Cedric's Big Mix: 2014-02-16

Saturday, February 22, 2014

He's a loser

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

AMERICA'S ONE TIME CRUSH BARRY O CAN'T CATCH A BREAK THESE DAYS.

HE'S FAILED TO CLOSE GUANTANMO AND HE'S CONTINUED ALL OF BULLY BOY BUSH'S ILLEGAL ACTIONS BUT, NOW, SOMETHING EVEN WORSE.

HE'S SUCH A PRISSY LITTLE BITCH THESE DAYS, HE CAN'T EVEN WIN A BEER BET.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As Al-Monitor's Amal Sakr pointed out earlier this month, over 9.5 million Iraqis -- out of 34.7 million -- "are living below the poverty line." Iraq's chief thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki's on year eight, the end of his second term, and he's done so very little to help improve the Iraqi economy or create jobs.

That's all changing, however.

This week, Nouri introduced a new jobs program.

And if he can get people to carry around video camera or use their cell phones to film, he can create even more jobs by turning the whole thing into a television program.

He could make a programming bloc of it, pairing it with the forced confessions which already air on Iraqi TV.

The program could be called Who Wants To Be A Vigilante?

In a country marked by poverty, Nouri's grand idea?

Vigilante justice -- which is more justice than the country currently has, granted.

Al-Shorfa reports Nouri's attempting to turn the country into bounty hunters. Kill a 'terrorist' and you'll get 20 million dinars (that sounds better in Iraqi currency, in US dollars it's $17,172.53) and 30 million dinars ($25,758.80) if they capture the 'terrorist' alive.

Anyone else bothered by this?

Apparently not.

White House hasn't said a word.

So if you are an Iraqi in Iraq and you have someone you dislike, grab your gun, find them and shoot.

All you have to do is claim the person was a 'terrorist.'

You might get a reward.

But certainly you won't get prison because Nouri's not doing 'Most Wanted.' No, he's not providing a list of ten people for you to hunt down.

He's leaving it up to you to determine who is and who isn't a 'terrorist.'

And, hey, mistakes get made.

So you kill an innocent person or two.

Again, is anyone else bothered by this?

Vigilante justice in Iraq.

There are thousands of people on death row in Iraq right now -- at least 50 are foreign nationals from other countries. There have been repeated cries for a moratorium. These are ignored.

And Iraqis are encouraged to embrace and cheer on executions.

Into this environment, you want to turn the country into vigilantes?

At what point is the US government going to assist the Iraqi government with supporting rule of law?

Those of us who had to sit through those awful 2011 Congressional hearings where the State Dept offered one tight-lipped official after another -- who could never explain what the billions they were getting for Iraq were going to be spent on -- well know, the State Dept was going to work on so many issues. Rule of law was one. Women's rights was another.

They boasted loudly -- in generalities.

Well, as Human Rights Watch recent report entitled (PDF format warning) "'NO ONE IS SAFE: Abuses of Women in Iraq's Criminal Justice System" proves, the State Dept clearly failed at attempts to improve the lives of women or the rule of law.

Fiscal Year 2012 is the most recent year USAID has posted numbers for. In FY2012, USAID spent $13.5 million of US tax payer dollars -- spent them in Iraq on strenghtening what?

The rule of law and human rights.

The big ticket item for that year? $148.4 million -- US tax payer money -- was spent in Iraq on "Democracy and Governance."

Talk about money wasted. Sadly, it's not refundable.

The State Dept never gets asked about any of those problems.

It's hard to tell if the US press is just an enabler or a co-conspirator.

At any rate, it was just weeks ago that Nouri made the same appeal but without cash.

There was no embrace of it so now Nouri's tossing money and hoping that will put over the plan.

The plan, please note, that reveals what a total failure Nouri al-Maliki is.

With all the weapons provided by the US and other foreign governments, with all the 'intelligence' the US military is currently providing Nouri, with command of the Iraqi forces, the unconstitutional Tigris Operation Command, SWAT, the federal police and so much more, he still can't defeat the people he's defined as the 'enemy' (the ones others call Iraqis).

Mike Phipps (BRussells Tribunal) observes:

The pernicious narrative, peddled by the Iraqi Government and picked up in the mainstream media, that Al-Qaeda had taken over Fallujah, was a long way from the truth. But it helped to secure an immediate delivery of arms to the Iraqi regime from its US puppeteers to help quell the protests in Anbar.
For protests is what they are. They began over a year ago, demanding the freeing of tens of thousands of detainees held without charge by the security forces. Brutal torture and rape - regardless of gender - are widespread in Iraq’s jails. Last year alone, the state executed 169 people, putting it third in the league behind China and Iran.
The Iraqi Government’s accusation of an external Al-Qaeda takeover was made to justify a ferocious siege and bombardment of the Fallujah and Ramadi. As Iraqi activist Haifa Zangana has pointed out, “Al-Maliki selectively chooses not to mention the regime's own militias: Asaib Ahl al-Haq, Iraqi Hezbollah, the Badr brigades, factions of the Mahdi army and the Mokhtar army. The latter's leader has bragged on Baghdadiya TV, about their responsibility for several attacks. No investigation has been done and no one was arrested. There is also hardly any mention of the Iraqi Special Forces inherited from the occupation, especially trained by Colonel James Steele under US ambassador John Negroponte and attached now directly to al-Maliki's office. Above all, there is no mention of the plethora of foreign-led special operation agents, private security contractors, and organised networks of professional killers, some of whom, many Iraqis believe, are protected by the regime, in the shadow of the US' biggest embassy in the world, in the fortified green zone in Baghdad.” http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/01/here-list-real-forces-behind-violence-iraq-201411613100570815.html
Government shelling of the towns in Anbar Province has been intense. Human Rights Watch has accused the regime of “indiscriminate mortar fire in civilian neighbourhoods” and “killing its own citizens unlawfully”. http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/01/09/iraq-protect-anbar-residents-abuses. Hundreds of people have been killed and more than 200,000 displaced.
The Pentagon is considering following up its arms shipments with the deployment of more troops in the region to train Iraqi forces. This would be fitting, given the atrocities the US military inflicted on this unhappy country along with a deliberate sectarian set of state institutions. It is almost ten years since the first round of collective punishment was inflicted on Fallujah - by US forces.
The 2004 bombardment was a war crime. NGO's and medical workers estimated that between 4,000 and 6,000 mostly civilians were killed. In addition, 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines, and up to 200,000 residents were forced to flee.
Months later, the US admitted that it had used white phosphorous as a battlefield weapon in the assault on Fallujah. A documentary on the Italian RAI channel showed images of bodies recovered afterwards, which it said proved the incendiary, similar in effect to napalm, had been used against men, women and children who were burned to the bone. Unconfirmed reports suggest the Iraqi regime is using similar munitions this time around.

Xinhua reports that Nouri's forces are boasting that they've retaken Sulaiman Bek and killed 48 rebels. That might pass for 'success' to the extreme stupid. But those paying attention to the seven-week-plus operation Nouri's launched -- a campaign of terror on Anbar -- are fully aware that, when the Anbar assault was launched weeks ago, Sulaiman Bek was controlled by the Iraqi government. And those paying attention are also aware that Sulaiman Bek is not in Anbar Province, it's in Salahuddin Province.

In other words, Nouri's assault on Anbar can seen as causing Nouri's government to lose control of Sulaiman Bek and exposing the utter weakness of Nouri's leadership.

Those really paying attention are probably also remembering that five days ago, February 17th, Nouri's forces were boasting that they'd retaken Sulaiman Bek.

Maybe this time their boasts are accurate?

Maybe.

AFP observes:

Authorities have tried everything from wide-ranging operations against militants and offers of training and jobs for tribesmen who fight for the government, to restricting vehicle use in the capital.

But nothing has yet succeeded [. . .]

But nothing has yet succeeded.

Friday, February 21, 2014

The Education of Miss Dahli Bama

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

AT THE WHITE HOUSE TODAY, THE DAHLI BAMA MET HIS EXCELLENCE THE DAHLI LAMA.

THE LAMA IS A RELIGIOUS FIGURE WHO REPRESENTS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE HOPES AND DREAMS OF TIBET.

THE LAMA IS A FADED POPULAR CULTURE FIGURE WHO REPRESENTS INEPTITUDE, LAW BREAKING AND THE FAILED HOPES AND DREAMS OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT, WHICH INVADED TIBET AND TOOK IT OVER IN 1950, WAS QUICK TO SLAM THE DAHLI BAMA FOR THE MEET-UP.

ONE PRO-CHINESE GOVERNMENT EDITORIAL CALLED DAHLI BAMA BARRY O'S ACTIONS "ANOTHER WORLD-CLASS SHOW OF PLAYING DUMB."

REACHED FOR COMMENT THIS AFTERNOON BY THESE REPORTERS, BARRY O SNARLED, "I DON'T PLAY!"

HE ALSO ADDED, "I HAVE BEEN VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ISSUE WHEN I FIRST LEARNED OF IT ON THE SIMPSONS AS HOMER SHOUTED 'FREE TIBET!' AT AN AWARDS SHOW."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Before the month ends, I'm going to try to work in a few of the hearings we attended this month there hasn't been room for. That includes the February 11th House Armed Services Committee. The witnesses were the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Anne Patterson, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Elissa Slotkin and Vice Admiral Frank Pandolfe, the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5), Joint Staff.

This hearing was appalling. Reflecting on it in the weeks since, the strong words I wrote in the margins of my notes -- all 'four' letter type words, regardless of the actual letter count -- still seem appropriate.

We got the message from the US government, for example, that women don't matter in the Middle East, don't matter to the US government. We got the lying on everything. As usual the US government says, for example, "the Iraqis" when they don't mean the people, they just mean the (US-installed) leader.

We got just how hypocritical they are and, as I wrote at one point, "And that's why I won't be supporting Joe Biden if he runs in 2016." And I won't. I'm sorry, I love Joe, but the US government loathes the Iraqi people so Joe's not getting my support. Well get to it.

First, let's not the laughable opening remarks of Anne Patterson and wonder if she believes her own lies?

Anne Patterson: Iraq has, regrettably, been experiencing escalating levels of violence. The two-way flow of Sunni extremists between Syria and Iraq has had a direct bearing on high-profile attacks in Iraq. In 2011 and 2012, about 4,400 Iraqis civilians and members of the security forces were killed each year -- many in attacks led by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, formerly known as al Qaeda in Iraq . Last year, ISIL began shifting resources from Syria to Iraq in search of new opportunities consistent with their broader ambitions. By the summer of 2013, the number of suicide attacks in Iraq had climbed from an average of 5 to 10 per month to approximately 30 to 40 per month. These attacks were calculated, coordinated and unfortunately, increasingly effective and were directed not only at Shia civilian targets but also Sunni and Kurdish targets. On January 1st, ISIL launched its most brazen attack yet, and occupied portions of the Anbar cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. The Iraqi government, working together with local leaders in Anbar and with important U.S. support has pushed back; Ramadi now faces isolated pockets of resistance from anti-government fighters , and the government hopes to clear 4 terrorists from Fallujah predominately by using local tribal forces . But this violence has had a devastating effect on the people of Iraq. The United Nations reports at least 8,800 civilians and members of the security forces were killed in violent attacks across Iraq in 2013. The need for political leaders to overcome mistrust and reach compromises on essential political reforms is urgent. We continue to press upon Iraq’s government the importance of working with local Sunni leaders to draw the nation together in the fight against ISIL. The United States will continue to support the people of Iraq and their government to secure the city of Fallujah. We also continue to work closely with Iraq's leaders to help them build a longterm political, economic and security strategy and to support the national election scheduled for April 30, 2014. I would like to thank the Congress for its support for the much needed military equipment we have been able to provide to Iraq. To combat the very real extremist threats, Iraq needs a professional and well equipped army that can provide the capability for the government to engage extremist groups proactively long before they enter the cities.

As any honest observer of Iraq well knows, not all the violence -- not even half the violence -- of last year was done by 'al Qaeda'; however, all the violence is attributable to the thug Nouri al-Maliki who took a process that was supposed to bring all the blocs together in a power-sharing government but instead found Nouri practicing one power grab after another while using the tools his office possesses or that he's assumed to destroy rivals.

He has lied and he has attacked. In that regard, he was well trained by his US masters.

But this is why Iraq is where it is right now.

In 2010, the White House demanded a second term for Nouri despite Nouri losing those elections. The White House used the Kurds to front this agreement, the legal contract known as The Erbil Agreeement. Both Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Kurdistan Regional Government Massoud Barzani stood behind the agreement because they believed the White House that this contract was not only going to be legal but it would be enforced because it had the full backing of the US President.

So the Kurds went about selling it to the other political blocs and convincing them this was a genuine agreement and one the US government would ensure was enforced.

The contract gave Nouri a second term in exchange for various demands (such as his implementing Article 140 of the Constitution, putting Ayad Allawi in charge of an independent national security body, etc.) and Nouri used The Erbil Agreement to get that second term and then he wiped his ass with it and refused to honor it.

And the Kurds and others waited for the White House. In November of 2010, Allawi walked out of the Parliament in its first session and only returned that day after Barack Obama asked him to do so over the phone and swore to him -- swore to him -- that The Erbil Agreement would be honored. (Nouri was already, in that first session of Parliament, declaring that he would have to wait to implement The Erbil Agreement, that's why Allawi walked out.)

The Kurds and the others waited and waited.

And neither Nouri nor the US government honored the agreement. By the summer of 2011, the Kurds, Allawi's Iraqiya and Moqtada al-Sadr joined in public calls for Nouri to implement The Erbil Agreement.

The deceit and backstabbing of the White House didn't end there.

As Nouri refused to honor the contract, Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, joined Moqtada, the Kurds and Allawi in exploring a no-confidence vote on Nouri. They did what the Iraqi Constitution told them to. And they got the signatures needed to call for the vote in Parliament.

What did the White House do?

Pressured Jalal Talabani (it never takes much pressure, he's always had a collapsible spine) and Jalal folded like a cheap suit. He refused allow the vote to take place. He made up excuses and lies and then insisted he had to leave the country because chicken ass could do what the US government told him to do but couldn't hang around for the fall out.

The betrayal has been intense.

Grasp what took place in 2010, the voters unseated Nouri. But Barack wouldn't allow that to happen. And that's why Barack's hands are just as bloody as Nouri al-Maliki's are. He ensured the tyrant stayed in power and he refused to demand that the power-sharing contract (one he ordered negotiated) be honored.

When a people have voted out a violent dictator but he stays in office? When their other political leaders go through legal procedures to remove him from office but the Constitutional measure are not honored? When the people take to the streets to protest and they're ignored?

What the hell is left but violence?

If you need something more than my take, in August the International Crisis Group issued "Make or Break: Iraq’s Sunnis and the State" and this was their take on Hawija:

As events in Syria nurtured their hopes for a political comeback, Sunni Arabs launched an unprecedented, peaceful protest movement in late 2012 in response to the arrest of bodyguards of Rafea al-Issawi, a prominent Iraqiya member. It too failed to provide answers to accumulated grievances. Instead, the demonstrations and the repression to which they gave rise further exacerbated the sense of exclusion and persecution among Sunnis.
The government initially chose a lacklustre, technical response, forming committees to unilaterally address protesters’ demands, shunning direct negotiations and tightening security measures in Sunni-populated areas. Half-hearted, belated concessions exacerbated distrust and empowered more radical factions. After a four-month stalemate, the crisis escalated. On 23 April, government forces raided a protest camp in the city of Hawija, in Kirkuk province, killing over 50 and injuring 110. This sparked a wave of violence exceeding anything witnessed for five years. Attacks against security forces and, more ominously, civilians have revived fears of a return to all-out civil strife. The Islamic State of Iraq, al-Qaeda’s local expression, is resurgent. Shiite militias have responded against Sunnis. The government’s seeming intent to address a chiefly political issue – Sunni Arab representation in Baghdad – through tougher security measures has every chance of worsening the situation.
Belittled, demonised and increasingly subject to a central government crackdown, the popular movement is slowly mutating into an armed struggle. In this respect, the absence of a unified Sunni leadership – to which Baghdad’s policies contributed and which Maliki might have perceived as an asset – has turned out to be a serious liability. In a showdown that is acquiring increasing sectarian undertones, the movement’s proponents look westward to Syria as the arena in which the fight against the Iraqi government and its Shiite allies will play out and eastward toward Iran as the source of all their ills.
Under intensifying pressure from government forces and with dwindling faith in a political solution, many Sunni Arabs have concluded their only realistic option is a violent conflict increasingly framed in confessional terms. In turn, the government conveniently dismisses all opposition as a sectarian insurgency that warrants ever more stringent security measures. In the absence of a dramatic shift in approach, Iraq’s fragile polity risks breaking down, a victim of the combustible mix of its longstanding flaws and growing regional tensions.

Why is it that US officials never want to talk reality? Because doing so would mean taking accountability.

Need another source? Here's Anthony H. Cordesman and Sam Khazi (CSIS) from two days ago:

Iraq’s main threats, however, are self-inflicted wounds caused by its political leaders. The 2010 Iraqi elections and the ensuing political crisis divided the nation. Rather than create any form of stable democracy, the fallout pushed Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to consolidate power and become steadily more authoritarian. Other Shi’ite leaders contributed to Iraq’s increasing sectarian and ethnic polarization – as did key Sunni and Kurdish leaders.
Since that time, a brutal power struggle has taken place between Maliki and senior Sunni leaders, and ethnic tensions have grown between the Arab dominated central government and senior Kurdish leaders in the Kurdish Regional government (KRG). The actions of Iraq’s top political leaders have led to a steady rise in Sunni and Shi’ite violence accelerated by the spillover of the extremism caused by the Syrian civil war. This has led to a level of Shi’ite and Sunni violence that now threatens to explode into a level of civil conflict equal to – or higher than – the one that existed during the worst period of the U.S. occupation.

This struggle has been fueled by actions of the Iraqi government that many reliable sources indicate have included broad national abuses of human rights and the misuse of Iraqi forces and the Iraqi security services in ways where the resulting repression and discrimination has empowered al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. As a result, the very forces that should help bring security and stability have become part of the threat further destabilized Iraq.

Their votes were rendered meaningless by US President Barack Obama, their Constitution was rendered meaningless by US President Barack Obama.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's assaults on Anbar and on journalists conti..."
"Obama to Drop Social Security Cuts from Budget"
"Court Gives NYPD Green Light to Conduct Religious ..."
"The Originals"
"I do not like liars"
"Shame on Times Colonist"
"The Originals is a great show"
"Like Milli Vanilli before him . . ."
"Barack Wins The Terrible"
"Daniel of Orlando is an idiot"
"lbj?"
"The Bieb and his tiny bean pole"
"More layoffs"
"Biden says it's 'a hell of a start'"
"THIS JUST IN! JOE EXPLAINS OR THINKS HE DOES!"

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Biden says it's 'a hell of a start'

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O'S HABIT OF SELLING AMBASSADORSHIPS TO HIS HIGHEST DONORS IS BACK FIRING SO BADLY THAT IT'S EVEN RESULTED IN A HILARIOUS COLUMN BY MARGARET CARLSON.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN DECLARED, "WE MAY NOT GET TO SEVEN MILLION, WE MAY GET TO FIVE OR SIX, BUT THAT'S A HELL OF A START."

We may not get to seven million, we may get to five or six, but that’s a hell of a start,”

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

It takes a whore. Apparently, it takes a lot of whores. Let's start with the one Elaine calls a "disease ridden whore" -- and that's when Elaine's feeling nice. And she's right. Though I call out Medea Benjamin, I foolishly repeatedly give her chances to redeem herself.

There is no redemption for her. She has betrayed the peace movement and she's still lying about that.

Paul Jay (Real News Network) interviews her here and there's video and, for those who can't take her whiny voice, there's also a transcript. Her lying is beyond belief.

Paul Jay asks her about the death of the peace movement and this is her lengthy reply:

BENJAMIN: Well, you said it. It's a one-word answer. Obama. And it wasn't Obama getting in; it was the leadup, it was the campaigning for Obama, when people were so desperate for an alternative to Bush that they said, I'm going to throw myself into this, I'm going to take off of work, students taking off of semesters, I'm going to put my life into getting this guy elected who said he was against the war in Iraq. And we put all our hopes and dreams into Obama, thinking that because he was against the war in Iraq and because he said Afghanistan was a good war--he didn't really mean that; you know, he was just saying that to get elected. But he was a smart guy, and he understood that war was not the answer, and he was going to get us out.

And so the steam was just taken out of the whole movement. And it was amazing to see, because you said tens of thousands. I mean, there were eight times, during the Bush administration, that we got over 100,000 people. And we had a huge movement. You just look at one group, like Code Pink: we came out of nowhere, and suddenly we had over 300,000 people on our mailing list, and we had over 300 groups around the country and, really, around the world. We weren't even trying to set up chapters, and they were just springing up on university campuses, small towns, big towns, everywhere. (08:34) When Obama started to gain steam as a candidate, those started fizzling out. And when he won the election, we had half the numbers of people we had before on our mailing list. And most of the groups started to disintegrate.

So that was indicative of what was happening to the whole peace movement.

JAY: And had you drunk any of the Kool-Aid yourself?

BENJAMIN: I drank the Kool-Aid myself, in the sense that I voted for Obama the first time around and I'm usually a Green Party voter, always voting for something other than the Democrats and Republicans. I drank the Kool-Aid in that I was very, very anxious to vote for somebody who was going to win and have somebody who was going to be an alternative to those eight horrible years of Bush.

And I was--we immediately did up a list of Obama's promises. That went from, you know, getting out of the war in Iraq to closing down Guantanamo and other things. And we started out right away: Obama, keep your promise.

And I physically moved from San Francisco, where I'd been living for 26 years, to Washington, D.C., to say, now is the time to be there to make sure Obama fulfills his promises like closing Guantanamo, getting out of Iraq.

And so I was full of hope, I would say. Yeah.

She was -- and is -- full of something but it's not hope -- hope doesn't stink like that.

There are so many lies in that quote.

First off, usually votes Green? No, not in presidential elections and she urged people to vote for John Kerry in 2004. (I voted for John in 2004 in the primary and in the general election. I donated to his campaign and I campaigned for him. But I've never pretended to be a Green and, unlike Medea, I've never popularized the lie that Ralph Nader was a "spoiler" in 2000 -- and I voted for Gore in 2000.)

Second, she doesn't vote Green in 2008?

If there was ever a time for her to vote Green it was when Cynthia McKinney was the presidential candidate.

"I was very, very anxious to vote for somebody who was going to win" -- Medea's vote was wasted. At that point, she lived in California and Barack was going to carry California. But read that statement, that's not political activism, that's a desperate (and sick) need to fit in.

And moving to DC to be a lobbyist is not activism.

As for her claim that Barack gained steam as a candidate and CodePink chapters started fizzling?

CodePink refused to hold Barack accountable.

In 2008, it was us here on the 4th of July weekend and it was Tom Hayden calling out Barack's capitulation on Iraq -- public capitulation.

That was also when Tom finally discovered what we'd been noting since March7, 2008, that Samantha Power told the BBC (this is why she left the campaign, it wasn't about Hillary) that Barack's promises on Iraq? They weren't promises. He'd decide what to do, she explained, after he got elected.

Stephen Sackur: You said that he'll revisit it [the decision to pull troops] when he goes to the White House. So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out within sixteen months, isn't a commitment is it?

Samantha Power: You can't make a commitment in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are going to be like in January 2009. We can'te ven tell what Bush is up to in terms of troops pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US Senator.

In the interview, the whorish Medea notes that CodeStink bird-dogged Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primaries. She 'forgets' that they never did that with Barack. She 'forgets' to note that CodeStink co-founder Jodie Evans was a bundler for Barack.

Wasn't that something CodeStink should have revealed?

When they were doing all their Democratic primary actions, shouldn't they have revealed that?

They didn't.

They used their so-called independence to destroy any of Barack's rivals.

They whored, they are cheap and useless whores.

In 2006, I was so very kind. They did their stupid action of fasting and we noted it here with medical warnings they should have provided and we also noted that you could do a one day fast. We noted that fasting wasn't really a political action for women -- not in a country where women have so many eating disorders.

They stopped all actions on Iraq. September 2012, when Tim Arango reported Barack sent an Special-Ops brigade into Iraq, CodeStink didn't say one damn word.

They're little whores whose inaction destroyed the peace movement.

They're part of a ridiculous group right now.

We'll highlight them in their own entry but I don't pollute the snapshots with them.

Their key lie right now is that what's needed is to focus on local.

No, that's the same damn lie they used after January 2007, when the Dems took control of both houses of Congress, They never again wanted a DC action. They were fine with it when it put the spotlight on Republican War Hawks but once Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress, gone were the DC actions.

What really stands out from the whores interview is how little Iraq mattered to her.

There's no CodeStink condemnation of Nouri's assault on Anbar or of Nouri's abuse of Iraqi women or of the US government -- Barack -- supplying Nouri with weapons.

There's just lies from a cheap whore who thought DC was going to give her more media attention.

If you're not getting what a liar she is, note this exchange:

Benjamin: And so the steam was just taken out of the whole movement. And it was amazing to see, because you said tens of thousands. I mean, there were eight times, during the Bush administration, that we got over 100,000 people. And we had a huge movement. You just look at one group, like Code Pink: we came out of nowhere, and suddenly we had over 300,000 people on our mailing list, and we had over 300 groups around the country and, really, around the world. We weren't even trying to set up chapters, and they were just springing up on university campuses, small towns, big towns, everywhere. (08:34) When Obama started to gain steam as a candidate, those started fizzling out. And when he won the election, we had half the numbers of people we had before on our mailing list. And most of the groups started to disintegrate.

So that was indicative of what was happening to the whole peace movement.
On the other hand, I think that what was concerning to me was people who were a part of the collateral damage who weren't being acknowledged anymore. And if we allowed that to keep happening, it would keep happening. And so what we did is brought people from--who had direct family members killed on 9/11, brought them to Afghanistan, took them back to meet with their counterparts, which--there were many, unfortunately.

And they would say, yes, we hated the Taliban, but what did I have to do with that? And why was my family hurt? And why won't the U.S. government apologize for what they did to my family? And now how am I going to feed my kids? And my husdand's gone.

And so we did a campaign to get compensation for innocent victims. And it was--actually ended up, after a couple of years, being a successful campaign. The first pot of money was a $40 million fund in the name of one of the women that we worked with, Marla Ruzicka, to compensate innocent family victims.

JAY: And this was all under the roof of Code Pink.

BENJAMIN: This was before--it started before Code Pink, when we had a group of women that gathered--actually, it was a gathering around women concerned about the environment was when we had already invaded Afghanistan and there was talk about invading Iraq. And at that point we were saying, how can we allow the U.S. to go in and invade another country, this one that really had nothing to do with 9/11? We've got to do something about it.

What the hell is that?

Marla died in Iraq in 2005.

Why is she connecting Marla to Afghanistan and stating this "started before"?

We could go line by line. But what the interview does is find Medea lying repeatedly, pretending that the grassroots packed up the peace movement (when it was 'leaders' like Medea), find her explaining she just wants to go along with a crowd and refusing to take accountability for her actions then or since.

As Elaine frequently points out (such as here, here, here and here), Medea pretends to want to end The Drone War but her writing on it keeps 'forgetting' to mention Barack Obama, you know, the one running The Drone War.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Over 600 violent deaths in Iraq this month already..."
"Reviewing War Crimes, Green and Silence"
"U.S. backs terror against Venezuela (Berta Joubert..."
"Fox's TV show "Gotham""
"Sister Megan Rice and Debra Messing"
"Fantastic Four"
"Again to Detroit"
"Ms. magazine doesn't care about Iraqi women"
"Did Robin Wright talk to Brett McGurk?"
"The terrorizing war"
"is tim mcgraw breastfeeding?"
"Net neutrality"
"I Dream of Jeannie"
"He loves TV"
"THIS JUST IN! THE TV ADDICT!"

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

He loves TV

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

MANY ARE SURPRISED THAT FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS SUCH A TV SHOW FAN. ON THE HEELS OF HIS HOUSE OF CARDS ADMISSION COMES HIS PROCLAMATION OF DEVOTION TO GAME OF THORNS AND TRUE DETECTIVES.

"OF COURSE HE WATCHES HOURS AND HOURS OF TV!" HUFFED WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE MODEL JAY CARNEY. "WHAT DO YOU THINK HE DOES ALL DAY? WORK?"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Moqtada al-Sadr continues to dominate the news cycle. The cleric and movement leader announced his political retirement Saturday. Today, World Bulletin reports, "Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr laid into Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday, describing him as a 'dictator and tyrant' and calling his government 'a pack of wolves hungry for murder and money'." AFP adds, "The televised speech seemed aimed at establishing the cleric, who leapt to prominence with his fierce criticism of the 2003 US-led invasion, as a figure above the everyday Iraqi political fray." Aref Youssef (Anadolu Agency) notes, "Al-Sadr asserted that al-Maliki's government had failed to improve public services and the country's dire economic situation" and that he also accused the Nouri al-Maliki government of utilizing "a politicized judiciary against its partners." UPI quotes Moqtada stating, "Politics became a door for injustice and carelessness, and the abuse and humiliation of the rule of a dictator and tyrant who controls the funds, so he loots them and the cities, so he attacks them, and the sects, so he divides them."

Al Mada reports that Moqtada declared Nouri is controlled by both the US government and the Iranian government and that the country is governed by those who left the country and waited (years) for someone to liberate Iraq before returning to the country. He encouraged Iraqis to participate in the planned April 30th parliamentary elections to have a say in their country and -- no English outlet's reporting this -- he endorsed two politicians: the Governor of Baghdad Ali al-Tamimi and the Governor of Maysan Ali al-Douai. He called on both to continue their good work. NINA reports:

The officer of public relations and ceremonies at the office of the leader of the Sadrist movement, Amer al-Husseini stressed that the decision of Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr is irreversible and his followers have to obey this matter without discussion or demonstration .
Al-Husseini statement came after he received dozens of protesters who came from Sadr City to ask their leader to reverse his decision, showing their support.
Husseini told the demonstrators outside the home of cleric Muqtada al- Sadr, "Muqtada al-Sadr appreciates you for coming and values your position and confirms that the decisions made must obey and he insists on it, for the benefit of the people and the nation, and you should not discuss or protest ."

Duraid Adnan (New York Times) reports:

In the speech, Mr. Sadr, 40, encouraged all Iraqis to participate in elections so that they would be represented fairly. He criticized the current government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, saying it was behaving like a dictatorship and was using the army against the people.

“Iraq is under a black cloud, bloodshed and wars, killing each other in the name of law and religion,” Mr. Sadr said, adding that the country had “no life, no agriculture, no industry, no services, no security and no peace.”

He said that though the Maliki government had gained power promising to improve the lot of Iraq’s Shiite majority, which suffered under the long dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, it turned out to be “a group of wolves hungry for power and money, backed by the West and the East,” and that “politics became a door for injustice and carelessness.”

In addition to the reporting cited above, there's also a lot of nonsense and a lot of stupidity. I'll be addressing an e-mail from an analyst in a second, he was so convinced I was so wrong. And I need to thank him for that false accusation because his false accusation meant I was focused all day on the topic of wrong -- mine or others.

Karl Vick (Time magazine) is repeating something in this passage that is wrong

Waiting anxiously to know is Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is seeking a third term in elections set for April. Sadr’s support was essential to Maliki securing office in 2010, and the cleric’s loyal, motivated and generally impoverished Shiite following stands to play a crucial role in any political calculus, especially given the polarized sectarian politics that has returned parts of Iraq to open warfare. Much of Anbar province, to the West of Baghdad, is now controlled by Sunni militants associated with al-Qaeda, whose return flows both from the rabidly sectarian nature of the civil war in adjacent Syria, and from resentment among Iraqi Sunnis at Maliki’s rule, widely seen as favoring Shiites.

Karl Vick is 100% wrong. In fairness, he's repeating something many said yesterday. But it's flat out wrong.

Moqtada al-Sadr was strong armed into supporting Nouri -- strong armed by the Iranian government. His followers never supported Nouri.

More than that, they clearly rejected him.

Does no one remember what happened in 2010?

For one thing, immediately after the elections Moqtada threw it to his supporters 'who he should back?'

Have we all forgotten that?

From the April 7, 2010 snapshot:

That interview took place Monday and while there is no coalition-sharing government/arrangement as yet from the March 7th elections, Friday and Saturday, another round of elections were held -- this to determine whom the Sadr bloc should back. Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc won 40 seats in the Parliament. Kadhim Ajrash and Caroline Alexander (Bloomberg News) report that Ibrahim al-Jaafari "won 24 percent of the 428,000 ballots cast in the internal referendum, ahead of al-Sadr's second cousin, Jafar Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, who obtained 23 percent, Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Ubaidi said today in the southern city of Najaf." Al Jazeera notes that Nouri al-Maliki received 10% of the vote and Ayad Allawi 9%. The US military invaded Iraq in March 2003 (and still hasn't left). Following the invasion, Ayad Allawi became Iraq's first prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari became the second and Nouri al-Maliki became the third. It's a little more complicated.
Nouri wasn't wanted, Nouri wasn't chosen. Following the December 2005 elections, coalition building took place and the choice for prime minister was al-Jaafari. But the US government refused to allow him to continue as prime minister. The Bush administration was adamant that he would not continue and faulted him for, among other things, delays in the privatization of Iraq's oil. Though the US had no Parliamentary vote, they got their way and Nouri became the prime minister. al-Jaafari had won the vote with the backing of al-Sadr's bloc, just as he won the vote that took place this weekend. The vote can be seen as (a) a show of support for al-Jaafari whom Sadarists have long supported and (b) a message to the US government.

Stop lying that Nouri benefits from Moqtada dropping out. He doesn't.

The Sadr bloc can't stand Nouri -- that's been obvious in Parliament for the last four years.

Moqtada's supporters can't stand Nouri either. They remember his attacks on them in 2008 in Basra and Sadr City. Moqtada is seen as supporting the poor, Nouri's done nothing for the poor. BRussells Tribune carries an Al-Monitor article from last week by Amal Sakr which opens:

The head of the Model Iraqi Women Organization, Athraa Hassani, provided Al-Monitor with this information, quoting World Bank officials who discussed these statistics during a meeting in Turkey with a number of members of civil society organizations seeking to find a solution to the poverty crisis in Iraq.
Hassani questions the accuracy of the poverty rates announced by the Iraqi government, affirming that these rates are continuously increasing because of a rise in daily violence and spike in unemployment rates in addition to a weakening of the Iraqi economy.

Based on the World Bank’s figures, this would mean that out of Iraq’s 34.7 million citizens, more than 9.5 million individuals are living below the poverty line.

Nothing has happened since 2010 to increase Nouri's standing among Sadr supporters. In fact, since 2010, the efforts Moqtada and Ayad Allawi have worked on have probably resulted in greater support for Allawi which has let Nouri fall even lower. Probably.

But what is known is that Sadr supporters did not support Nouri in 2010. They didn't support when the March 2010 voting took place and they did not support a month later in the poll Moqtada carried out.

I don't if it's xenophobia or stupidity.

Xenophobia may have some 'reporters' and 'analysts' declaring that Moqtada's supporters would automatically go to Nouri -- in some stupid and stereotypical vision of Shi'ites.

Or maybe it's just the sort of whoring Quil Lawrence did in 2010 where the press will repeatedly lie for Nouri.

But before Moqtada's speech today, his supporters were not going to back Nouri -- they made that clear in 2010 for any not too stupid to miss it -- and after his remarks today, it's even more obvious that they won't support Nouri.

The editorial board of The National are just another example of people who don't know what they're talking about:

And yet despite Mr Al Sadr’s violent past and erratic politics, his departure is bad for Iraqi politics and bad for Iraq. That’s because his Sadrist movement was the one Shia movement that could challenge prime minister Nouri Al Maliki for the votes of the majority Shia community. With two Shia parties fighting for influence, there was always an opportunity for one of them to reach out to the Sunni community, in order to gain more votes.
But with Mr Al Sadr gone, his movement will be severely weakened, leaving Mr Al Maliki’s State of Law party as the main political group for the Shia.

No, that's stupidity.

Moqtada did and does challenge Nouri. But that's all that's true there. Moqtada's 40 seats in Parliament matter. But Ibrahaim al-Jaafari's National Alliance got more seats in Parliament. They received 70. Iraqiya won with 91 seats and Nouri got 89.

Iraqiya won't be running in the 2014 elections, it's splintered. It did not just get Sunni votes in 2010. It also got Shi'ite votes -- it was a non-sectarian list of Shi'ite politicians (Ayad Allawi) and Sunnis (Osama al-Nujafi). Nouri's war against Iraqiya makes it very unlikely the Shi'ite voters of Iraqiya will now glom to him.

Ammar al-Hakim is the leader of the Shi'ite bloc Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (they're a part of Ibrahiam's National Alliance). He's been a rising star of the last three years to many analysts (who apparently have now lost their voices). He's been seen, by Western analysts, as the less criminal Moqtada. (I'm not calling Moqtada a criminal, I'm noting he's seen as that by some.) His increased popularity could benefit the National Alliance and Moqtada's departure might make that more likely.

I don't know what's going to happen. I do know State of Law performed poorly in the 2013 parliamentary elections which indicates problems. I do know Nouri's own image has taken a hit and his popularity dropped. I do know that it is extremely stupid to assume Sadr supporters would embrace Nouri.

Those are the knows which can be backed up.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq slammed with violence"
"War Criminal Steven D. Green dies in prison"
"Talk Nation Radio: U.S. Marine Corps Threatens Sma..."
"Sometimes the message is just wrong"
"No, Moqtada's supporters will not rush to Nouri"
"The thug Nouri al-Maliki"
"The non-coverage of Iraq on NPR"
"The tyrant Nouri"
"Bewitched and Straw Dogs"
"Damn, Sharon Stone is hot!"
"glenn greenwald can be such a little bitch"
"Arrow's race problem"
"Q: Are we not men A: We are Devo!"
"Sister Megan Rice is railroaded"
"Don't make him act out"
"THIS JUST IN! HE NEEDS ATTENTION!"

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Don't make him act out

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS DESPERATELY TRYING TO GET BACK IN THE HEADLINES. SO MUCH SO THAT HE FELT THE NEED TO COMMENT ON A COLLEGE STUDENT'S COMING OUT.

MEANWHILE LICK-HIM-AND-LOVE-HIM BRADLEY COOPER REVEALS THAT ON HIS RECENT WHITE HOUSE VISIT, HE WENT "COMMANDO."

REACHED FOR COMMENT, THE SEXIEST MAN ALIVE OF 2012 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "I WANTED HIM TO SMELL PEEN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? JUST TO KEEP IT REAL AND ALL THAT."

KEEPING IT REAL, ABC NEWS POINTS OUT, WOULD REQUIRE THE PRESS TO NOTE BARRY O'S MARCH 2008 CLAIM:

I taught constitutional law for 10 years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that is what I intend to reverse when I become president of the United States.

BUT THOSE QUESTIONS WON'T COME UP AS LONG AS BARRY O ONLY LETS THE LIKES OF CHARLES BARKLEY INTERVIEW HIM.

"CHARLES!" BARRY O EXCLAIMED TO THESE REPORTERS. "I THOUGHT THAT WAS GNARLS BARKLEY!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Saturday brought the shocking news that cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr was stepping away from politics. Alsumaria reported he released a statement Saturday evening announcing he was closing all of his offices and retiring from all things political. Aswat al-Iraq quoted from Moqtada's staemtne, "I declare that I will not interfere in all political matters, in addition that not bloc will represent us in any position inside the government or outside it or the parliament." Trend News Agency notes that Moqtada has stated "his satellite channel Al-Adwaa and a Quran radio station would remain open." Sunday, All Iraq News reported that Sadr bloc MPs Hussien Alwan al-Lami, Hussien al-Mansouri and Hussien Hamim held a press conference and declared that, in respect of Moqtada's decision, they were resigning from Parliament. World Bulletin notes three more resigned for a total of six MPs. NINA reports it is thought 18 MPs have resigned or will be resigning.

That's not that many. If there were 9 MPs in the Sadr bloc, maybe. But there are forty. Six of the 40 hold Cabinet positions. Al Mada reports there is confusion about nearly everything -- Moqtada's announcement, the meaning of it, supposedly 15 MPs resigning. Kitabat notes that some are saying 18 MPs have resigned.

Some outlets are reporting claims that Moqtada made the decision to retire from politics months ago.

The Sadr bloc employees voted last week for the controversial pension law for MPs -- a law that was seen as corrupt and had caused controversy for over a year now and last week's votes led to massive protests. Press TV explains:

Press TV got in contact with several MPs from the Sadr movement. They were all reluctant to speak about the issue, with some of them saying Muqtada Sadr's move was a surprise to them. Some believe that the move is due to Muqtada Sadr's parliamentarians’ stance on a recent pension law. The law, which has drawn protests, is seen by ordinary Iraqis as a way for politicians to lead a more lucrative life style. It’s said that Sadr's parliamentary representatives were told not to vote on the law, but in secrecy they did any way.

Whether or not the vote on the pension law impacted his decision, it is apparently weighing on his mind. Kitabat reports Moqtada is expected to make a statement tomorrow addressing the issue of the pension law.

The Independent's Patrick Cockburn types:

It is unclear if Mr Sadr’s withdrawal will be permanent or temporary, though a Sadrist official emphasised that it was wrong to use the word “retirement” to describe Mr Sadr’s departure from politics. He added that Mr Sadr’s disillusionment with Iraqi politics went beyond the issues of corruption and excessive parliamentary pay and he was disappointed that so many people “are sympathetic to sectarian policies”. He has accused the prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, of playing the sectarian card in the upcoming election by presenting himself as the leader of the Shia community in the face of an attack by the Sunni minority.

That would be an attack on the Sunni minority -- on. But the only thing Paddy's ever on is Nouri's crotch. As usual, he uses his space not to report on Moqtada but to repeat lies and attacks on the Sunni population. His hostility, his bias, is well known. Mushreq Abbas (Al-Monitor) offers a more honest approach:

Although the statement did not give clear reasons for this decision, there were signals alluding to its motives such as “ending corruption” in the name of Sadr's offices inside and outside Iraq, “ending the suffering of the Iraqi people,” disengaging from “politics and politicians” and saving the reputation of the Sadr family, which is revered.
These signals, in addition to leaks coming from people close to Sadr, pointed to an internal crisis between Sadr and his movement, ranging from Sadr’s loss of confidence in his offices, his associates and the political bodies that operate under his command; the discovery of financial corruption and the use of Sadr’s name in illegal acts, in addition to the fact that some of Sadr’s 40 members of parliament signed the controversial pension law, which provided exceptional privileges to parliament members and senior state officials. That law angered the street and infuriated top Shiite cleric Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, who called on the public not to elect the forces that voted for the law.
But those reasons do not seem to justify Sadr’s major step, especially given that he could have expelled any deputy or figure in his movement without the need for dissolving it. And he could have made significant changes in the Sadrist current’s work and orientations.

Gulf Daily News quotes analyst Ali Ammer stating, "Sadr's decision will definitely play into the hands of Al Maliki in the next election in one way or another." WG Dunlop (AFP) speaks with a number of observers to get their take and we'll note this one:

Sadr “usually backs out of the political limelight when he is physically threatened” or “when the Sadrist movement has to do something politically expedient that Sadr wants to disassociate from,” said Michael Knights, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Of Sadr’s possible return, Knights said: “Nothing is permanent in Iraq except death.”

Abdul Rahman al-Rashed (Asharq al-Awsat) offers:

Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr surprised us when he announced he was quitting politics, urging his followers to also refrain from getting too engaged here. Does his decision imply a secret agreement whereby one of the remaining candidates has a better chance of winning Iraq’s upcoming elections? Perhaps it is part of a deal in which Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki wins because he does not have to stand against Sadr. Perhaps Sadr is angry at his movement’s representatives in parliament, or perhaps it is a tactical decision in the run-up to the elections.
We simply don’t know. But what is certain is that by quitting politics, he has disrupted the calculations and forecasts of observers. Sadr’s many followers will not hesitate to vote in the upcoming elections due to be held in a few weeks. Now that he has quit politics, the question is: Who will his millions of followers vote for? These people are capable of shifting the outcome of the elections.

This isn't Moqtada's first attempt to step away from politics or even his first attempt in the past six months. Last August, he announced he was stepping away from politics. Shortly after, he changed his mind. From the September 12th snapshot:

Turning to Iraqi politics, Kitabat reports cleric and movement Moqtada al-Sadr has finished trips to Lebanon and Jordan and paid his respects to his late father at the Najaf shrine and is now ready to re-enter political life. Moqtada has surprised many by announcing he was stepping away from politics. Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi publicly called for Moqtada to return to politics. Allawi's sentiments were echoed by Iraqis of all sects, not just Shi'ite members of Moqtada's movement. In a statement issued today, Moqtada acknowledged those calls and announces he will heed them.

Some felt the move was a stunt and said so in real time. Whether it was a stunt or not (it felt like a real announcement and decision to me when he announced he was walking away from politics), the move underscores how important Moqtada has become to Iraqi politics and how he could command respect in the role of prime minister. Because of the stances he has taken in the last three years, Moqtada the politician is seen as fighting for the interests of Iraq. That's a huge shift from the early years of the war when Moqtada was seen by many Iraqis as only interested in Shi'ites (and only in fundamental ones at that).

Friday's snapshot noted Nouri has warrants out for various political rivals.

Moqtada's announcement in August followed Nouri declaring Moqtada was responsible for the violence.

Knights (as noted above) said Moqtada usually resigns at times such as when he's physically threatened. An arrest warrant might do that. An arrest warrant or the fear of one might also explain why Saturday's statement by Moqtada included this, "By this decision, I want to end all evils that were committed or may be committed under Sadrist Foundation, inside Iraq or abroad."

Or this could be a bold political step.

This could, for example, be a step towards the post of prime minister. The winning bloc or slate could pick anyone to be named as prime minister-designate. This might be part of a deal not yet exposed which allows Moqtada the chance of being prime minister.

Or it might be about setting him up in an even higher role.

Yes, there is higher than prime minister.

Nouri has been prime minister for two consecutive terms and has used the office to attack many of his political rivals.

Many.

Not all.

Who's the person even a rabid dog like Nouri knows that he better not bark at?

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Moqtada may be angling for that position. The Grand Ayatollah is 83-years-old. His health is always the source of rumors in Iraq.

Moqtada's time in Iran before returning to Iraq a few years ago was spent advancing his religious studies.

This may be Moqtada's move towards the highest office possible in Iraq.

Or he may have just tired of the nonsense.

This December 2013 interview can argue that case (as well as back up those who claim Moqtada made his decision some time ago). He notes frustrations. He notes a refusal, in 2012, to pull together (in the vote against Nouri). He expresses frustrations with the process itself and that even a new election law would not eradicate the problems.

Recommended: "Iraq snapshot"
"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Fake Ass Jeans..."
"Violence slams Iraq"
"Leaked documents tell what NSA spy programs do (C..."
"Top Six Reasons to Stop Fighting Wars"
"Hejira"
"How stupid is POLITICO?"
"Diverse sexuality isn't alien to Africa - homophob..."
"Moqtada retires (again)"
"I Hate The War"
"Isaiah filling in for Ruth"
"Favorite stand-up comics"
"Gravity sweeps the BAFTA awards"
"Sotomayor's finanical issues?"
"The proposed merger"
"Worst pick up line ever used on me"
"Wallace Shawn shares his thoughts"
"revenge news"
"Detroit"
"Patrick Cockburn is an idiot"

"He wants a castle"
"THIS JUST IN! HE WANTS TO WEAR A CROWN!"

Cedric's Big Mix