Saturday, May 04, 2013

The Grand Chief of Devils


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


KILLER BARRY O GOT A BLISTERING CRITIQUE FROM VENEZUELA TODAY WHICH INCLUDED CALLING HIM "THE GRAND CHIEF OF DEVILS."

REACHED FOR COMMENT THIS EVENING BY THESE REPORTERS, KILLER BARRY REPLIED, "GRAND CHEROKEE?  I DON'T THINK SO.  IT'S MORE OF A LIMO.  LET ME CHECK WITH MICHELLE, SHE KNOWS ALL ABOUT CARS."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

 Since December 21st, Fridays have meant protests in Iraq -- and harassment of protests by Nouri al-Maliki's forces.  Today, protests took place in many locations including Mosul, Samarra (where Nouri had aircraft providing surveillance), Tikrit (where Nouri's forces -- like Americans in Abu Ghraib prison -- used dogs to 'assist' them, where protesters called for a unified Iraq, and decried attempts by the government to suppress the media), and Jalawla (where Nouri's forces closed roads in an attempt to stop the protests and then closed entrances to the square).  All Iraq News notes that today the protesters elected Mohamed Taha al-Hamdoun to be the spokesperson for protesters in Anbar, Salahudden, Kirkuk, Baghdad, Diyala and Mosul.

National Iraqi News Agency notes that, in Falluja, Sheikh Ahmad al-Abadali spoke of the commitment to peaceful demonstrations and wondered why Nouri continues to use sectarian terms as it attempts to dismiss the protests?  NINA notes that in Falluja's morning prayers, Sheikh Mohamed Taha Hamdon declared that there were four options: replace Nouri, divide Iraq into three regions, "we rule ourselves in our provinces according to the constitution and in accordance with systems of more than 41 percent of the world's countries, stressing that who advocates to implement this option are seeking preserve the unity of Iraq and the fourth option is, confrontation and war, and this option is hated by the people."  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) adds, "In Samarra, Sunni cleric Mohammed Taha warned that the country is descending to civil war because of what he described as a-Maliki’s dictatorship."

Replace Nouri?  In today's New York Times, Nussaibah Younis makes the case for that with "Why Maliki must go" -- which we'll get to in a minute.  In yesterday's snapshot, we noted former US Ambassador Ryan Crocker had a column (Washington Post) which is mistaken beyond means.  I argued:

 While the key moments of betrayal did not happen on his watch (it was under the dithering idiot Chris Hill), you cannot act, in 2013, as if talk will bring back the progress of 2010.  We'll address that at length tomorrow.  As with the issue of US forces in Iraq, it's one of those topics we have to keep going back to because so few will ever bother to cover it.  The shortest version is when you make a deal in 2010 and one party (Nouri) fails to honor it, you can't show three years later and say, "Well let's just talk and try to progress."  No, we don't reset the clock.  If there is to be progress in 2013, the first step is honoring the contract that was signed in 2010.



He proposes everyone just talk and:



Last week, the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights."  The report was written by Kenneth Katzman.  We're noting the section on the 2010 elections and The Erbil Agreement:

 Part of the difficulty forming a government after the election was the close result, and the dramatic implications of gaining or retaining power in Iraq, where politics is often seen as a "winner take all" proposition.  In accordance with timelines established in the Constitution, the newly elected COR [Council of Representatives, Parliament] convened on June 15, 2020, but the session ended after less than a half hour without electing a COR leadership team.  The various factions made little progress through August 2010, as Maliki insisted he remain prime minister for another term and remained in a caretaker role.  The United States stepped up its involvement in political talks, but it was Iraqi politics that led the factions out of an impasse.  On October 1, 2010, Maliki received the backing of most of the 40 COR Sadrist deputies.  The United States reportedly was concerned that Maliki might form a government with Sadrist support.  The Administration ultimately backed a second Maliki term, although continuing to demand that Maliki form a broad-based government inclusive of Sunni leaders.  Illustrating the degree to which the Kurds reclaimed their former role of "kingmakers," Maliki, Allawi, and other Iraqi leaders met in the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government-administered region in Irbil on November 8, 2010, to continue to negotiate on a new government.  (Sadr did not attend the meeting in Irbil, but ISCI/Iraq National Alliance slate leader Ammar Al Hakim did.) 
 On November 10, 2010, with reported direct intervention by President Obama, the "Irbil Agreement" was reached in which (1) Allawi agreed to support Maliki and Talabani to remain in their offices for another term; (2) Iraqiyya would be extensively represented in government -- one of its figures would become COR Speaker, another would be defense minister, and another (presumably Allawi himself) would chair an oversight body called the "National Council for Strategic Policies," and (3) amending the de-Baathification laws that had barred some Iraqis, such as Saleh al-Mutlaq, from holding political positions.  Observers praised the agreement because it included all major factions and was signed with KRG President Masoud Barzani and then U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey in attendance. The agreement did not specify concessions to the Sadr faction.

We've address The Erbil Agreement over and over.  Like US troops still in Iraq, it's one of those topics that results in drive-by readers e-mailing to insist (a) it never happened and (b) the US was in no way involved in it.

The Erbil Agreement ended the 8 month political stalemate that followed the 2010 elections.  It's the legal contract, brokered by the US, that allowed those not supporting Nouri to throw in their support in exchange for legally defined within the contract terms.  The KRG, for example, was supposed to get the census and referendum in Kirkuk (promised in Article 140 of the Constitution but that Nouri refused to move on in his first term).  Another promise was that an independent national security council would be created and Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi would head it. (Iraqiya won the 2010 elections; Nouri's State of Law came in second.  He refused to honor the election results and step down which created the political stalemate that lasted 8 months.)

Let's point out that this move by Nouri was not a surprise.  In the lead-up to the 2010 elections, US Gen Ray Odierno was warning this could happen but the White House elected not to listen to him.  They backed the idiot Chris Hill who was then US Ambassador to Iraq.  Hill didn't even want Odierno speaking to the media and the White House went along with that as well.  Odierno warned what could happen.  The idiot and unqualified Hill (and we noted he was an unqualified and an idiot when we reported on his confirmation hearing -- see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th snapshot) and the White House that courted and coddled him are responsible for what went down in 2010.  And you can read more about that and how it took Odierno going to then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates after the 2010 parliamentary election and Gates bringing then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in on their conversation for Odierno to get the audience with the administration that he should have received automatically by reading Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor's The Endgame.

Barack was an idiot to have shut General Ray Odierno, the top-US commander in Iraq, out of the conversation.  To his credit, when approached by Gates and Clinton (and faced with ongoing political stalemate and Chris Hill's inability to answer basic questions about it), Barack did act quickly to replace the idiot.  Which is how you had James Jeffrey quickly nominated to be the new US Ambassador to Iraq with a confirmation hearing taking place July 20, 2010.  That said, in our reporting on Hill's confirmation, we noted he was unqualified, we noted he had no understanding of the issues.  The 15 or so months he was allowed to be ambassador to Iraq were a disaster whose repercussions are still felt today.

Ryan Crocker was the US Ambassador to Iraq immediately before Chris Hill.  He was nominated by Bully Boy Bush and, after Barack was elected in 2008, Crocker offered to stay on until a replacement could be found.


As Betty noted last night, Iraq got coverage (finally) on The NewsHour (PBS -- all links to the program that follow are text, audio and video).  Betty covered the segment on the violence.  The other segment was Ray Suarez moderating a discussion about the state of Iraq featuring Ryan Crocker and former Iraqi Deputy Ambassadot to the UN (2004 to 2007) Feisal Istrabadi.

Istrabadi starts out noting the basic problem ("Nouri al-Maliki himself has been asserting greater and greater control over the instrumentalities of the state, and I -- and has been unable or unwilling to enter or execute the compromises") to which Crocker quickly agrees ("I think Feisal is right, Ray.").  Crocker mentions the slaughter in Hawija (last week, a peaceful sit-in was attacked by Nouri's forces leaving 50 dead and 110 injured) but feels this is a "signal for Iraqis of all sects and ethnicities to take a very deep breath" -- no, that's not how it works in a functioning society.  A despot does not launch a massacre  and the response is, "Let's take a deep breath."  While you're taking that deep breath, you're likely to be stormed the same way the sit-in in Hawija was.

As Betty did on Wednesday, Feisal Istrabadi noted some contents of the US diplomatic tookbox that the US could be using to influence events.  Crocker wants US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to act as mediators.  But for what purpose?

I agree they should be mediating.  But Crocker's column in the Post offers this notion that things can be healed with talking.

No.  The Erbil Agreement was a legally binding contract (that the White House swore had its full support and backing).  Nouri used it to become prime minister and then tossed it aside refusing to honor it.  Since 2011, the Kurds, Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr have been calling for Nouri to implement The Erbil Agreement and he has refused.

You can't trust someone like that.  Forget for the moment that The Erbil Agreement is like every other promise Nouri makes (including the "100 Days To End Corruption" promise to the Iraqi people of February 2011) in that he gets attention and praise for a proposal but never follows up on it.

The Erbil Agreement ended up a political stalemate.  It was a legal contract.  Nouri used just enough of it to get what he wanted (a second term as prime minister) and then trashed it.  And has refused to implement even when called on to do so.

How do you trust someone who refuses to honor a contract?

You can not hit the re-set button and start all over on this.  It doesn't work that way.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Time for Nouri to go as Iraq is 'plunged into viol..."
"Shouldn't Nouri be getting ten years behind bars a..."
"How stupid are Larry Harnisch and the Los Angeles ..."
"Coconut-California Avocado Ceviche in the Kitchen"
"A new dollar menu"
"Good for Reuters"
"Where are the left publications?"
"The slaughter in Hawija"
"Time of death for the rule of law?"
"scandal 'a woman scorned'"
"community"
"Wrong on Hagel"
"Renee Montagne sells war"
"Guantanamo"
"CounterPunch, fix your website"
"Susan Faludi notes the passing of Shulamith Firestone"
"Health care?"
"The Rules of Attraction"
"Arrow"
"Super Model President"
"Iraq gets worse (so does Women's Media Center)"
"Nikita: High Value Target"
"Foreclosure Queen Penny buys a Cabinet seat"
"Tina Brown shames herself in public"
"THIS JUST IN! PIMP DADDY TINA BROWN!"
Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, May 03, 2013

Tina Brown shames herself in public


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


YEARS AGO, DECADES, TINA BROWN TURNED VANITY FAIR INTO A BEST SELLING PIECE OF TRASHY SMUT.  SHE TOOK THE SAME FLEET STREET TRASH ATTITUDE TO THE NEW YORKER BUT IT FAILED MISERABLY.

THEN SHE ENDED UP WITH TALK MAGAZINE WHICH ALSO FAILED.  MISERABLY.

SHE WAS GIVEN A CHANCE TO CREATE SOMETHING WITH THE MERGER OF THE DAILY BEAST AND NEWSWEEK.

BUT INSTEAD PROFESSIONAL JEALOUSY OF ARIANNA HUFFINGTON HAS LED HER TO ABANDON THE FEW BITS OF JOURNALISTIC SENSE SHE HAD TO GO SMUTTY.

 

jon favreau



THE UGLY BALDING MAN GRABBING THE 'BREAST' OF "HILLARY" IN THE PHOTO ABOVE IS OBAMA SPEECHWRITER JON FAVREAU -- A PIECE OF TRASH THAT TINA BROWN DECIDED TO HIRE FOR THE DAILY BEAST.  IS HE A JOURNALIST?

NOPE BUT SHE'S GOT A MAJOR CASE OF HUFFINGTON ENVY.

IF THERE WAS A REASON TO HIRE A MAN WHO, EIGHT YEARS AGO, POSED FOR THE PHOTO ABOVE, IT WAS TO ASK HIM TO WRITE ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH HIS HEAD WHEN HE THOUGHT THAT'S HOW A MAJOR CAMPAIGN WORKER CONDUCTED ONE'S SELF.

INSTEAD, TINA BROWN WILL JUST GLADLY TAKE (AND POST) ANY GARBAGE JON FAVREAU SPEWS.

THE FUNNY REALITY IS THAT ARIANNA HUFFINGTON -- A SELF-STYLED JOURNALIST -- WOULD NEVER LOWER HERSELF TO RUN THE CRAP JON FAVREAU JUST WROTE ('IT'S NOT BARRY'S FAULT HE'S SO SCREWED UP, IT'S THE FAULT OF YOU THE PUBLIC!')   ARIANNA, FOR ALL HER FAULTS, WOULD REALIZE HOW RIDICULOUS THAT WAS.

IN THE END, TINA BROWN MAKES A COMPLETE IDIOT OF HERSELF, A VICTIM OF ARIANNA ENVY.



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Like Jon Stewart, The Onion's gotten a little too long in the tooth, it's audience a little too broad and a lot too stupid.  That's how you get their 'joke' where they insulted the 9-year-old Quvenzhane Wallis back in February.  It's how you get last week's Onion piece about Barack sending troops back into Iraq for the "reinvasion" -- which I suppose passes for humorous if you're stupid and ignorant and want to advertise those facts.


From Tuesday's snapshot:
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed.  We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way.  It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."



 
Mike and Elaine covered Iraq at their sites on Tuesday noting their disbelief that Daniel Ellsberg and Phyllis Bennis would make fools of themselves twaddling on about how US troops have left Iraq.  All US troops never left Iraq.  Last March, Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Washington Post) included the claim that all had left in his "Five myths about Iraq" column.



Last week, the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights."  The report was written by Kenneth Katzman.

General [Martin] Dempsey's August 21, 2012, visit focused on the security deterioration, as well as the Iranian overflights to Syria discussed above, according to press reports.  Regarding U.S.-Iraq security relations,  Iraq reportedly expressed interest in expanded U.S. training of the ISF, joint exercises, and accelerated delivery of U.S. arms to be sold, including radar, air defense systems, and border security equipment. [. . .]
After the Dempsey visit, reflecting the Iraqi decision to reengage intensively with the United States on security, it was reported that, at the request of Iraq, a unit of Army Special Operations forces had deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence, presumably against AQ-I.  (These forces presumably are operating under a limited SOFA or related understanding crafted for this purpose.)  Other reports suggest that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paramilitary forces have, as of late 2012, largely taken over some of the DOD mission of helping Iraqi counter-terrorismf orces (Counter-Terrorism Service, CTS) against AQ-I in western Iraq. Part of the reported CIA mission is to also work against the AQ-I affiliate in SYria, the Al Nusrah Front, discussed above.
Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to reengage militarily with the United States, during December 5-6 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi.  The five year MOU provides for:

 * high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises

The MOU appears to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing its mission to its full potential.  The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas put forward, such as joint exercises.

So the Congressional Research Service explains, in a report for the US Congress, that US troops have gone back into Iraq?  The liars aren't capable of shame.  Phyllis Bennis, since the 2011 drawdown (the US Pentagon called it a "drawdown" and not a "withdrawal" and did so for a reason), has sometimes declared all have left and sometimes noted some remain.  It's apparently too hard for her to tell the truth so she needs little 'breathers' to catch her breath.  This isn't something that should vary.  If you're an analyst and billed as such and discussing US troops in Iraq, there's only one answer, only one correct one.

Let's go over what the report said the Memo of Understanding provided for:


* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises


Pretty obvious.  But so was the explanation of what the MoU provided that we offered in the December 10th snapshot.  Even so, we were compelled to review it again in the December 11th snapshot:

 

 
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.






The administration is as empty as the media.  If you doubt that, September 26th, the New York Times' Tim Arango reported:

 
 Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.


This is not a minor topic.  If you claim you pulled all troops out and you didn't, that's called news.  If you claimed you pulled all troops out and September 26, 2012, it's reported you didn't, that's big news.  If you're running for re-election and you have debates after September 26th, that topic should be front and center.


But as Ava and I repeatedly noted (here and at Third) it wasn't.   At the end of September Tim Arango's report appears.  Where was the traction, where was the coverage, where were the questions?   From Ava and my November 7th "Let the fun begin:"

Days later, October 3rd, Barack 'debated' Mitt Romney.  Again October 16th.  Again October 22nd.
Not once did the moderators ever raise the issue.


If Barack's sitting before them and he's flat out lying to the American people, it's their job to ask.  They didn't do their job.  Nor did social menace Candy Crowley who was apparently dreaming of an all-you-can-eat buffet when Barack was babbling away before her about how he wouldn't allow more "troops in Iraq that would tie us down."  But that's exactly what he's currently negotiating.

Maybe Candy Crowley missed the New York Times article?  Maybe she spends all her time pleasuring herself to her version of porn: Cooking With Paula Deen Magazine?

That is possible.

But she was only one of the three moderators.  Bob Schieffer and Jim Lehrer also moderated.  Of course, they didn't foolishly self-present as a fact checker in the midst of the debate  nor did they hit the publicity circuit before the debate to talk about how they were going to show how it was done.



Three moderators moderating debates after Tim Arango's article is printed allowing Barack to claim he withdrew troops from Iraq in three debates, one after the other.  Crowley, Schieffer and Lehrer never raised the issue.  We won't call them whores for a change, we'll just note how stupid and ignorant they are.

In yesterday's snapshot, I said we'd address the topic today.  That's because I get tired of going over it.  I have to provide links, I have to go so slow, bit-by-bit.  And even so, the public e-mail account will fill with e-mails that Martha, Shirley, Eli, Beth, KeShawn, Jess, Dona, Jim, Kat, Ruth, Isaiah, Ava and myself will have to endure insisting I am lying.  E-mails from people who -- even when you provide them with links -- links that go to the New York Times, links that go to the Pentagon (the Pentagon issued a press release on the Memorandum of Understanding, they weren't shy about it, the press refusal to cover it is a question for you to ask whatever news outlet you turn to) -- will insist that I've made the whole thing up.

The most common statement in these e-mails will be an insisting that if Barack had sent US troops back into Iraq, it would be all over the news and on the front pages.

It should be.

But it wasn't.

At some point, you're going to have to stop trying to stone the Cassandra and face reality.  [Or maybe I just close the public e-mail account and we just take feedback from community members.  As Gina (the gina & krista round-robin) has long observed, this is a private conversation in a public sphere.]


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"General Renee Montagne leads NPR charge to war on ..."
"The American Concentration Camp"
"If it's not one insane rapper, it's another"
"Iraq"
"The economy"
"owen wilson's in iron man? i love owen!!!!!"
"Deanna Durbin"
"Jimmy Connors, still a piece of trash"
"Iraq War veteran John Kriesel"
"Body of Proof -- will Megan have to perform an autopsy of the show?"
"Why can't Policy Mic handle the topic of rape?"
"Nikita and Law and Disorder Radio"
"Americans lost their homes because of her"
"THIS JUST IN! CORPORTAE WELFARE FOR SUBPRIME LOAN QUEEN!"
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 02, 2013

Americans lost their homes because of her


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

AS KILLER BARRY O SLINKS ACROSS THE WORLD'S STAGE HE ALSO MAKES CLEAR HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BY GEARING UP TO NOMINATE SUBPRIME LOAN QUEEN PENNY PRITZKER FOR COMMERCE SECRETARY.

AS TRINA'S KITCHEN NOTED LAST YEAR:


Penny Pritzker. The woman the Cult of St. Barack didn't want to talk about. The Chicago Sun Times reported the following in 2008:

White House hopeful Barack Obama talks a lot on the campaign trail about how failing banks have used subprime loans to victimize customers.
"Part of the reason we got a current mortgage crisis has to do with the fact that people got suckered in to loans that they could not pay," he told a crowd in Reading, Pa., last week. "There were a lot of predatory loans that were given out, a lot of teaser rates. Banks and financial institutions making these loans were making money hand over fist."
At the helm of Superior Bank was Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, an heiress to the Pritzker fortune.

One of the banks that went under after making a lot of subprime loans -- leaving 1,400 of its customers without part of their savings -- was Chicago's Superior Bank.
At the helm of Superior Bank at least some of the time was Obama's national finance chairwoman, Penny Pritzker, an heiress to the Pritzker fortune.
Obama's campaign notes that Pritzker stepped down as chairwoman of the bank's board in 1994, seven years before it failed. She then went on the board of the bank's holding company.
But a letter obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times shows that until the end, Pritzker appeared to be taking a leadership role in trying to revive the bank with an expanded push into subprime loans.


SHE HELPED CAUSE THE CRISIS AND GOT EVEN RICHER OFF IT.  NOW THE FAT CAT IS SET TO BECOME THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Iraq Body Count announces April violence claimed 561 lives.  Not since August 2009 has a monthly death toll been higher in Iraq (614).  And the violence continues today.  National Iraqi News Agency reports a Baquba roadside bombing left two people injured, a Falluja bombing has claimed 5 lives and left twelve injured, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left two more injured,  three people were injured by a Falluja sniper, a Husayniaya ("northeast of Baghdad") car bombing injured five people,  1 person was shot dead in Baquba, and a police officer's home was blown up in Hilla.   All Iraq News adds an attack on the Tarmiya Police station left 4 members of the police dead and eight more injured, a Falluja suicide bomber took his own life and that of 6 Sahwa and "many others" were injured, and a Ramadi car bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer.  Of the Falluja suicide bombing, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains the Sahwa were gathered to collect their paychecks at the time of the attacks.   Zhu Ningzhu (Xinhua) notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing injured three police officers and that "gunmen using silenced weapons shot dead a cleric of a Sunni mosque" in Baquba.  (This is not the civilian noted earlier by NINA -- Xinhua also notes the civilian shot dead.)





Of the violence, WG Dunlop (AFP) observes, "The majority of the deaths came during a wave of unrest that began on April 23 when security forces moved on Sunni anti-government protesters near the northern Sunni Arab town of Hawijah, sparking clashes that killed 53 people.  Dozens more people died in subsequent violence that included revenge attacks on security forces."  Tuesday, April 23rd, Nouri al-Maliki's federal forces stormed a sit-in in Hawija, Kirkuk. Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.  Last night, Kat reminded, "As things get worse daily in Iraq, we need to remember who kicked off the destruction: Nouri al-Maliki."  She noted UPI's anlaysis:



The gloves came off April 23 when Maliki's Shiite security forces stormed a Sunni protest rally in the northern village of Hawija in Kirkuk province. More than 50 Sunnis were killed and 110 wounded.
"Retaliatory assaults against the security apparatus threaten to trigger an even tougher reaction from authorities," observed the International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution organization in Brussels.
"Only by credibly addressing the protesters' legitimate demands -- genuine Sunni representation in the political system -- can ... Iraq stem a rising tide of violence that, at a time of growing sectarian polarization throughout the region, likely would spell disaster."
Sunni protests have been building since late 2012 as Maliki displayed an increasing authoritarianism but the massacre at Hawija ended what was seen as a period of restraint.


On the Hawija massacre, Trina wondered last night why, yet again, the Christian Science Monitor can't get the basic facts right (Ryan Lenora Brown being the latest to miss the facts).   Betty pointed out harmful Nouri is: "He's in his seventh year as prime minister and has repeatedly failed to provide security, to improve public infrastructure (drinkable water is not a given, electricity still goes off and on), he can't provide jobs, he can't provide relief.  He is completely useless.  Worse than useless, he is destructive and harming Iraq." Betty noted this from RT:

SOS Iraq coordinator Dirk Adriaensens echoes the London-based expert. “I think the situation in Iraq will go from bad to worse and it’s only the fault of Mr al-Maliki,” he says before adding: “The government should be held to account. After ten years of occupation there are still no basic services. People are randomly arrested, locked up without charge, tortured, women, children and men are being raped. The talk about sectarianism is wrong. These are not sectarian protests. These are protests against the unbearable situation for the Iraqi people. There is poverty, there is unemployment, there is no healthcare, the education system has collapsed.”
“I think it’s a war between the people of Iraq and the government. There were elections last week, but one third of the provinces couldn’t vote because of the so-called security reasons. How can this vote be legitimate? Al-Maliki is always talking about unity but he is the one, who forces people into sectarian activities. Iraqi people say it’s not the protesters who go into the streets and plant bombs. The people of Iraq suspect that the government itself and the militias that are linked to the political parties are planting the bombs themselves. I don’t know whether it’s true or false, but I tend to believe it,” Adriaensens argues.



On the protests, Ruth noted the superficial summary Patrick Cockburn offered and wondered  why the western press keeps avoiding the issue of rape but "on Inside Story (Al Jazeera), Salah Hashimi was describing the protesters goals and names this one second:  'to free the women prisoners because the government of Iraq has proven itself not to be worthy of holding women prisoners because while they were in detention, they were raped and tortured. And within Iraqi society which can be actually described as a conservative society this thing cannot go on because people are very, very sensitive towards women's issues'."



Thug and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki tasked Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq with heading a committee to investigate the massacre.  al-Mutlaq attempted to get off the committee last week but, after strong words were exchanged with Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi (who wanted al-Mutlaq on the committee), he agreed to stay on it.  Adam Schreck (AP) interviewed Saleh al-Mutlaq.   al-Mutlaq is quoted stating, "We have found that extra and extensive force was used, and it was not needed."  As for the government's claim that the massacre was in response to a soldier killed not at the sit-in but 'near' the sit-in, al-Mutlaq is quoted stating, "To lose one soldier, or one officer, that does not mean that you kill such a huge amount of people."

Nouri's forces slaughtered citizens participating in a sit-in.  They did so with training provided by the US government.  The US government is also providing the thug with weapons.

Jim Fuquay (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) is in a state of bliss as he declares today, "Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth will keep building F-16s a bit longer, thanks to an $839 million contract to suppy 18 of the jeft fighters to Iraq.  According to the announcement this week from the Air Force, the contract is expected to run through April 30, 2014."

A lot of people lost blood and life in the Iraq War but a lot of companies cleaned up.  A friend who was on the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan always expresses disbelief that "the chump change" of the former Blackwater became the obsession of so many on the left while the corporations that really got rich were allowed to remain largely uncriticized.  They got rich, Iraq got destroyed.


The ICRC's Pierre Reichel notes, "Today, the situation remains very volatile and we are worried that tensions could escalate further and lead to more casualties."  Arwa Damon (CNN) offers an analysis which includes:

For those closely following what has been happening in Iraq, this is not a surprise. To a certain degree the Iraqi government and other parties have been trying to dial back these tensions, but some steps taken by the Iraqi government serve only to aggravate them. Tensions are higher now than they have been for years.

Iraq's underlying problems have never been adequately addressed. There is a growing discontent within the Sunni minority and a growing number demonstrations against the predominantly Shia government.


Last week, the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights."  The report was written by Kenneth Katzman.

Ten years after the March 19, 2003 U.S. military intervention to oust Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, increasingly violent sectarian divisions are undermining the fragile stability left in place after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will collapse.  Sunni Arab Muslims, who resent Shiite political domination, are in increasingly open revolt against the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.  The revolt represents an escalation of the Sunni demonstrations that began in December 2012.  Iraqi Kurds are increasingly aligned with Sunnis, based on their own disputes with Maliki over territorial, political, and economic issues.  The Shiite faction of Moqtada Al Sadr has been leaning to the Sunnis and Kurds, and could hold the key to Maliki's political survival.  Adding to the schisms is the physical incapacity of President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd who has served as a key mediator, who suffered a stroke in mid-December 2012 and remains outside Iraq.  The rifts have impinged on provincial elections on April 20, 2013, and will likely affect national elections for a new parliament and government in 2014. Maliki is expected to seek to retain his post in that vote.


There's a great deal in the report.  A lot of it covered here already and we'll note some of it throughout the week.  But with regards to unrest, the report was raised in today's US State Dept press briefing by State Dept spokesperson Patrick Ventrell.
QUESTION: Yes. On Iraq, the congressional study number RS21968 that was submitted to the Congress on the 26th of April paints a very bleak picture of Iraq and it calls what’s going on in Iraq – their words – an open rebellion by the Sunnis and the Shias.


MR. VENTRELL: Who are their words?


QUESTION: That the congressional study RS21968, okay? Maybe you want to take a look at it. It’s a lengthy study. But it draws a very bad – I mean, a very bleak picture of what’s going on in Iraq and closed an open road between the Sunnis and the Shias. Have you been able to sort of look at the study and perhaps hone your policy as a result of such drastic allegations or statements?


MR. VENTRELL: Well, Said, I haven’t seen this particular congressional study. But let me just say that the current situation in Iraq is concerning, and it’s a reminder of the formidable challenges Iraq continues to face. As I said yesterday, U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad – we’ve been in constant contact with a wide range of senior Iraqi leaders to help resolve ongoing political and sectarian tensions. And these talks have focused on specific steps to avoid further violence and resolve key issues peacefully and through constructive engagement in the political process.
And I do want to highlight a couple of specific things. We were encouraged to see over the weekend this constructive meeting senior federal and Kurdistan KRG government officials on Monday – I guess this was not over the weekend; this was on Monday – and reports that the Kurdish ministers will return to the cabinet tomorrow in Baghdad. So we urge all parties to build on this positive step by promptly addressing issues raised in a constructive and effective manner. And in addition, we’ve seen positive and encouraging statements from both Baghdad and Sunni leaders on the need to work together to isolate violent extremists whose only goal is to make – is to stoke sectarian tensions, to make it worse.



QUESTION: Mr. Maliki is accusing two of your closest allies in the Arab world, Qatar and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, of fomenting sectarian struggle and aiding Wahhabi sects and (inaudible) types in Iraq. Would you sort of lean on your friends to stop whatever aid, if you agree that there is aid in terms of arms and money going to these groups?



MR. VENTRELL: I’m not familiar with those particular allegations, but we’ve been clear where we stand in terms of sectarian violence and extremism in Iraq, and the support that we are providing as facilitators for the political process so that Iraqis can resolve their issues through the political process.


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Concerned Women for America seems very confused"
"April violence claimed 561 lives"
"The ACLU comes off like a trained seal"
"He needs to be voted out of office"
"Why does Christian Sciene Monitor keep lying about Iraq?"
"internet memories"
"What's the aversion to discussing rape?"
"Remember who kicked off the violence"
"Revolution"
"The continued suck of Netflix"
"Oh, Phyllis Bennis, are you really that dumb? Really?"
"I'm sick of Daniel Ellsberg lying"
"Was she lost? Did she cross state lines accidentally?"
"THIS JUST IN! BAG LADY WITH 100 CATS OR ACTIVIST?"
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Was she lost? Did she cross state lines accidentally?



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

TOWN HALL'S ARE A FORUM FOR AN OFFICIAL'S CONSTITUENTS TO RAISE THEIR ISSUES.

SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE REPRESENTS NEW HAMPSHIRE.

SHE KINDLY ANSWERS A STUNT QUESTION FROM ERICA LAFFERTY WHOSE MOTHER WAS THE PRINCIPAL AT SANDY HOOK.  LAFFERTY DOES NOT LIVE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

NEXT UP LAFFERTY HEADS FOR MARS TO ASK THE LAND ROVER CURIOSITY WHAT HER STAND ON BACKGROUND CHECKS IS.

 
FROM THE TCI WIRE:



 Last week, Nouri al-Maliki's forces stormed a sit-in in Hawija (Kirkuk Province) killing 50 and injuing 110.  Though barely covered by US outlets (exceptions being the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and AP), the assault was shocking to the rest of the world.  On Inside Story (Al Jazeera), a panel discussed the attacks after yet another distorted report from Jane Arraf who is so eager to enable Nouri that she wrongly got the purpose of a commission wrong (the commission supposed to find out about the attack on the protesters, she really needs to try to tamp down on her obvious bias).

 Salah Hashimi:  First of all, let me disagree with your introduction that this will lead to a sectarian strife.  There is absolutely no indication that this is a sectarian issue. It is between peaceful demonstrators and a government which happens to be dominated by Shia elements in Iraq. The Sunni community and the Shia community remain to be at peace with one another.  In fact, early reports suggest that plenty of messages have been received from the southern regions of Iraq in support of the demonstrators and in support of the peacefulness of the demonstrations. That's number one.  With regards to a massacre, I think early reports suggest that there was a scuffle between Iraqi soldiers, slightly away from the demonstrations in Hawija and that scuffle resulted in one of them being dead.  Because of the media blackout on the area, the government suggested that the demonstrators were armed and they were violent and that they were the ones who killed the soldier -- as a result of which, troops massed on the demonstrations in Hawija and subsequently raided them by not only army forces but by so-called SWAT teams.  Those teams are completely anonymous, their faces are not shown, no one knows where they come from and no one knows who trained them.  So we have peaceful demonstrators  -- and I say peaceful because, until now, we haven't had any evidence, a shred of evidence presented by the government that those demonstrators were armed or that they fired at anybody.  They've been there for many, many months and nothing has happened.  So why now? 


Let's stop the discussion to zoom in on an element noted but not addressed: SWAT forces.   Saturday,  Wael Grace (Al Mada) reported that SWAT forces are under the command of Nouri and take orders from him. When "SWAT" forces are noted in the US, people have a basic understanding of the Special Weapons And Tactics forces.  They came up in the sixties and had a bad image for many reasons which was why the TV series SWAT was created and aired (briefly -- two seasons) on ABC. The show was crap but people loved the instrumental theme song which made it to number one on Billboard's Hot 100 in 1976.  In the US, people are also familiar with it due to the bad movie released in 2003.

On Inside Story, panelst Abudlmunaem Almula will speak of SWAT and of the Operation Tigris Command forces.  However, he will use the term "SWAT" for the former but refer to the latter as "Tigris Operational Army."  That's not me saying Almula's wrong in his terms.  There are various terms used for the Tigris forces, some of it having to do with translation issues.  Iraq is an Arabic speaking culture, conversations in English will not always be as precise with terms.  The US created a force under General David Petraeus.  You may remember it and its numerous names.  In Iraq, it is known as "Sahwa."  In English language outlets, they are known as "Awakenings" or "Sons of Iraq" (or "Daughters of Iraq").  Iraqis appearing on English language programs generally refer to them as "Sahwa."  That's not strange.  It's perfectly understandable.

So someone explain "SWAT" and why it's being used in English and Arabic.

These are new forces.  Wael Grace made that clear in the Al Mada report and so did Almula.  These just emerged.  Why are they called SWAT?

It was not a term you'd encounter naturally in Arabic as we'll go into.

So why is it being used?  Why is it being used in Iraq?

Are you getting the point here?

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed.  We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way.  It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

The SWAT forces are a new development in Iraq.  They emerge after the new agreement -- new training agreement -- is signed with the DoD in December.  They are new forces with an American name.  SWAT stands for Special Weapons And Tactics.  In English, that's what it stands for.  Even if you translated the four words into Arabic, you wouldn't end up with the acronym "SWAT."  It's a US term. 

Were Bully Boy Bush still occupying the White House and US House Rep Nancy Pelois Speaker of the House, she'd be calling for an investigation into the Hawija slaughter to find out what the US involvement was.  Clearly, it includes training.  If it didn't, the SWAT forces wouldn't be dubbed "SWAT."

The forces that stormed Hawija and killed protesters are forces that were trained by the US and their training was supported by US tax dollars.  This killing, this slaughter, would be the topic of Congressional hearings if we had a functioning US Congress.  Clearly, we don't.

50 protesters were killed for the 'crime' of taking part in a sit-in.  110 more people were injured.  The US government backed Augusto Pinochet and his war crimes.  Apparently the US government now backs attacks on peaceful protesters in Iraq.  What's at question now is did the US just train them or were they involved in planning the slaughter?  In carrying out the slaughter?


The refusal to ask these questions is a sickness.  And the US has left behind sickness in Iraq.  Not just in terms of birth defects and cancers.  Today Doctors Without Borders released [PDF format warning] "Healing Iraqis."

 Mental health disorders and emotional distress are as debilitating and agonizing as physical health problems.  According to The World Health Organisation, mental health disorders are the fourth leading cause of ill health in Iraqis over the age of 5 years.  There is little doubt that years of political and social repression, punctuated by wars, and followed by a post-war period characterised by interrupted and insufficient basic services have taken their toll on the Iraqi people. 


The report notes that with a death toll you also have "the number of people impacted by these deaths, through injury, losing loved ones, and/or witnessing violent events in many times higher."   There are many case studies in the report.  We'll note one:

 A young boy developed a speech impediment and started becoming aggressive towards his siblings and school friends after he witnessed the death of several people in a bombing in his neighborhood.  The boy avoids going to areas close to where the bombing took place and says that he can still smell the odor of burning bodies.  The boy is receiving focused trauma therapy, the use of drawing aids to help the boy articulate his feelings and fears and it's hoped that this will help address his stammer and social anxiety issues.


And the violence has not ceased, so Iraqis continued to be effected.   Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 547 violent deaths in Iraq this month.  Today's the last day of April and violence continues. National Iraqi News Agency reports a suicide bomber killed himself in Sulaiman Beg and claimed 2 others lives while also leaving five people injured, and a Kirkuk bombing leaves two Peshmerga injured.  NINA also notes an armed clash in Mosul left three Iraqi soldiers injured, a Mosul roadside bombing left 2 police officers dead, an armed clash in Tikrit left 3 rebels dead and three more injured, a Falluja roadside bombing left one person injured, a Tikrit roadside bombing left one police officer injured, 2 Baghdad bombings claimed 3 lives and left seven people injured,  and Ismail Flaiyih was assassinated in Ramadi.  He was a "member of the Coordinating Committee of the Organization of Anbar sit-in Square" and he was shot dead.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The blame goes on Nouri"
"Did a military witness lie at Kim Rivera's court-m..."
"Applause for two and boos for one"
"The violence never ends"
"The economy"
"revenge"
"The Client List"
"A film, violence in Iraq, etc"
"Way to go, Jason Collins!"
"The Good Wife"
"Smash (where Karen becomes completely unlikable)"
"Iraq, Isaiah, Kat, Kim"
"THIS JUST IN! FOXX WASN'T A BUSINESS SUCCESS!"
"The pork Foxx is going to guard the henhouse?"
Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

The pork Foxx is going to guard the henhouse?


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

YESTERDAY, KILLER BARRY O NOMINATED ANTHONY FOXX TO BE THE NEW SECRETARY OF TRANSPORATION.

WHY?

BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO BARRY O, HIS GREAT SUCCESS AS MAYOR OF CHARLOTTE:

 Since Anthony took office, they’ve broken ground on a new streetcar project that’s going to bring modern electric tram service to the downtown area. They’ve expanded the international airport. And they’re extending the city’s light rail system. All of that has not only helped create new jobs, it’s helped Charlotte become more attractive to business.


OKAY.  THE AIRPORT:

 The runway opened January 6, 2010. The cost for the runway and taxiways was $325 million, with the federal government paying $124 million and the rest funded by a $3 fee added to the cost of a ticket.[13]

OKAY.  THE LIGHT RAIL EXTENSION:

 The four Republicans, who each hold a post overseeing transportation, defended GOP Gov. Pat McCrory’s comments that Foxx’s pursuit of a streetcar was “making my job harder” to keep state money for the $1.1 billion Lynx Blue Line extension.

AND:

 The FTA will spend $580 million for the extension. The N.C. Department of Transportation will spend $299 million, or 26 percent, of construction costs.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/10/15/3599137/cats-to-announce-federal-funding.html#storylink=cpy


SOUNDS LIKE FOXX IS REALLY GOOD . . . AT SPENDING FEDERAL MONEY.  SOUNDS LIKE HIS 'SUCCESS' IS BASED ON NOTHING BUT HIS ABILITY TO GRAB THE BIGGEST PIECES OF PORK.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Starting with war resistance, from the April 7, 2008 snapshot:

 "I guess the hardest thing for people to understand is the reason you join the military is not the reason you leave it," writes war resister Kimberly Rivera (Rivera Family).  Rivera is a US war resister in Canada.  Like war resisters Josh Randall and Brandon Hughey, Rivera is from Texas. February 18, 2007, she, her husband Mario Rivera entered Canada. Rivera is the first known female US war resister to apply for refugee status in Canada.

Earlier, Daniel Chacon (Colorado Springs Gazette) reports that Iraq War veteran Kim Rivera was scheduled for a court-martial today.  Patricia Collier (KOAA) adds, "Rivera faces a maximum sentence of reduction to E1, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, 5 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge."  War Resisters Support Campaign announces Kim "was sentenced to 14 months in military prison and a dishonourable discharge after publicly expressing her conscientious objection to the Iraq War while in Canada.  A pre-trial agreement capped the sentence at 10 months of confinement and a bad conduct discharge."


As Kim observed last September, "I don't regret refusing to participate and speaking out against what I felt was a completely unjust war.  Doing the right thing is not always the same as doing the easy thing."

Though the left outlets in the US spent the day ignoring Kim (The Nation has nothing online nor does The Progressive), the Libertarian Reason magazine does have a small write up.  Please grasp that as The Nation and The Progressive fail yet again, Al Arabiya is carrying a report on Kim.

How can that be?  How can our left media repeatedly and continuously fail We the People?  John Stauber explained Friday in an interview at  CounterPunch:

These big players -- the paid activists at CREDO, Greenpeace, 350.org, MoveOn, the paid pundits at Nation and Mother Jones -- they work for corporations who have their own agenda, a business agenda, and are primarily funded by wealthy Democrats and their foundations, or by “socially responsible companies” that these wealthy individuals and foundations invest in.
The real agenda of the Big Green groups, the Progressive Media and Progressive Think Tanks,  is raising money for themselves.  What they do is decided and directed by their small group of decision-makers who are funders or who play to the funders. The professional  Progressive Movement I criticize and critique does not ultimately represent or serve any real progressive movement at the grassroots.  It markets to them for followers and funding, and every two years votes for Democrats as the lesser of the evils.


If you missed his article last month, make a point to read it as well.  Kim Rivera stood up against a war that The Progressive and The Nation opposed in order to enrich their own coffers.  Opposing the illegal war allowed them to reach circulation highs (while the pro-war New Republic tanked).  But they stopped caring about being anti-war when a Democrat made it into the White House because that meant that they'd have to call out a Democrat and they're not going to risk the big money that comes in to have ethics or convictions.

Kim's a thorny issue for them.  She stood up while they cower.  Let's quote from John Stauber's column last month:


 After the 2004 flop of the Kerry/Edwards campaign, luck shone on the Democrats.  The over-reach of the neoconservatives, the failure to find those weapons of mass deception (sic),  the endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, turned American public opinion,  especially among the young, against the Republicans.  Growing anti-war sentiment, which had little to do with the organized anti-war movement, delivered to the Democrats what Governor Mario Cuomo called “The Gift.”  The horrific Iraq war, he explained to a Democracy Alliance gathering, was the gift that allowed the Democrats to take control of the US Congress.
It was at this point in early 2007 that the truly dark and cynical agenda of the professional Progressive Movement and the Democratic Party revealed itself.  Under Pelosi the Democrats could have cut off funding for Bush’s unpopular wars and foreign policy.  Instead,  with PR cover provided by MoveOn and their lobbyist Tom Matzzie, the Democratic Congress gave George Bush all the money he wanted to continue his wars.  For the previous five years MoveOn had branded itself as the leader of the anti-war movement, building lists of millions of liberals, raising millions of dollars, and establishing itself in the eyes of the corporate media as leaders of the US peace movement.  Now they helped the Democrats fund the war,  both betting that the same public opposition to the wars that helped them win control of the House in 2006 could win the Presidency in 2008.


Kim faces a court-martial when a Democratic occupies the White House.  President Barack Obama, remember the myth they created, excuse me, the fairy tale (Bill Clinton was right), that Barack was anti-war.  If he really was anti-war, he would have offered some form of amnesty the way Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter did previously.  Grasp that.  Neither Ford nor Carter presented themselves as 'anti-war.'  But the Republican and the Democratic presidents both managed to do more than Barack.


Covering Kim now would be mean Barack might get called out.  Were Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to face execution today, The Nation and The Progressive would gladly sell them out to protect Barack.  They've deluded themselves that the mission of a free press is the same as the mission of the Secret Service.

Last fall,  Yves Engler (iPolitics.ca) reported on Kim:

 While Rivera expected to spend her time unloading equipment at a Colorado base she soon found herself guarding a foreign operating base in Iraq. It was from this vantage point that she became disillusioned with the war. Riviera was troubled by a two-year-old Iraqi girl who came to the base with her family to claim compensation after a bombing by U.S. forces. “She was just petrified”, Rivera explained. “She was crying, but there was no sound, just tears flowing out of her eyes. She was shaking. I have no idea what had happened in her little life. All I know is I wasn’t seeing her: I was seeing my own little girl. I could imagine my daughter being one of those kids throwing rocks at soldiers, because maybe someone she loved had been killed. That Iraqi girl haunts my soul.’”


Kim Rivera was deployed to Iraq.  She's an Iraq War veteran.  She came back to the US and couldn't continue to participate in the illegal war.  So she, her husband and two kids drove to Canada where she sought political asylum. (Once in Canada, Kim and Mario had two more children -- their children are Christian, Rebecca, Katie Marie and Gabriel.)



While the Canadian government couldn't offer her support, many others did.  Last September,  Archbishop Desmond Tutu joined the call to support Kim.  Erin Criger (City News) noted the support also included, "Amnesty International, the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Church of Canada have all supported Rivera."  In addition, many individual Canadians support her as well as organizations such as the United Steelworkers of Canada which issued a statement calling for the government of Canada to let Kim and her family stay  and  Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees which also issued a statement. 

Canada deported Kim and, September 21st, she was arrested as she turned herself into US authorities.  In the weeks before she was deported, 20,391 people signed a petition calling for the government to allow Kim to remain in Canada.  KKTV reports, " She has been charged with two specifications of desertion under Article 85 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. If convicted, she faces up to five years in prison and a dishonorable discharge."  She stood up and did so without any help from The Nation or The Progressive.  Kim's biggest 'mistake' was going to Canada after the 2006 mid-terms.  Had she gone before that, she could have been Ehren Watada.  The left outlets pretended to support Ehren.  In 2006.  Of course, after the 2006 mid-term elections, Ehren could -- and did -- receive more press from Rolling Stone magazine for his brave stand than he got from the 'left' outlets.  While a few went through the motions of covering Ehren only because they'd already started the coverage in the summer of 2006 (when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House), most pretended not to know who he was. Kim went public in March of 2007 -- by which point, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and, as Bill Van Auken (WSWS) observed, Democrats in office and The Nation magazine had other priorities:
Having won the leadership of both houses of Congress in the 2006 congressional elections thanks to a groundswell of antiwar sentiment, the Democratic Party leadership has now provided all the money and more that President Bush requested for the continuation and escalation of a criminal war, and it has done so under terms dictated by the White House.
[. . .]

In the six months since the November elections, the Democrats have sought to placate and deceive the voters who handed them the reins of power in the House and Senate by posturing as opponents of the war, while at the same time pledging to “support the troops” by funding that war and continuing to support the geo-strategic goals that underlay the March 2003 invasion in the first place.
On Thursday, this political balancing act fell apart in a cowardly and cynical capitulation to the White House. The inevitable result of this cave-in is massive anger among those who voted for the Democrats last November and a growing sense that none of the institutions or political parties of the ruling establishment reflect the democratic will of the people.
Countering such sentiments and attempting to resuscitate illusions in the Democrats is the specific task of a layer of the American “left” that is thoroughly integrated into the Democratic Party. Its political conceptions and aims—shared by a variety of protest groups, “left” think tanks and a smattering of elected officials—are expressed most clearly by the weekly Nation magazine.





RECOMMENDED:












Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)