Barry explains why he's so angry

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS ANGRY, VERY ANGRY.


WHILE GOLFING WITH HIM ON THE WHITE HOUSE LAWN THIS MORNING -- HE AIMED ALL HIS GOLF BALLS AT MICHELLE'S OVERGROWN GARDEN -- THE DAHLIBAMA EXPLAINED TO THESE REPORTERS THAT HE'S TIRED OF BEING IGNORED.

"SELENA GOMEZ DIDN'T CRY FOR ME!" HE HOLLERED OF HER ON STAGE CRYING OVER JUSTIN BIEBER.  "I'M ALL BAD BOY JUST LIKE THE BIEB!  HELL I'M KILLING PEOPLE ALL THE TIME WITH MY DRONES!  WHAT DOES A FELLOW HAVE TO DO TO GET HIS PROPS?"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today AFP reports the Vice President did hold a press conference and he declared, "My case is politically motivated and the charges are absolutely fabricated. Nevertheless, I now express my readiness to return to Baghdad immediately ... in (the case) the EU guarantees a fair trial."  Middle East Monitor quotes al-Hashemi also stating, "The chances of just litigation are non-existent in Iraq when Chief Justice Medhat Al-Mahmoud is clearly complicit with the Prime Minister's Office, thus distorting the image and reputation of Iraq both domestically and internationally."

Even those who believe al-Hashemi is guilty have to, if they have any self-honesty, have to admit the Baghdad courts are a joke and Tareq was denied a fair trial.

In France, where they kiss in the main street, Francois Hollande is president.  Can you picture any French court denying to allow Hollande to testify as a character witness in a trial?  No. But Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was denied by the Baghdad court when he attempted to offer testimony on behalf of Tareq.  Equally true, by 2010, it was obvious that the Baghdad courts were not independent and were ruling for Nouri and against the laws of Iraq (including the Constitution).  As Congress was repeatedly informed in the last years of the '00s, the graft and corruption in Iraq included the judicial system.

The world looked the other way when  the Baghdad judges declared him guilty in February 2012 at their press conference and while one judge was stating that he had been threatened by al-Hashemi. Excuse me, that is wrong.  They reproduce what the judges said.  They failed to note the Iraqi Constitution -- which protects Tareq or anyone in office from being tried while they hold public office and which protects all with the belief of innocent until proven guilty.

Reuters and the others couldn't be bothered with facts or the law.  They couldn't even raise the issue of a group of Bahgdad judges declaring a person guilty before a trial had even started.  They were so up the ass of Nouri that they treated this moment as normal.

It was not normal.  Tareq was tried in absentia in a kangaroo court.  For those who've forgotten, al-Hashemi also asked that the trial be moved to another area of Iraq where Nouri did not control the judiciary.  That was refused.   Today Middle East Monitor reports:

During the conference, Hashemi revealed documents and videos proving the involvement of Al-Maliki and his office in acts of torture and serious violations of human rights. He explained that: "most of the detainees are innocent while the real criminals are still free with the knowledge of the security services. The major proof is the continued collapse of security; the incidents, assassinations and sectarian displacement, all with the support of Al-Maliki's security services."


In all the bad western media coverage of 2012, one lie after another was repeated as the 'indpendent' press conveyed Nouri al-Maliki's position like good little stenographers.  The steno pad, for example, was fond of repeating Nouri's lie that an arrest warrant was issued and then Tareq fled Baghdad.  Lie.  Dropping back to December 18, 2011:

AFP reports, "Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and several of his bodyguards were escorted off a plane at Baghdad airport on Sunday because two of the guards were wanted on 'terrorism charges,' officials said, the latest step in a deepening political crisis." Also on the plane was Saleh al-Mutlaq, Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister whom Nouri has asked Parliament to strip the powers of. al-Mutlaq was also forced off the plane. On today's All Things Considered (NPR), Kelly McEvers offered this take:

Kelly McEvers: Here in Kuwait, just having crossed over the border, we have all these US commanders telling us that they're leaving Iraq in a better place, that it's a thriving democracy. Yet in Baghdad it looks like you have Prime Minister Maliki -- who is a Shi'ite and whose government is Shi'ite -- going after his rivals who are Sunnis. Just yesterday, charges were announced against the Vice President who is Sunni and troops surrounded his house. The Maliki government accuses him of being involved in a terrorist plot. But Maliki's detractors say this is sectarian revenge. So you know we've got these promises from US commanders that things are going really well but this kind of national reconciliation government looks like it's unraveling.


Nizar Latif (The National) observes:

Those moves have added to a fear among the prime minister's critics that he is seeking to eliminate rivals and consolidate power.Iraqiyya warned it would pull out of the coalition government unless Mr Al Maliki agreed to seek a solution that respects "democracy and civil institutions".
"Iraq is now in a very difficult position. This is a critical time," said Eytab Al Douri, an MP with the Iraqiyya bloc. "If solutions are not found quickly, Iraq will be heading towards sectarian and ethnic divisions, and a return to civil war."

The Baghdad authorities had Tareq.  They pulled him off the plane (and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq as well), held him for a few hours and then led to proceed to the KRG.  The next day, December 19, 2011, they issued an arrest warrant.  From that day's snapshot:

CNN reported this afternoon that an arrest warrant had been issued for Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi by the Judicial Commitee with the charge of terrorism.  Omar al-Saleh (Al Jazeera) terms it a "poltical crisis" and states, "The government says this has nothing to do with the US withdrawal, that this has nothing to do with the prime minister consolidating his grip on power.  However, members of al-Iraqiya bloc, which Hashimis is a member of, say 'No, [Maliki] is trying to be a dictator."  Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes, "The arrest warrant puts Mr. Maliki on a possible collision course with the Kurds, who run their own semiautonomous region in the north and participate in the central government but have longstanding disputes with Baghdad over oil and land; and with Sunni Arabs in provinces like Anbar, Diyala, Nineveh and Salahuddin who have pressed in recent weeks for more autonomy from Baghdad with the backing of the Kurds."

Somehow, Nouri's the western press, aka Nouri's steno pool, turned that into "a warrant was issued for al-Hashemi who then fled."

They were so eager to serve Nouri, they didn't even bother to get the timetable correct.

So it's no surprise they also ignored Tareq al-Hashemi's conflict with Nouri.

We didn't.

Because the conflict was long standing.  Just as Nouri became prime minister in 2006, Tareq al-Hashemi became vice president the same year.

They had many conflicts.  The most recurring conflict?  Over the abuse of Iraqis held in detention centers and prisons.  When  Ned Parker (the Los Angeles Times) and Human Rights Watch would reveal the secret prisons -- supervised by Nouri -- where torture took place, everyone would play dumb.  Except al-Hashemi who always had a public statement.  While prisons were otherwise ignored in Iraq, Tareq would announce he was going into one and taking press with him.  In other countries -- and this especially pissed Nouri and his State of Law off in 2010 -- Tareq's visits would include him discussing the abuse taking place in Iraqi prisons.  This was among the reasons, during the 8 month political stalemate of 2010 (Nouri had lost the parliamentary election but refused to step down as prime minister), State of Law was publicly denouncing Tareq and insisting he was not vice president (when he was and would be named to a second term in November of 2010).

I don't doubt that Tareq al-Hashemi has proof of Nouri's crimes against the Iraqi people.  In part because Nouri's so stupid and so crooked.  But also because Tareq's always been sharper than Nouri.  In 2009, when Sunnis were being marginalized in the upcoming elections (as voters), Nouri felt he had a clean sweep at victory.  But that fall, Tareq used his Constitutional power to stop the bill Parliament had passed and to demand that Sunni refugees had the same voting rights of Shi'ite refugees and other Iraqi people.  Nouri was not pleased.

But the steno pool couldn't -- or wouldn't -- tell you that.  They'd lie and type that he was the former vice president.  They could do that.  But he was never stripped of office.  (Failure to first strip him of office is why the verdicts against him have no legal standing.)  Nouri tried.  He spent months -- a little over five -- trying to have Tareq stripped of office and Saleh al-Mutlaq stripped of office as well.  He failed in both cases.  In May of 2012, Nouri dropped his efforts to have Saleh stripped of office and, at the same time, the trial of Tareq (in absentia) also took place.  The two events were related.  Even after the Baghdad judges pronounced Tareq guilty in Februrary 2012, the trial didn't start.  Because Nouri knew he had to first get Tareq stripped of office -- and was convinced he could.  The trial only started after he faced the reality that it wasn't happening -- not for Tareq, not for Saleh.  Then, in violation of the Constitution, the trial began.


I know the press is largely stupid and rarely bother to look at the law.  But by the time Nouri was going after Tareq, even a lazy and ill-informed press should have known what's what.  In part because Nouri attempted to sue an MP only months before.  Sabah al-Saadi was the MP and his criticism of Nouri resulted in Nouri going crazy.   September 22, 2011, Nouri swore out an arrest warrant for al-Saadi. Let's drop back to the September 20, 2011 snapshot:


Meanwhile Dar Addustour reports MP Sabah al-Saadi is stating there is no arrest warrant out against him and that the claims of one stem from Nouri al-Maliki attempting to cover up his own corruption and he states Nouri has deliberately kept the three security ministries vacant and he charges Nouri is willing "to sell Iraq to maintain his hold on power."  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) observes, "The increasing violence is likely to be taken as a further sign of political gridlock in the Iraqi government, in particular the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to name permanent ministers for the key security posts 18 months after the March 2010 elections."


So Sabah al-Saadi was arrested!

No.

As an MP, he had immunity.  The Constitution guarantees him that -- guarantees Nouri that.  Only while in office, but it exists.  And the western press never bothered to tell you that fact.  Though they were frequently able to repeatedly lie and insist that Tareq was a "former" vice president.  Tareq is Vice President he's never been stripped of office.

December 2011, Nouri showed to the world his disrespect for the Constitution and his political rivals as he abused his office to target Nouri.  A year later, he underscored that point.  From the December 21, 2012 snapshot:

In Iraq, it's seasonal tidings.  Yes, that time of the year when Nouri uncorks The Crazy.  How bad is it?  So bad that rumors attach War Criminal Henry Kissinger's name to the current crisis.   Or, with a take from a different angle,  conservative Max Boot (Commentary) proclaims, "Ho hum, another holiday season, another power grab by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki."  AFP says the new crisis "threatens to reignite a long-running feud between the secular, Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc" and Nouri and his State of Law political slate.  What the heck are we talking about?  Look at this Reuters photo (individual photographer is not credited by the news agency or we'd note him or her by name) of the thousands who turned out to protest in Falluja today demanding Nouri al-Maliki resign as prime minister.

After morning prayers, Kitabat reports, protesters gathered in Falluja to protest the arrests and Nouri al-Maliki.  They chanted down with Nouri's brutality and, in a move that won't change their minds, found themselves descended upon by Nouri's forces who violently ended the protest.  Before that, Al Mada reports, they were chanting that terrorism and Nouri are two sides of the same coin.  Kitabat also reports that demonstrations also took place in Tikrit, Samarra, Ramdia and just outside Falluja with persons from various tribes choosing to block the road connecting Anbar Province (Falluja is the capitol of Anbar) with Baghdad.  Across Iraq, there were calls for Nouri to release the bodyguards of Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi.  Alsumaria notes demonstrators in Samarra accused Nouri of attempting to start a sectarian war.

So what happened yesterday?  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports:


Iraq's Finance Minister Rafei al-Essawi said Thursday that "a militia force" raided his house, headquarters and ministry in Baghdad and kidnapped 150 people, and he holds the nation's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, responsible for their safety.

 Members of the al-Essawi's staff and guards were among those kidnapped from the ministry Thursday, the finance minister said. He also said that his computers and documents were searched at his house and headquarters. He said the head of security was arrested Wednesday at a Baghdad checkpoint for unknown reasons and that now the compound has no security.

Kitabat explains that these raids took place in the Green Zone, were carried out by the Iraqi military and that Nouri, yesterday evening, was insisting he knew nothing about them.    In another report, Tawfeeq quotes al-Essawi stating, "My message to the prime minister: You are a man who does not respect partnership at all, a man who does not respect the law and the constitution, and I personally hold you fully responsible for the safety of the kidnapped people."

And those December 21, 2012 protests?  Though the western press ignores them, they continue non-stop to this day.  This was the ten month anniversary of the start of them but don't expect to discover that via AP or any other US outlet which seems to see it as a point of pride that they really don't care -- not even to report on Nouri's efforts to ensure that reporters don't cover the protests.  You don't need to read Arabic to grasp how Nouri's forces treat the press, just look at the photo to this Kitabat report.





Iraqi Spring MC reports protests took place in Samarra (above),  Falluja, in Ramadi, in Tikrit, and in Rawah, among other places.  Other places?  How about the KRG?  Erbil found protesters blocking the road and insisting the government provide protection for the people.  Alsumaria reports that an estimated 300 protesters turned out in Erbil.   National Iraqi News Agency reports:

Sheikh Mohammed Fayyad, one of the organizers of Anbar sit-ins ,said to NINA reporter : "The citizens participated in the prayers that held in the courtyard northern Ramadi and eastern Fallujah cities , stressing that the goal of this trickle is to send one again a message to the governing in Baghdad that our demonstrations are peaceful and backed by citizens deep conviction.

Alsumaria reports that, at the Falluja protests, Younis al-Hamadani called for the government to disclose the status of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and that it is impossible to believe the Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki do not know Talabani's condition.  Last December,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20th, he was moved to Germany.  He remains in Germany currently.  al-Nujaifi has disclosed he attempted to meet with Talabani last spring on a trip to Germany but that Talabani's office refused to allow the meet-up to take place.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"John Michael McGrath is "angry""
"BBC, USA Today and AP play down (ignore) Snowden r..."
"Kitchen Appliances in the Kitchen"
"Ralph Nader, you're a big disappointment"
"Jane Fonda's sexism harms women"
"scandal - the spider web of spying"
"Carrie needs Faye Dunaway"
"Adam Kokesh"
"The homophobes"
"Go see Carrie"
"If you mean it, you'd speak more strongly"
"Idiot of the Week and more"
"It was all an illusion"
"THIS JUST IN! WILLIE WONKED OUT OBAMACARE!"

It was all an illusion

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

FOUR YEARS TO SET UP OBAMACARE AND THEY COULDN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, WHITE HOUSE PLUS SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY EXPLAINED, "IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT SELLING AN ILLUSION, WHETHER WITH THE DALIBAMA HIMSELF OR HIS PROGRAMS."

ASKED HOW HE LIVED WITH HIMSELF WHILE BEING SUCH A REPEAT LIAR, CARNEY EXPLAINED, "WE ARE THE MUSIC MAKERS, WE ARE THE DREAMERS OF DREAMS."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:


I see NSA-whistle blower Ed Snowden as a hero.  Some do not see him as such.  I think he did the country (and the world) a great service by exposing the illegal spying.  Again, some don't feel the same.

Today, when an NBC friend e-mailed me Geoffrey Cowley's long article kind-of about Iraq, I immediately thought of Ed Snowden's whose sacrificed so much to tell the truth.  I thought of him as Cowley tried to turn "Skip" Burkle (Dr. Frederick Burkle) into a hero.  Burkle was over Iraqi health in 2003 and has a great deal to say.

Today.

Today when it doesn't really matter one damn bit.  Today when Bully Boy Bush's image and reputation is so destroyed that Cowley can do a 'serious' news piece that basically mocks Bush.

Bully Boy Bush is a War Criminal.  But the US press won't note that.  Like little cowards, they won't note it, but, like little cowards, they'll stick their tongues out at him.


So Iraqi health was a failure and Burkle resigned from USAID as desired by the 2003 White House and now, ten years later, we're supposed to be impressed that he's telling (what he says is) the truth?

I'm not impressed.  Ed Snowden blew the whistle.  Coward Burkle?  He waited until Bush was out of office and a public relations disaster to come forward.

In other words, while Iraqis suffered, and he knew they were suffering, he refused to speak.  As Pat Benatar sang:

It's a little too little
It's a little too late
I'm a little too hurt 
And there's nothing left that I got to say
You can cry to me baby
But there's only so much that I can take
It's a little too little
It's a little too late


Cowley wants to snicker (behind a straight face) about Bully Boy Bush's lies.  He's sort of like a 17-year-old just realizing "I'm coming" can be interpreted in many ways while his peers stare at him amazed that he's only just now caught on to that.

If there's a reason to write about broken promises in 2013 -- broken promises with regards to Iraq -- one reason would be the Ashraf community who disarmed at the request of the US government and were promised protection (and were protected people under Geneva) but whom, since Barack came into office, have been attacked repeatedly.  As Betty noted earlier this week at her site:

The US government gave its word to the Ashraf community.
And now it doesn't want to keep its word.
But it has not had the guts to say that.
Maybe if, when Barack was sworn in back in January 2009, he'd announced that the promise was now broken, the Ashraf community would have had a heads up?
Instead, they've been left with false hopes (and no protection).


He wants to write about "the brain drain" in terms of the medical situation:


Unfortunately, the wars that spawned Iraq’s myriad health challenges have also robbed it of the capacity to address them. The country has lost more than half of its physicians since 2000 (20,000 out of 34,000), and though 1,500 to 1,800 Iraqis are now completing medical degrees each year, a fourth of them are leaving the country. Dr. Nabil Al-Khalisia, an Iraqi physician who fled to the United States in 2010, has since surveyed others in Iraq and around the world, and his findings aren’t encouraging. As he told the Lancet in an interview published last week, more than half of the doctors he surveyed in June 2011 said they had been threatened. Of those still working in Iraq, 18% had survived assassination attempts and nearly half said they still planned to leave the country.


What a stupid idiot.

I hope he loathes Bully Boy Bush because, otherwise, there's no point to his article.

Doctors are killed in Iraq all the time.  He can't tell you that.  Not even that, six days ago, a doctor was shot dead in Mosul.

He pretends he's interested in the medical but can't tell you that and seems unable to utter the word "nurse."  No where are Nouri's failures in the last seven years more clear than with regards to nurses.  He's importing nurses into the country -- a country with an unemployment rate around 30% (unofficial).  Nouri's importing nurses and has been over seven years.  A nursing degree -- an RN -- is a two year program.  He's had seven years to fast track Iraq's large pool of unemployed workers into a nursing program that would do away with the need to import 60,000 nurses every few months.

Most of all, if you're going to write about Iraq today you need to note reality on the ground -- especially when you open your 'report' with this 2003 quote from Bully Boy Bush:


The Iraqi people can be certain of this. The United States is committed to helping them build a better future. We will bring Iraq food and medicine and supplies, and most importantly, freedom.

Where's the freedom issue in your overly long article?

No where to be found.

Following the 2005 elections, Iraqi MPs wanted Ibrahim al-Jafaari to be prime minister (to continue in that post).  He had rubbed the Bush administration the wrong way and they demanded it be Nouri al-Maliki.  In the 2010 parliamentary elections, Nouri's State of Law came in second meaning the Iraqi people were finally free of him.

Except the Barack Obama White House wanted to keep him on.  So they overroad the votes of the Iraqi people, they overrode the Iraqi Constitution, they overroad the rules and spirit of democracy, went around all of that to broker a legal contract that gave Nouri a second term.

That contract is why Iraq has had an ongoing political crisis for over three years.

And when Iraqis try to protest, Nouri's forces attack them.  The most infamous example is the April 23rd massacre of a sit-in in Hawija which resulted from  Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported the death toll eventually (as some wounded died) rose to 53 dead.   UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured)."

Marcia wrote about the attacks on protesters last night and she noted an August 31st report by Aswat al-Iraq:

A number of casualties were reported in mid of Nassiriya city following clashes between SWAT forces and hundreds of demonstrators.

The security forces used live bullets to disperse them, as reported to Aswat al-Iraq.

Civil activist Bassam al-Jabiri told Aswat al-Iraq that 10 persons were injured for "unjustified use of force by SWAT forces".

Marcia concluded, "People need to be aware of this and they especially need to be aware of it with Nouri coming to the US to meet Barack in about two weeks.  He is attacking the Iraqi people.   Our government doesn't need to schmooze him, they need to hold him accountable."

Can NBC explain how you open with a 2003 quote about democracy in an article about failed promises to Iraq and never note the attacks on protesters?  Or how about how this article about Iraq 'today' can't mention Barack Obama who has been president for over the last four years of 'today'?

Like most Americans in 2000, I didn't vote for Bully Boy Bush.  I didn't vote for him in 2004. Starting in February 2003, I spoke out against him, calling him out for war on Iraq.  I still speak about war on Iraq every week.  Bully Boy Bush isn't really my focus.  He is thankfully out of the White House.  NBC's filed something today.

While they pretend it's a report on Iraq, it just reads to me like a lot of Bush hatred.  And I'm not going to defend Bully Boy Bush from that but I'm also going to pretend like it's got much to do with what's going on in Iraq today despite the lie in the subheading of "What are their lives like today?"

What their lives are like today would include the Sunni vice president.  From the December 19, 2011 snapshot:

CNN reported this afternoon that an arrest warrant had been issued for Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi by the Judicial Commitee with the charge of terrorism.  Omar al-Saleh (Al Jazeera) terms it a "poltical crisis" and states, "The government says this has nothing to do with the US withdrawal, that this has nothing to do with the prime minister consolidating his grip on power.  However, members of al-Iraqiya bloc, which Hashimis is a member of, say 'No, [Maliki] is trying to be a dictator."  Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) observes, "The arrest warrant puts Mr. Maliki on a possible collision course with the Kurds, who run their own semiautonomous region in the north and participate in the central government but have longstanding disputes with Baghdad over oil and land; and with Sunni Arabs in provinces like Anbar, Diyala, Nineveh and Salahuddin who have pressed in recent weeks for more autonomy from Baghdad with the backing of the Kurds."

They were questionable charges to begin with and al-Hashemi could not get a fair trail in Baghdad. In fact, the Baghdad judges declared him guilty in February 2012 at their press conference and while one judge was stating that he had been threatened by al-Hashemi.  (The judge actually claimed to have been threatened by 'supporters' of al-Hashemi -- he can't even make the claim if press for proof that it was by a bodyguard of al-Hasehmi.) That was before the trial ever began.  Before hearing any evidence, the judges made clear that al-Hashemi was guilty.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Bombs across Iraq while State of Law obsesses over..."
"The potboiler needed that giddy high to go out on"
"Melissa McCarty and Elle"
"Donald Glover"
"Will Mia Farrow apologize for her child molesting brother?"
"the ridiculous mia farrow"
"How 2008's Democratic primaries went down"
"The 2008 primaries"
"Revolution -- where Rachel admires The Yellow Wallpaper"
"Arrow : Where Laurel pisses us off"
"Not a clue"
"Graham Nash"
"He's a little moody"
"THIS JUST IN! HIS CLAWS COME OUT!"

He's a little moody

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


THE SHUTDOWN IS OVER! AND THE FIRST ORDER OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS?  GETTING A BLOGGER TO POST HOW GROOVY BARRY O IS AT THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE.

BUT HE DIDN'T LOOK TOO GROOVY THIS AFTERNOON SPEAKING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.  HE SEEMED KIND OF BITCHY TALKING ABOUT "DEMOCRATS AND RESPONSIBLE REPUBLICANS."

REACHED FOR COMMENT, WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL JAY CARNEY CONFIRMED WHAT EVERYONE SUSPECTED, "HE'S ON THE RAG.  HIS CLAWS CAME OUT.  HIS MANBOOBS ARE TENDER AND HE JUST WANTS TO EAT CHOCOLATE."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today, the White House issued the following:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 16, 2013

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Visit of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq

On Friday, November 1, President Obama will host Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the White House.  The visit will highlight the importance of the U.S.-Iraq relationship under the U.S.-Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA).  The President looks forward to discussing with Prime Minister Maliki efforts to enhance cooperation in the fields covered under the SFA, and to coordinating on a range of regional issues.



Strange this wasn't noted in today's State Dept press briefing.  Even stranger is the press coverage like The Voice of Russia, Reuters, AFP, David Jackson (USA Today), and KUNA.  Dropping back to Monday's snapshot:



His intended end of the month visit to DC is about making sure that he still has the White House backing.  While the US government has refused to acknowledge the visit and the last official statement (from State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf) this past week is that there is no visit, the Iraqi press tells a different story.  Nouri's office announced the visit October 6th the one the State Dept was denying on Wednesday.  Saturday,  All Iraq News reported on Nouri's planned visit to DC noting that security issues will be the focus of the meet-up.  National Iraqi News Agency reports today the visit is scheduled for October 25th.   And, by the way, this visit Marie Harf lied about?  NINA notes it comes "in response to an official invitation of U.S. President Barack Obama."

The 'reports' today ignore Marie Harf's attempt to pretend no visit was taking place.

The 'reports' do more than that, however.

It illustrates just how much is wrong with the press.

The US government denied the meeting (spokesperson Harf).

And that was it for the media.

"News" is only what the US government says it is.

It did not matter, to the press, that Nouri al-Maliki's office had announced the meeting that, even after the no-meeting-we-know-of denial, Nouri's office continued discussing the visit.

The Iraqi press -- only the Iraqi press -- continued to report on the visit.

One denial from a flunkie like Marie Harf and the world's press goes into silent mode.

How shameful and how disgusting but, most of all, how telling.

Marie Harf's press briefings are quickly becoming one of the biggest jokes of the administration.  Earlier this week, Kelley B. Vlahos noted some of Harf's issues from that press briefing in a column entitled "Washington's Silence On Iraq" (Antiwar.com).  A number of people felt the need to weigh in on that -- to complain that a column they liked -- or in three cases -- that they wrote didn't get highlighted but Libertarian Vlahos did.

Kelley wrote an epic column filled with important points.

One of these columns that we ignored was a piece Charles Davis wrote for Al Jazeera.  He is calling out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for not doing everything to end the Iraq War while wining about how some Republicans with convictions (whether you agree with them or not, they have convictions and -- unlike Reid -- they have spines).

As I've ignored it, the e-mails on it have grown more frantic.  I should, I'm told, not only highlight it but love it because I wrote the same way on US House Rep Tim Ryan.

I would disagree about "same."  I wrote in a much stronger tone and did that in the October 4th snapshot.  So for Davis to show up two days later?  I don't consider it an homage.  I really wouldn't call it theft because it's just an approach.  But again, I called out strongly while Davis kind of whimpers and that bothered me more than the derivative nature of his column.

But that's not what didn't get him linked.  To stop the endless e-mails -- and to introduce reality again -- I'm explain why I did not highlight his column.  Davis wrote:


The last US soldier did not leave Iraq until the end of 2011. And even that belated withdrawal, which left behind an army of private military contractors, was required as a result of an agreement signed by President George W. Bush - and, sort of importantly, demanded by Iraqis. Numerous Democratic fundraising letters were no doubt written around opposition to the war, but only an Iraqi refusal to grant US troops legal immunity for their acts on Iraqi soil compelled the US government to finally leave.


Davis is a stupid idiot. If he doesn't like that?  Maybe he'd prefer to be called a stupid liar?

Those are the choices.


All US troops left at the end of 2011, did they?  Then why, at the end of September 2012, did  Tim Arango (New York Times) report this in the middle of an article on Syria:

 
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.        



Robert Caslen is now stateside, the superintendent at West Point, if some one in the lazy US press would like to ask him about his revelation that the Iraqi government, in fall 2012, asked for US troops and Barack Obama sent in "a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers"?

Here's his home page at West Point, there are contact forms at the bottom.  We covered Tim Arango's report.  Just here, we've covered it over sixty times since it was published.  That agreement Arango noted?  It was signed in December.  We covered it.

No one else bothered to.  We did.

Let's go to the April 30th Iraq 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."

December 6th, Alsumaria was covering it.  December 6th, though the US press ignored the MoU, the Pentagon even issued a press release on it.  Use that day's link.  What did the agreement say?  No one knew because -- despite providing a link online (the link didn't work) -- the Pentagon hadn't published it.  They did on December 10th and a DoD friend called to tell me it was up online.  At which point we returned to the topic to anlyze it.

Because no one else was covering it -- and because it allowed for joint patrols (US and Iraqi) in Iraq,  angry e-mailers flooded the public account --  apparently, they could figure out how to click on "send" but not how to click on a link.  So we returned to the topic the next day.

That was December 2012.  Starting in 2013, Kenneth Katzman's regular report,  entitled "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights," for the US Congressional Research Service, began noting the same things.  That's Congress' think tank so if you missed Tim Arango's report -- and a lot of people did apparently -- every few weeks Katzman would publish a new report on Iraq noting the Special Ops sent back in, the MoU and more.

At this late date, I don't even care that they're unaware of the over 10,000 (still over 10,000) US troops stationed in countries surrounding Iraq (such as Kuwait which has the bulk), or that they're unaware of the so-called 'trainers,' or that they missed Ted Koppel's important report in December 2011.

At this late date, I'll let all that slide.  But when you're pimping the lie that US troops are not in Iraq -- pimping because you're stupid, you're a whore, you're a liar or what (I don't know and I don't care), I'm not in the mood to link to you, let alone praise you.


Quinton D. Thompson writes a letter to the editors of the Baltimore Sun.  It seems like a heartfelt letter but it includes this:

First, the authors stated that the combat troops associated with the war effort had left Iraq, when in fact they didn't just leave. Instead, they were withdrawn and sent home at the end of 2011 by President Barack Obama in an obvious political ploy to enhance his chances of being reelected in 2012.

Quinton D. Thompson isn't a journalist.  He doesn't write columns.  He depends on the US media to inform him.

And they failed.

They failed day after damn day.

Charles Davis is only one in  a string of disappointments who have lied to the American people by insisting all US troops are out of Iraq.


What are we supposed to do?

Seriously.  When a lie is repeated over and over, day after day, are we just supposed to be silent?

Are we supposed to be 'nice' and 'ladylike' and look the other way?

Maybe some will but I won't.

I am damn tired of the fact that when a Tim Arango squeezes some truth into the news reporting, it is ignored, it is as if it never happened.

You can be damn sure that if Bully Boy Bush were in the White House now and had sent a unit back into Iraq in 2012, it would be huge news across the spectrum.

But instead we're a county of Medea Benjamins who self-present as activists but are truly little more than wet nurses to Barack Obama.  CODESTINK should have been calling for protests the day Arango's 2012 report hit the net.  They didn't.  They've never even acknowledged it.

People like Medea and certain others aren't about peace or ending war.  They're about covering for Democrats and complaining about Republicans.  They exist not to make a better world, they exist to try to scare up votes for the Democratic Party.


It's too bad because if it weren't for the shutdown, the US military would likely be launched against Syria and more US military would be back in Iraq.  Not "likely" on Iraq.  It would be -- according to two DoD friends.  Remember, it was back in June that Gen Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated,  "We've made a recommendation that as we look at the challenges faced by the Lebanese armed forces, the Iraqi security forces with a re-emerging Al Qaida in Iraq, and the Jordanians, that we would work with them to help them build additional capability."

Maybe you don't remember?  Maybe you missed that too?  Like you're missing the reason for Nouri's visit?




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The continued violence, Nouri's continued failures..."
"The Drone War and how Medea Benjamin keeps it goin..."
"Harry Belafonte"
"The Mindy Project Wiener Night"
"ObamaCare"
"the old queen and the sea"
"My mistake"
"Oh, Bette"
"Nouri's attacks on protesters"
"More problems for Elysium"
"Syria"
"Some can stand up"
"THIS JUST IN! WEAK ASS MEDEA BENJAMIN!"
"Sit down, tired Medea"

Sit down, tired Medea

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

CODESTINK'S MEDEA BENJAMIN REMAINS UNABLE TO CALL OUT CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O.

CONTRAST THE TIRED IDIOT WITH MALALA YOUSAFZAI WHO, AT ONLY 16-YEARS OF AGE, TOLD BARRY O TO HIS FACE THAT HE NEEDED TO STOP THE DRONE WAR ON PAKISTAN.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, MEDEA LAUGHED, "I'M JUST A TIRED, OLD WHORE.  DID YOU BOYS BRING A PHOTOGRAPHER?  I THINK I LOOK BEST WITH BACK LIGHTING."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Starting with a bit of house cleaning, from yesterday's snapshot:

First, we addressed the coverage of al Qaeda in Iraq earlier today.   A 'sweet' 'analyst' e-mailed to advise me of how "uninformed" I am for this statement:

Starting in 2009, regular press reports pop up about how Nouri's failure to pay or create other jobs for Sahwa (Sunnis and a few Shi'ites paid to stop attacking US forces and US equipment) was leading them to join rebel groups or terrorist groups or other groups.

"Everyone," the e-mail informs me, "knows that the Sons of Iraq are Sunni."  Sahwa is also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" (with the less covered female counterparts known as "Daughters Of Iraq."  As for what "everyone" knows, I know reality, what do you know?  Oh, that's right, you know crap ass nothing.

I explained we were quoting then-General David Petraeus in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee April 8, 2008.  I explained yesterday:


But in terms of the "Shia as well as Sunni"?  As I recall that moment in the hearing (I could be wrong, it was over five years ago -- but, thing is, I'm not wrong), Petraeus didn't just say it, he had a visual aid, a chart, to illustrated it.   So the chart would have had to have been wrong too.
In addition, and this is what really nails it, I remember being really ticked off when he said it.  What really pisses me off in a hearing?  Someone wasting everyone's time reading their written statement for the record out loud.  There's no reason for it.  It's put in the record.  Stop it, please.  When Secretary of State John Kerry chaired committees, he would instruct/beg witnesses not to waste everyone's time by reading those prepared remarks.
Prepared remarks.  Meaning Petraeus was reading from his written submission.  This was not an ad-lib in response to a question.  He said [it].  He meant to say it, he put it in writing before he said it and he brought a visual aid.

Community member Brandon tried to establish the above on his own but the Senate Armed Services Committee site doesn't have archives.  Brandon didn't give up though.  He found, at Real Clear Politics, Petraeus' written testimony submitted for the record.  Paragraph 34:

The emergence of Iraqi volunteers to help secure their local communities has been an important development. As this chart depicts, there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq, Shia as well as Sunni, under contract to help coalition and Iraqi forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads.

As we noted yesterday, Petraeus was then the top-commander of US forces in Iraq, he was the one who implemented the program.  If he didn't mean to say "Shia as well as Sunni," he wouldn't have said it.  He did.  It does go against the repeated press portrayals.  There's no reason for Petraeus to lie about this to Congress.  I don't believe he was lying.  If you need more on it, you need to talk to Petraeus.  Not, as the 'analyst' did on Monday, e-mail me about an error that wasn't made.  Thank you to Brandon for his research.



Let's leave the recent history of five years ago for many more years ago for Eid al-Adha.  This holy day kicks off the four-day festival for practicing Muslims.  Time and Date notes:

Ibrahim, known as Abraham in the Christian and Jewish traditions, was commanded by God to sacrifice his adult son. He obeyed and took Ishmael (Ismail or Ismael) to Mount Moriah. Just as he was to sacrifice his son, an angel stopped him and gave him a ram to sacrifice in place of his son. Some people dispute that the son of sacrifice was Isaac (Isḥāq). Regardless, these events are remembered and celebrated at Eid al-Adha.


The religious days have meaning around the globe; however, that's especially true in Iraq where, Ali Mamouri (Al-Monitor) explains, "According to polling by Gallup, Iraq is one of the most religious societies in the world, with about 84% of Iraqis professing devotion to one faith or another."  Of the holy days themselves, Al Arabiya adds:


Eid al-Adha - the Feast of Sacrifice - marks the end of hajj, an annual pilgrimage undertaken by some 1.5 million Muslims this year in Saudi Arabia.
The holiday commemorates Prophet Ibrahim’s willingness to obey God’s command to sacrifice his son Ismael.
Muslims believe that the very moment Ibrahim raised the knife, God told him to stop, that he had passed the test, and to replace Ismael with a sacrificial ram.
Muslims worldwide traditionally slaughter sheep or cattle in commemoration. The meat is distributed among the family and neighbors as well as the poor and needy.
But before the slaughter, men, women and children alike flock to mosques around the country to take part in the prayers.
Across the Muslim world, families were in a festive mood as they took to the markets and malls on Monday night, preparing to mark the occasion.



That's the historical background to what's being observed.  AP reports a disruption of the observance in Poland where "animal rights activists on Tuesday tried to prevent Muslim community in Bohoniki, in eastern Poland, from proceeding with the Eid al-Adha holidary, or Feast of Sacrifice, that includes cutting the throats of conscious animals."  The protest was a mild disruption.   Saad Abedine, Joseph Netto, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Qadir Sediqi (CNN) report that Afghanistan and Iraq saw the day "marred by bomb blasts."

Many Iraqi leaders had issues statements expressing joy for the four-day festival and asking for peace for the Iraqi people.  Ayad Allawi, head of Iraqiya, Tweeted a call for security and a holy day greeting:

Ayad Allawi ‏@AyadAllawi

نهنئكم بحلول عيد الاضحى المبارك اعاده الله على شعبنا الكريم بالامن، سائلين المولى عز وجل ان يحفظ #العراق ارضاً وشعباً pic.twitter.com/Yuacl6WnZ3

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite

 But the hopes of the many were not to be.  Mustafa Mahmoud, Suadad al-Salhy and Andrew Heavens (Reuters) report, "A bomb exploded near a mosque in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk on Tuesday, killing eight Sunni worshippers after the first prayer of the Muslim Feast of Sacrifice, or Eid al-Adha, police and medical sources said."  NINA noted the death toll has risen to 10 with twenty-two injured.  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) updated it to 12 dead and twenty-four injured -- but the numbers continued to climb.  AFP reports the death toll reached 15 -- including three children -- with twenty-six injured and quotes an outraged group of people "shouting, 'God take revenge on those who are evil!'"

Kirkuk is where, as Aswat al-Iraq noted last month, the biggest industrial complex in Iraq is being built.  AP offers this carefully worded statement today, "Kirkuk, a frequent flashpoint for violence, is home to an ethnic mix of Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen who all have competing claims to the oil-rich city."  Wow.  That has almost all of the non-insight of "The Pig-Pen Ambassador" Christopher Hill's ridiculous statements at his 2009 confirmation hearing to become the US Ambassador to Iraq  (see the March 25, 2009 snapshot and the March 26th one).  Kirkuk, he explained, was "just an old-fashioned land dispute."

Oil-rich Kirkuk is claimed by both the Kurdistan Regional Government and by the central government in Baghdad.  That's where the dispute is.  Article 140 is in the Iraq Constitution -- hence its name -- and it requires that the disputed territories have a census and referendum.  It also was supposed to be implemented by the end of 2007.  This is not open to debate or dispute, this is written into the Constitution.  Nouri al-Maliki becomes prime minister in Iraq in the spring of 2006.  But Nouri ignored it, despite taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.  He has repeatedly refused to implement this. 

Again, Article 140 is not open to interpretation.  It is a law and not a distant one.  The Iraqi Constitution was drawn up in 2005.  Not only was it recent, Nouri should have had no problem grasping intent and meaning.  May 15, 2005, he was appointed to the Iraqi Constitution Drafting Committee.  Yes, Nouri served on the committee that wrote the Constitution.

Nouri refused to implement Article 140.  Until 2010 when his State of Law lost to Iraqiya in the parliamentary elections.  In the eight month-plus stalemate that followed the elections, stalemate created by Nouri, he rushed around from one bloc to another making one promise after another.

The Kurds had reason to believe he was serious.  Not only did he swear it would happen, not only was it included in the contract the US negotiated (the Erbil Agreement) which gave Nouri his second term, but when all parties signed off on the Erbil Agreement (Novemeber 2010), there was a census in Kirkuk scheduled for the start of December.

As is always the case with Nouri, he just can't be trusted.

He cancelled the census, swearing it would be rescheduled shortly.  Almost three years later, it never has been rescheduled.


If you're not getting how serious Kirkuk's status is, let's fall back to the  July 26, 2011 snapshot for more on this issue:

Of greater interest to us (and something's no one's reported on) is the RAND Corporation's  report entitled "Managing Arab-Kurd Tensions in Northern Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops."  The 22-page report, authored by Larry Hanauer, Jeffrey Martini and Omar al-Shahery, markets "CBMs" -- "confidence-building measures" -- while arguing this is the answer.  If it strikes you as dangerously simplistic and requiring the the Kurdish region exist in a vacuum where nothing else happens, you may have already read the report.  CBMs may strike some as what the US military was engaged in after the Iraqi forces from the central government and the Kurdish peshmerga were constantly at one another's throats and the US military entered into a patrol program with the two where they acted as buffer or marriage counselor.  (And the report admits CBMs are based on that.)  Sunday Prashant Rao (AFP) reported US Col Michael Bowers has announced that, on August 1st, the US military will no longer be patrolling in northern Iraq with the Kurdish forces and forces controlled by Baghdad. That took years.  And had outside actors.  The authors acknowledge:

Continuing to contain Arab-Kurd tensions will require a neutral third-party arbitrator that can facilitate local CMBs, push for national-level negotiations, and prevent armed conflict between Iraqi and Kurdish troops.  While U.S. civilian entities could help implement CMBs and mediate political talks, the continued presence of U.S. military forces within the disputed internal boundaries would be the most effective way to prevent violent conflict between Arabs and Kurds.

As you read over the report, you may be struck by its failure to state the obvious: If the US government really wanted the issue solved, it would have been solved in the early years of the illegal war.  They don't want it solved.  The Kurds have been the most loyal ally the US has had in the country and, due to that, they don't want to upset them.  However, they're not going to pay back the loyalty with actual support, not when there's so much oil at stake.  So the Kurds were and will continue to be told their interests matter but the US will continue to blow the Kurdish issues off over and over.  Greed trumps loyalty is the message.  (If you doubt it, the Constitution guaranteed a census and referendum on Kirkuk by December 31, 2007.  Not only did the US government install Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in 2006, they continued to back him for a second term in 2010 despite his failure to follow the Constitution.)

Along with avoiding that reality, the report seems rather small-minded or, at least, "niche driven."  Again, the authors acknowledge that as well noting that they're not presenting a solution to the problems or ways to reach a solution, just ways to kick the can further down the road and, hopefully, there won't be an explosion that forces the issue any time soon. ("Regional and local CBMs have the potential to keep a lid on inter-communal tensions that will, without question, boil beneath the surface for a long time.  They cannot, however, resolve what is, at its heart, a strategic political dispute that must be resolved at the national level.") Hopefully? Page nine of the report notes that the consensus of US military, officials, analysts, etc. who have worked on the issue is that -- "given enough time -- Arab and Kurdish participants will eventually have a dispute that leads to violence, which will cause the mechanism to degrade or collapse."

The report notes that, in late 2009, Gen Ray Odierno (top US commander in Iraq at that point) had declared the tensions between Arabs and Kurds to be "the greatest single driver of instability in Iraq."  It doesn't note how the US Ambassador to Iraq when Odierno made those remarks was Chris Hill who dismissed talk of tensions as well as the issue of the oil rich and disputed Kirkuk.

Again, AP kind of oversimplifies in their single-sentence explanation of Kirkuk.

Today, Saad Abedine, Joseph Netto, Mohammed Tawfeeq and Qadir Sediqi (CNN) report, "The bomb went off as worshippers were leaving the mosque, police said."  Kirkuk Now adds, "The bomb was reportedly wrapped in a plastic bag and put near the entrance of the Quds mosque located in the Zubat neighborhood of Kirkuk."  They also have a visual essay of the aftermath featuring six photos by Salam al-Ansari.  AFP's Mohamad Ali Harissi Tweets:

Mohamad Ali Harissi ‏@aleeharissi 14h

@AFP video on today's attack against worshipers in #Kirkuk north #Iraq - video by AFP's @marwanalanie http://www.afp.fr/en/products/services/video …

Expand         

The Latin American Herald Tribune points out, "The attack also caused vast destruction to nearby buildings and vehicles."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Holy day does not stop violence in Iraq"
"The spying (and the lying) never ends"
"The power of no"
"Christine Lahti's a moron"
"The latest on the illegal spying"
"revenge (the good)"
"Bob Filner"
"Greenwald leaving Guardian"
"I'm not going to applaud weak ass Margaret Flowers"
"Carrie"
"Syria"
"Olive Stone puts Mia Farrow to shame"
"The perv named Barry"
"THIS JUST IN! HE'S A PERV!"

The perv named Barry

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O HAS BEEN CAUGHT LYING TO AMERICA YET AGAIN ABOUT SPYING.

REACHED FOR COMMENT BY THESE REPORTERS THIS MORNING, BARRY O SAID, "WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?  I'M A DIRTY PERV!  I NEED TO SEE NOT JUST YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER'S BROWSER HISTORY BUT YOUR GRANDPARENTS AS WELL.  THIS IS HOW I GET OFF.  I JERK MY TINY LITTLE COCK-LETTE WHILE I SEE WHO'S BEEN WRITING WHO.  IT MAKES ME FEEL ALMOST IMPORTANT, ALMOST LIKE A MAN!"

WITH THAT THE DALIBAMA BEGAN FURIOUSLY HUMPING THE LEG OF BO -- THE WHITE HOUSE DOG AND MUTTERING "PERV! PERV! PERV!"


FROM THE TCI WIRE:



First, we addressed the coverage of al Qaeda in Iraq earlier today.   A 'sweet' 'analyst' e-mailed to advise me of how "uninformed" I am for this statement:



Starting in 2009, regular press reports pop up about how Nouri's failure to pay or create other jobs for Sahwa (Sunnis and a few Shi'ites paid to stop attacking US forces and US equipment) was leading them to join rebel groups or terrorist groups or other groups.

"Everyone," the e-mail informs me, "knows that the Sons of Iraq are Sunni."  Sahwa is also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" (with the less covered female counterparts known as "Daughters Of Iraq."  As for what "everyone" knows, I know reality, what do you know?  Oh, that's right, you know crap ass nothing.

You read the conventional wisdom in the press and you think you know something.  Here?  We report on Congressional hearings and have for years.

That means that the April 2008 week of The Petraeus and Crocker Show, where the then top-US commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, and then-US Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified to Congress, we were at everyone of those hearings.  That included catching both the morning and the afternoon hearings on April 8th.  From that day's snapshot:

Today The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour took their act on the road.  First stop, the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to be providing a status report on the Iraq War.  They didn't.  In fact, Petraeus made clear that the status report would come . . . next September.  When the results are this bad, you stall -- which is exactly what Petraeus did. 

 The most dramatic moment came as committee chair Carl Levin was questioning Petraeus and a man in the gallery began exclaiming "Bring them home!" repeatedly.  (He did so at least 16 times before he was escored out).  The most hilarious moment was hearing Petraeus explain that it's tough in the school yard and America needs to fork over their lunch money in Iraq to avoid getting beat up.  In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads.  These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts."  Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up. 

How much lunch money is the US forking over?  Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars).  By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month.  $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost".  Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies.  What a [proud] moment for the country.

Crocker's entire testimony can be boiled down to a statement he made in his opening statements, "What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible."  Which would translate in the real world as nothing has really changed.  During questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Crocker would rush to shore up the "Awakening" Council members as well.  He would say there were about 90,000 of them and, pay attention, the transitioning of them is delayed due to "illliteracy and physical disabilities."  

What did Petraeus testify too?  "There are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni . . ."  Maybe 'analysts' should take off their pajamas and stop depending upon other people for research?

Yes, the press has repeatedly and consistently reported of SOI/Awakenings/Sahwa being just Sunni.  But Petreaus implemented the program and reported on it to Congress so I would give that a little more credence than a wire report.

'Well people get flustered in hearings and can mispeak.'

They can.  Petraeus didn't that day or that week.  That day, his toughest moment came in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Senator Barbara Boxer questioned him about the monies being paid to these groups.  He got nervous but he didn't mispeak.

But in terms of the "Shia as well as Sunni"?  As I recall that moment in the hearing (I could be wrong, it was over five years ago -- but, thing is, I'm not wrong), Petraeus didn't just say it, he had a visual aid, a chart, to illustrated it.   So the chart would have had to have been wrong too.

In addition, and this is what really nails it, I remember being really ticked off when he said it.  What really pisses me off in a hearing?  Someone wasting everyone's time reading their written statement for the record out loud.  There's no reason for it.  It's put in the record.  Stop it, please.  When Secretary of State John Kerry chaired committees, he would instruct/beg witnesses not to waste everyone's time by reading those prepared remarks.

Prepared remarks.  Meaning Petraeus was reading from his written submission.  This was not an ad-lib in response to a question.  He said.  He meant to say it, he put it in writing before he said it and he brought a visual aid.

At your own website, you're drowning  in errors so I am touched that you took the time to try to find an error by me.  I'm sure they are here.  I am human being, not a computer.  But, thing is, Shi'ites being a small part of the Sahwa, Awakening, Sons Of Iraq, was not a mistake.  If you want to question it, you take the question to David Petraeus but don't tell me I have something wrong when it's based upon the testimony of the person who implemented the program.  I sat through the hearings, I covered them.  I know what was said.




RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"The al Qaeda catch all"
"Valerie Plame on the NSA spying"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Snipper""
"Hejira"
"Politcal Prisoner Lynne Stewart"
"Iraq keeps talking about Nouri's visit"
"I Hate The War"
"Ashraf community"
"Christine Lahti won an Oscar?"
"ObamaCare"
"revenge - recast charlotte"
"Charles Haymarket plays drama queen in an e-mail"
"Barack's attacks on the press"
"Chris Hedges' worst writing yet"
"The Bad Diane"
"Center for Global Nonkilling"
"Isaiah, Norman Pollack, Jerry White, Third"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: Nouri is the cause of the violence
• TV: Ugly Little Liars
• Congress and Veterans
• The week in funny
• From The TESR Test Kitchen
• Caprice DVD
• Video of the week
• HRW condems Syrian 'rebels' (WW)
• Political prisoner Lynne Stewart
• Highlighs

"THIS JUST IN! BUTT THE HELL OUT!"
"Butt the hell out"