Saturday, April 26, 2014

Old Man Redford exposes himself

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

BAD RUG WEARER AND AGED, FORMER MATINEE IDOL ROBERT REDFORD TOLD CNN THAT "CHICAGOLAND" WAS HOW "A CONSUMER [WAS] GOING TO GET THE TRUTH" BUT TURNS OUT ROBERT REDFORD JR. WAS LYING.

CHICAGOLAND WAS WORKED OUT EVERY DAY IN E-MAILS BETWEEN THE 'DOCUMENTARY' MAKERS LIKE REDFORD AND THE OFFICE OF RAHM EMANUAL.

IT WAS ALL FRAUD.

THE BAD ACTOR WHO PLAYED IN "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN" AND HAS PRETENDED EVER SINCE LIKE HE BROKE THE STORY OF WATERGATE IS IN FACT A DEEPLY UNETHICAL PERSON WHO PRESENTED FAKED 'COVERAGE' AS A DOCUMENTARY.

IT'S TIME FOR THE HACK TO NOT JUST PULL OFF HIS WIG BUT ALSO FOR HIM TO STOP MAKING MOVIES AND TV SHOWS. HE'S A LIAR AND HE'S A FRAUD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Mark Hosenball, Warren Strobel, Phil Stewart, Ned Parker, Jason Szep and Ross Colvin (Reuters) report, "The United States is quietly expanding the number of intelligence officers in Iraq and holding urgent meetings in Washington and Baghdad to find ways to counter growing violence by Islamic militants, U.S. government sources said." It was 1961 when US President John F. Kennedy sent 1364 "advisors" into Vietnam. The next year, the number was just short of 10,000. In 1963, the number hit 15,500. You remember how this ends, right?

The advisers get to participate in the War Crimes of chief thug and prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. As he continues to bomb the residential neighborhoods of Falluja, NINA notes four civilians were injured today. NINA reports: "Fallujah Education Hospital announced on Friday that / 1418 / people killed and injured in the city of Fallujah since the beginning of military operations." That's 259 civilians killed and 1159 injured. These are War Crimes, the term is "collective punishment." And the bombings are aided by 'intel' provided by the US.

Earlier this week, we noted this from Fanar Haddad "Sectarian Relations and Sunni Identity in Post-Civil War Iraq" (Middle East Institute):

For example, many have fairly asked why Iraqi state television, namely Al Iraqiya, airs the confessions of dozens of (Sunni) terrorists but never of a (Shi‘i) militia commander? For that matter, why are diﬀerent terms applied to Sunni and Shi‘i militant groups, namely terrorists and militias, if not to deny any moral equivalence between them? A remarkable example of double standards is how the state deals with the Mahdi Army and other Shi‘i militant groups: why is it that an organization heavily involved in the civil war, and parts of which are responsible for atrocious crimes, is allowed to hold public events and rallies with state approval? And why is the extension of similar courtesies to any Sunni militants unthinkable? Such questions reinforce the conviction that the new Iraq directly or otherwise targets Sunni Arabs. Te depth of Sunni feelings of encirclement is perhaps best illustrated in the claim made by some that they had personally seen banners in Baghdad on 9 April 2003 displaying the slogan “No Sunnis after today.”

It's worth noting again. And pondering. Why are Shi'ite 'militant' groups allowed to hold rallies? Why are Sunnis militants called "terrorists" and Shi'ite called "militias"?

It's especially worth asking today.

Five days before scheduled parliamentary elections, an eastern Baghdad campaign rally was bombed. BBC News offers a photo essay. Ben Mathis-Lilley (Slate) posts photos of the bombing taken by Thaier al-Sudani (Reuters). NBC News has video of outside the stadium. NINA notes al-Senaa Sports Club is the stadium the rally was being held in. Iran's Focus Information Agency notes that the gathering was a "rally for the Saadiqun bloc, the political wing of the Asaib Ahel al-Haq militia" BBC News adds, "Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq is backed by Iran and is a public supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad." Raheem Salman (Reuters) reports, "The militant group, Asaib Ahl Haq (League of the Righteous), introduced its candidates for elections on April 30 at the rally in eastern Baghdad."

The League of what?

Peter Moore and four other British citizens were kidnapped by the League of Righteous. Of the other four, three corpses were turned over: Jason Crewswell, Jason Swindelhurst and Alec Maclachlan in one handover. Much, much later, the remains of of Alan McMenemy were handed over. The kidnapping was mentioned in the State Dept's "2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices:"

Five British men (a computer expert and four bodyguards) were kidnapped in 2007. Peter Moore, the computer expert, was released unharmed on December 30, while the bodies of three of the four bodyguards were returned on June 19 and September 3 to the United Kingdom. The whereabouts of the fifth man remained unknown at year's end. Fifteen Americans, four South Africans, four Russian diplomats, and one Japanese citizen who were abducted since 2003 remained missing. There was no further information on the 2007 kidnapping of the Ministry of Science and Technology acting undersecretary, Samir Salim al-Attar.

For more on the League, we'll drop back to the June 9, 2009 snapshot:

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly did so because his organization was not going to release any of the five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization -- terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know, was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were: Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N. Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York; and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did? Somebody needs to answer for it."

That's the League of Righteous. Yet few outlets will label them as militants -- let alone as terrorists. They are terrorists. Tim Arango and Duraid Adnan (New York Times) report on today's rally:

Festooned around the stadium were banners bearing the names and faces of the men the group had lost in Syria, more than 80 names in all. Men in militia uniforms -- green camouflage with Asaib Ahl al-Haq patches on the sleeves -- some just back from the battlefield in Syria, lined the track surrounding the soccer field. As the group’s parliamentary candidates filed into the stadium, a campaign song played through scratchy stereo speakers.

Jane Arraf (PBS NewsHour) notes:

Its leader, Qais al-Khazali, spent more than two years in U.S. detention, believed by the U.S. to have organized and ordered the killing of five American soldiers in Karbala in 2007. He and other leaders of the Iranian-backed militant group were later released in what was believed to be a swap for a captured British contractor and the bodies of his slain security guards. Rehabilitated and rebranded, the group has emerged as a political party, running candidates in the elections for the first time.

Rehabilitated by whom, Jane? A lazy press? Believed to be a trade? Months after the hand off of Moore and the three corpses, the League went to the Iraqi press to explain why Alan McMenemy wasn't handed over: the White House didn't keep their promise. And this rehab? The US Dept of Treasury didn't think so. This is their press release on Qais al-Khazali -- read it and look for 'rehabilitated':

Treasury Designates Hizballah Commander Responsible for American Deaths in Iraq

11/19/2012

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of the Treasury today designated Ali Mussa Daqduq al-Musawi (Daqduq) pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 for acting on behalf of Hizballah. Daqduq is a senior Hizballah commander responsible for numerous attacks against Coalition Forces in Iraq, including planning an attack on the Karbala Joint Provincial Coordination Center (JPCC) on January 20, 2007, which resulted in the deaths of five U.S. soldiers.

On March 20, 2007, Coalition Forces in southern Iraq captured Daqduq, who falsely claimed to be a deaf mute at the time and produced a number of false identity cards using a variety of aliases. From January 2009 until December 2011, U.S. military forces held Daqduq in Iraq under the terms of the 2008 "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq" (the Security Agreement). In December 2011, the United States transferred Daqduq to Iraq's custody in accordance with our obligations under the Security Agreement. He was subsequently tried in Iraq on terrorism and other charges. On May 7, 2012, an Iraqi court dismissed terrorism and false documents charges against him. Daqduq remained in Iraqi custody until last week when the Iraqi government determined that it no longer had a legal basis to hold him, and he was released Friday.

"Ali Mussa Daqduq al-Musawi is a dangerous Hizballah operative responsible for planning and carrying out numerous acts of terrorism in Iraq," said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David S. Cohen. "The United States is extremely disappointed he was allowed to go free and we will continue our efforts to bring him to justice."

Today's action further highlights the fact that Hizballah's terrorist activities stretch beyond the borders of Lebanon. These terrorist acts are in some cases funded, coordinated, and carried out in concert with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). Hizballah, along with its Iranian allies, trained and advised Iraqi militants to carry out numerous terrorist attacks against Coalition and Iraqi forces.

Daqduq has been a member of Hizballah since 1983 and has served in multiple Hizballah leadership positions, including as commander of a Hizballah special forces unit and chief of a protective detail for Hizballah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.

In approximately 2005, Iran asked Hizballah to form a group to train Iraqis to fight Coalition Forces in Iraq. In response, Hassan Nasrallah established a covert Hizballah unit to train and advise Iraqi militants in Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) and JAM Special Groups, now known as Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq.

As of 2006, Daqduq had been ordered by Hizballah to work with IRGC-QF to provide training and equipment to JAM Special Groups to augment their ability to inflict damage against U.S. troops.

Identifying Information

Individual: Ali Mussa Daqduq al-Musawi
AKA: Ali Musa Daqduq
AKA: Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Lami
AKA:    Hamid Muhammad al-Lami
AKA:    Husayn Muhammad Jabur al-Musui
AKA:    Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Musui
AKA:    Hamid Muhammad Daqduq al-Musawi
AKA:    Hamid Muhammad Jabur al-Musawi
AKA:    Hamid Majid 'Abd al-Yunis
Nationality: Lebanese
DOB No. 1: 1 September 1969
DOB No. 2: 31 December 1971
DOB No. 3: 9 August 1971
DOB No. 4: 9 September 1970
DOB No. 5: 9 August 1969
DOB No. 6: 5 March 1972
POB No. 1: Beirut, Lebanon
POB No. 2: Al-Karradah, Baghdad, Iraq

###

Friday, April 25, 2014

He'll always have Clooney

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

FADED CELEBRITY BARRY O WAS WOOED IN JAPAN BY THE PRIME MINISTER SHINZO ABE AND SCARFED DOWN 14 PIECES OF SUSHI.

"I NEVER SAW ANYONE SWALLOW SO QUICKLY," SAID ONE TABLE MATE.

AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER?

ONLY THE HOUSE KEEPING LAUNDRY KNOWS FOR SURE.

BUT ONE JAPANESE POLITICIAN, KAZUYUKI HAMADA, INSISTS BARRY O IS INDULGING IN AFFAIRS.

WHICH MAY EXPLAIN WHY AGING CLOSET QUEEN GEORGE CLOONEY HAD A FIT IN LAS VEGAS WHEN ONE OF HIS FRIENDS TRASH TALKED BARRY O.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

As I stated in yesterday's snapshot:

If Joel Wing or Reidar Visser see themselves as left, my apologies to them. Although both have bent to Nouri's will too often for my tastes, I don't see them as right or left but more centrist analysts.

And Visser bends to it again today. Dexter Filkens' New Yorker article led Visser to rush -- yet again -- to Nouri al-Maliki's defense.

And his dishonesty means I'm forced to defend Dexter Filkins.

Skepticism of any report is a good thing when approaching one. But after you've read it -- I'm not sure Visser read it all -- your criticism needs to be sound.

A colleague of Nouri al-Maliki's says he never smiles. That's in the opening of the article. As I noted on Sunday: "His intro should have been redone, it's a nightmare, but otherwise the writing is better than okay." The never smiles remark is what as known as hyperbole.

Yet Visser makes this his first 'fact check' and maintains, "This assertion can be easily falsified by a simple Google Image search, and one assumes the longstanding Maliki associate is talking to Filkins because he is not any longer such a close associate and that maybe that, in turn, may explain the perceived absence of smiles."

Again, it is hyperbole. Visser calls his own competence as a media critic into question by failing to grasp hyperbole.

Then Visser wants to insist:

In his description of the 2010 government formation process, Filkins asserts that the Iraqi federal supreme court ruling that formally enabled post-election coalition forming “directly contradicted the Iraqi constitution”. This is just untrue. The problem is that the Iraqi constitution is mute when it comes to the relationship between electoral lists and parliamentary blocs. It just says the biggest parliamentary bloc will nominate the premier, and the supreme court simply repeated that sentence, with the addition that pre-election and post-election formation should be considered on an equal footing.

Visser's wrong and I can quote him. Why can't he -- or more importantly -- why won't he quote Filkins?

This is the section that Visser badly summarizes:

In parliamentary elections the previous March, Maliki’s Shiite Islamist alliance, the State of Law, had suffered an embarrassing loss. The greatest share of votes went to a secular, pro-Western coalition called Iraqiya, led by Ayad Allawi, a persistent enemy of the Iranians. “These were election results we could only have dreamed of,” a former American diplomat told me. “The surge had worked. The war was winding down. And, for the first time in the history of the Arab world, a secular, Western-leaning alliance won a free and fair election.”
But even though Allawi’s group had won the most votes, it had not captured a majority, leaving both him and Maliki scrambling for coalition partners. And despite the gratifying election results, American officials said, the Obama Administration concluded that backing Allawi would be too difficult if he was opposed by Shiites and by their supporters in Iran. “There was no way that the Shia were not going to provide the next Prime Minister,” James Jeffrey, the American Ambassador at the time, told me. “Iraq will not work if they don’t. Allawi was a goner.”

Shortly after the elections, an Iraqi judge, under pressure from the Prime Minister, awarded Maliki the first chance to form a government. The ruling directly contradicted the Iraqi constitution, but American officials did not contest it. “The intent of the constitution was clear, and we had the notes of the people who drafted it,” Sky, the civilian adviser, said. “The Americans had already weighed in for Maliki.”

Now Reidar Visser, I've tried to be nice. I haven't been linking to my piece "A crackpot runs AFP, Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor" about how you thought you were being followed, that FBI posed as CIA, that you were harassed in US libraries and all the other things we should just leave behind. But when you wrote your nonsense today, Reidar, you indirectly slammed me with voice mails as various friends in journalism called to tell me how accurate my call on you in that piece was.

Flikins is correct, Emma Sky is correct.

And, yes, I was correct. This was one of the big things that I can remember Reider and 'others' getting wrong in real time that we went over and over.

It was a violation of the Constitution and maybe Reider doesn't quote Emma Sky from Dexter's report because he realizes she has a lot more credibility than he does?

Reidar doesn't not know the law. When we're making arguments about the Iraqi Constitution here, it's usually pointed out to me by one of two Iraqis who actually worked on the Constitution (and one of them was a source for Dexter's article, by the way). I then look at the points they're making, walk through them with friends and then present them here. And unlike Reidar Visser, I understand Constitutional Law and aced that and other legal courses.

Equally true, until Nouri made public the secret judgment (which he sought before the election but didn't share), the operating belief was clear -- and was used in 2006 after the December 2005 parliamentary elections. Also true, the judges don't make law in Iraq. But that's what they did with their ruling for Nouri.

Filkens is correct in his report, Reidar Visser is wrong and he's so appalling wrong that he's already chopping off the legs to any sort of comeback he might have. His devotion to Nouri al-Maliki is apparently greater than his own need for self-preservation.

He's as embarrassing as the eunuchs attempting to serve War Criminal Tony Blair.

Take the ridiculous Jonathan Russell (Left Foot Forward) who screeches, "Tony Blair’s Bloomberg speech yesterday on the Middle East has been roundly criticised from various commentators, most of whom seemed to have not read or heard the actual speech. Brand Blair is considered toxic because of his legacy in Iraq, but the danger is that his valid arguments about Islamist extremism are lost." We covered that speech in yesterday's snapshot.

Here's a little tip for Jonathan Russell, something most people know -- all of those who don't suffer from wet dreams about Tony Blair. He's not Einstein. Tony Blair's not even an original thinker. There's nothing he adds that's particular to him. His message is already being tossed around -- by neoconservatives.

Of Blair, Betty pointed out, "Tony Blair's the danger. Today, he tried to paint others as being dangerous." The Daily Mail notes, "[. . .] as his speech yesterday made clear, he remains in denial over his own role in inflaming terrorism by leading us into a bloody war in Iraq on the strength of a lie." Arun Kundnani (Guardian) observes, "Blair's supporters say he has discovered nuance. But the shift in his latest speech is not towards subtlety but a step back to the rhetoric of stability, and the abandonment of the post-9/11 neoconservative slogan of reordering the world. What remains is the hypocrisy of denouncing an ideology as inherently violent, and then launching a grand ideological war against it that results in far more violence."

All of the above goes to the fact that Tony Blair's a lousy megaphone for any idea -- even if it was a good one. Stop the War's Lindsey German and Robin Beste note 10 facts about Blair and we'll include the first four:

1. Tony Blair has never shown a shred of remorse for the extremism of mass slaughter and destruction for which he was directly responsible, not least in Iraq.

2. Tony Blair is a supporter of extremism around the world, whether it be the dictators in Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan, the despots ruling the oil states Kuwait and Bahrain, or Israel’s apartheid regime that occupies Palestinian land in contravention of international law and countless UN resolutions. When prime minister, not content with waging illegal wars, he was up to his neck in CIA torture and kidnapping ’every step of the way’.

3. Tony Blair defends and applauds the military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government in Egypt, saying that it ‘was the absolutely necessary rescue of a nation’. He was a supporter of the Egyptian dictator Mubarak, calling him “immensely courageous and a force for good”,right up to the day he was overthrown in a popular revolution by the Egyptian people.

4. Tony Blair blindly ignores the catastrophes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, as he endlessly promotes more western military intervention, whether it be in Syria, Iran or beyond.

Repeating, Tony Blair is not an original thinker. His only value would be to popularize some theme or argument; however, his image is so negative that he can't even manage that. His attempts to act as a megaphone will only harm any message someone wants to get out.

Let's stay on this cult of personality nonsense for a moment.

Anyone can get taken in, that's always a possibility. But rational adults can realize they've been conned. Equally true, someone can support a Blair and then a Blair -- or a Nouri -- can morph into something else. At which point, the rational adult can walk away from supporting the person.

I won't support Hillary Clinton if she runs for president.

Some will.

That's their choice, that's their business.

For me, I think it was a slap in the face to her supporters for her to serve in Barack's administration. It was four years of her supporters having to defend her daily because the partisans blamed her for everything. They worked overtime to deny her the presidential nomination but then treated the Secretary of State as though she were the president and slammed her for what the administration did. Barack hid behind her skirts and I think Hillary betrayed the support she had by playing 'good soldier.'

As a US senator she opposed the so-called 'surge' in Iraq. As we now know from former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, Hillary only opposed it for political reasons/posturing.

That's actually fine with me. And it's one of the few things she truly shares with her husband. He was ridiculed for polling when he was president. But that was about listening to the American people. So Hillary listening to the people and opposing the surge? I applaud that.

It's why, in January of 2008, I realized I'd support her for president. 1) She would poll, she would listen. 2) She wasn't being fawned over. Her supporters wanted her to fight for them. They weren't ooohing and aaaweing over the baby fawn emerging from the forest.

So she'd be held accountable -- by the right, by the left, by the center. We've not seen with Barack. We've seen a craven media fawn over him (and CBS really needs to address Sharyl Attkison's charges -- with one Rhodes brother in the administration and the other over CBS News, the network really needs to address this). We've seen a faux left spend his first four years in office attacking Hillary so as not to say an unpleasant word about Barack.

Medea Benjamin writes and co-writes entire articles on The Drone War that overlook the person in charge of it: Barack Obama.

This is exactly what so many of us expected if he won the nomination.

That was 2008.

It's 2014 and Hillary's time in the administration coarsened her and amplified her bad habits. When she went into her screaming fit before Congress -- that's not how you act before Congress, especially not when you're serving in an administration -- it was obvious how far gone she was.

If I were a Cult of Personality -- or a liar -- I'd just smile and say, "Hillary's so wonderful . . ."

Reider can't walk away from Nouri.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri works to churn out the votes from Iran"
"Talk Nation Radio: Charles Komanoff: We Need a Car..."
"Previously-Secret Prison Docs Show Constitutional ..."
""A Letter From Johnny Carson" (Mike Palecek)"
"Again on Arrow"
"Elementary"
"NYT caught selling war again"
"the presidential bystander"
"WOW Radio?"
"The new Joni Mitchell album"
"What Passes For Progress"
"Joni Mitchell Dog Eat Dog"
"Baez is dead to us"
"A welcome death"
"Another broken promise"
"THIS JUST IN! ANOTHER LIE EXPOSED!"

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Another broken promise

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

FADED CELEBRITY AND TOKYO PARTY GIRL BARRY O MAY BE OVERSEAS BUT HIS CORRUPTION CONTINUES IN THE U.S.

DESPITE INSISTING IN 2007 THAT HE SUPPORTED NET NEUTRALITY, HIS NEW F.C.C. CHAIR IS PREPARING TO GUT THE CONCEPT.

"I AM A STRONG SUPPORTER OF NET NEUTRALITY," HE INSISTED IN 2007. ADD IT TO HIS LONG LIST OF LIES INCLUDING "IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Seven days from now, Iraq is supposed to hold parliamentary elections. NINA notes that today US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft declared that elections would be taking place April 30th. Osama al-Khafaji and Ghassan Hamid (Alsumaria) have noted that there are 9032 candidates competing for 328 seats. Reidar Visser (Gulf Analysis) examines the candidates who aren't running because they were disqualified:

Firstly there are lists of those excluded, around 400 names, which appeared in four separate batches released by the de-Baathification committee in early February . Second, there is a list of those excluded with reference to criminal charges (the first three batches along with the criminal charges list is here; the separate fourth list is here). Thirdly, there is a list of those who were reinstated from the first two batches of de-Baathification subsequent to the appeals process (in some sources this has erroneously been described as a fifth exclusion batch). Importantly, the lists of those subject to de-Baathification give candidate names only, not list affiliation. It is therefore very difficult to pin down their party affiliation, especially so since many of them are not very prominent figures. Advanced name searches on them on Google in Arabic will rarely return any hits at all, even if a liberal number of name combinations is attempted. However, there remains a key to establishing some links between individual candidates and lists for at least a part of the material. This relates to the 52 reinstated candidates, who appear in the final list of election candidates and can therefore be identified by party affiliation. Also, although no list of those reinstated in cases not relating to de-Baathification has been published, for the smaller number of reinstated candidates who were initially excluded with reference to the “good reputation” requirement it is possible to search through the final candidate list with the names of everyone who had been reported as excluded. It is noteworthy though, that in both categories – de-Baathification and “good reputation” – a large number of reinstated candidates appear to have opted to remain off the list, despite having regained the right to stand as candidates. One possible explanation, especially for candidate far down on the list, is that their lists may have deemed them to be more of a burden than an asset following the suspicions unleashed by their initial disqualifications.

As has been the case with every provincial election and every parliamentary election since the illegal war allegedly 'liberated' Iraq, campaign season means politicians get targeted. Today? Alsumaria reports four homes were blown up in Sulaiman Bek, including one belonging to a candidate with Ayad Allawi's coaltion. All Iraq News notes an attack on "some cars carrying leaflets [. . .] for Deputy Premier, Salih al-Mutleq" in Tikrit.

While violence has become an expected occurrence at election time, this year's elections will see a new development. This election, Iraq is debuting electronic voter cards and not the ration cards that they used in past elections. Monday Duraid Salman and Tarek Ammar (Alsumaria) reported that the Independent High Electoral Commission notes that 85% of the new electronic cards that will be required for voting have been distributed. The elections are next Wednesday and they still haven't distributed all the cards? You can't vote without the card this go-round.

US Ambassador Beecroft met today with Sarbast Rashid Mustafa who chairs the Independent High Electoral Commission. The US Embassy in Baghdad released the following:

Ambassador Beecroft Praises IHEC’s Efforts in Preparation for National Elections

April 23, 2014

U.S. Ambassador Stephen Beecroft and U.S. Embassy staff met on Tuesday April 22 with Mr. Sarbast Rashid Mustafa, the Chairman of the Independent Higher Electoral Commission (IHEC) and Mr. Muqdad Alsharify, the Chief Electoral Officer of IHEC.
Chairman Mustafa and CEO Alsharify outlined for the Ambassador the extensive plan that IHEC has in place for the national election on April 30. The Ambassador emphasized his appreciation for the professionalism and thoroughness of IHEC's work under often very difficult circumstances and offered his condolences for IHEC employees who have been killed or injured as a result of this essential work.
The Ambassador expressed the expectation of the United States that the electoral process would reflect the will of the Iraqi people and that the Government of Iraq would take every measure to ensure that Iraqi citizens would be able to exercise their right to vote in a secure and fair environment. He relayed that he is confident that IHEC would succeed in its mission of achieving a result that would be credible and represent the democratic decision of the Iraqi people.
The United States has consistently emphasized with Iraqi officials from across the political spectrum of the importance for the election to take place on time and has fully supported the independence of IHEC as defined in the Iraqi constitution.

Chairman Mustafa extended his appreciation for the technical support provided by the U.S. Government for conducting transparent and credible elections in Iraq.

On the topic of Stephen Beecroft, Laura Rozen (Backchannel) reports the word is Beecroft will be nominated to be the US Ambassador to Egypt shortly.

That would be a deeply stupid move. So it's probably going to happen. If it does, we'll go into how stupid it is. Until then, we'll just note the rumor.

Monday, Duraid Salman (Alsumaria) reported on allegations that Nouri's SWAT forces are forcing voters in Diyala Province to hand over their election cards so that they can be used for voter fraud. Joel Wing (Musings On Iraq) notes some of the problems with the electronic cards:

Apathetic Iraqis and problems with the voter rolls offer loopholes for political parties to exploit the new cards. Shafaq News for example interviewed a member of the Election Commission in Kirkuk who said that voting cards were going for as much as $500 a piece. The article claimed that people who were not going to vote were willing to sell their cards. With voting participation at 50% out of approximately 20 million registered voters that provides a huge pool of people to purchase cards from. In another example, Niqash ran an article in April that included a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan who said that parties in the northern region were buying up voting cards as well. Another area of potential abuse is the fact that Iraq does not have up to date voter information. There has not been a census for decades because of the political differences between the ruling parties. Instead the Election Commission relies upon information provided by the Ministry of Trade and the food ration system that it operates. There are plenty of reports about the problems this presents. The IHEC for instance, announced in March that it had withdrawn 32,000 voting cards that it found were for the deceased or duplicate names. There are likely several thousand more of these types of wrongly issued cards still out there, because of the flawed nature of the voting rolls. Ironically the Election Commission went with these cards to try to cut down on fraud and cheating. In October 2013 it signed a $130 million 5-year deal with a Spanish company to create the voting cards. They have to be produced with one other piece of identification for anyone to vote. If parties are dishing up hundreds of dollars however to buy them they will have the money to forge other ID’s as well. These are obviously huge problems which the IHEC is aware of, but has limited time and money to try to fix especially since the balloting is only days away.

Barbara Slavin can be a real idiot. If her recent ridiculous piece hadn't been at the Voice of America, I would have linked to it. I wouldn't have called her the names that many Americans would have -- I would have just called her stupid and grossly insensitive (her piece was 'get over it, America, Iran can pick whomever they want for an ambassador). She's a stupid woman and a deeply troubled one whose personal demons effect her work. At Al-Monitor, she writes an embarrassing and vapid piece following her soft-ball interview with Iraq's Ambassador to the US Lukman Faily. We'll note this from the article:

After the 2010 elections, it took Iraqis nine months to form a new government and this could happen again, with Maliki serving in an acting capacity, said the ambassador, who comes from Maliki's Dawa Party. “The key challenge is that most of the political blocs don’t have clear red lines, which creates confusion and misreading of each other,” he said. “You may have prolonged government formation after. Historically it wasn’t quick. But the concept of time is not as crucial for us as in the Western concept.”
Among the tough decisions on hold until after elections: agreement on how much of their oil Kurds can export through Turkey and how much revenue they will get from the central government. Faily said the Kurds are not the only ones who are looking for more resources from Iraq’s oil wealth. “We get more calls from the governor of Basra than from the KRG on this issue,” he said.
At the same time, Faily said that oil remains the “gel” for society and could keep Iraq from fragmenting into three or more pieces. “There is enough oil there for everybody to be prosperous,” he said.

Slavin's a disaster as a reporter. She can take dictation, that's about all she can do. That and normalize the notion that months is acceptable for forming a government. No, it's not. The process is supposed to take mere weeks for a prime minister-designate to be named and then he or she has 30 days to form a Cabinet.

It is a sign of failure of the democratic process that the government is unable to do their damn job. This actually happened in 2006 as well.

That's a detail a reporter would know, Babs. Parliamentary elections took place in December 2005. Nouri is named prime minister-designate in April of 2006 and becomes prime minister at the end of May 2006.

She also doesn't question Faily's claim that, "There is enough oil there for everybody to be prosperous" when the reality is that vast numbers of Iraqis live in poverty.

At The Hill, the European Parliament's Delegations for Relations with Iraq's President Struan Stevenson explains:

The election is being held while he is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all military and security forces are under his personal command without any legal check. For more than four years he has directly controlled the ministries of Interior, Defence, Security and Communications, in total breach of the Erbil Agreement; he has filled all key posts with his own men, and through influencing the judiciary has trampled on its independence and brought Iraqi judges under direct political control. In a similarly contemptuous and illegal move he has repeatedly refused requests to appear before the elected parliament and provide explanations for his authoritarian behaviour.
Last year, the Iraqi parliament adopted a resolution whereby none of the three key posts of prime minister, president and speaker of parliament, could be occupied by any one person for more than two consecutive 4-year terms. However, through influencing the judicial system, he declared this law unconstitutional, despite the fact that the constitution does not bestow such authority on the judicial system.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Tony Blair and Radical Islam: A dialogue

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

TODAY, WAR CRIMINAL TONY BLAIR DECLARED RADICAL ISLAM TO BE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE WORLD.

RADICAL ISLAM REPLIED, "YOU'VE NOTCHED AN IMPRESSIVE BODY COUNT YOURSELF, BIG BOY."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Ammar al-Hakim is the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council. Alsumaria reports that he declared today that Iraq has reached a turning point. He was speaking in Babylon Province about the planned April 30th parliamentary elections. He noted the coalition he'd joined with, the Citizens Coalition, wanted to build university to continue the production of knowledge and culture and to improve the quality of life for Iraqis in the streets and in their homes. They are on the cusp, al-Hakeem declared, and they can proceed to a fair state with confidence in the judiciary, the government institutions and an equitable distribution of the walth. Or they can remain with "red tape," with neglected cities, with expanding violence and the continual shedding of blood.

The status quo is Nouri. That's what al-Hakim's speech is rejecting.

The status quo is Nouri and, whether it's out of personal elections hopes or not, politicians are rejecting him.

Sunday, Aswat al-Iraq quoted the country's Shi'ite Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi declaring, "Maliki does not regard himself responsible for the deterioration in the country, but he shoulders the greatest responsibility." He also criticized Nouri's campaign stops this month saying that Nouri's main focus should be to "create a secured stability." Osama al-Nujaifi is the Speaker of Parliament in Iraq and the head of the Mottahiddon list. NINA quotes him declaring today:

Our former attitude of patience that we committed to,was motivated to the preservation and unity of the nation and the people for fear of plans of sectarians who carry out a well-known regional and international schema . But today we will firmly repeal and strongly deter the hand that turn the executive power to merely sentences of mass executions of innocent citizens , as well as the hand that transform army’s sacred tasks of defending people and nation’s boarders to a force to crush the people , to dispersion and humiliate citizens , violate the sanctity of the Iraqi family and imprison innocent women in detention and rape them stressing the necessity to detain such a hand in accordance with the will of the whole people,the will of the constitution and the will of the right.

Osama al-Nujaifi is the brother of Nineveh Province Governor Atheel al-Nujaifi (one of the many politicians Nouri al-Maliki loathes and has attempted to have removed). With Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi in exile, Osama al-Nujaifi is the highest ranking Sunni politician in the Iraqi government.

Myriam Benraad (World Politics Review) examines the campaign field in Iraq and notes:

Three main forces are thus left competing within the Shiite political arena: Maliki’s State of Law Coalition, the Sadrist current and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), run by Ammar al-Hakim. These forces follow quite opposed ideological and political agendas and are themselves riddled with internal rivalries and disagreements.
Since Muqtada al-Sadr’s decision to withdraw from politics in February, debates have been ongoing as to the future of his movement. While some argue that Sadr’s abrupt move put an end to Sadrism, others believe that it is only a tactic for the popular Shiite leader to reposition himself ahead of the polls, both on the national scene and among his supporters. Lending credibility to the latter hypothesis, Sadr has remained politically active in spite of his announcement and is still the sharpest critic of Maliki, whom Sadr has called both a dictator and a tyrant. Sadr has also dissociated himself from other figures within his movement allegedly involved in cases of political and financial corruption.
[. . .]
The ISCI-dominated Citizen Coalition, which unites 18 other parties, ranked second in the 2013 provincial elections and today seeks to regain the standing it lost after its electoral failure in 2010. The list comprises a number of influential candidates, including Ahmed al-Chalabi. It primarily focuses its program on state reform, and has preferred a more moderate and conciliatory outlook in order to appeal to broader sectors of the Shiite population. It presents itself as a reliable successor to Maliki, but one that will not repeat the latter’s political mistakes. Contrary to Baghdad’s policy of recentralization of national political power, the ISCI favors more decentralization and hopes to garner greater support from Iran.

Benraad's take is that Nouri will win a third term (and that this will be bad for Iraq). That is a prediction and many events on the ground argue against Nouri winning or even currently being in the lead.

We'll note this Tweet.

We?

Daniel Ellsberg has never, ever, called out the current administration for demanding that Nouri get a second term as prime minister despite losing the 2010 elections to Ayad Allawi and Iraqiya.

Daniel Ellsberg has never called The Erbil Agreement -- which went around the people of Iraq and gave Nouri a second term. Daniel doesn't have that kind of guts.

He's a fat, overweight and declawed cat barely able to make it to the litter box. And if that's harsh, so is Daniel's embarrassing refusal to speak out for the Iraqi people and what they have endured since 2010.

In other words, he should probably just roll over on his back and enjoy the sun because he has nothing to left to share.

Dexter Filkins, infamous for his propaganda regarding the attack on Falluja in November 2004, has a long article at The New Yorker. Like Ellsberg, he can't bring himself to mention The Erbil Agreement. This excerpt covers that time period:

In parliamentary elections the previous March, Maliki’s Shiite Islamist alliance, the State of Law, had suffered an embarrassing loss. The greatest share of votes went to a secular, pro-Western coalition called Iraqiya, led by Ayad Allawi, a persistent enemy of the Iranians. “These were election results we could only have dreamed of,” a former American diplomat told me. “The surge had worked. The war was winding down. And, for the first time in the history of the Arab world, a secular, Western-leaning alliance won a free and fair election.”
But even though Allawi’s group had won the most votes, it had not captured a majority, leaving both him and Maliki scrambling for coalition partners. And despite the gratifying election results, American officials said, the Obama Administration concluded that backing Allawi would be too difficult if he was opposed by Shiites and by their supporters in Iran. “There was no way that the Shia were not going to provide the next Prime Minister,” James Jeffrey, the American Ambassador at the time, told me. “Iraq will not work if they don’t. Allawi was a goner.”
Shortly after the elections, an Iraqi judge, under pressure from the Prime Minister, awarded Maliki the first chance to form a government. The ruling directly contradicted the Iraqi constitution, but American officials did not contest it. “The intent of the constitution was clear, and we had the notes of the people who drafted it,” [Emma] Sky, the civilian adviser, said. “The Americans had already weighed in for Maliki.”
But it was the meeting with Suleimani that was ultimately decisive. According to American officials, he broke the Iraqi deadlock by leaning on Sadr to support Maliki, in exchange for control of several government ministries. Suleimani’s conditions for the new government were sweeping. Maliki agreed to make Jalal Talabani, the pro-Iranian Kurdish leader, the new President, and to neutralize the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, which was backed by the C.I.A. Most dramatic, he agreed to expel all American forces from the country by the end of 2011.
The U.S. obtained a transcript of the meeting, and knew the exact terms of the agreement. Yet it decided not to contest Iran’s interference. At a meeting of the National Security Council a month later, the White House signed off on the new regime. Officials who had spent much of the previous decade trying to secure American interests in the country were outraged. “We lost four thousand five hundred Americans only to let the Iranians dictate the outcome of the war? To result in strategic defeat?” the former American diplomat told me. “F**k that.” At least one U.S. diplomat in Baghdad resigned in protest. And Ayad Allawi, the secular Iraqi leader who captured the most votes, was deeply embittered. “I needed American support,” he told me last summer. “But they wanted to leave, and they handed the country to the Iranians. Iraq is a failed state now, an Iranian colony.”

Regarding the theft of the 2010 election? Some of us called it out in real time. I, for example, don't give a damn about Iran or its interference or 'interference.' I do, however, give a damn about free and fair elections. The Iraqis risked so much to vote and the chose Allawi. But the US government refused to back the democratic process. This sent a message -- an alarming message in a country supposedly moving towards democracy, or in the early stages of democracy, or gifted with democracy or whatever damn lie the US government told that you want to hold onto.

In the end, the White House didn't give a damn about democracy and this is 2010 so I'm talking about Barack.

I have no use for Daniel Ellsberg. I don't give a ___ that he did something four-hundred-and-fifty years ago. I'm living in today. Dying is taking place today. And if he wants to talk about Iraq, he better find a spine. Otherwise, he needs to crawl back under his rock.

Not everyone's so afraid to note The Erbil Agreement. For example, Anthony H. Cordesman and Sam Khazai pointed out earlier this year in [PDF format warning] "Iraq in Crisis:"

US officials applauded the 2010 Erbil agreement, and said they were hopeful that such cooperative arrangement would provide a political breakthrough among Iraq’s leadership, and allow them to address the country’s problems. They pointed to the influence the US had in pushing for the outcome, including the adoption of an American suggestion that Allawi head a new, “National Council for Security Policy”.

And Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) even reported on it in real time:

Vice President Biden made numerous calls to senior Iraqi leaders over the past several months and U.S. officials directly participated in top-level negotiating sessions that lasted until just moments before the Iraqi parliament finally convened to approve a new power-sharing government Thursday, a senior Obama administration official said Friday.

And back in January, Ned Parker (POLITICO) wrote an amazing must read on Iraq which included:

It was the April 2010 national election and its tortured aftermath that sewed the seeds of today’s crisis in Iraq. Beforehand, U.S. state and military officials had prepared for any scenario, including the possibility that Maliki might refuse to leave office for another Shiite Islamist candidate. No one imagined that the secular Iraqiya list, backed by Sunni Arabs, would win the largest number of seats in parliament. Suddenly the Sunnis’ candidate, secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, was poised to be prime minister. But Maliki refused and dug in.
And it is here where America found its standing wounded. Anxious about midterm elections in November and worried about the status of U.S. forces slated to be drawn down to 50,000 by August, the White House decided to pick winners. According to multiple officials in Baghdad at time, Vice President Joseph Biden and then-Ambassador Chris Hill decided in July 2010 to support Maliki for prime minister, but Maliki had to bring the Sunnis and Allawi onboard. Hill and his staff then made America’s support for Maliki clear in meetings with Iraqi political figures.
The stalemate would drag on for months, and in the end both the United States and its arch-foe Iran proved would take credit for forming the government. But Washington would be damaged in the process. It would be forever linked with endorsing Maliki. One U.S. Embassy official I spoke with just months before the government was formed privately expressed regret at how the Americans had played kingmaker.

Four years ago and Americans don't want to own up to what the White House did? That action set in motion everything that followed -- as surely Bully Boy Bush's illegal invasion destroyed Iraq.

And Myriam Benraad (World Politics Review) isn't the only one who fears a third term of Nouri al-Maliki will send Iraq into even rockier waters. NINA reports:

The spokeswoman of the Watania (National Coalition), Maysoon al-Damalochi confirmed that "if the current Prime, Minister Nuri al-Maliki won a third term, the National Coalition would withdraw entirely from the political process ."
Damalochi said in an interview with the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / its details will be published tomorrow, " al-Maliki will not be the head for the next government , because he will not get the full support in this election , as happened in the previous two terms ."

Two things are worth noting here.

First, Nouri told AFP in early 2011 that he would not seek a third term. This was when protests were rocking the region and leaders were facing the threat of being toppled. Protests were taking place in Iraq as well and there was an attempt to pass a law limiting a prime minister to two terms (a law Nouri publicly stated he favored). Nouri was fearful of losing his hold on power so he made public statements. Like so many other promises from Nouri, they were meaningless. Today, no journalist appears willing to ask Nouri what happened to his promise?

Second, Nouri may already be barred from a third term by the Constitution. It prohibits the presidency and it may in fact prohibit those holding the offices of prime minister and the presidency from third terms.

We've gone over this before but let's go over it slowly.

How does one qualify for prime minister? Not the vote, how does the person whom the president will name qualify?

Article 77 of the Iraqi Constitution explains that:

The conditions for assuming the post of the Prime Minister shall be the same as those for the President of the Republic, provided that he has a college degree or its equivalent and is over thirty-five years of age.

So what are the conditions the presidency?

All agree this outline in Article 68:

A nominee to the Presidency of the Republic must be:
First: An Iraqi by birth, born to Iraqi parents.
Second: Fully qualified and must be over forty years of age.
Third: Of good reputation and political experience, known for his integrity, uprightness, fairness, and loyalty to the homeland.
Fourth: Free of any conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

That's the Constitution, everyone agrees.

So clearly the prime minister isn't limited to two terms?

Not so fast.

Article 72:
First: The President of the Republic's term in office shall be limited to four years. He may be re-elected for a second time only.

Hmm.

That sounds like a condition.

Because, for example, Jalal Talabani's been president for two terms now. If he wanted to go for a third one, he couldn't.

Why?

Because he's had two terms but what is the word for that?

Why? Because he's not qualified for the office as a result of having served two terms.

What does Article 77 say:

The conditions for assuming the post of the Prime Minister shall be the same as those for the President of the Republic, provided that he has a college degree or its equivalent and is over thirty-five years of age.

One of the conditions to be President of the Republic is that you've not already served two terms in the office.

Article 77 says the same conditions apply to the office of Prime Minister.

Repeating, one of the conditions to be President of the Republic is that you've not already served two terms in the office.

Can Jalal have a third term as president? No. He fails one of the conditions for the post because he's served two terms already.

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Nouri's Iraq: Candidates home bombed, rally grenad..."
"Animal Rights “Terrorism” Law Violates First Amend..."
"ANALYSIS: NATO Build Up in Poland Threatens Intern..."
""No Newspaper or Radio Station or TV Station Will ..."
"The box office"
"The Tomorrow People"
"The Originals"
"I am barely blogging (sing along)"
"how they turned on poor chris floyd"
"They don't read what they link to (C.I.)"
"Josh Marshall is a sexist piece of trash"
"Meet The Press? Not with David Gregory!"
"Luke Rudkowski is ridiculous"
"White House targets China"
"House of horrors?"
"THIS JUST IN! THE KUNG FU GRIP!"

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

House of horrors?

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

FADED CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O IS NOT JUST GETTING KNOCKED AROUND ON THE WORLD STAGE BY RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN.

"MONSTER MICHELLE," IT APPEARS, DELIVERS HER OWN KNOCK OUT BLOWS, FIRING EMPLOYEES, REDUCING THEM TO TEARS, AND LEAVING A TREMBLING BARRY O COWERING.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPEAKER AND FOREVER FATTY ROBERT GIBBS TOLD THESE REPORTERS, "HE'S OUT MATCHED. LOOK, IT WAS A LAVENDER MARRIAGE AND THEN THEY GOT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND SUDDENLY SHE GOES ALL PHYLLIS GATES ON HIM WITH DEMAND AFTER DEMAND. WHAT'S HE TO DO? IF HE TELLS HER NO, SHE OUTS HIS ASS AND THEN THERE'S NO VERMONT FOR HIM REGGIE LOVE."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Duraid Salman and Tarek Ammar (Alsumaria) report that the Independent High Electoral Commission notes that 85% of the new electronic cards that will be required for voting have been distributed. 85% and the elections are nine days away? That doesn't impress. And that's before we factor in Duraid Salman's report for Alsumaria about allegations that Nouri's SWAT forces are forcing voters in Diyala Province to hand over their election cards. Meanwhile, the PUK stands accused of misleading voters. Kirkuk Now reports, "The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the head of their list gave false information to the voters. The other parties reacted by claiming that the PUK is only trying to collect votes even under false pretenses."

PUK? That's a political party. If it were last August, we'd be saying it's one of the two main political parties in the Kurdistan Region -- the way, in the US, you have the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. September 30th, that all changed with provincial elections:

In other news, the KRG held provincial elections Saturday, September 21st. Iraq has 18 provinces. Three of them are in the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government. As of last week 17 of the provinces had voted. Only disputed Kirkuk was prevented from voting. The exit polling for last week's elections predicted an upset for second place. Early counts indicate that is correct. Kamal Chomani (Foreign Policy) notes:

On September 21, Iraqi Kurdistan held [provincial] elections, which for the first time in 22 years, have fundamentally altered the region's political landscape. Almost 3 million voters participated in the elections, with a total of 1,129 candidates competing for 111 parliamentary seats. While official results have been delayed by allegations of fraud, what the elections have made abundantly clear is the sweeping dissatisfaction with the Kurdistan Regional Government.
From its emergence in 1991, the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq has been ruled by an alliance of two parties: the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Masoud Barzani, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), headed by Iraq's ailing President Jalal Talabani. This duopoly was broken on September 21, when Talabani's party appeared to hemmorage votes to the Gorran (Change) Movement, which split from the PUK in 2009. Preliminary results announced by the Independent High Electoral Commission on Sunday in which the KDP got 71,9004 votes, Gorran 44,6095 votes, PUK 33,2386 votes, Islamic Union 17,8681 votes, and Islamic Group 11,3260 votes. Eleven seats are reserved for minorities and religious sects. Gorran's jump to the second-biggest party in the parliament marks a new era in Kurdish politics.

Isabel Coles and Sonya Hepinstall (Reuters) observed Saturday, "With 95 percent of the votes from the September 21 election counted, the KDP had 719,004 votes, Gorran had 446,095 and the PUK was in third place with 323,827. Two Islamic parties placed fourth and fifth, with nearly 300,000 votes between them, followed by more than a dozen smaller groups."

That was apparently shocking. Use the September 30th link and go through the snapshot for some of the shocked reaction.

Not everyone was shocked to see the PUK go down in flames. The day before the elections, in the September 20th snapshot, we noted:

If the PUK does less well than in 2009, there will be complaining. If the PUK does really bad, there will be outrage. The one who will face the most criticism may be First Lady of Iraq Hero Ibrahim Ahmed who has been reluctant to heed the advice of PUK leaders and assume the presidency in her husband's absence. Could she? Yes. In the plan they outlined, Hero would not be "President Hero," she would be carrying out the will of her husband while he remains in Germany. She would be voting by proxy. She has refused that (just as she refused to take over the position outright) arguing that to do so would leave the impression that Jalal was unable to do his job.
She's correct people would assume that. But Jalal has now been out of the country for nine months. Iraq's been without a president for nine months. Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi's recent revelation that he was refused when he attempted to visit Jalal in the hospital last April does not bode well for Jalal's health or his stature. And it really makes the point for the posters in Arabic social media who compared the May 18th photos of 'healthy' Jalal to Weekend At Bernies. (In Weekend At Bernies, two men use Bernie's corpse to pretend Bernie's still alive.)
If Hero has the most to lose in tomorrow's vote, the one with the most to gain from the PUK suffering a big loss is Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari who has wanted to grab the Iraqi presidency for some time and attempted a move right after Jalal's stroke but was rebuffed by those in party leadership loyal to Jalal and Hero.
Credit to Prashant Rao for covering the fact that Jalal's absence may negatively impact the PUK vote tomorrow but is no one going to run through what that means? Probably not. It appears AFP is the only western media outlet that's going to report on the KRG elections from inside the Kurdistan Region.

And as we expected, it was Hero who paid the price. She was the one who was criticized, she was the one who was forced to resign.

They should have ousted her husband. But he'd avoided them the entire year. Why?

December 2012, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot). Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently.

He was the head of the PUK (he still is) and they had provincial elections and needed to meet with him for strategy but they were prevented from visiting him, they were refused. His family ordered his image be used in campaign material. That apparently didn't go over well with voters.

Having suffered that humiliating defeat just months ago, being sidelined by Goran, how will they do in parliamentary elections?

Last week were the rumors of mass defections from the PUK.

They were true, the rumors. Ghassan Hamid and Mohammed Shafiq (Alsumaria) report that the Governor of Kirkuk (he's been very busy today) acknowledged there have been defections but lower-level ones, no one in leadership, the governor states, has withdrawn. And, he offers, Jalal remains the leader of the party.

So don't expect PUK to get the most votes of the Kurdish parties running in the parliamentary elections nine days from now.

Tarek Ammar (Alsumaria) reports that Kirkuk Governor Najmiddin Karim notes that he is in contact with Jalal's medical team and Jalal is recovering and will be home soon. Soon? They've been making this claim since December 2012. However, if they could Jalal into the country on April 29th, it might give them a little bump at the polls. (If Jalal could actually speak -- many don't believe he can due to the stroke -- and could do so on camera, they might get a sizable bump.)

What is known is that Alsumaria reports Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi met today with the US Ambassador to Iraq Robert Beecroft and the two discussed the need for transparency in the upcoming elections and the need for international observers."

RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Jalal's coming back to Iraq any day now (Filed und..."
"Attorneys Challenging U.S. “Targeted Killings” Say..."
"Three Images the World Needed (David Swanson)"
""FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM" (Mike Palecek)"
"Hejira"
"Nouri's Iraq: Abu Ghraib, mounting death toll, War..."
"I Hate The War"
"War Is Good for Us, Dumb New Book Claims (David Sw..."
"The nutless Robert Parry "
"The Good Wife explains It's All About Who You Know"
"Arrested for kissing in La Paz"
"Carly Simon and Janis Ian"
"Reliable Sources"
"Sharyl Attkisson is wrong"
"Back in the Cold War and we're stuck with Mark Shields"
"TV and other things"
"Eric Wemple is a very stupid man"
"floyd on greenwald"

"A Jesus complex"
"THIS JUST IN! HE NEEDS A DOCTOR!"

Cedric's Big Mix