America's little sweetheart

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


NOT SINCE SHIRLEY TEMPLE HAS A LITTLE GIRL AMUSED AMERICA AS MUCH AS YOUNG BARRY O.

TAP DANCING AND SINGING INTO OUR HEARTS, BARRY O DECLARED, POUTING LOWER LIP JUTTING OUT, THAT BAD, MEAN OLD  JOHN BOEHNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SHUTDOWN.

MEAN OLD PRESIDENT BOEHNER!

WHY WON'T HE DO HIS JOB!

OH, WAIT.  BOEHNER'S NOT PRESIDENT.

BARRY O IS!

THIS IS ON HIM AND YET ANOTHER ONE OF HIS FAILURES.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Yesterday, things really got shrill on the floor of Congress as US House Rep Tim Ryan screeched:


I was against the Iraq War!  The Iraq War was unaffordable! The Iraq War was unpopular! 58% of the American people were against the Iraq War!  Democrats didn't shut down the government! Use the political process!  Which we did and won the House back in '06 and won the presidency in '08 and we wound down the Iraqi War!

KPFA played Little Coward Tim Ryan shrieking over and over yesterday and today.

Tim Ryan is offended that some against ObamaCare are willing to stand up for their beliefs.


If Little Coward Tim Ryan isn't a liar, he's just a little coward who can't take a stand, he's confessed to how worthless and useless he is:

 
I was against the Iraq War!  The Iraq War was unaffordable! The Iraq War was unpopular! 58% of the American people were against the Iraq War!  Democrats didn't shut down the government!


Unaffordable?

Try criminal.  It was criminal.

And notice how he can't speak of the human costs of that war.  His own guilt shames him into silence on that.  He has blood on his hands and wants to attack Republicans for doing now what he was too damn cowardly to do?


As the American people are seeing right now, with ObamaCare, what you could have done to stop the Iraq War but refused to do.  Because Tim Ryan was a coward.


How many people died -- and continue to die -- because of the cowardly, worthless Tim Ryan?


He threw a shrill tantrum on the floor of Congress yesterday that basically confesses to his own worthlessness and cowardice.  If he had the same convictions the ObamaCare opponents do, the Iraq War could have cost a lot less lives.  (Maybe even been averted. He started serving in Congress in January 2013.)


Tim Ryan:  Democrats didn't shut down the government! Use the political process!  Which we did and won the House back in '06 and won the presidency in '08 and we wound down the Iraqi War!


No, they didn't shut down the government.  Nor did they end the illegal war as they promised they would if they got even one house of Congress in the 2006 mid-terms.  They did nothing.  They threatened.  They got the White House benchmarks -- and then refused to use them.  (US House Rep Lloyd Doggett was the only one in 2008 raising those benchmarks in hearings.) They betrayed the people of America.  And, as Tim Ryan's shrill act should have gotten across, they could have stopped it in 2007 or 2008.  But they chose not to.


Tim Ryan's proud moment is really just another example of the spineless and cowardly behavior Congressional Democrats displayed throughout the Bully Boy Bush years.  In the Barack years?  They can't show strength now either.  They can only whine and bitch.




Today Noam Chomsky Tweets:

1. Noam Chomsky ‏@daily_chomsky 17h

   
   

   Invading Iraq was the kind of crime for which Nazi war criminals were hanged at Nuremberg.

   Expand

The Tweet comes on the same day The Lancet publishes Paul C. Webster's article questioning the ridiculous report the World Health Organization and and the Iraqi Ministry of Interior 'published' (released in nonsense form) last month on the birth defects in Iraq.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Protesters call out Nouri's support of Shi'ite mil..."
"Over-medication of veterans and suicide"
"Nachos in the Kitchen"
"Blogging and Laura Flanders"
"Oh, mama Mia"
"scandal's so-so opening"

"The Cowardly Ryan is also a liar"
"Why is Target screwing over Cher?"
"Revolution: Charlie the 'action' damsel in distress"
"Gravity"
"A trashy writer learns that her career is ending"
"Idiot of the week"
"Kagan shares a half-thought"
"THIS JUST IN! WHAT GUILTY DOG BARKED FIRST?"

Kagan shares a half-thought

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


SUPREME COURT JUDGE AND PROFESSIONAL HEAVY WEIGHT ELENA KAGAN (PICTURED BELOW WITH ACTOR NATHAN LANE) HAS WEIGHED IN ON THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS.




SHE PRONOUNCED THE PROCESS "SORT OF BROKEN."

SORT OF?

WAY TO GO OUT ON A LIMB THERE, KAGAN.

NO WORD AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE TOOK CREDIT FOR "SORT OF BREAKING IT" AS SHE PLOWED THROUGH THE PROCESS HERSELF.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:



This morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Iran and its nuclear ambitions (or perceived ones).  Senator Robert Menendez is the Chair of the Committee.  Senator Bob Corker is the Ranking Member.   Appearing before the Committee today were two panels.  The first panel was the State Dept's Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, the second panel was Washington Institute for Near East Policy's James Jeffrey (Jeffrey was also a US Ambassador to Iraq -- one of four in Barack's first term and don't forget failed nominee Brett McGurk), the Institute for Science and International Security's David Albright and the Council on Foreign Relation's Ray Takeyh.  

From the first panel:


Senator John McCain:  In the situation as it relates to the Camp Ashraf people, we know that they were Iranian dissidents.  At one point,  they were designated as a terrorist organization.  But the United States government, it's true, gave them an assurance that if they moved [to Camp Liberty] they would be protected.  We know that the Iranian influence has increased in, uh, in Iraq.  In fact, we know now that Iraq is alive and well and doing extremely well moving back and forth across the two countries.  Now there was a murder of, I believe, 51 people who were members of this  camp and many of them had in their possession guarantees from the United States of America that they would not be harmed.   What-what lessons -- First, are these facts true?  And, second, if they are true, what message does that send to people who we say will be under our protection?


Wendy Sherman:  Senator, uh, I share your, deep concern about what happened, uh, at Camp Ashraf.  This was a vicious attack in September 1st and many lives were lost.  And the US continues to press the government of Iraq at every opportunity, at very senior -- at the most senior levels to ensure the safety and security of residents at Camp Hurriya where many of the MEK were moved for better safety.  We strongly and swiftly condemned the attack.  We of course extend  our condolences to the victims' families and we are working with the government of Iraq and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAMI, to peacefully and voluntarily transfer the surviving residents to safety at Camp Hurriya on September 12th.  And we are working for the protection of the people in Camp Hurriya because we do not want a repeat of this.   So, to date, the government of Iran -- of Iraq has moved in over 700 large T-walls, over 500 bunkers, over 600 small T-walls and nearly 50,000 sandbags.  UN monitors visit the camp daily in accordance with the MOU to asses human rights and humanitarian conditions.  But I must say, Senator, the real answer to this, to the safety and security of all the people in the camps -- who wants to live in a camp? -- is resettlement to third countries to get out of Iraq and to get out of harms way.  And I would call on all the people who are here today representing the rights and the interests of the MEK and the leaders of the MEK in the camps and in Paris, uh, to allow this resettlement to go forward because until the resettlement happens safety and security is going to be a risk.  We will do everything in our power to keep people safe in these camps.  But, as you point out, the al Qaeda threat is increasing in Iraq and it is difficult.

Senator John McCain:  And I hope that this issue will be raised with the Iraqi government.  And we in Congress may have to look at the kind of aid and how we are extending that to Iraq if this kind of thing is going to be countenanced by the Iraqi government.  I don't -- I've used up all my time.  And I thank you for your response.

Chair Robert Menendez: Before I turn to Senator [Edward] Markey let me echo what Senator McCain has said in this regard.  And I put out a statement in this regard, I also talked to our Department.  You know, America went to the MEK and we said, 'Disarm and we will protect you.'  And then we ultimately left and that protection has not been there.  You can put up I don't care how many tons of sand bags but when elements of the Iraqi forces actually may very well be complicit in what took place, sand bags aren't going to take care of the problem.  And I agree with you that resettlement is a critical part.  Maybe the United States could be part of leading the way in saying to a universe of these individuals that in fact you can be resettled to the United States.  And that would get the rest of the world to offer further resettlement. But it is unacceptable to lose one more life when American commanders gave these individuals a written guarantee towards their safety.  And it sends a message to others in the world that when we say we are going to do that and we do not, they should not trust us.  And for one thing that this Committee can do since it has jurisdiction over all weapon sales is that I doubt very much that we are going to see any approval of any weapon sales to Iraq until we get this situation in  a place where people's lives are safe.  




First off, I counted at least 15 Ashraf supporters attending the hearing.  (They wore yellow.)  Second, I don't mean to be rude here, but why don't you know your facts?

We were at the hearing today because we knew there was a good chance that Ashraf would be raised.  McCain and Menendez are among those who regularly raise the issue.  So the State Dept should have known that as well.

Instead, it's like an AA meeting facilitated by someone who never did the steps.  To answer McCain's two questions, she had to pull out 'The Big Book.'  The State Dept cheat sheet.  She was reading aloud and had no idea what she was quickly skimming.  That's how she made this mistake:


We of course extend  our condolences to the victims' families and we are working with the government of Iraq and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq, UNAMI, to peacefully and voluntarily transfer the surviving residents to safety at Camp Hurriya on September 12th. 

And "we are working" on something that took place September 12th?  She had no idea until she finished her skimming while testifying that the US was not "working" because everyone had been moved out of Ashraf by the 12th.


She still didn't grasp what she'd read:

But I must say, Senator, the real answer to this, to the safety and security of all the people in the camps -- who wants to live in a camp? -- is resettlement to third countries to get out of Iraq and to get out of harms way. 

"In the camps"?  There's only one camp now, Camp Hurriya.  Second, learn.  Do your damn job and learn.  It shouldn't be that damn difficult when you consider all the money US taxpayers are giving the State Dept to work in Iraq (only Afghanistan exceeds Iraq in terms of the State Dept's budget).  Wendy Sherman showed up knowing nothing about the topic.  "Who wants to live in a camp?"

Camp Ashraf was established decades ago.  The residents didn't want to leave it.  Not for Camp Hurriya, not to move anywhere else.  It had become their home.

That's why the international press showed them with tears, the first group forced out.  They were crying because they were leaving their homes.

If you don't grasp that, you shouldn't be speaking on the topic on behalf of the US government.

Wendy Sherman doesn't want to live in a camp?

Got it.

But Wendy Sherman isn't a Camp Ashraf resident nor is she every person on the face of the planet.  Meaning?  What she likes and doesn't like does not get reflected 100% across humanity.  She needs to stop try to be the Voice of All People and instead learn some facts.


We're not done yet because she wasn't done yet showing her ignorance.  She said, "We will do everything in our power to keep people safe in these camps.  But, as you point out, the al Qaeda threat is increasing in Iraq and it is difficult."  First off, no, the US government is not doing everything in its power.  It could take some of the US forces (including the unit Barack sent in fall 2012) and have them protect Camp Hurriya.  Or it could demand that United Nations security forces go in and protect the people of Hurriya.

Second of all, al Qaeda?

How stupid is Wendy Sherman?

She didn't have the brains to realize Ashraf would probably be an issue.  Then she wants to blame al Qaeda?

It was most likely Nouri's forces.  Barring that, it was fighters from Iran who were waived in.

If the State Dept is so stupid they think al Qaeda is in Iran, then the whole world's at risk.

al Qaeda in Iraq is a Sunni phenomenon (created by the Iraq War).  The MEK are Shi'ites from Iran.  The people who want them out of Iraq?  Shi'ites.  Not Sunnis.  al Qaeda in Iraq has no interest in the 3,000 or so MEK.  They're not upset that the MEK has been at war with the government of Iran.  They don't care. It's not their battle.

Wendy Sherman needs to learn her facts before she next offers Congressional testimony.  And here's a little clue for her bosses, tossing her the State Dept big book as a cheat sheet doesn't cover it.  Here's another clue: Pay attention to members of Congress.

We quoted Senator Menendez's statement in full when it was released -- that wasn't even a month ago.  How did the State Dept miss that statement on Iraq?  And what fool didn't realize that Senator Robert Menendez is Committee Chair Robert Menendez of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? That used to be chaired by John Kerry, who is now over the State Dept, so I would think there would be a level of awareness.  This is the Committee that provides oversight of the State Dept.

Wendy Sherman was an embarrassment.  Part of that's not her fault.  State Dept witnesses have gotten so lax and -- like Wendy today -- are more concerned with snapping a variation of 'let me finish speaking' then of knowing the basic facts.  That's something to be addressed department wide by the Secretary of State (Kerry).  But going into that hearing she should have some awareness that Iraq -- Iran's neighbor -- would likely come up as a topic in the hearing.


Equally true, 7 Ashraf residents remain missing.  The US government -- including the State Dept -- believes Nouri al-Maliki, prime minister and chief thug in Iraq, has them in one of his secret prisons.  The UN has called on him to release them.  But, as Alsumaria has repored,  Nouri has issued a statement declaring his security forces were not holding any hostages.  He denies they exist.  That's 7 people the US government swore it would protect.  And Wendy Sherman didn't think this topic would come up?

Let's go back to Chair Menendez for just a moment.



Chair Robert Menendez: And for one thing that this Committee can do since it has jurisdiction over all weapon sales is that I doubt very much that we are going to see any approval of any weapon sales to Iraq until we get this situation in  a place where people's lives are safe.  


On the US and Iraq and weapons, John Hudson (Foreign Policy) reports today that Iraq will not get the US drones that the Iraqi government has been calling for:


Though neither Iraqi nor U.S. officials will say who called off the drones, it's no secret who began discussing them in the first place. In an August 17 trip to Washington, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters that Baghdad is seeking U.S. advisers, air surveillance or drone strikes to combat al-Qaeda's grip on the country. "We cannot fight these increasing terrorist" threats alone, he said. Speaking of drone strikes specifically, he said as long as they were used to "target al-Qaeda and their bases," without "collateral damage," Iraqis would welcome them.
That same month, Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. Iraq Lukman Faily reiterated Iraq's interest in drones. "The reason we're now considering drone support is because we need to get better control of the sky so we can track and destroy al-Qaeda camps in the country," Faily told The Cable.
It's not hard to understand why they'd be interested in the unmanned aircraft. On Monday, the detonation of 15 car bombs in Baghdad left dozens dead in an event that would've shocked any other country not embroiled in a civil war. However, in Iraq, it was only the 38th such atrocity in the last 12 months. In 2013 alone, Iraq is averaging 68 car bombings a month. The United Nations reports that 5,740 civilians were killed since January, which is almost two times more deaths than recorded in all of 2010.
Despite the staggering numbers, the U.S. isn't about to open up a new drone war in Iraq. "The use of lethal drones has not been discussed nor is it even under consideration for Iraq," an administration official tells The Cable.




Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"No elections law but lots of violence"
"ETAN calls for Human Rights to be Front and Center..."
"Mia and the meanings for America"
"Popcorn"
"Marshmallows"
"Junior Mints and nachos"
"pudding"
"Graham crackers"
"Fudge"
"Cracker Jacks"
"Pickles"
"Heck Of A Job (Snow Cones)"
"Sea Salt and Vinegar"
"Cold pizza"
"Where is the leadership?"
"THIS JUST IN! STILL DOES NOT PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS!"

Where is the leadership?

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

TODAY CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DECLARED THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, NOW ON DAY THREE, COULD GET VERY, VERY BAD.

SO MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR THE LITTLE BITCH TO SHOW LEADERSHIP INSTEAD OF INSULTING THE OTHER PARTY?

MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR THE LITTLE BITCH TO GET OFF HIS CANDY ASS AND START ACTING LIKE A LEADER BY SHOWING LEADERSHIP?

THEN AGAIN HE CAN JUST CONTINUE TO STAND ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN IN HIS FRILLY PINK PANTIES ISSUING INSULTS AND HAVE THE WHOLE WORLD LAUGH AT HIM.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Is there a reason for Joel Wing (Musings on Iraq) to exist?  The analyst offers today a piece entitled "Iraq’s Oil Profits Bounce Back In August 2013 With Higher Exports And Rising Prices Due To Fears Over Syria" and if you're not getting house useless it is, in October, to be writing that August exports were up, check out Iraq Oil Report today where Ben Lando's latest article is entitled "September exports down by 500K bpd."

Don't fret.  Come December, Joel Wing will be 'reporting' on September's oil exports.

He's always just a little bit slower than the other kids.

Most journalists make fun of him, I try to ignore him.  That's why Jim tried to bait me two Sundays ago (knowing I was an after party and had consumed more then a few drinks already) by bringing up Joel.  But he's so pathetic, I stepped over Jim's inclusion of Joel into our conversation ("The KRG elections").  Joel's become a huge joke in real journalism circles which was why Jim brought him up.   I know from my friends in the press how pathetic Joel is seen as being (in part because he's so linked to his crackpot buddy) and Jim does too.  Jim also has his own journalism friends and Jim's father (who retired recently) was a real and respected reporter and he heard all the laughter at Joel from his dad and his dad's colleagues.  Jim knew if we could make the conversation about Joel, we'd get a lot more links.

I tried to be nice. Try to do someone a _____ favor.  (That's an infamous phrase of mine.) 

You can't do Joel Wing any favors because he won't let you.  Jim called him and many others out, I ignored it and redirected the conversation (it was a transcript piece).  Cry baby Joel couldn't leave well enough alone.  He had to whine in an e-mail allowing Jim to cover the whole thing in "Jim's World" -- which has 75,000 hits and counting.  I'm sure some of that comes from Mike's post steering traffic.  I'm also sure that a lot of that is Jim's father (and a friend of mine at ABC News who can't stand Joel Wing's stupidity) passing it around.

I tried to spare Joel Wing embarrassment but you can't because he's so damn determined to embarrass himself. 


First off, Joel Wing, you stupid idiot.  Stop posting Voice of America.

Were the internet to work like radio does, you wouldn't be allowed to.  VoA is banned from broadcasting in the US (some listen, in the US, to it via short-wave radio or over the internet).  Why?

Because Voice of America is propaganda.

Do you get that?

I know you're an idiot, Joel Wing, but can even you grasp that and that that is why Congress -- the United States of America's legislature -- banned VoA from airing in the US.

If you're an alleged academic and an alleged analyst, why would you post government propaganda at your site?  And you don't even call it out.  You just serve it up like it is news which it is so not.

I wouldn't have noted any of this is an AP friend (who covered Iraq, does not cover it now) had not called me up to ask if I read your latest crazy?

No, I'd missed "Eplaining The Political Factors Behind The Increasing Violence In Iraq, An Interview With Maria Fantappie, Iraq Researcher At The International Crisis Group "

In a perfect world, I wouldn't note ICG.  I didn't when this site started, they used to mail all the time.  Then the father of a friend who's part of ICG started asking for links (leading me to tell his daughter, "Stop telling people I'm C.I.!").  I still didn't use them.  Now days, I have to.  There is so little Iraq coverage that we have to.  I'll even cite right wingers these days (but identify them as such).  Sometimes to disagree with them, sometimes to note they are right.

I don't get to have purity when it comes to news sources and organizations.  (Though I do draw the line at government propaganda still -- VoA.)

But Maria Fantappie?  Has any woman weighing in on Iraq got mentioned less here?  And I you take away her co-written pieces (which reign her nonsense in somewhat), she's shown up even fewer times.  That's because she's got an agenda and she also doesn't know her facts.  An interview on Australian radio this summer remains infamous to those of us who follow coverage of Iraq.

But here's Joel chatting her up. 

And why is that a bad thing?

Let's go to the opening:

[Joel Wing] 1. In 2009, Sunnis went to the polls after largely boycotting the 2005 provincial vote, and helped put a slew of parties into power. In 2010, many of those same voters came out for Iyad Allawi and Iraqiya, the Iraqi National Movement (INM) which won a plurality of seats in the new parliament. How did Allawi and the other members of the INM turn out to be as national leaders, and how did their performance affect their followers’ opinion of participating in politics?

[Maria Freak]:  The key for political success in Iraq is to branch out power from Baghdad into the provinces. Iraqyia leaders focused all efforts on the assignment of government positions in Baghdad, neglecting local officials and constituents in the provinces. This was fatal to the future of the list. Starting from early 2011, while Iyad Allawi persisted in claiming the premiership for himself and the implementation of the Irbil agreement in Baghdad, Maliki ingrained power in the provinces: governors were replaced, police chiefs sacked and Sahwa tribal militias deprived of their salaries. Sunni constituents felt disappointed by their national leader and left under the grip of the government security agencies. Their disappointment evolved into distrust towards the political process altogether. In their eyes, Iraqyia leaders appeared not dissimilar from others of different political colors: locked within Baghdad Green Zone walls and far from people’s concerns.

Heaven help us all.

Joel, why don't you and Maria just go to some slash fiction website and type up your fantasies.  They'd read something like, "The thing about Nouri was, his stink wasn't a stink, it was a manly, musky smell that overwhelmed my senses the same way he grabbed my body and threw me back on the bed as we both squealed with joy . . . "


It would certainly be more productive than the crap you and Maria are offering currently.

Maria Freak may define success at the provincial level but that's her definition and it's grossly stupid when it comes to Iraqiya.

You both (wrongly in my opinion) see Iraqiya as Sunni-supported only.  But let's run with your concept.  Only Sunnis will support Iraqiya?  So why would they focus on the provinces?  It's not like even half of Iraq's 18 provinces are Sunni dominated.

Not only is Maria's nonsense (and your own) stupid, it reveals a level of lying that we rarely see in public.

Iraqiya has largely imploded.  It may be able to pull it together for the 2014 parliamentary elections (if they're held).  If Iraqiya pulls it together, it could win those elections -- as they did in 2010.  In part due to a Nouri backlash as well as an American backlash.

Blaming Ayad Allawi is like blaming Al Gore.  Both persons should have been their countries leaders.  Al should have been sworn in as President of the United States in January 2001 -- he won the 2000 election.  Ayad Allawi should have been named prime minister-designate in April 2010, Iraqiya won the March 2010 elections.

Allawi did not become prime minister.  He was denied that post.  We can talk about the whys of that (though goodness knows, Wing never does and Maria's a tacky 'novelist' when it comes to Iraq) but the reality of Allawi not becoming prime minister was that you quickly had factions (such as White Iraqiya) breaking off.  You also had Saleh al-Mutlaq stabbing Iraqiya in the back.

(Like so many, Maria missed that and could never understand why Saleh would be booed and have rocks tossed at him.  We explained why in real time and it was mere weeks later that Iraqi protesters were carrying banners with Saleh's face on it -- with a large red line across it.)

In the US, as 2004 approached, many hoped/wanted Al Gore to run.  He didn't.  That was his call and he had his reasons.  But if you were a Gore supporter, you may remember how you felt when Gore's was sometimes floated in 2003 and 2004.

That same feeling will be present for many Iraqis with regards to Allawi.  He could tap into that.

The provinces don't mean a damn thing for Iraqiya. The political slate has been targeted -- Tareq al-Hashemi is only one example -- they have been weakened.  And the reason they won in 2010 is the reason, if they get their act together, they could win again.

What do I know?  I'm just the one who said Iraqis in 2009 and 2010 demonstrated a move towards a national identity.  And, check, I said it in2010 here repeatedly.  It's now accepted wisdom among analysts.   I'm not Joel Wing processing something months after the fact and coming to a conclusion.  I've note before that campaign politics was one of my fields of emphasis.  Raw data gets dumped on me all the time by DNC friends wanting me to interpret it.  Not summarize it.  Any fool can do that. 

The talent is to look at the data and see what's trending and why.

The best chance for Nouri to get a third term by votes (as opposed to it being given to him by the US government -- as it has been twice now) or for  a Nouri like figure to become prime minister is a full on civil war.

That will silence a lot of the criticism -- it'll be replaced with cries of 'help us!'

Barring that, the Iraqi people are tired of Nouri.  They were tired of him in 2009.  They were tired of him in 2010.  He was the incumbent, he bribed, he had opponents disqualified from running, he controlled the press (am I the only one who read Deborah Amos' paper on the campaigning on TV in Iraq?) and yet he still couldn't pull out a win.

State of Law, his slate, came in second.  That was a rebuke.

The rebuke was even more obvious when Moqtada al-Sadr held his spring 2010 elections asking those who voted (primarily his supporters -- but he did open it up to any Iraqi who wanted to vote) who he should back for prime minister and Nouri wasn't the first choice, or the second, or the third . . .

Those were Shi'ites, where Nouri's strength of support is supposed to come from.  (Yes, 2008's attacks on Sadr City and Basra are not forgotten by Moqtada's followers.  So what's your point?  They don't like Nouri.  Those attacks only hardened their dislike. The 2008 attacks can't be taken back, they are the mark against Nouri for many Shi'ites -- and not just Moqtada's followers -- a large number of Shi'ites in Iraq were appalled to see Nouri doing, they considered, the bidding of the Americans and attacking fellow Shi'ites.)

If elections are held next year, Nouri will have spent eight years as prime minister.

He has much to show for it -- I understand from friends in the US government that his bank accounts are overflowing.  However, the Iraqi people have nothing to show for it.

They still don't have the basic public services, they still don't have safety, they still don't have jobs.


The editorial board of the Gulf News notes today:

Political vendettas and ministerial infighting have paralysed Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki’s government in Iraq and he should start to consider stepping down to trigger new elections so that a more forceful coalition can try to stem Iraq’s sad slide into the abyss of continual violence.
[. . ]

Al Maliki needs to take responsibility for not doing more to stop the violence. It is true that Iraq’s civil war was triggered by the America-led invasion more than 10 years ago and the disastrous failure of the consequent administration. However, Al Maliki has been the Prime Minister since 2006. He won a second term after complex coalition talks. In these seven years, his Shiite-dominated government should have done more and his recent announcements are not expected to achieve much.

Nouri didn't win a second term in 2010.

Nouri came in second and refused to step down.  Freak Maria can check her own writing if she's really forgotten that (as opposed to if she's just flat out lying).  For eight months, he refused to step down.

For eight months, he brought government to a standstill in Iraq.

The US babied him and backed him (Samantha Power led the fight -- within the administration -- for his second term).  The White House didn't give a damn that backing him meant spitting on the votes of the Iraqi people -- or the violence they risked encountering just to vote.

Since the Iraqi Constitution didn't allow Nouri -- or anyone else who came in other than first -- a crack at prime minister-designate, the US government went around the Constitution, they circumvented it.

They brokered a contract known as The Erbil Agreement.

This was the US pitch (we've noted it repeatedly over the years), "Look, Nouri's dug in and refused to back down for eight months.  He could go eight months more.  As long as he does this, Iraq has no Parliament and nothing is being accomplished.  You love your country, you want the best for it.  So be the bigger person and let Nouri have that second term.  Then Iraq can get back to business. And we can do this with a legal contract that will have the full backing and support of the US government.  He wants a second term.  What does your bloc want?  We can put it in the contract and you can get it."

And people signed up with it and entered into a contract with Nouri.  For example, the Kurds signed on after it was put in writing that Nouri would implement Article 140 of the Iraqi Constitution (hold a census and referendum on oil-rich and disputed Kirkuk which is claimed by the KRG and by the central government of Baghdad).  Nouri signed the legal contract.

He used it to become prime minister but he refused to honor his written -- and legally binding -- promises. 

That is what caused the ongoing political crisis.

For the US government to fail to keep their promises?  You want to blame Iraqiya and Ayad Allawi for that?

You aren't analysts, your porn writers.

For those who care about reality, let's drop back to the November 11, 2010 snapshot:

An Iraqi journalist tells the BBC today, "I think a lot of people who voted this time round will have hoped for a change, and will be disappointed to see the same people in charge." John Leland, Jack Healy and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) add, "Iraq's lawmakers took a small step toward forming a government of Thursday evening, hammering out the details of a deal struck one day earlier to end an eight-months political impasse."

 

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 eight months and three days and still counting.

Today the KRG website announces:Baghdad, Iraq (KRP.org) - Iraq's political leaders yesterday agreed to hold the parliamentary session as scheduled on Thursday and to name an individual for the post of Speaker of the the parliament (Council of Representatives). The Speaker post will go to the Al-Iraqiya bloc, which is headed by former prime minister Ayad Allawi.
During the meeting, which was attended by the leaders of all the winning blocs at President Masoud Barzani's Baghdad headquarters, agreement was reached on two other points: to create a council for strategic policy and to address issues regarding national reconciliation.
President Barzani, who sponsored the three days' round of meetings, stated that today's agreement was a big achievement for Iraqis. He expressed optimism that the next government will be formed soon and that it will be inclusive and representative of all of Iraq's communities.

 

Martin Chulov (Guardian) reports one hiccup in the process today involved Ayad Allawi who US President Barack Obama phoned asking/pleading that he accept the deal because "his rejection of post would be a vote of no confidence". Ben Lando, Sam Dagher and Margaret Coker (Wall St. Journal) confirm the phone call via two sources and state Allawi will take the post -- newly created -- of chair of the National Council On Higher Policy: "Mr. Obama, in his phone call to Mr. Allawi on Thursday, promised to throw U.S. weight behind the process and guarantee that the council would retain meaningful and legal power, according to the two officials with knowledge of the phone call."

Get it, yet?

The power sharing agreement is The Erbil Agreement.  Barack gave his personal backing of it to Ayad Allawi and yet somehow what went down is Allawi's fault.

Freak Maria and Joel Wing are idiots.


Allawi was robbed. That's not a campaign slogan.

We were robbed.

That's a campaign slogan.

It can be a winning one.  'The imperialist Americans stole our election last time, we won't let them this time.'


I keep saying 'if they happen' of the parliamentary elections. Not only is Nouri attempting to insist he needs 8 additional months added onto the term, his State of Law continues to attempt to block the election law which needs to be passed for the elections to be held.  All Iraq News reports that Parliament again discussed the bill but did not vote for it today.



Provincial elections are local.  We said that before 12 provinces voted this year.  'Analysts' insisted that 'Nouri' would be the big winner.  He wasn't even on the ballot.  His State of Law did very poorly.  I haven't blamed it on Nouri.  It's not a reflection of Nouri. They are local races (like a statewide race for statewide office in the US).  There may be a pattern in the elections -- probably not thought.  The elections were too spread out.  12 in April, 2 months later then the KRG in September.





RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"On the KRG elections and bad 'analysts'"
"Libya and the shutdown"
"Maybe people don't know what they're doing?"
"Barry Gray tells the truth"
"brief grab bag"
"Tom Clancy"
"Thoughts on Pacifica"
"Adam Kokesh"
"Mia Farrow, what the -?"
"Emilio Estevez"
"Dumb Danny Fat Ass"
"A girl loves to dance"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY, BARRY, BARRY'S OUT OF TIME?"

A girl loves to dance

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


IT'S AS THOUGH MICK JAGGER AND KEITH RICHARDS HAD THE DALIBAMI IN MIND WHEN THEY WROTE:

YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE A CLEVER GIRL
GIVING UP YOUR SOCIAL WHIRL
BUT YOU CAN'T COME BACK
AND BE THE FIRST IN LINE
OH NO
YOU'RE OBSOLETE MY BABY
MY POOR OLD FASHIONED BABY 
I SAID BABY, BABY, BABY YOU'RE OUT OF TIME

THE SHUTDOWN HAS NOT ONLY MADE BARRY O OBSOLETE, IT'S HARMED HIS SOCIAL LIFE.

HE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TRAVEL AND HAS JUST LEARNED THAT BLACK TIE EVENTS ARE OUT AS WELL.

"DAMN IT!" THE CELEBRITY IN CHIEF EXPLODED EARLIER TODAY IN FRONT OF THESE REPORTERS.  "DAMN IT! DAMN IT! DAMN IT!  A GIRL LOVES TO DANCE AND WHAT DID I BUY ALL THOSE DRESS SHIELDS FOR IF NOT FOR SPECIAL EVENTS?  I HATE THIS CRUMMY WORLD!"



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



National Iraqi News Agency reports an armed attack in Tikrit left 2 police officers dead and a third injured,  a Ramadi car bombing left one police officer injured, a Falluja roadside bombing left two police officers injured, a Falluja sticky bombing left a couple (wife and husband) injured,  3 Tikrit suicide bombers took their own lives and that of an Iraqi army colonel and 2 police officers (seven more police officers were injured), retired military colonel Maan al-Hayali was shot dead near his Mosul home,  the Mosul homes of 2 Shabak families were blown up leaving one person injured, a Tikrit suicide bomber took his own life and that of 2 bystanders (five more were left injured), and the Falluja home and three cars belonging to a soldier's family were set fire today (the family fled to safety during the attack).

That violence falls under October.  September ended yesterday.  Iraq Body Count notes the death toll for September from violence is 1220.  UNAMI's count was a little lower in the statement they released today:

Baghdad, 1 October 2013 – According to casualty figures released today by UNAMI, a total of 979 Iraqis were killed and another 2,133 were wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in September.

The number of civilians killed was 887 (including 127 civilian police), while the number of civilians injured was 1,957 (including 199 civilian police). A further 92 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were killed and 176 were injured. “As terrorists continue to target Iraqis indiscriminately, I call upon all political leaders to strengthen their efforts to promote national dialogue and reconciliation,” the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, said. “Political, religious and civil leaders as well as the security services must work together to end the bloodshed and ensure that all Iraqi citizens feel equally protected," he added.
Baghdad was the worst-affected governorate in September, with 1,429 civilian casualties (418 killed and 1011 injured), followed by Ninewa, Diyala, Salahuddin and Anbar. Kirkuk, Erbil, Babil, Wasit, Dhi-Qar and Basra also reported casualties (double-digit figures).

Investors Business Daily notes that the UN figures mean that 2013 has already surpassed "last year's deadly count."   AFP's WG Dunlop Tweets:

W.G. Dunlop ‏@wgdunlop 3h

Sept. the deadliest month for Iraq recorded by @AFP this year, with 880 killed; over 4,700 dead in violence in 2013 http://u.afp.com/JSL 

Retweeted by Prashant Rao

Expand

Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) reports, "Using numbers from various sources, Antiwar.com compiled a total of 1,271 deaths, up slightly from last month and down from July. In September 2012, Antiwar.com counted 444 dead and 1,233 wounded. This difference dramatically underscores how much attacks have increased this year."  Antiwar.com and AFP are the only press outlets keeping their own monthly toll.  Investors Business Daily notes that the UN figures mean that 2013 has already surpassed "last year's deadly count."  Matt Brown (Australia's ABC) emphasizes, "The UN says nearly 2,000 were injured with terrorists attacking people indiscriminately."


It's an important number.  Maybe more important the death toll.  The dead are gone.  Those left behind mourn them.  The wounded from the violence?  They have to carry on in a country still at war.  They carry physical and mental scars.  And they may have a lost limb or a lost sense.  That's not easy to manage in any country but especially not in a country at war. 

Last week, retired US army Col David Sutherland (The Hill) noted the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (which the Senate is scheduled to consider this month):


As the commander of the U.S. combat brigade in Diyala Province, Iraq from 2006 – 2007, I fought for a rule of law that would be based, in part, on the high standards of the United States.  While in Iraq, I passed through villages caring for children injured by the conflict and children who were born with disabilities.  These children were loved, but the villages could be doing so much more.  There were no schools for Downs Syndrome kids or ramps and access for amputees.  This treaty, which Iraq has ratified, would open the dialogue so that such support might become a reality.



Noting the September death toll, Fits News observes:

A total of 4,486 American soldiers died in Iraq from 2003-2012. Thousands more were wounded and/ or returned home suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder.
And for what? Seriously … what did these troops fight and die for?
Meanwhile U.S. taxpayers shelled out $1.7 trillion in borrowed dollars to fund the war effort – and owe an additional $500 billion in benefits to veterans (a figure which is expected to skyrocket in the coming years).
Again … why? What did we spend all of that money for?


Also pointing out the failures is SP Seth (at Pakistan's Daily Times), "The prime justifications for the US invasion of Iraq that it had weapons of mass destruction and links with al Qaeda were found to be untrue. As we now know, the laudable objective of liberating and making Iraq into a model regional democracy has turned out to be a cruel joke played on the Iraqi people. Surely, Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and his overthrow by the Iraqi people would have been a welcome development. But the US invasion only compounded Iraq’s tragedy. "  Cathy Otten and Jacob Russell (USA Today) review the violence and we'll note this on Erbil:


A car bomb blew up Sunday in the region's capital, Irbil. Two vehicles loaded with explosives were detonated at the entrance to the Directorate of Security, and attackers armed with assault rifles and grenades opened fire.
"When I saw there had been an explosion there (in Irbil) something changed – I felt like I'm still in a dangerous place," Abid said. "Zakho is far from Irbil, but I worried it was the wrong decisions to come to a place that could turn out to be same as Baghdad."
Sunday's attack was the first attack of its kind in Iraqi Kurdistan since 2007, but its scale worries authorities.


Press TV reports, "Officials from Consulate General of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region have offered support to fight terrorism following Sunday’s bombings in Arbil. The Iranian diplomats have visited some of the terror victims in hospital. The al-Qaeda linked Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham has announced responsibility for the violence in unconfirmed internet posts." Yerevan Saeed (Rudaw) offers these thoughts:

One could ask why, despite many other soft targets such as ministries and government buildings, the attackers chose to target the Asayish headquarters.
The answer could be that Asayish was attacked for doing too good a job: The agency has defused multiple planned attacks over the past several years. Sunday’s attack was the first in the Kurdistan Region since 2007, when the same Asayish facility was attacked in a similar fashion.
Many potential attackers have been killed by Asayish. Therefore, Sunday’s attack could be revenge against the intelligence service and an attempt to tarnish its good image.




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq: 1220 die from violence in September"
"The illegal spying (and the lying) continue"
"Jesse Jackson, shut up"
"The Mindy Project meets Happy Endings"
"What shutdown?"
"revenge (the good parts)"
"Thoughts on shutdown"
"The Simpsons"
"Revolution: It's all White, er, right"
"Harvard, kiss my Black ass"
"The chemical weapons"
"The US mafia (aka federal government)"
"Barry O loses snow day"
"THIS JUST IN! WHAT WILL HE SAY? WILL HIS ASS ALSO SPEAK?"

Barry O loses snow day

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


WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SHUT DOWN, CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS POUTING.

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY EXPLAINS, "HE'S GETTING READY TO SPEAK AND BOY DID WE HEAR ABOUT THAT.  HE WOKE UP THIS MORNING RUNNING THROUGH THE WHITE HOUSE IN HIS FOOTIE PAJAMAS -- BACKDOOR FLAPPING IN THE BREEZE -- HOLLERING 'SNOW DAY! SNOW DAY!'  AND THEN WE TOLD HIM HE HAD TO BATHE, GET DRESSED AND MAKE A SPEECH.  HE'S POUTED EVER SINCE.  IT'S NOT BEEN PRETTY."

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY WAS WORRIED ABOUT SOMETHING OTHER THAN BARRY O'S DEMEANOR.  "I JUST HOPE," HE TOLD THESE REPORTERS JUST MOMENTS AGO, "HE DOESN'T RELEASE ANOTHER FART.  IMAGINE THE DAMAGE A SILENT BUT DEADLY ONE COULD DO TO THE PRESS AND OTHERS ASSEMBLED ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN.  WE MUST GET HIM TO AGREE TO INSPECTIONS OF THE WHITE HOUSE PANTRY, HE MUST SURRENDER ALL BEANS -- DRIED AND CANNED -- OR HE MUST FACE THE CONSEQUENCES."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:




Today, Baghdad was slammed with violence.  As Prensa Latina points out, "Iraq is still plunged into a spiral of violence."   While there were attacks elsewhere in Iraq today, it was nothing like Sunday when violence was spread out across the country.  How bad was the violence Sunday and today?

The United States condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks against Kurdish security forces in Erbil and inside a mosque in Babil Province yesterday. In addition, we have seen a horrific wave of car bombings across Baghdad today that has taken numerous innocent lives. These attacks, especially an attack inside a place of worship, are detestable and disgraceful and expose the nature of those perpetuating these attacks.   The terrorists who committed these attacks are a shared enemy of the United States, Iraq, and the international community. We stand with the Iraqi people against this violence and in our commitment to support efforts to bring those responsible for these attacks to justice. Our condolences go out to the families of the victims of these attacks.


That's State Dept spokesperson Jen Psaki speaking at today's press briefing.  If you can get over your shock, Iraq is so rarely raised in the State Dept press briefings despite the fact that the State Dept is over the US mission in Iraq, get ready for another shock.

Psaki was not responding to a question.  She made the statement as part of an announcement before she took questions.  And from surprising, let's to go the ugly reality.  With Psaki making those opening remarks, the press in attendance asked . . . zero questions about Iraq.  They didn't have one single question about Iraq.  Can't blame the lack of interest on the State Dept this time.

Noting today's violence, Neil Clark (RT) observes:


The same elite figures in the West who couldn't stop writing or talking about Iraq in 2002 and early 2003, telling us what a terrible threat Saddam Hussein’s ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were to us all, and how we needed to go to war with Iraq not only to disarm its evil dictator but to 'liberate' its people, are now silent in the light of the continuing bloodshed and havoc that the illegal invasion caused. In the run up to the invasion of March 2003, you couldn’t switch on a television news program in Britain or America without seeing a neo-con or ‘liberal interventionist’ obsessing about Iraq. In the lead-up to war, these great ‘humanitarians’ feigned concern for the plight of Iraqis living under Saddam’s dictatorship - but today show little or no concern for the plight of Iraqis being blown to pieces by bombs on a regular, almost daily basis. There are no calls from the ‘usual suspects’ for a Western ‘humanitarian’ intervention to stop the killing in Iraq. For these serial interventionists, Iraq, post-invasion, has become the greatest ‘non-story’ of the modern era. Instead, the same people who couldn’t stop talking about Iraq in 2002-2003 now can’t stop talking about Syria - feigning concern over the plight of Syrians in the same way they shed crocodile tears over Iraqis in early 2003.
It’s interesting that when it comes to casualty tolls, pro-war politicians can tell us exactly how many people have died in Syria since the violence started there in 2011, (and of course for them, all the deaths are the personal responsibility of President Assad), whereas when it comes to Iraq and the number of people who have been killed there since March 2003, there’s a great deal more vagueness. “We don’t do body counts on other people” Donald Rumsfeld famously declared in November 2003. The Iraqis killed since March 2003 (and casualty figures vary from around 174,000 to well over one million) are, for our political elite, ‘non-people.’ In 2013, it’s only dead Syrians (and Syrians whose deaths can be blamed on Syrian government forces) that matter - not dead Iraqis.
Because Iraq is deemed a ’non-story’ and our leaders never talk about the situation there, it’s no surprise to see that public perceptions of the death toll are way below even the most conservative estimates. Sixty-six percent of Britons in a poll earlier this year estimated that 20,000 or fewer Iraqis had died since the invasion of 2003. Donald Rumsfeld would no doubt be delighted to hear that.


I agree with Clark, he's 100% right.  But today, myself, I'd focus a lot more attention on the press today.  The UK's Foreign & Common Wealth Office issued the following:

The British Government utterly condemns the increasing cycle of violence in Iraq, including bomb attacks in Baghdad this morning and in Erbil on 29 September. The attacks in Erbil, a normally peaceful city, were particularly shocking. There should be no place for violence and terrorism in Iraq’s future and we support the Iraqi authorities in Baghdad and the Kurdish Regional Government in their efforts to bring those responsible to justice.

These are just statements, granted, but they're really more than the bulk of the US media is doing.  And for the press at the State Dept today to be read the statement by Jen Pskai and then for her to open the floor for questions and then to ask nothing?  With today's mass deaths and yesterdays (78 is the death toll Iraq Body Count gives for Sunday)?   Not one question?

Over fifty minutes.  That's how long the press briefing lasted.  Nearly an hour.  And despite Psaki's statement at the top, despite the massive today and yesterday in Iraq, the assembled press did not ask one question about Iraq.   Shameful.

I've called out Psaki and Marie Harf (another spokesperson) this year for ignoring the violence.  This time Psaki raised it herself.  And it didn't mean a damn thing to the press present.


Today's chief focal point for violence in Iraq was Baghdad.   Kareem Raheem (Reuters) reports 14 car bombs have resulted in "at least 54" deaths in the capital.  RTT explains the "bombings took place during busy morning hours in New Baghdad, Sadr, Sabaa al-Bour, Habibiya, Ur, Shaab, Shula, Jamiaa, Kadhimiya and Ghazaliah" districts of Baghdad. BBC informs, "Groups of labourers gathering ahead of the working day were among the bombers' targets."  EFE adds, "155 were wounded Monday in a new wave of attacks mainly targeting Shi’ite neighborhoods in Baghdad, an Iraqi police source told Efe."  World Bulletin notes, "Death toll from Monday's multiple bombings in Iraq's capital rose to 65 people while more than 200 others were wounded, security officials said."



Pravda has a photo essay of the violence here.  Al Bawaba offers a photo of the damage here.   AFP notes,   "The bombings on Monday were the latest in a string of sectarian attacks in central Iraq that have raised the spectre of a return to the intense Sunni-Shi'ite violence that peaked in 2006-2007 and killed tens of thousands of people.  The car bombs struck nine different areas, six of them Shi'ite-majority, one confessionally mixed and two Sunni-majority, also wounding more than 140 people."  Catherine Philp (Times of London) also notes the "fears that Iraq is sliding rapidly into the same all-out sectarian war engulfing next door Syria."   WG Dunlop (AFP) Tweets that the Iraqi government is insisting that only 10 people died.  DL Chandler (HipHopWired) notes, "Although no group has taken credit for the bombings, tensions between Sunni Muslim militants and Shiites have been growing." No one taking credit hasn't stopped the Iraqi government from laying blame.  The Voice of Russia reports, "According to the Iraqi Interior Ministry statement, al-Qaeda linked rebels are linked to the attacks. The ministry also noted that the terrorist organization is exploiting political divisions and regional conflicts to sow violence."

 Fu Peng (Xinhua) reminds, "The attacks came a day after a wave of insurgent attacks killed 55 people and wounded some 135 others across Iraq."   Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) offers this context, "More than 5,000 civiilans have died and 12,000 have been wounded in terrorist attacks and other violence in Iraq in 2013, the United Nations Mission in Iraq reported this month. The region around Baghdad has been the hardest-hit, the agency said."  Arthur Bright (Christian Science Monitor) reminds, "The Christian Science Monitor reported earlier this month that many Iraqis feel the civil war never really ended, and that the recent surge in violence is evidence of the sectarian divide still plaguing the country – as well as the government's inability to unite Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites."



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Over 1,200 violent deaths in Iraq this month"
"Barbara Mikulski, what's in your closet?"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Destroying The..."
"Hejira"
"Kat's Korner: Jack Johnson learns what really make..."
"16 dead, fifty injured"
"I Hate The War"
"Don't let Lynne Stewart die in prison"
"Antiwoman NBC"
"It's not universal health care"
"On ObamaCare and the shut down"
"revenge"
"The shutdown"
"A buffoon's name pops up"
"Tina Fey owes gays and lesbians an apology"
"The Good Wife"
"NBC hates women"
"That idiot Joel Wing"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: The assassination of Ammar Jassam Theya...
• TV: The sewer that is NBC
• Where's the diversity?
• Tweet of the Week
• Jim's World
• White House uses sex to sell ObamaCare
• TV goes trippin'
• Ty's Corner
• Dear Trash (Dona)
• John Parker and Sara Flounders on Syria (WW)
• Mumia Abu-Jamal on Syria (WW)
• Highlights

"Silent but deadly"
"THIS JUST IN! BARRY O GOES NUCLEAR!"