thank you all.

Lynn Woolsey is a Democrat who was first elected in the Novembe 1992 elections (a "Year of the Woman" in real time and the first time the genderquake was undeniable in the elections). She has served California's sixth district. Lynn Woolsey succeeded Barbara Boxer in the seat, Boxer, in the "Year of the Woman" 1992, was elected to the US Senate. Greg Cahill (Pacific Sun) interviewed Lynn on her time in the US Congress. Excerpt:

Now the wars are winding down, and the economy is in recovery. Why leave the job now?

[Lynn Woolsey:] I'm a person whose timing has worked for her. Actually, I thought I'd be in Congress for 10 years. And then all of a sudden, zip, it's 20. I'm 75 years old. And I've gotten on an airplane every week that we're in session on a Monday or Tuesday morning and fly back on a Thursday or Friday afternoon. Week after week after week. And I'm tired of doing that. It doesn't work for my body and it doesn't work for my soul. During the last Congress, the 111th Congress, I toyed with the notion that that should be my last term. But Jared Huffman hadn't termed out in the state Legislature yet. And I wasn't 100 percent sure about that decision. So I ran and got re-elected knowing that would be my last term. [House minority leader Rep.] Nancy Pelosi asked me, "When did you know?" And I said I knew when I walked backed into Congress and said to myself, "I really wish I hadn't done it this time." I felt like, I don't know why I'm here--I don't want to be here. I didn't stop working--we worked our hearts out these last two years. But I just knew it was time. I was sick and tired of money and politics. I mean, it's going to ruin our democracy if we don't do something [about campaign finance reform]. And I gave lots of notice.

You're retiring from politics but it sounds as though you plan to stay quite active.

[Lynn Woolsey:] Oh, I am going to retire. If Lynn Woolsey doesn't learn to sit down and be calm in what I consider to be the last quarter of her life, she'll be in trouble. I want to enjoy my life without all the spin. I mean, I've raised four kids and was a working mom and active in my community. I get to sit down.

As a member of Congress, Lynn didn't just mouth words. Nor did she cave when she made a stand. Her word counted for something and she took it very seriously. She will be missed.

And sad to say that as one of the strong left leaders leaves Congree, I find myself wondering if maybe on the left we just need to throw in the towel? I wondered that not because of the loss of Lynn Woolsey in the Congress but because of the garbage by Gareth Porter at Truthout. I'd seen him in his too long Real News Network interview and thought, "Maybe he just doesn't speak well on the subject." But now his promised 'big piece' on counter-insurgency is out and the natural response to it is to string together numerous curse words. Let's get two of his paragraphs in here.

The COIN manual ducked some central issues in the US wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan - most notably whether US troops should have been carrying out violent "cordon and search" operations, especially when they had little or no real intelligence to go on. Intent on staying within the political consensus of the military establishment, Petraeus opted not to criticize the tactic of violently invading private homes and seizing military-age males in the middle of the night in front of their families, which had become routine in Iraq.

But in one area, the manual staked out a bold new position. It called for the commander in a counterinsurgency war to influence the coverage of the war by the news media. "The media directly influence the attitude of key audiences toward counterinsurgents, their operations and the opposing insurgency," the section on "information operations" said. "This situation creates a war of perceptions between insurgents and counterinsurgents conducted continuously using the news media."

Did it duck "some central issues"? Well Gareth did too. Gareth's apparently opposed to searches that cart away males but that's about all he can really call out. The very notion of counter-insurgency -- long called out on the left in past wars -- is just accepted by Porter. As for "a bold new position," your ignorance exceeds your ethical decay. I don't care what your damn manual told you. I don't give a damn. Counter-insurgency has always included the media and 'messaging.' That you're too stupid to know that is appalling.

Here's the way this will go. I'll get e-mails about how "Gareth is really trying hard and, gosh, it's not easy and if you want someone to call out David Petraeus . . ." Gareth has a job to do. Does he do his job or not? No, he's not doing his job -- or he's doing it very poorly. As for calling out Petraeus, it may be a media fad at present but here we've always called out Petraeus.

If you're going to write about counter-insurgency, you need to know about it. It's war on a native people. The occupier tries to make a group of natives undesirable so that the rest of the population will turn on the undesirables. To make people undesirable, you demonize them, you make it difficult for people to befriend or help them. You do other things as well. To do these other things, you tell yourself lies. For example, labeling the native (non-South) Vietnamese media "propaganda" allowed counter-insurgency to target the media and to justify the lying. Counter-insurgency includes outright murder. People are targeted for murder to frighten the population at large. You saw that in Iraq and you've seen it throughout the US usage of counter-insurgency. Take the Phoenix Program during Vietnam. As the RAND Corporation noted, while its supporters cheer the program, its "detractors condemn it as a merciless assassination campaign." Let's go to the CIA for some whining:

The Phoenix program is arguably the most misunderstood and controversial program undertaken by the governments of the United States and South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. It was, quite simply, a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Lao Dong Party (hereafter referred to as the Viet Cong infrastructure or VCI) in South Vietnam. 1

Phoenix was misunderstood because it was classified, and the information obtained by the press and others was often anecdotal, unsubstantiated, or false. The program was controversial because the antiwar movement and critical scholars in the United States and elsewhere portrayed it as an unlawful and immoral assassination program targeting civilians.

We called it out because it was unethical and it was illegal and, yes, we called it out. Today Gareth Porter can't even do that. A ho-hum piece where this may be objectionable . . . The ignorance and the cowardice is appalling. At this late date, if we on the left can't call out counter-insurgency, that's on us, we're just pathetic and ineffective. Via Z-Net, here's an excerpt of a January 10, 2005 broadcast, Katie Couric (then host of NBC's Today) discussing with retired Gen Wayne Downing the article Newsweek published on the Salvador option possibly being brought to Iraq (Michael Hirsh and John Barry were the authors of the Newsweek article).

"Gen. DOWNING: Well, Katie, I -- I think this term is very unfortunate because this El Salvador thing brings up the connotation of death squads, of illegal activity that took place in -- in -- by some of the El Salvadorian military 20 years ago. But I think what they're considering is to use a special -- or more special Iraqi units trained and equipped and perhaps even led by US Special Forces to conduct strike operations against this -- this insurgency, against the leaders of it, which of course is a very valid strategy, a very valid tactic. And it's actually something we've been doing since we started the war back in March of 2003.

"COURIC: But is this going to be used more, or in greater numbers? According to Newsweek, they're going to -- the -- the US Special Forces will train specially chosen Kurdish forces and Shiite militiamen.

"Gen. DOWNING: Right.

"COURIC: So does this signal a -- a -- I guess an escalation of this technique at least?

"Gen. DOWNING: I wouldn't say an escalation, Katie. I -- I think what we're looking at is -- there are already some special units formed. We have special police commandos now of the Iraqi forces which conduct these kind of strike operations. I think what we're looking at is another type of unit. In other words, they -- they've got 10 tools right now in their tool box, this is probably adding a -- an 11th or perhaps even a 12th tool. But -- but, Katie, I -- I really want to emphasize what they are going after here. These -- these insurgents leaders, these are terrorists. These are people who have been decapitating hostages. These are the people who have been planning and -- and perpetrating these suicide bombers...that has killed thousands of -- of friendly Iraqis. These are very, very legitimate targets, and actually part of the overall strategy for countering this insurgency...

"COURIC: But in El Salvador many innocent civilians were killed when these kind of tactics were employed. Are you concerned about that, or the possibility this will increase anti-American sentiment in the general Iraqi population?

"Gen. DOWNING: Katie, this has nothing to do with El Salvador. Those operations that were conducted down there were conducted by -- by renegade military leaders. This is under the control of the US forces, of the current interim Iraqi government. There -- there's no need to think that we're going to have any kind of a -- a killing campaign that's going to maim innocent civilians.

The government pretends that counter-insurgency has been proved to be effective. That actually hasn't happened and I don't understand why a Gareth Porter or anyone else would accept the premise that counter-insurgency is 'good' but has a few aspects that may be troubling? I don't get that at all. Tom Hayden called out counter-insurgency during Vietnam. He's one of the few voices who've called it out during the Iraq War. In a column on Petraeus a few weeks ago, he included this paragraph:

As this test of wills unfolded, Petraeus, with the help of an inbred, fawning mass media, had become knwon as "the greatest soldier of his generation," the counterinsurgency strategist who staved off a dishonorable American retreat in Iraq, the guiding hand behind The U.S. Army-Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, the man who would revive the South Vietnam "Phoenix Program" from the ashes of disgrace. The Petraeus field manual rallied a cult of true believers who have been convinced for thirty years that America's war in Vietnam would have been won if only the politicians back in the States had not pulled the plug on Phoenix because of claims of torture plus photos of emaciated Vietcong prisoners held in tiny cages. (This is all true, not a screenplay. Please see the Field Manual for more on the pacification program, pp. 73-75; see also, "Countering Global Insurgency," by Petraeus top counterinsurgency advisor, David Kllkullen, in the Small Wars Journal, November 30, 2004)

In that paragraph, Tom Hayden makes it clear how disgusting counter-insurgency is. In one paragraph. In his very long article, Gareth Porter never manages to do the same. Click here for audio of Douglas Valentine on Between The Lines discussing the various assassination programs in the early days of the Iraq War.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Does she know how to fade into the background?

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O SUFFERED A SIGNIFICANT SET BACK AS SNARLY RICE DECIDED TO 'HELP' BY WITHDRAWING HER NAME FROM CONSIDERATION. SHE'D BECOME A DISTRACTION AND STOLE ALL THE FOCUS.

BUT SOMEONE WANTING TO 'HELP' AND STOP THE DISTRACTION DOESN'T USUALLY THEN PEN A COLUMN ABOUT WHY THEY WITHDREW THEIR NOMINATION.

POOR UNQUALIFIED SNARLY RICE, SHE STILL HAS TO MAKE IT ALL ABOUT HER. DOESN'T SHE KNOW THIS IS BARRY'S TURN TO CRY?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Tuesday at that day's State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Victoria Nuland pretended to care about Syria when discussing Iraq but it's really about oil for the neocon Kagan family (Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan) and that's why she works as the face of the State Dept today.

QUESTION: Yes. Turkey is negotiating, or already finished an oil deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq. Are you encouraging Turkey not to go along with this, since it will be a provocation to the central government in Baghdad?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, let me say as a general matter, once again, Samir, that the United States supports a constitutional solution to the dispute over the management of Iraq's hydrocarbon resources. This is our longstanding position. We are continuing to urge the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government to reach an agreement over legislation so that they can enhance investment so that everybody knows what the fair legal basis is for this.

We don't support oil exports from any part of Iraq without the appropriate approval of the Iraqi Government, and we're calling on the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to continue to try to work through their differences. We also call on neighboring states to similarly avoid any action or comment that can contribute in any way to increasing tensions.

Officially, the US State Dept is a 'good faith' organization. They claim their mission statement is: "Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system." You see oil in there? Me neither.

Victoria Nuland has never spoken out in defense of Iraqi women -- not when the 'independent' electoral commission had new commissioners and refused to make 1/3 women despite that being the mandate, not during the current prison torture scandal where women have been, at the very least, threatened with rape -- including an 11-year-old girl according to a Committee in Iraq's Parliament. Victoria Nuland had no concerns about Iraqi women.

When bombs go off and their mass deaths and many injured? She doesn't note it. She gives a press conference hours later and doesn't even mention it. I'm no fan of Condi Rice, but a spokesperson that pulled that under Condi would have been sent packing. Under Condi, every mass attack in Iraq was condemned that day. But Victoria Nuland, by her focus and what she chooses to stress and or ignore, clearly doesn't care about the safety of the Iraqi people.

In 2009, when Iraq's LGBTs were being terrorized by Nouri's forces and by militias in Iraq, the State Dept went out of their way to say nothing. When the BBC was able to get someone on the record (for a mealy-mouthed statement), it wasn't Nuland. And this year, when Nouri's Ministry of the Interior (that he never nominated anyone to be minister of so he is in charge of it) went to schools to spread fear and rage at Iraqi youths who were Emo or LGBT (or just appeared to be either or both), Victoria Nuland wasn't interested.

Over and over, when the Iraqi people are in trouble, the US State Dept plays dumb. And no one plays dumb better than Victoria Nuland who has has so many years to perfect her craft of stupidity.

She had nothing to say about human rights crises in Iraq. But she finds the time to speak on oil?

That might be puzzling if you didn't grasp how the US government defines oil. In 2001, Dick Cheney, then President of Vice in the United States, serving under Bully Boy Bush, met with oil companies in what was called the "Cheney Energy Task Force." This was about developing an energy policy, supposedly. What it was really about was looking at the world's oil map and figuring out where to start a war and how to control the oil.

If Dick Cheney had has his way, we wouldn't know that. But Judicial Watch sued for the records he refused to release. Click here for the maps and charts Cheney's 'energy task force' drew up on Iraq in March 2001. And try to pretend that the illegal war that would start two years later wasn't connected. Cheney's US 'energy task force' needed to label Iraq's "supergiant oilfield" (don't you picture Dick jizzing in his shorts over that one) as well as "other oilfield"s and "earmarked for production sharing" and all these other little tags, little price tags, in fact, that's what they were. It was a tag sale on the belongings of the Iraqi people.

Victoria Nuland's very familiar with these reports. As we noted in 2004 when NPR's idiotic ombudsperson was pretending that there was nothing wrong with Robert Kagan critiquing the John Kerry campagin, Icky Vicky was working for Dick Cheney, she was his deputy national security advisor. As his deputy national security advisor, Vicky Nuland was up to her armpits in these discussions of how to carve up Iraq.

And now she's a front person for the US State Dept. The reason being, the theft of Iraqi oil isn't really dismaying to Democrats in power. Those who objected in real time (or, more often, after the war was a clear loser) did so out of partisanship. Even now, no one's standing on the floor of Congress expressing outrage over this war for oil. If you're not grasping how disgusting the current administration is, remind yourself that Dick Cheney's deputy national security advisor -- Dick Cheney's -- is now the spokesperson for the State Dept.

Let's go back over what Little Vicky The Small Blunder said:

Well, first of all, let me say as a general matter, once again, Samir, that the United States supports a constitutional solution to the dispute over the management of Iraq's hydrocarbon resources. This is our longstanding position. We are continuing to urge the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government to reach an agreement over legislation so that they can enhance investment so that everybody knows what the fair legal basis is for this.

That's not a position of neutrality. That's a position (yet again) backing neocon Princess Nouri al-Maliki, the man Bully Boy Bush installed as prime minister in 2006 and that Barack Obama insisted in 2010 -- despite the Iraqi people's vote and the Constitution -- must have a second term as prime minister.

Mayada Daood (Niqash) explained some time ago:

The roots of the crisis date back to the year 2007 when the Iraqi government refused to recognise contracts concluded independently by the independently with foreign oil companies, declaring them illegal.
Hamza al-Jawahiri, an oil expert, said that the KRG and the central government in Baghdad interpret the constitution differently.
"While KRG believes that it is its right to develop its oil industry, conclude oil contracts and control oil production, the Oil Ministry in Baghdad considers that crude oil belongs to all Iraqis, not to citizens of any area be it in the center, the south or the north," he reveals.

So when Nuland says the following, she's not being neutral, she's picking a side:

Note that Nuland doesn't say the Constitution. Because many observers feel the KRG is correct in their interpretation of the Constitution (legally, they also have custom on their side now as a result of the practice in place in the last years). This was not neutrality. This was taking a position which is that the US State Dept doesn't want the KRG to be able to sell its oil.

While it was largely ignored in the US press, it was clear to the world's press what was going on. Murat Yetkin (Hurriyet Daily News) grasped it. Or as the headline to another article made clear, "U.S. warns Turkey over Iraqi oil." Nuland is picking a side and someone should have asked her, "What is the KRG supposed to do?" Iraq was supposed to pass a hydrocarbons law long ago. Princess Nouri gave his word to Bully Boy Bush that he would see to it in 2007. It didn't happen then. It didn't happen in 2008. It still hasn't happened. So no oil sold until one is passed? Is that what Nuland's advocating? No, of course not. She's advocating on behalf of Princess Nouri al-Maliki.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

He protects some children from predators

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

WITH GREASY-HAIRED DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ AT HIS SIDE, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O SIGNED A LAW TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM PREDATORS.

FINGERING HERSELF IN THE OVAL OFFICE, DEBBIE PANTED AND PANTED UNTIL FALLING TO HER KNEES WHILE BARRY O FLASHED HIS IDIOT GRIN.

NOW CHILDREN WILL BE PROTECTED FROM PREDATORS.

NOT ALL PREDATORS, MIND YOU.

THEY WON'T BE PROTECTED FROM PREDATOR DRONES. IN PAKISTAN ALONE, 200 CHILDREN HAVE BEEN KILLED BY THE U.S. DRONES.

BUT BARRY O IS A LITTLE SCAMP WHO GREW UP FLIRTING WITH HIS STEP-FATHER, SENT TO HAWAII AFTER THAT AND NEVER LEARNED TO BE A MAN. SO KILLING CHILDREN IS WHAT IT TAKES FOR BARRY O TO GET AN ERECTION.

WHO CAN BEGRUDGE HIM THAT?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

We'll start in the US. We've got good Congress/bad Congress. In one corner, a member who stays focused on the work and actually accomplishes a great deal. In the other corner, a drama queen who thinks everything in the world happens only to her.

Let's reward good work by noting Senator Patty Murray, Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee whose office issued the following today:

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

CONTACT: Murray Press Office

(202) 224-2834

Tomorrow: Murray to Attempt to Pass Bill Allowing Catastrophically Wounded Veterans to Start Families

Murray bill will end ban on in vitro fertilization at VA; provide needed assistance to veterans with major reproductive injuries who are now paying out-of-pocket for expensive fertility procedures

(Washington, D.C.) -- Tomorrow, Thursday, December 13th, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee, will head to the Senate floor to call for unanimous consent on her Women Veterans and Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, which builds upon previous law to improve VA services for women veterans and veterans with families and ends the ban on in vitro fertilization (IVF) services at VA to help severely wounded veterans start families. Senator Murray will share the story of Tracy Keil, the spouse of a severely wounded OIF veteran, and her family's experience with VA's fertility services.

Pentagon data shows that since 2003 nearly 2,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have suffered pelvic fractures and genitourinary injuries that could affect their abilities to reproduce. In particular, the reliance on foot patrols in Afghanistan and the use of improvised explosive devices has left service members far more susceptible to these injuries. Veterans who have severe reproductive and urinary tract injuries and spinal cord injuries (SCI) often need highly specialized treatments and procedures like IVF to conceive. However, under regulations, IVF is expressly excluded from fertility services that are provided by the VA to veterans or their spouses. This is a significant barrier for veterans with SCI and genital and urinary tract injuries and as a result they have to seek care outside of the VA. The Department of Defense currently provides access to IVF services and coverage for IVF and other fertility treatments at no charge to severely combat wounded servicemembers. Senator Murray's bill would provide veterans with the same access. Read more about Senator Murray's bill HERE.

WHO: U.S. Senator Patty Murray

WHAT: Senator Murray will give a speech in support of the Women Veterans and

Other Health Care Improvement Act of 2012, will seek unanimous consent

on the bill

WHEN: TOMORROW: Thursday, December 13th 2012

Approximately 10:15 AM ET/ 7:15 AM PT (this may change depending on floor

schedule)

WHERE: Senate Floor

WATCH: Speech will air live on C-SPAN2

###

That was the good. Now for the bad, my own House Rep, Nancy Pelosi. Today's nonsense involved Iraq so we can't just ignore her. Sabrina Siddiqui (Huffington Post) reports on Nancy's latest bottle of sour whine. Pelosi uncorked the crazy to try and give Speaker of the House John Boehner advice. From the article:

"The emotion in the [2006] election was about ending the war in Iraq … and people thought that when the people had spoken, that something would happen to that effect," Pelosi said. She went on to explain how Congress passed a bill that continued to fund military operations in Iraq but included a timetable for withdrawal, a measure that was vetoed by President George W. Bush.

"I as speaker had to make a decision as a Democratic speaker in a new Democratic majority -- [that was] very enthusiastic about ending the war in Iraq -- to bring a bill to the floor that funded the troops," Pelosi recalled. She added that a bifurcated strategy was enacted to split the legislation into two pieces -- domestic spending and war appropriations. An overwhelming majority of 348 members voted for the domestic piece of the bill, while the $100 billion in funding for wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan passed 280 to 142, with 140 Democrats -- including Pelosi herself -- voting against it.

People thought the war would end because people were promised it would by . . . Nancy Pelosi. She wants you to know today that the problem was they passed a bill but Bully Boy Bush vetoed it.

Really because I do recall her little presentation to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board and staff. I do recall who Nance blamed them. It wasn't Bush. It was Harry Reid. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. As we noted in the May 29, 2008 Iraq snapshot:

"The House has always voted to have the redeployment of the troops out. . . . From the House we have always fought but the senate [let's voice trail off into silence]" I'm not really sure the best way for the Speaker of the House to conduct themselves is to declare war on the Senate semi-privately. Maybe a war between the two houses of Congress is what it will take to end the illegal war? If so, Pelosi needs to take her comments to a very public forum which, apparently, this meeting was not since it was not reported on. She further [insisted] of the Democratically controlled Senate, "they are guarding the president's desk."

In 2008, she was blaming the Senate -- Democratically controlled.

She's always got someone else to blame.

Anyone could have ended the war spending at any point by standing up and filibustering. But Nancy made clear there would be hell to pay. And that petty and vindictive streak is why she refused to restore Cynthia McKinney's senority. It's why she threatened all sorts of punishments against John Conyers (including losing his position as Chair of the Judiciary Committee) if he went forward with attempts at impeachment.

Nancy Pelosi was a lousy Speaker of the House. In every way. We noted at one point that she couldn't even handle a press conference on Iraq (Rahm had to save her ass and the conference -- see the April 3, 2008 snapshot if you need to refresh or catch up). She made up excuses, she blamed the Senate, she blamed this, she blamed that.

At the end of the day, she is the one who told America that if the Democrats got one house -- just control of one house of Congress -- the war would come to an end. That's the promise she made. Voters gave Democrats control of both houses of Congress in the November 2006 mid-term elections. She can lie all she wants but she didn't keep her promise. She bullied members of Congress who actually tried to end the war. And the vote Huffington Post is referring to? Nancy pissed off two Democrats (against the war) with her strong arm tactics. She made sure it would pass. And she made sure she'd be able to vote against it without tanking it. She's a con artist. That's all she is. She said, "Give me this and I will give you that." She didn't keep her promise. That's on her. That's not on Harry Reid, that's not on John Conyers, that's not on Cynthia McKinney or Maxine Waters or Lynn Woolsey. That's on Nancy Pelosi. Part of leadership is taking accountability for your failures.

She still can't do that and is quoted saying, "I had to do it as speaker -- do you know what it was like for me to bring a bill to the floor to fund the war in Iraq, a war predicated on a misrepresentation to the American people? So it's tough, but you have to do it. Is the point that you don't want to put your members on the spot? Figure it out -- we did. Figure it out."

She's bragging about the 'tough' thing she had to do. She's bragging about breaking her promise and continuing an illegal war. She's bragging about continuing to fund an illegal war. That last brag? That could actually bring you up on charges in a War Crimes court.

It was so hard, Nancy I-Me-I,-as-Speaker- Pelosi wants us all to know, so hard for her. I think it was harder, for example, for Lt Ehren Watada to stand up to the US government and refuse to fight in an illegal war. Poor Nancy's always mistaken a chipped nail for personal tragedy. Spare us the drama.

Nancy's not the only one serving up Congressional Crazy. We've noted how, since 2009, Senator Jack Reed's been rather inconsisten on Iraq in Senate hearings (repeatedly). Kori Schake (Foreign Policy) covers his latest: Insisting that an Afghanistan drawdown won't be at all like the Iraqi drawdown because that was Bully Boy Bush. Schake offers this fact check:

An arbitrary end to "combat" operations in Iraq in August 2010, confining U.S. forces to a support role nowhere required in U.S.-Iraqi agreements made in the Bush Administration and curtailing the effectiveness of our contribution.

Not confronting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as he used the courts and security forces against domestic political rivals.

Having expressed no interest in the importance of Parliament for the 18-month stalemate after the shamefully manipulated outcome of Iraq's elections, insisting that any agreement on future presence of U.S. military forces must be approved by that Parliament, leading to the breakdown of negotiations on any long-term stationing.

A ridiculously extravagant and unexecutable plan for civilian presence after our military withdrawal that conveyed the lack of seriousness in our involvement.

Not investing any political capital in coalescing neighboring states into support of a government emerging from international isolation.

And, having achieved "an end to the war in Iraq," President Obama seems not to care whether that war continues, only that we not be participants in it.

On the last one, Kori Schaker is like most of America, missing the news of an agreement signed Thursday, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the United States of America. (If you missed the Memo, see Monday's "Iraq snapshot" and Tuesday's "Iraq snapshot.")

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

He smiles so pretty though

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O VISITED REDFORD, MICHIGAN ON HIS NEVER ENDING "LOOK AT ME!" TOUR. HE OPENED HIS SPEECH BY ACKNOWLEDGING VARIOUS MINOR OFFICIALS WHO WERE PRESENT.

HE DIDN'T BOTHER TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PEOPLE HE'S KILLED WITH DRONES. HE DIDN'T MENTION THE LITTLE GIRL WHO SAW HER GRANDMOTHER KILLED BY A DRONE IN PAKISTAN. HE DIDN'T MENTION THE FEAR HIS DRONE WAR HAD CAUSED.

HE JUST GRINNED AND SMILED FOR THE CAMERAS . . . AS BLOOD DRIPPED FROM HIS CULPABLE HANDS.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the United States of America. Angry, dysfunctional e-mails from Barack-would-never-do-that-to-me criers indicate that we need to go over the Memo a little bit more. It was signed on Thursday and announced that day by the Pentagon. Section two (listed in full in yesterday's snapshot) outlines that the two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises. The tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger numbers. Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.

This shouldn't be surprising. In the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- five years ago -- we covered the transcript of the interview Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did with then-Senator Barack Obama who was running in the Democratic Party's primary for the party's presidential nomination -- the transcript, not the bad article the paper published, the actual transcript. We used the transcript to write "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'" at Third. Barack made it clear in the transcript that even after "troop withdrawal" he would "leave behind a residual force." What did he say this residual force would do? He said, "I think that we should have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."

This is not withdrawal. This is not what was sold to the American people. Barack is very lucky that the media just happened to decide to take that rather explosive interview -- just by chance, certainly the New York Times wasn't attempting to shield a candidate to influence an election, right? -- could best be covered with a plate of lumpy, dull mashed potatoes passed off as a report. In the transcript, Let-Me-Be-Clear Barack declares, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities."

So when the memo announces counterterrorism activies, Barack got what he wanted, what he always wanted, what the media so helpfully and so frequently buried to allow War Hawk Barack to come off like a dove of peace.

In Section Four of the Memo, both parties acknowledge that to achieve these things they may need further documentation and that such documenation will be done as attachments "to this MOU." Thse would include things like "medical reports" for "dispatched personnel." Oh, some idiot says, they mean State Dept personnel. No, they don't. The US is represented in this Memo by the Defense Dept. This refers to DoD personnel. They may also need an attachment to go over "procedures for recalling dispatched personnel," and possibly for covering "the death of dispatched personnel with the territory of the host country." The Memo can run for five years from last Thursday (when it was signed) and, after five years, it can renewed every year afterwards. US troops could be in Iraq forever. The kill clause in this differs from the SOFA. The 2008 SOFA had a kill clause that meant, one year after notification of wanting out of the SOFA, the SOFA would be no more. The Memo doesn't require lead time notice. Instead, "Either Participant may discontinue this MOU at any time, though the Participant should endeavor to provide advance notice of its intent to discontinue the MOU to the other Participant."

Again, Barack got what he wanted. He'd stated what he wanted in 2007. He got it. If your life's goal is to cheer Barack -- that is the goal of the Cult of St. Barack -- start cheering and stop whining that Barack's been misrepresented. The Memo gives him everything he wanted so, for Barack, it's a victory. For those who believe in peace, for those who believe the US military should be out of Iraq, it's a tragedy.

More time and space and we'd be covering the Central Bank and the preparation for April's elections as well as Victoria Nuland on the proposed oil and gas law in Iraq. Instead, we'll close by noting radio in the US. Susanna Hoffs' Someday came out this summer. Kat raved over it here. It is a great album and Susanna's finest. Susanna's a guest on NPR's World Cafe today and she talks about the new album and performs two songs from the album live. (She also performs a cover of Jackie DeShannon's "When You Walk In The Room.") Susanna first came to public attention as a guitarist and vocalist with the Bangles whose hits include "Manic Monday," "Walk Like An Egyptian," "In Your Room," "Eternal Flame," "Hazy Shade Of Winter," "If She Knew What She Wants" and "Walking Down Your Street."

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

By all means, let's worry about Psy's hurt feelings

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

OK! MAGAZINE REPORTS:

U.S. leader President BARACK OBAMA made sure South Korean pop star PSY knew there were no hard feelings about his past performances at anti-American rallies with a warm handshake in Washington, D.C. on Sunday night (09Dec12).
[. . .]
And it's clear Obama has already forgiven and moved on - he greeted Psy onstage at the Christmas concert and gave the grateful singer a hug and a handshake.

WELL ISN'T THAT JUST PRECIOUS. PSY CALLS FOR THE DEATH OF U.S. SOLDIERS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND NOT ONLY DOES BARRY O ATTEND THE CONCERT, HE GOES TO HIS FELLOW CELEBRITY TO MAKE SURE PSY KNOWS THERE ARE NO HARD FEELINGS.

AND YOU WONDER WHY SO MANY VETERANS AND SERVICE MEMBERS ARE APPALLED BY THE NUT JOB IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

OUR BITCH BARRY, HE'S QUITE THE PUZZLE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

How many US troops remain in Iraq? December 12, 2011, Ted Koppel filed an important report on Rock Center with Brian Williams (NBC) about what was really taking place in Iraq -- what 'reporters' insisted on calling a 'withdrawal' but what the Pentagon had termed a "drawdown." Excerpt.

MR. KOPPEL: I realize you can't go into it in any detail, but I would assume that there is a healthy CIA mission here. I would assume that JSOC may still be active in this country, the joint special operations. You've got FBI here. You've got DEA here. Can, can you give me sort of a, a menu of, of who all falls under your control?

AMB. JAMES JEFFREY: You're actually doing pretty well, were I authorized to talk about half of this stuff.

As September drew to a close, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported that the US had just sent in a Special-Ops division into Iraq. Yesterday Press TV reported:

Over 3,000 US troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for missions pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and northern Iraq, Press TV reports.
According to our correspondent, the US troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.

Noting those 3,000 troops going into Iraq, The Voice of Russia adds today, "Another 17,000-strong force is preparing to cross the Kuwait-Iraq border over time, Iraqi press says."

Thursday DoD and the State Dept had officials in Iraq. The Defense Dept issued the following that day:

Under the auspices of the Strategic Framework Agreement, the Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq reaffirmed their commitment to an enduring strategic partnership during the second meeting of the Defense and Security Joint Coordination Committee on December 5-6, 2012 in Baghdad.

The meetings held at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense were co-chaired by Iraqi Defense Minister Saadoun Al-Dlimi, the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller, and the Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller.

Defense and Security Cooperation is one of the cooperation areas that were agreed upon in the Strategic Framework Agreement signed in 2008 between the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Iraq in order to strengthen cooperation in areas of mutual interest for the two countries.

The United States and Iraq discussed efforts to continue strengthening their security cooperation, enhance Iraq's defense capabilities, modernize Iraq's military forces, and facilitate both countries' contributions to regional security. The two delegations explored U.S.-Iraq training opportunities and Iraq's participation in regional exercises.

The United States and Iraq also discussed the strong and growing foreign military sales program, a symbol of the long-term security partnership envisioned by both countries. The United States stated its support for Iraq's efforts to meet its defense and security needs.

Both delegations reviewed regional security issues. They exchanged views on the conflict in Syria and its effects on regional stability, with both sides urging an end to the violence and support for a political transition that would represent the will of the Syrian people. The two sides agreed to continue consulting closely on regional security matters.

The capstone event was the exchange of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by Defense Minister Saadoun Al-Dlimi and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. This agreement represents the enduring strategic partnership between the United States and Iraq, and provides mechanisms for increased defense cooperation in areas including defense planning, counterterrorism cooperation, and combined exercises.

Finally, the United States and the Republic of Iraq committed to convene a third recurring Defense and Security Cooperation Joint Coordination Committee meeting in Washington, D.C., during 2013 to continue discussions on the enduring security and military cooperation between the two countries.

View the Memorandum of Understanding at: http://www.defense.gov/releases/US-IraqMOUDefenseCooperation.pdf

As we noted in real time, Saadoun al-Dulaimi is not Minister of Defense he is 'acting Minister of Defense.' Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed, "Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national security, while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." We also noted that the DoD link did not work. It does now. It's a brief document.

The White House got what they wanted: The right to add US troops on the ground in Iraq. Read over section two.

The Participants intend to undertake the following types of defense cooperation activities:

a) reciprocal visits and meetings by high-ranking delegations to military facilities and institutions;

b) exchanges of instructors, training personnel, and students between Participants' military academies and related institutions;

c) counterterrorism cooperation;

d) the development of defense intelligence capabilities;

e) cooperation in the fields of defense-related research and development and technology security;

f) acquisition and procurement of defense articles and services;

g) exchanges of information and experiences acquired in the field of military operations, including in connection with international humanitarian and peacekeeping operations;

h) training and exchange of information regarding the development of military health services, military health facilities, and military medicine training opportunities;

i) training and exchanges of information regarding staff organization and human resources for regulation and management of defense personnel;

j) cooperation for the development of logistics support and sustainment systems;

k) defense planning;

l) joint exercises; and

m) cooperation in the area of social, athletic, and military culture activities.

That's very clear if you understand contracts.

Sadly, with the 2008 Status Of Forces Agreement, we learned that most people -- including reporters -- don't understand contracts. For that reason we did multiple and repeated walk throughs. We explained the aspect of options. At one point, we even used Rick Springfield as an example. We tried to make it interesting and basic. And we went over it over and over. In the community, people understood. Outside the community, our thanks for that was to have United For Peace and Justice loons attack us. The SOFA, they just knew, meant after three years, it's over. Were they lying or were that they stupid?

I'm going to repeat what I said when I got the most ticked off: When you've broken a multi-million dollar contract with a coporation and walked without a lawsuit because you knew what you were doing, then sit yourself down next to me and tell me about contract law. Until then, you should probably just try to nod along to a conversation that is clearly over your head. And if it helps, I didn't just break the contract, I kept the bulk of the money.

As we saw in 2011, the White House was attempting to re-negotiate the SOFA or come up with a new agreement. As we said here, that was a possible outcome. The White House team got caught on the immunity issue in 2011. They also had a more active press which was being fed details of the negotiations by some who did not support US troops remaining in Iraq (for various reasons -- often solely because they didn't want Barack to look like a liar in his 2012 re-election bid). So that ended up being the sticky point. The press then falsely reported negotiations were over. After their false report, we were at the hearing where both General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs) and DoD Secretary Leon Panetta testified that negotiations were still going on (Panetta would state in that November Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that he believed some agreement would be reached in 2012). A ton of reporters were present at the hearing but only one reported that aspect: Elisabeth Bumiller of the New York Times. The hearing made all three broadcast networks' evening news -- and they all avoided the actual news that the negotiations continued. Instead, they focused on a 'testy' exchange between Panetta and Senator John McCain that was forgotten before the hearing ended (both men were laughing about the exchange in the second round of questions). That really didn't matter but ongoing negotiations did. (For coverage of that hearing, see November 15th's "Iraq snapshot," November 16th's "Iraq snapshot," November 17th's "Iraq snapshot," Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally's "The costs (Wally)," Kat's "Who wanted what?" and Third's "Editorial: The silences that enable and kill," "Enduring bases, staging platforms, continued war" and "Gen Dempsey talks "10 enduring" US bases in Iraq.")

Kid yourself that the news media in America is serving the public and informing them.

RECOMMENDED:

I Hate The War

Cedric's Big Mix

What an embarrassment Barack is

2 days ago

The Daily Jot

THIS JUST IN! PRIORITIES!

2 days ago

Sunday, December 09, 2012

What an embarrassment Barack is

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS IN A PICKLE!

NEVER HAVING AN ACCOMPLISHMENT ANYONE COULD ACTUALLY POINT TO, BARRY O IS A CELEBRITY FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS. AS SUCH, HE CAN'T AFFORD TO MISS ANY EVENT THAT MIGHT RESULT IN MEDIA ATTENTION.

FOR THAT REASON, HE HAS TO ATTEND A CONCERT TONIGHT! HE HAS TO! IT WILL BE BROADCAST ON TNT! THAT'S BASIC CABLE!

HAVING ALREADY PLANNED HIS NIPPLE SLIP FOR THE NIGHT, BARRY O IS BOUND AND DETERMINED TO ATTEND AND THE FACT THAT THE CONCERT WILL FEATURE PSY IS JUST SOMETHING HE'S NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT.

SURE, PSY CALLED -- TWICE! -- FOR THE DEATH OF U.S. SOLDIERS. SOME MIGHT POINT OUT THAT HE DID THAT AND CALLED FOR THE DEATHS OF THE SOLDIERS' FAMILIES. THOSE POINTING THAT OUT WOULD BE CORRECT.

BUT BARRY O NEEDS TO BE ON CAMERA! HE NEEDS TO BE ON CAMERA AT ALL TIMES! IF A CELEBRITY BREAKS WIND WHEN NO ONE'S AROUND, DID HE REALLY FART?

YES, BARRY O IS COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MILITARY, BUT HE'S ALSO A WOMAN IN LOVE -- OR AT LEAST A CELEBRITY. SO LET HIM TWINKLE ALREADY!

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The month isn't even ten days old yet, through Thursday, Iraq Body Count counts 39 people killed from violence in Iraq so far this month (13 alone yesterday). Violence continues today. Alsumaria notes a Diwainya armed dispute lead to 2 people dead and a third injured, and a Baghdad home invasion killed 1 Sahwa. All Iraq News adds a Mosul attack left 1 police officer dead and two more injured, a Musayyib mortar attack left six people injured, a Mosul internet cafe owner was shot dead and 1 person was shot dead outside their Mosul home. and a Babylon roadside bombing left one person injured.

Yesterday, Al-Shorfa reports, Nouri al-Maliki's Baghdad government announced that 7 previously armed groups were joining the political process and they "include the 20th Revolution Brigades, Malek al-Ashtar Brigade, Khalid Bin al-Walid Brigade, Arab Tribes Sons Brigade, Omar Bin al-Khattab Brigade, Children of Iraq Brigade and Saqr Quraish Brigade." This as Al-Bayyna reports a member of the Parliament's National Reconciliation Committee issued a statement declaring that reconciliation does not mean bringing in former Ba'athists. He asserts that de-Ba'athifcation is the law of the land. De-Ba'athification is the policy Paul Bremer oversaw in Iraq that forced Iraqis out of jobs. That was the military, that was the government. The reason? Belonging to the Ba'ath political party. That's a part that Saddam Hussein would eventually head in Iraq. It's also a player throughout the Middle East and part of a pan-Arab movement. De-Ba'athifcation is seen as a huge mistake. And Nouri agreed to what we call de-de-Ba'athifcation. He agreed to that in 2007. But he never implemented it and, judging by the remarks today, there is no governmental interest in healing that division.

Alsumaria reports that Minister of Transportation Hadi al-Amiri declared today that 15,000 families have suffered as a result of the refusal to implement Article 140. al-Amiri states that this has led some families to be denied Iraqi nationalities. As the leader of the Badr Organization, al-Amiri is part of the National Alliance (also known as the Ntional Iraqi Alliance which is led by Ibrahim al-Jaafari). What is going on? Why are so many Shi'ite politicians turning on Nouri publicly as he goes after the Kurds and the threat of a war with the Kurds looms? Qassim Khidhir Hamad (Niqash) spoke with the Islamic Supreme Council's Bashir Adel Gli this week. The Islamic Supreme Council is another Shi'ite political party which belongs to the National Alliance.

NIQASH: How do you feel about the current relationship between the Shiite Muslims of Iraq and Iraq's Kurdistan people?

Bashir Adel Gli: The relationship between Iraq's Shiite Muslims and the Kurdish people is a historic one. It goes back to the time that [religious leader] Grand Ayatollah Muhsin al-Hakim [the grandfather of Ammar al-Hakim, current leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council] issued a fatwa [religious edict] in 1965 that forbade Shiite Muslims to fight with the Kurdish.

This decree was copied and distributed all over Iraq and it had a big impact on Shiite Muslim soldiers.

He issued that decree after some Sunni Muslim clerics issued a totally different fatwa saying that their followers were allowed to kill the Kurdish. The [Sunni Muslim-dominated] authorities were trying to find some way of justifying their ethnic cleansing and killing of the Kurdish people. And what al-Hakim said at the time made them very angry.

As a result, 70 members of al-Hakim's family were arrested and later killed.

Basically Shiite Muslim ideology says that Shiites must support the oppressed at all times; and that they must not support the dictator, no matter who that dictator is.

NIQASH: So how do you see the current problem between Erbil and Baghdad: is it a Shiite Muslim-Kurdish problem?

Bashir Adel Gli: No, it is the problem between the Dawa Party [headed by Nouri al-Maliki] and the government of Iraqi Kurdistan. It is not a problem between Shiites and Kurds in general.

And that is part of the how and why Nouri is losing ground at present on this issue. Turning to a Twitter conversation. Derek Brower is the editor-at-large of Petroleum Economist and he just left the KRG.

6 Dec Kirk H. Sowell ‏@IraqiPolitics

If Maliki still pushing idea of Peshmerga replaced in territories by local force, don't see KRG accepting that since implies Pesh withdrawal

Expand

6 Dec Derek Brower ‏@derek_brower

@IraqiPolitics I agree. Just returned from Kirkuk, where the two sides are v close to

a scrap. Either serious brinkmanship or impending war.

Expand

6 Dec James ‏@jamesbr01

@derek_brower hi, thanks for your coverage, AP now reporting initial agreement between both sides, any signs from the ground.

Expand

Hide conversation

"I'd be skeptical" of the AP report "unless things changed in the few hours since I've returned from Kirkuk" Twetted Derek Brower yesterday afternoon. Apparently we're all going to have to learn to be skeptical of AP because their report was wrong.

There has been no agreement. Tonight, Alsumaria reports that KRG President Massoud Barzani issued a statement stating that the only way to end the current crisis is to implement Article 140. The main part of Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution reads:

The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Aerticle 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census

and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007.

That's from Iraq's 2005 Constitution. In the spring of 2006, after the Iraqi Parliament wanted Ibrahim al-Jafaari as prime minister (it would have been his second term) and the White House nixed the choice and insisted that Nouri al-Maliki be made prime minister, Nouri took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Article 140 is a part of the Constitution and it is very clear in its wording that it must be implemented by December 2007. Yet for Nouri's entire first term he refused to honor the Constitution. Kirkuk is oil-rich and it is claimed by Nouri's central government out of Baghdad and by the Kurdistan Regional Government with both set of players making historical arguments on why they should be the one to lay claim to Kirkuk. The way to settle it, as the Constitution made clear, was a census and a referendum. But Nouri refused to implement Article 140. His term came to an end in early 2010. Iraq held parliamentary elections in March 2010. Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya. 2010 saw the continuation of a trend that emerged in the 2009 provincial elections. Iraqis were not interested in sects. They were interested in a national identity.

Having come in second to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya, Nouri quickely stepped down -- and, no, he didn't. He refused to. He refused to let Iraqi move forward. From the November 1, 2010 snapshot:

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. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's seven months and twenty-five days and still counting.

The stalemate would continue for over a week more. Nouri was able to stamp his feet and stop the political process because the US government refused to side with the Iraqi voters. Instead of calling for the will of the people to be honored, the Barack Obama White House demanded that Nouri get a second term. From John Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast) last September:

Washington has little political and no military influence over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame, Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in 2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

When your preferred candidate loses the vote, how do you install him to a second term? You ignore the Constitution and create a new 'understanding.' So in November 2010, the White House brokered a new contract known as the Erbil Agreement. The contract was signed by the leaders of Iraq's various political blocs. In the contract, Nouri agrees to give political party A various concessions if political party A will allow him a second term as prime minister. So Nouri promises various things to the various parties. To the Kurds, he promises, among other things, that he will finally implement Article 140.

Cedric's Big Mix

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Freddy-Boo-Boo is Glitzy

Friday, December 14, 2012

Does she know how to fade into the background?

Thursday, December 13, 2012

He protects some children from predators

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

He smiles so pretty though

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

By all means, let's worry about Psy's hurt feelings

Sunday, December 09, 2012

What an embarrassment Barack is

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix