Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The crazy never dies

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

YESTERDAY CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O OFFERED A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR THE VICTIMS OF TUSCON'S TRAGEDY . . . WHAT YOU EXPECTED HIM TO OFFER A MOMENT OF PRAYER?

AS BARRY O GOES STRANGELY SILENT AND AS HIS FAN CLUBS LAUNCH ATTACKS ON RIGHT WINGERS, SOME RIGHT WINGERS ARE NOTING THE VIOLENT RHETORIC BARRY O HAS PUT FORWARD (HERE AND HERE).

WORST OF ALL IS HEARING FOR NATIONAL ODDITY AND SEXIST JAMES CLYBURN WHO NEVER MET A FACT OR RULE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE HE COULDN'T MANGLE. REMEMBER IF HE BRINGS HIS MOUTH TO A FIGHT, YOU BRING A DRY ERASE BOARD -- TO DIAGRAM SENTENCES AND TO TEACH HIM THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS HE THROWS AROUND.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Today Marina Ottaway (Carnegie Endowmen for International Peace) becomes the latest taken in by Sam Dagher's selective editing of quotes but we'll note her on another topic:

The United States is trying to promote closer ties between Iraq and the Arab states as an antidote to Iranian influence and has even put strong pressure on many Arab regimes to improve their relations with Iraq. Washington's campaign has met with limited success because Arab regimes, mostly Sunni-dominated, are suspicious of Maliki and the Iranian influence in Iraq.

Relations between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, which are key to an Iraqi rapprochement with the rest of its Sunni neighbors, have been particularly cold -- the Saudis did not even congratulate Maliki on the formation of the new government. Iraq is responding in kind, with representatives of Maliki's own State of Law coalition and of the broader Shia Iraqi National Alliance unleashing a barrage of anti-Saudi statements. The current focus in tensions is on a rumor that Saudi Arabia executed, without a real trial, 40 Iraqis guilty of simply trespassing on Saudi soil.

Whatever the merit of the accusation, the venom in relations between Saudi Arabia and Iraq is undeniable. Nor is it recent: a document posted by WikiLeaks shows that in 2007 the government of Iraq, including President Jalal Talabani, who is personally named, considered Saudi Arabia a greater danger to its interests than Iran.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is attempting to persuade countries to strengthen ties with Iraq currently. En route to Abu Dhabi this morning, she declared, "Well, this trip is, in many ways, an important follow-up to one directly related trip and another that is equally significant but less direct. The first, of course, was a trip to Bahrain and the speech that I gave at Manama outlining our security agenda, and the countries I am visitng are all very strong partners in our security efforts, on counterterrorism, on the ongoing chellenges posed by Iran, on dealing with the difficulties that we are working through as Iraq emerges into a sovereign, independent country, and so much else." Saturday, Jill Dougherty (CNN) quoted an unnamed State Dept official stating, "What we're really hoping to do is elicit more expressions of support for the Iraqi government. We now have a government on the ground in Iraq after a very long and somewhat tortuous process. It is important for the region to step up and provide them support. It is important for Iraq, frankly, to be reintegrated back in the region." Kareem Shaheen (The National) observes, "Her visit comes at a crucial time for Iraq, which only recently formed a government that incorporated most major religious and ethnic groups in the country." Jill Dougherty reports today, "After her stop in the United Arab Emirates, she will also visit Oman and Qatar. In each stop, she is expected to focus on social issues including child marriage and domestic violence, as well as on innovation and promoting business development."

Saturday Moqtada al-Sadr gave his big speech in Najaf. Michael Jansen (Irish Times) reports he declared, "Repeat after Me: No, no, to the occupier. Let's have all the world hear that the Iraqi people reject the occupier." Apparently the crowd had their own chant of choice because instead of repeating "No, no, to the occupier," they went with "Down, down America!" He went on to note that only his Promised Day Brigade was "permitted to conduct operations and only against US forces." Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) quotes him stating, "We are still resisting the occupation militarily, culturally and by any other means necessary." Those late to Moqtada al-Sadr can refer to this Frontline (PBS) video report (and laugh at the hair of one paper's correspondent). Roy Gutman and Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) stated that "Muqtqada al Sadr called on his followers Saturday to abandon the use of violence" -- but he did no such thing. He called on Iraqis not to attack one another but to instead focus their anger and violence on Americans. In his report of the speech, Jim Muir (BBC News -- video) observed that "he said the resistance goes on by whatever means and so on." (For a text report by Muir, click here.) Here's Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post) reports, "His followers, he said, must continue to focus on fiercely resisting the United States, but perhaps also targeting their own government if it cannot restore services or security and hold to a timeline for a full U.S. military withdrawal by the end of 2011." Ned Parker, Saad Fakhrildeen and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) quote him stating, "Resistance, yes, resistance, but not everyone will carry weapons. Only those qualified will carry weapons." Anthony Shadid (New York Times) offered, "In his 28-minute address, delivered in a warren of streets near his home in this sacred city, Mr. Sadr sought to have it both ways, calling for the expulsion of American troops but allowing time for a withdrawal, and offering support for a new government but conditional on its effectiveness." Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted that the speech's end may not have been its intended ending, "It appears however that the crowd was a bit too much to handle for the cleric, and as the cheers and chanting grew more and more raucous, the cleric made a final call for the release of Mahdi Army detainees from Iraqi prison and abruptly left. Some reports suggest that was not designed to be the end of the speech but that the cleric decided to end early to avoid riling up the crowd even more." While AP reported the US Embassy in Baghdad stated the speech was "nothing new."

Those who feel the US Embassy down played the speech should grasp that the press hasn't done a lot of exploring. "Moqtada said . . ." and "Moqtada wore . . ." do not benefit readers. What's his strength, what's his weakness? Moqtada al-Sadr has people in his movement, in leadership, who have been leading and aren't thrilled he's now present in the flesh. His movement includes people who do not agree with renouncing violence against other Iraqis. His movement includes people who feel that their families were targeted and Moqtada al-Sadr did nothing about it. (Or did nothing about it until he was ready to return to Iraq.) There are some who have lived with the ideal of Moqtada as opposed to the reality they'll now be present with. The strongest rallying point for him in the last five years was in 2008 when he decried the assault on Basra and Sadr City. Equally true, any manager or leader used to issuing orders from afar has to readjust once he's no longer at a distance from those he or she supervises.

Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) focuses on the people and finds a number of Shi'ites aren't thrilled with al-Sadr's return. We'll note this section of the article:

For Abu Muhanned, 47, a resident of Maysan province, it was as if the clock had been set back to 2006, when Sadr's militia controlled neighborhoods and even some cities, with residents living at the mercy of pro-Sadr street commanders.
Already, Abu Muhanned, who did not give his full name out of fear of the fundamentalist religious movement, says he has seen Sadr's supporters again exert their will in Maysan's capital, Amarah. Now as part of the deal that brought Maliki, a Shiite, back for a second term, the prime minister has handed the province's governorship back to the Sadr movement.
"We feel that Maliki sold us out by appointing a governor from them," Abu Muhanned says, remembering how Maliki ordered troops to fight the group less than three years ago.

And, equally true, though the Najaf appearance Wednesday was an attempt to soothe relations, he and al-Sistani are still not close and, especially with al-Sistani's advanced age, there are a number who might feel they were next in line when al-Sistani passes and look to the non-Ayatollah al-Sadr as someone dashing back into the country to usurp what should be the natural chain of order among the religious clerics.

Jane Arraf quotes the Center for a New American Security John Nagl stating, "The conflict has moved far enough along the spectrum from fighting to politics that Sadr not only feels safe to return but recognizes that if doesn't do so soon, he'll lose control of his political wing." That could be true (and I agree with that take), it could be false. It's an opinion and it's a valid one. Saying "The sun is blue" is an opinion but it is not a valid one based on what we know and see with the sun. Joost Hiltermann argues, "He [al-Sadr] has offered his support of the government for now, guardedly, unconditionally, and I think it's in fact a very good check on Maliki." That's an opinion as well. It's not a very valid one.

Last night, we wrote: "He's reporting on al-Sadr's threats to leave Maliki's government should the US stay beyond 2011. Guess what, Chulov, al-Sadr left Maliki's government in 2007 for just that reason. It didn't topple then either. We'll address that and Rebecca Santana's conclusions for AP and Gulf News' opinions in a snapshot this week (hopefully tomorrow)." He was Martin Chulov. Moqtada al-Sadr has no power now in terms of the government, not if you judge by the past experience. He pulled out of the government in April 2007, remember?

From the April 16, 2007 snapshot:

In Iraq today the six cabinets filled by Moqtada al-Sadr's block are now vacant. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) explains: "A key Shiite Muslim bloc in Iraq's governmental pledged Sunday to quit over Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's refusal to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, a move that would further weaken the country's leadership at a time of soaring sectarian violence." Edward Wong and Graham Bowley (New York Times) listed "protest at the refusal of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to set a timetable for American troops to withdraw from Iraq." (No link. Currently the New York Times has 'withdrawn' the story. You can find it quoted here.) AFP quotes a statement issued by the puppet of the occupation: "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed the announcement of his eminence Muqtada al-Sadr." The puppet was the only putting up a brave front, the Turkish Press quotes White House flack Dana Perino who steps away from her stand up schtick on the beleaguered US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales long enough to declare, "Doalitions in those types of parliamenty demoncracies can come and go." That funny Perino! "Democracies"! She cracks herself up. Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) noted: "The Sadr movement controls six cabinet posts and a quarter of seats in Iraq's parliament. The pullout follows one of Iraq's bloodiest weekends in months. McClatchy newspapers is reporting nearly 300 people were killed in violenace around Iraq Saturday." [CBS and AP's count on Sunday for the Karbala bombing Saturday was 47.] Jim Muir (BBC News) offers analysis, "Nobody expects Mr Sadr's move to bring the government down. Nor did observers believe that was his intention. Rather than leave the cabinet seats empty, he himself suggested that the six abandoned portfolios be given to non-partisan independents, and some of his aides urged that competent technocrats be appointed. . . . The Sadr bloc has 32 of the 275 seats in the current parliament, and intends to continue its activities there and in the Shia coalition, despite withdrawing from government. Another member of the Shia coalition, the Fadhila party, announced early last month that it was pulling out of that alliance because of the government's poor performance and sectarian quota composition. But only if other major factions such as the main Sunni bloc and Iyad Allawi's secular Iraqi List were also to walk out of the government, would it be at risk of collapse." Ross Colvin and Yara Bayoumy (Reuters) note "concerns about whether Sadr's Mehdi Army, which Washington calls the biggest threat to Iraq's security, will maintain the low profile it has so far duing a U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad."

Kawther Abdul-Ameer and Mussab al-Khairall (Reuters) reported April 17, 2007 on his withdrawal of support (the ministers from his bloc left Nouri's Cabinet) and how Nouri al-Maliki told the reporters, "The withdrawal (of the Sadrist bloc) does not mean the government is witnessing weakness." Nor did it mean the government collapsed. Iraq's Constitution is not being followed by Nouri. Did no one grasp that at all during his first term?

The only power anyone had to stop Nouri was to stop him from forming a government. He's done it. He's now going to ride through the second term. If ministers walk, so what? It's not led to a vote of confidence by Parliament and it most likely won't. Nouri never had a full Cabinet. And he still doesn't, he's starting off his second term without a full Cabinet. Rebecca Santana notes that, "Many Iraqis and U.S. officials are believed to want an American presence beyond the end of 2011, as currently planned under a U.S.-Iraqi agreement, to do such things as control Iraq's airspace and monitor the borders. But al-Sadr's remarks made clear it will be difficult for al-Maliki to renegotiate that deal." Moqtada's remarks suggest no such thing. Moqtada's ministers left (in 2007) because? The continued US presence was the reason give publicly. They walked and the government continued. If that's how Nouri behaved in his first term, why would anyone expect he would accept new impositions in his second term? How do you logically infer that?

I don't see how you do. Gulf News insists, "But Al Maliki's confidence comes from a very fragile base, and the political unity achieved so painfully around the new government could easily fall apart." How? Do we mean military coup? That's a possibility.

But if we're talking about the government falling apart because X walks out -- however many units you apply to X -- that doesn't seem likely because it's not what happened before or what's already happened. During the many months without any government -- when the UN should have imposed a temporary government -- the Minister of Electricity resigned. Nouri just made the Minister of Oil also the Minister of Electricity. There is no Constitutional power that allows him to do that. There is no "circumvent Parliament one time only" card that exists. Currently, there are 13 empty spots -- 3 of which Nouri has appointed himself (temporarily, he insists). And for those saying, "Well Moqtada has a lot of seats in this Cabinet!" He has says 7 seats in this Cabinet. And before some fool cries, "Well, see, it's one more than last time!" Uh, not really. They had 6 when there were 32 Cabinet positions (plus the Prime Minister). Now they have 7 when there are 45 Cabinet positions (plus the Prime Minister). Now that's just dealing with the 2007 walk out. That was far from the only walk out of Nouri's Cabinet. There was, for example, the great Sunni walk out of 2008. It doesn't matter who walked out, it never crippled Nouri or even made him pause.

So you can have the opinion that Moqtada al-Sadr or even Ayad Allawi hold power in the executive branch of the government today but, based on pattern, that's not a sound opinion. You may say, "In spite of pattern, I think this go round if A happens then B and C band together and . . ." But the pattern's already established and until you acknowledge the pattern, if your opinion goes against it and you can't explain why that is, your opinion's not a sound one.

At any time during the walk outs of Nouri's first term, Parliament could have toppled the government with a vote of no-confidence. They didn't. That was due to the fact that Nouri was able to offer 'rewards' to those who were loyal and he didn't have to offer rewards to many because so few MPs were ever present for votes. Now you can say, "Things will be different now, Parliament will be prepared to do a no-confidence vote." And maybe they will and maybe they won't but if you're not acknowledging that Parliament refused to do so before then your opinion's not sound.

Nouri's not a new face. How he's going to govern is no great mystery. He's just started his second term. Ayad Allawi's supporters will hate this but when Allawi (or rather Iraqiya) agreed to go forward without the security council being established, that was a huge mistake. (Allawi did protest that. He himself did not go along with that.) Once Nouri got the vote and moved from prime minister-designate to Prime Minister, he didn't need them anymore. That's why he could launch an assault on al-Sadr's supporters -- jump the gun on the US an launch an assault, as Gen David Petreaus testified to Congress repeatedly in April of 2008 -- without fears of reprisal.

There will be unexpected and surprises but the pattern's established and those sure that a pear tree is going to bear apples this year can hope all they want but, based on what we know from past experience, that's just not going to happen. Equally true, human development is A to B, A to C or A to D for most people. Few of us ever experience an A to Z change. In other words, Nouri today is basically the same Nouri he was from 2006 through 2010.

"They tricked him"
"THIS JUST IN! THEY TRICKED HIM!"

Saturday, January 08, 2011

They tricked him

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O SIGNED THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION YESTERDAY WHILE INSISTING THAT HE REALLY DID NOT WANT TO.

APPARENTLY SOMEONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE SLIPPED IT INTO A STACK OF 8 X 10 GLOSSIES AND BARRY O SIGNED IT BY MISTAKE.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Since long before the start of the Iraq War, Iranian dissidents have lived in Iraq. Following the US invasion, the US made these MEK residents of Camp Ashraf -- Iranian refuees who had been in Iraq for decades -- surrender weapons and also put them under US protection. They also extracted a 'promise' from Nouri that he would not move against them. July 28th the world saw what Nouri's 'promises' were actually worth. Since that Nouri-ordered assault in which at least 11 residents died, he's continued to bully the residents. The Women's International Perspective features a post by Elham Fardipour:

My name is Elham Fardipour and I am an Iranian refugee living in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. Not only is Camp Ashraf my home, yet it is also home to 3400 Iranian dissidents, including 1000 women. Many years ago, I joined the nationwide resistance against the Mullahs and came to Camp Ashraf with the goal of bringing freedom to my country, Iran, and saving the lives of Iranian men and women living under the cruelty and suppression of the religious dictatorship ruling Iran, which posses as a serious threat to world peace through its nuclear program and state sponsoring of terrorism. From 1989 to 1993, I lived in the UK studying in the field of electronics. You might be surprised, and ask why a woman alone leaves her life in Europe and cemes to Iraq. However, while witnessing the ruthless suppression of women in Iran, fathers who selling a kidney to make ends meet, the trafficking of 9 year-old girls in Kuwaiti markets, selling eye corneas to pay house mortgage and…, a comfortable and leisured life was no longer tolerable for me.

Following the occupation of Iraq, the responsibility of Ashraf residents' protection was on the shoulders of US forces, under an agreement signed between the US government and each and every resident in Ashraf, continuing until 2009. After the transfer of protection from US forces to the Iraqi government in the beginning of 2009, this camp has been placed under an inhumane siege by Iraqi security forces under the command of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whom has very close ties to the tyrannical regime in Tehran. Camp Ashraf has been placed under an all-out blockade, and the common goal of Tehran's Mullahs and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is to make living conditions for residents intolerable, forcing them to return to Iran where all the Ashraf residents will face definite execution and torture.

Although the blockade, due to the widespread international auspices by human rights organizations and numerous MPs of democratic countries from around the globe, has not reached its final goal of suppressing the camp's residents and having them expelled from Iraq, it has actually caused mental and physical damages to Ashraf residents. It has also brought about restrictions in Ashraf residents' free access to medical services and treatment. As a result, a number of my best friends, due to the Iraqi government's prevention of their access to medical treatment, have lost their lives.

Dar Addustour reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebair declared that the country's consitution does not allow for terrorist organizations and that this would apply to the MEK. As noted in Wednesday's snapshot, Spanish Judge Fernando Andreu is overseeing an international probe (or is supposed to -- who knows if this will be shut down) into the assault on Camp Ashraf. At present, he has ordered Iraq's Lt Gen Abdol Hossein al Shemmari to provide testimony March 8th. Attorney and conservative Allan Gerson (of Gerson International Law Group) writes at The Huffington Post in praise of Spain's decision: "To its credit, Spain takes seriously its law providing for universal jurisdiction of war crimes, recognizing that it can be misused for political ends. Having viewed the attack that occurred at Camp Ashraf in July 2009 as a war crime against protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Spain is ready to take action. Were the Spanish court to find that Lt Gen Shemmari had been complicit in war crimes, it could ask for an investigation and prosecution at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. This is good news for all who favor the application of international law to combat and deter gross human rights abuses." Press TV reports that a protest of the MEK took place today. Their report states that there were family members of residents of Camp Ashraf protesting and insisting that residents were being held against their will.

Staying on Iraq and Iran relations, al-Furat's big story is that WikiLeaks released documents indicates the government of Iran has been providing visiting Iraqi tribal leaders with women for "temporary marriage" "in order to strengthen its influence in Iraq" -- possibly via blackmail since these 'temporary' arrangements are frowned upon in Iraq. Meanwhile Press TV states, "Iran's relations with Iraq entered a new stage with the Iranian caretaker Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi's trip to the latter and warm official and popular reception of the official. Because the unequaled acknowledgment of the visit signals that the ties have reached a heartwarming point." Of course, for most observers, it's Moqtada al-Sadr's Wednesday return to Iraq that really puts that message across. Though it's yet to rival an entrance by Lady Godiva, al-Sadr's entrance is almost as attention getting as the courtroom entrance of Alexis (Joan Collins) on the first episode of the second season of Dynasty. Today on The Diane Rehm Show, Diane discussed al-Sadr's return with Nadia Bilbassy (MBC), Susan Glasser (Foreign Policy) and James Kitfiled (National Journal).

Diane Rehm: We have an old friend coming back to Iraq from his so-called exile in Iran. What has prompted Moqtada al-Sadr to come back to Iraq, Susan?

Susan Glasser: Well you know after months and months of political uncertainty, there's now the formation of a new government in Iraq and I think you have a moment where we're going to see actually whether the Islamic parties in Iraq take the center stage again, whether they make a full throttle sort of challenge to steer the course of the new Iraq. And I'm curious to see what happens. He was greeted as a -- almost a conquering hero in a way.

Nadia Bilbassy: Yeah

James Kitfield: You know this -- I was actually in Iraq in 2004 with a unit that was given orders to capture or kill him and that was rescinded. This guy is virulently anti-American. I think it's less an Islamic issue than a Shi'ite versus Sunni issue. He's very closely aligned with Iran. He's a Shia. He has his militia. But his militia was defeated twice by the Iraqi army so he --

Diane Rehm: Right

James Kitfield: And then he kind of went underground. And his party kind of joined the political process and they won 40 seats. He became a king-maker in this last election and he was able to throw his 40 seats in the coalition with Maliki so Maliki -- the former prime minister is going to be the future prime minister -- so he's a king-maker and that's why I think he returned. He saw that he now, he's going to have, I think, 8 of the three dozen ministries in the new government. So the time is ripe for him to sort of come back and play sort of the political champion of his party. It can't bode very -- I can assure you the Americans and the United States is very worried about his ties to Iran. That's the bad news. The good news is if he -- if he decisively decided to play politics, to try to exert influence through politics, that's probably something we can live with. It's when his militia was a Hezbollah-like armed group --

Diane Rehm: Sure.

James Kitfield: -- outside of politics that he was sort of public enemy number one to the Americans. But he's not -- he's not doing that now.

Diane Rehm: Except that you worry whether it could lead to some sectarian violence.

Nadia Bilbassy: It could. And I think the people who are worried the most are the Sunnis because don't forget that his army, Jaish al-Mahdi, has been responsible for some of the most grotesque, terrible massacres in 2006 and 2007. But you asked, Diane, why he returned? I think he returned because of the blessing of Iran. The day he returned to Najaf as a hero, he visited the grave of Iman Ali and he was surrounded by all of his supporters. And it coincided with a visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister who the Ambassador to Baghdad said that Moqtada al-Sadr is a stabilizing force in Iraq now. Also, he made peace with his old nemesis which is Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Let's not forget that Maliki ordered the security forces to unleash a campaign against his Mahdi army in Basra and almost wiped them out. So he did not forget that. But because of this realliance with Iran and I think he was given also assurance that he's not going to be on trial for a killing of another assassination of another Shi'ite leader, he was allowed to come back. Now his self-imposed exile was for religious reasons. He went to Qom, which is the most revered religious Shi'ite city in Iran to learn because he wants to be an Ayatollah. He did not reach that degree. He's coming back now not as a firebrand rebel trouble maker but as a respected politician who -- as James said, he has forty seats in Parliament, he might have influence. And I think he will give every reason for the Americans to be worried about but I think his argument will be he will influence the Iraqi government in not keeping any American bases after the withdrawal of 2011. And it also demonstrates that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is showing some kind of independence from the Americans to allow somebody so vehemently against the Americans to come back as a hero.

Susan Glasser: Well I think that's the real point that we'll all be looking at this year: At what price did Maliki purchase, in effect, this renewed scene. Remember that came after months and months of months of political stalemate. It was only broken by making what some people -- certainly here -- saw as a deal with the devil. This is the price of that deal. For now they're talking reconciliation. For now they're repositioning Sadr as a political leader and, you know, respected parliamentarian. What happens if Maliki doesn't do his bidding sufficiently? If Iran turns away? If he's too conciliatory towads the Sunnis ? Then I think is when you face the renewed violence, not immediately --

Nadia Bilbassy: Yes.

Susan Glasser (Con't): -- but over the course of this year you face that potential. And I'm glad you spotlighted this issue of the renewed American presence. Things have not worked out as the Americans anticipated they would after the "withdrawal." They expected to maintain a very robust military presence inside Iraq for the foreseeable future but, in fact, you could see that this was not going to be the case and that you may see almost no American military presence after the end of the year --

Nadia Bilbassy: Like South Korea.

Susan Glasser (Con't): -- which would be a big change. Yeah.

James Kitfiled: That is the thing to watch. There are two things to watch. Do the -- because he comes back into the government, do the Sunnis bolt? We haven't seen that yet. If they bolt from the government that's very bad news because that's the sectarian divide that almost plunged the country into civil war. Hasn't happened yet. Allawi's got also a lot of seats and ministries in this new government. So if the Sunnis stay as part of the political process that will be a good sign. If they bolt? Bad sign. Also the American base is an interesting point. And we have 50,000 troops still in Iraq. We did expect that we would negotiate a new Status Of Forces Agreement with Iraq so there would be some residual US presence there because they don't have an army that can really defend their own borders. And they're in a pretty bad neighbourhood. If all the Americans leave at the end that certainly means that our strategic relationship with Iraq will be damanged, it means -- I don't expect that to happen because we have a lot of leverage with them. Basically, their whole arsenal now is American weapons, they need our Air Force, they don't have their own air force, they don't have a navy. So basically watch what happens with the American presence. If it goes down to zero, I take the point, it will be a blow to the strategic relationship.

I would like to pick back up with Nadia next week from another section of the broadcast. But staying on al-Sadr, Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post) reports, "Lawmakers across Iraq's political and ethnic spectrums waited Thursday for word from anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, saying his first address after returning from nearly four years of self-imposed exile in Iran would likely say a lot about his intended approach to Iraq's fragile new government." The speech is supposed to be delivered Saturday. W.G. Dunlop (AFP) reports that Baghdad residents appear split on Moqtada al-Sadr with some highly supportive and others, like Khaled Abdul Rizak, against it. Rizak states, "I am against his return and I am against the government in general -- all of them, including Moqtada al-Sadr are stealing this country." Joel Wing (Musings On Iraq) offers:

What Sadr does next is the big question. He's supposed to make his first address after arriving in Najaf on January 8, to lay out his program. Some early targets for the Sadrist camp are probably finding jobs for their followers through the ministries they control, asserting themselves in parliament, and building up patronage systems to bring in new recruits. Sadr can only hope to build upon his success, as he definitely aspires to be a national leader. He could become a rival to Maliki without holding any official office. That will only happen if the Trend continues to focus upon politics and services. That's always been a problem for Sadr. In 2005 when he tried to join the new government after the U.S. handed over sovereignty, his movement split, and he ended up turning his back on politics to try to win back the street. That backfired as well as his followers became predators on their own people after they'd purged many Sunnis from various neighborhoods across central Iraq.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

The legacy?

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

EDWARD C. DUMONT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST OUT GAY JUDGE ON THE FEDERAL APPEALS COURT. WOULD HAVE BEEN.

TODAY EDWARD C. DUMONT WITHDREW HIS NAME.

WILL HE BE ANOTHER LANI WHO INSPIRES OUTRAGE OVER THE WAY A PRESIDENT FORCED HIM TO TENDER A RESIGNATION OR WILL HE BE A KIMBA -- QUICKLY FORGOTTEN?

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The New KPFA Morning Show airs on KPFA from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. PST Mondays through Fridays. The show has a rotating set of hosts and Thursdays it's Project Censored. Today's show saw Project Censored's Mickey Huff speak with a number of guests about under-the-radar stories. We'll note this section between Huff and Dave Lindorff.

Mickey Huff: We have a few minutes left in this segment, Dave, and earlier you had mentioned the Church Committee and COINTELPRO and, of course, we could do whole shows on those. The Church Committee, Senator Frank Church, came in after Watergate and did a lot of investigating about these types of counterintelligence programs and infilitratration of groups. And this is exactly the kind of thing you're talking about, we've had this massive return. And I don't know how familiar you are with this but one of Obama's appointees to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a Harvard law professor named Cass Sunstein, is calling for a return to infiltrating groups, disrupting groups --

Dave Lindorff: Yeah, he's horrible. He's horrible.

Mickey Huff: It's funny that you don't hear much though. During the Bush years, you heard a lot of the rattling on the left among progressives about this kind of officious behavior and this -- Really it's been legal since the Patriot Act I suppose although it seems fiercely unconstitutional. But do you have something to say about Sunstein or maybe the silence of progressives about people like Sustein?

Dave Lindorff: Well, yeah. I mean actually, I'm working on getting a contract for a bookto do a Case for Impeachment II and make the argument that this administration is committing the same crimes and some new ones that were impeachable under Bush and are now impeachable under Obama. [Laughing] It's hard to get a publisher, frankly.

Mickey Huff: Yeah and that's my -- and that's sad given how much evidence there is to continue that saga from that book. I mean it's just Part II of all of that. And I know a lot of people -- a lot of progressives and people on the left -- don't want to deal with that and they want to say 'Well it's the lesser of two evils' or 'It's better than not' and so forth. And I suppose that's understandable given what Americans went through for eight years. But we can't turn a blind eye to this and, I mean, the media is just disappeared. There's almost no coverage of this whatsoever. They have one faux controversy after another -- whether it's the birth certificate or whether Obama's a Socialist. And here we have things going on right under our noses -- this cognitive infiltraton problem in particular that you mentioned that we have here with Sunstein. And so there's definitely a lot of work to be done and a lot of things that we should be dealing with

Dave Lindorff: Yeah, I know. I mean, people have to realize this isn't a Democrat or a Republican issue. This is the corporate state that is militarized and it is looking at the American public as the enemy. And I think that's the way that we have to view it. And it's not a matter of you know "Do we not do something because this is a Republican or a Democratic administration so it will be better" -- and it's not better. And every -- We're actually in a ratcheting up with every administration of more and more invasiveness into our lives and more monitoring of our activities.

In Tuesday's snapshot, I mentioned this post by Ruth but there was no link -- Ruth's been covering various KPFA issues this week -- also see here and here.

Turning to military suicides, Jim Turpin (The Rag Blog) reported last October:

Even with the spin from the current administration that the "war is over" in Iraq, it is well known that 50,000 combat-ready troops remain in the country. Add to that a recent deployment of 2,000 troops from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Hood in Texas. At present almost 100,000 troops remain in Afghanistan.
With the total number of U.S. military personnel cycling through both Afghanistan and Iraq at almost 1.8 million, and with the RAND corporation estimating that 18% have PTSD (which is deemed low by some experts), this would put the returning numbers with PTSD at 324,000.
A recent article in The New York Times confirms what the organizers of the Killeen-based GI coffeehouse Under the Hood Café have been battling at Fort Hood for the last year and a half: suicides are at the highest point since 2008, with 14 confirmed suicides since the beginning of 2010. In one recent weekend, there were three suicides and one murder-suicide at Fort Hood.
With the population at Fort Hood ranging from 46,000 to 50,000 soldiers at any given time, the rate of suicide is four times the national average, based on Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates of 11.5 suicides per 100,000 people.

Today Bob Grotenhuis (KTSM) reports that there were 22 suicides or suspected suicides at Fort Hood in 2010, "double the number of suicides from 2009 and nearly two-and-a-half times the national average for the same age group." Gregg Zoroya (USA Today) broke the news on the story this morning and noted the record number came "despite a mental health effort aimed at reversing the trend" and, of Fort Hood's population, "Many of the 46,500 soldiers at Fort Hood have returned from war zone or are on their way to them." Fort Hood, in a review of the year 2010 published today, notes, "Deployments, the continual coming and going of military members to and from Fort Hood, remained the 'new normal' at the Great Place in 2010. Just two weeks after the 1st Cavalry Division uncased its colors on Cooper Field announcing the division's return from its third tour of duty in Iraq, III Corps cased its colors Feb. 2 as it became the nucleus of United States Forces - Iraq." On suicide, the year-in-review notes:

Suicide prevention, likewise, remained an important issue for the Army in 2010, as well as here in Central Texas. The key to suicide prevention is engaged leadership, according to senior leaders here.
"We use this term of 'engaged leadership,' in some cases, it requires intrusive leadership to break through some of these little points of insularity that we're finding in our Soldiers and certainly in society," Grimsley told media members at the Resiliency Campus Sept. 29.
"I tell you that every one of these is tragic," he said of the suicides committed in 2010. "The rate is higher than any of us, anybody in a leadership position in the Army wants," he stressed. Grimsley said Fort Hood remains dedicated to the well-being of its force and their families.
"I think we have extraordinary resources at Fort Hood," he said, noting family life onsultants, chaplains, behavioral health specialists and Army Community Services counselors available to Soldiers, civilians and their families, dedicated to the well-being of body, mind and soul.
"The point is," he said, "there are an awful lot of people who are committed to do the right thing."

The Marines also have suicide news this week. Gretel C. Kovach (San Diego Union Tribune) reports, "The number of suicides among active-duty Marines dropped last year for the first time since 2006, plunging 29 percent below 2009's record high, according to preliminary figures released by the Marine Corps. In 2010, 37 Marines committed suicide, compared to 52 in 2009. The latest numbers include nine suspected yet to be confirmed by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner." While the number of suicides has gone down, the Marines saw an increase in 2010 in the number of attempted suicides. The Defense Dept notes, "The military suicide rate has increased steadily over the past five years, exceeding the national average of 11.1 suicides per 100,000 people. The military last year averaged 12.5 suicides per 100,000 according [to] DOD reports." James Coogan (WSWS) offers:

American military personnel are continuing to take their own lives in unprecedented numbers, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq drag on. By late November, at least 334 members of the armed forces had committed suicide in 2009, more than the 319 who were killed in Afghanistan or the 150 who died in Iraq. While a final figure is not available, the toll of military suicides last year was the worst since records began to be kept in 1980.

The Army, National Guard and Army Reserve lost at least 211 personnel to suicide. More than half of those who took their lives had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The Army suicide rate of 20.2 per 100,000 personnel is higher than that registered among males aged 19 to 29, the gender age bracket with the highest rate among the general population. Before 2001, the Army rarely suffered 10 suicides per 100,000 soldiers.

The Navy lost at least 47 active duty personnel in 2009, the Air Force 34 and the Marine Corp, which has been flung into some of the bloodiest fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, 42. The Marine suicide rate has soared since 2001 from 12 to at least 19.5 per 100,000.

For every death, at least five members of the armed forces were hospitalised for attempting to take their life. According to the Navy Times, 2 percent of Army; 2.3 percent of Marines and 3 percent of Navy respondents to the military's own survey of 28,536 members from all branches reported they had attempted suicide at some point. The "Defense Survey of Health-Related Behaviors" also found "dangerous levels" of alcohol abuse and the illicit use of drugs such as pain killers by 12 percent of personnel.

Many soldiers, servicemembers and veterans are not receiving the help they need. Many are taking public stands to highlight the issue. Clare Bayard (ZNET) notes:

They also included the public surrender of an injured AWOL soldier, Army Specialist Jeff Hanks, at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. Hanks went AWOL to resist redeployment to Afghanistan last fall after the military refused to treat him for severe PTSD. Supported by military and civilian allies alike, Hanks and other veterans testified about the military's negligent and often abusive treatment of severely traumatized soldiers seeking care. Hanks decided he wanted to turn himself in publicly to draw attention to these widespread practices. If he is court-martialed, he could face up to two years in prison and a lifetime felony conviction on his record. The Army could also attempt to forcibly deploy him again. At the gates of Ft. Campbell, 25 supporters stood with Hanks as he told his story to reporters. Another AWOL soldier from his unit traveled to join the rally, disclosing similar experiences. One supporter explained that her husband, who is currently deployed, was sent against medical advice.

In the weeks following the November 11 actions, a number of other soldiers gone AWOL from the 101st due to mental health struggles have reached out to Operation Recovery for support.

Visibility and support are important factors influencing not only the morale of traumatized troops and their families, but also the military's treatment of people who go public. Aaron Hughes of IVAW shared with supporters that, "Jeff's command was extremely hostile when he turned himself in on Veterans Day, but after the CBS story aired on Friday, they changed their tune" (Hanks was interviewed by Katie Couric).

Click here for one CBS story (text and video) with links to other CBS coverage of Jeff Hanks. And, like Elaine, let's pair that with an upcoming event by Iraq Veterans Against the War:

February 25, 2011 9:30 - 10:30 am Busboys & Poets, Langston room 14th & V st NW Washington DC This report back will be to answer questions from media and the peace movement about the recent trip back to Iraq by members of Iraq Veterans Against the War. The war is not over but it is not the same as it was in years past. What is the humanitarian situation in Iraq? How can we do reparations and reconciliation work? Speakers are all returning from this delegation and include: Geoff Millard (IVAW) Hart Viges (IVAW) Haider Al-Saedy (Iraqi Health Now)
Richard Rowely (Big Noise Films)

That's next month and will hopefully help get across that the Iraq War continues.

Sunday, 2 US soldiers were killed in Iraq. Today, DoD released the following: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation New Dawn. They died Jan. 2 in Taji, Iraq, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked their unit with an improvised explosive device. They were assigned to the 1013th Engineer (Sapper) Company of the Pureto Rico Army National Guard, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Killed were: Sgt. Jose M. Cintron Rosado, 38, of Vega Alta, Puerto Rico; and Spc. Jose A. Delgado Arroyo, 41, of San Juan, Puerto Rico. For more information, media may contact the Puerto Rico National Guard at 787-289-1474." The deaths bring the total number for US military deaths in the ongoing Iraq War to [PDF format warning] 4435.

Anatomy of a donut -- or a crawler

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

IT ALL CAME DOWN TO A JELLY DONUT, IF YOU BELIEVE HIM -- A GLAZED CRAWLER, IF YOU BELIEVE HER.

THE WHITE HOUSE'S PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL ROBERT GIBBS ANNOUNCED SHORTLY AFTER BREAKFAST YESTERDAY THAT HE WAS LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE AND WHILE SOME WAGS WONDERED WHETHER IT WAS FOR A BREAKFAST BURRITO RUN TO JACK-IN-THE-BOX OR FOR A DAIRY TREAT FROM THE DAIRY QUEEN, MOST KNEW ROBERT GIBBS MEANT FOR GOOD.

WHAT HAD THE TUBBY TITAN MAKE THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN HAD BROUGHT DONUTS.

BIDEN BROUGHT DONUTS AND AS SOON AS WHITE HOUSE SECURITY NOTIFIED GIBBS -- AS THEY ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO IN THE CASES OF ALL INCOMING FOODS THAT ARE NEITHER SLIMFAST NOR JENNY CRAIG -- GIBBS BEAT A CRAZY PATH TO THE OVAL OFFICE.

UPON ARRIVING, HE REACHED IN FOR WHAT HE SAYS WHAT A JELLY DONUT BUT WHAT SHE-HULK SAID -- AND HER STAFF STILL INSISTS -- WAS A GLAZED CRAWLER.

"DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU NEED THAT?" ASKED THE SELF-APPOINTED CZAR OF OUR STOMACHS.

TUBBY TITAN GIBBS IGNORED HER AND BEGAN TO EAT THE DONUT IN DISPUTE WHEN SHE-HULK SHOULDERED EVERYONE OUT OF THE WAY AND TACKLED GIBBS BRINGING HIM TO THE FLOOR AND SENDING THE DONUT FLYING INTO THE AIR BEFORE IT HIT THE FLOOR LANDING RIGHT UNDER THE HEEL OF TOM VILSACK.

GIBBS INSISTS IT WAS SEEING THE JELLY FLY OUT ONTO THE CARPET THAT LED HIM TO ANNOUNCE HIS RETIREMENT. MS. OBAMA AND HER STAFF INSIST THAT VILSAK FLATTENED THE CRAWLER BUT GIBBS STILL INSISTED UPON EATING IT AND ONLY IN THE SHAME AFTERWARDS DECIDED TO ANNOUNCE HIS RETIREMENT.

IN AN ATTEMPT TO CLEAR UP THE MATTER, THESE REPORTERS CONTACTED JOE BIDEN WHO THANKED US FOR "ALLOWING ME TO CLARIFY. THERE ARE A LOT OF RUMORS OUT THERE. CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT I GOT THE DONUTS FROM DUNKIN' DONUTS. I DID NOT. THEY WERE FROM HELLER'S OVER ON MOUNT PLEASANT."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Friday, we noted: "True or false, there's a feeling in DC that some of Moqtada al-Sadr's supporters can be peeled away with 'incentives' (money) provided Nouri doesn't launch another attack on them. al-Sadr's influence was seen as waning as 2007 ended and 2008 began but then Nouri attacked Basra and then Sadr section of Baghdad elevating Moqtada al-Sadr to new found heights where he appeared a leader as he issued one statement after another from outside Iraq. As always, from outside Iraq. There are no facts that demonstrated al-Sadr's supporters can be peeled away, that is a judgment call that's been made by the US government. That's DC gossip, take it for what it's worth or not." Guess who's back? Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post) reports, "Anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr made a surprise return to Iraq on Wednesday, ending nearly four years of self-imposed exile in Iran." Global Post adds, "A spokesman for the cleric said Sadr would 'address the country' Wednesday night or Thursday morning." Daniel W. Smith, Ben Van Heuvelen, Ben Lando and Iraqi staff (Iraq Oil Report) explain, "The cleric is a staunch nationalist who has called for a review of all oil contracts with foreign oil companies, and has indicated special hostility toward American and British firms. On his website he recently counseled a follower not to accepts a job from a British oil services company because that country had participated in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq." The April 30th snapshot included this:

UPI reports that Moqtada al-Sadr "has demanded that 'illegal' contracts signed with foreign oil companies in 2009 be negotiated." Nizar Latif (The National Newspaper) adds, "The Sadrists, fervent nationalists although they have been heavily linked with Iran, where their leader is currently based, say the deals break Iraqi laws. The Iraqi oil ministry says the contracts will result in 'more than US $100 billion' (Dh367bn) worth of investment."

Gulf Research Center's Mustafa Alani tells Bloomberg News, "I think he felt the longer he stayed outside the country the more power he will lose and gradually have less control over his group." Which is probably the most accurate statement today. Martin Chulov (Guardian) states Nouri "views [. . . al-Sadr] as an unpredictable and potentially subversive figure." Saad Fakhrildeen and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) add, "In recent weeks, [. . .] some tension has been introduced in the relationship between Maliki and the Sadrists in government. The Sadrists have grumbled that Maliki has not delivered on expected positions. The Sadrists had demanded the post of deputy prime minister and secretary of the cabinet but were thwarted." Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Rebecca Santana (AP) bring up another effect of al-Sadr's return, "His return caused trepidation among many Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who remember vividly the sectarian killings carried out by his militia, the Mahdi Army, and believe he is a tool of Iran." northsunm32 (All Voices) quotes a supporter in Najaf stating, "He is our hero. We sacrificed for him. He said 'No' to the Americans and fought the Americans, and he is brave." By contrast, professor Firas al-Atraqchi (Huffington Post) opines, "The return of Muqtada Al-Sadr, a junior Shia cleric and head of the Mehdi Army militia, from his refuge in Iran to a prominent role in Iraqi politics is not only a sad testimony to the sham democracy in Iraq but also serves a humiliating end to America's adventure here. Unless there is a military coup by nationalists in Iraq or an about-face by Prime Minister Nouri Al-Malliki, Iraqis will live in perpetual fear for the foreseeable future."

Martin Chulov (Guardian) offers, "Sadr had vowed not to return to Iraq until all US forces had left the country. Around 45,000 troops remain [. . .]" Moqtada al-Sadr left the country in part due to one of those miracle arrest warrents that always seem to be in a cabinet drawer, ready to be pulled out and waived around. In fact, Reuters notes al-Sadr "fled Iraq some time in 2006 or 2007 after an arrest warrant was issued for him". BBC News' profile (not yet updated to include news of his return to Iraq) of al-Sadr includes, "An Iraqi judge has released an arrest warrant for Moqtada Sar in connection with the death of a moderate Shi leader, Abdul Majid al-Khoei, in April 2003, just two days after the fallof Baghdad. Moqtada Sadr strongly denies any role in the murder." The warrant was issued in April of 2004. From Patrick Cockburn's book Muqtada Al-Sadr and the Battle for the Future of Iraq:

I though of this small incident when, a few weeks later on March 28 [2004], the U.S. viceroy and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Paul Bremer closed al-Hawza for sixty days. I suspected that the U.S. officials in the Green Zone were going to get a bigger reaction than they expected. The reason for the closure of the newspaper was that it had carreid a sermon from Muqtada praising the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York as "a miracle and blessing from God," though the letter handed to the editor said only that it had browken the law on fomenting violence. "Close the rag down," Bremer had said to aides when he read a translation of the offending issue. In his account of this disastrous year ruling Iraq, Bremer shows extreme animus toward Muqtada, descrbing him as "a rabble-rousing Shi'ite cleric" and even comparing him to Hitler. As early as June 2003 he quotes himself as thinking: "Muqtada al-Sadr has the potential of ripping this country apart. We can't let this happen." In the second half of 2033 Bremer repeatedly portrays himself as decrying the timidity of the U.S. military, the CIA, and the British, all of whom hesitated before confronting Muqtada. Their fears were understandable and, as events soon demonstrated, wholly justified. Given the escalating armed resistance by the Sunni community it did not make sense to provoke a Shia uprising at the same time.

For months Bremer hovered on the edge of ordering the arrest of Muqtada and his closest lieutenants for the murder of Sayyid Majid al-Khoei. Iraqi judge Raad Juhi had even issued an arrest warrant for Muqtada in November, saying that he had two eyewitnesses who said they had heard Muqtada give the order for al-Khoei to be killed (the pretense that there was an indpendent Iraqi judiciary operating at the time was never going to cut much ice with Iraqis). Bremer held two beliefs that were dangerously contradictory. For him, Muqtada was at one and the same time a powerful and menacing figure capable of tearing Iraq apart, and so weak that he would tamely submit to arrest, while his following would be too small to make effective protests. Iraqi ministers were struck by the degree of Bremer's hatred and how much he belittled Muqtada. They were told not to refer to the "Mehdi Army" but to call it "Muqtada's militia." Ali Allawi, the highly intelligent independent Islamist who was a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, once tried to explain to Bremer how the Sadrists were the political representatives of the millions of Shia poor. Bremer furiously retorted that he "didn't care a damn about the underclass and what they [the Sadrists] represented."

John Leland and Anthony Shadid (New York Times) report, "On Wednesday, it was unclear whether any criminal charges hung over Mr. Sadr's return. Jawad Khadhum, a Sadrist member of Parliament, said that there was no warrant for the cleric's arrest" and he tells the Times, "That was just from the previous government to target the Sadrists, to take us away from the political process. We proved to everyone that we are an important part in Iraq and the political process."

Kadhim Ajrash and Vivian Salama (Bloomberg News) cites al-Sadr cleric Nazar Mohammed as stating Moqtada al-Sadr had returned to Najaf and note, "A member of al-Sadr's political movement, Qusai al-Suhail, was named first deputy parliamentary speaker in the Iraqi Cabinet last month after the cleric's bloc supported Shiite leader Nuri al-Maliki to continue as prime minister." Hassan Abdul Zahra (AFP) reports, "Sadr, who wore the black turban of a 'sayyid,' or descendent of the Prophet Mohammed, visite the shrine of Iman Ali about 5:00 pm (1400 GMT), with a group of grey-clad bodyguards in tow." Jomana Karadsheh (CNN) adds, "The Sadr movement emerged as one of the kingmakers in Iraqi politics in March, when it won 39 parliamentary seats. The bloc's support played a major role in al-Maliki getting his second term in office." Nizar Latif and Phil Sands (The National) note, "As part of the political deal for its support, hundreds of Sadrist prisoners were freed from jail. The movement was also assured control of seven government ministries, although none of the coveted offices of oil, finance or security fell into its hands."

While many outlets note Moqtada al-Sadr's late support to Nouri this go round and a few note he also backed Nouri for prime minister in 2006, no one's talking about the referendum al-Sadr held. More than anything else, it's going to be an issue if he's back in Iraq for good (this may just be a visit -- Nassir al-Rubaie says it's permanent). March 7, 2010, Iraq held elections. Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya bloc came out with the most votes but Nouri was determined to hold on to the prime minister post. In April, al-Sadr held his own elections to see who his bloc should vote. From the April 7th snapshot:

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).

When al-Sadr's out of the country, it might not be that much of an issue. But he's back and you can be sure some supporters are wondering, "Why did he tell us that we needed to vote again and that our votes would determine who the bloc supported when that's not what happened?" Nouri is who Moqtada would throw his weight behind starting in August but he wasn't even one of the two top choices among Sadr's supporters. The thing about being the 'returning hero' is that after the parades are over, questions tend to get asked.

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Another White Fat Guy Who Can't Handle Politics

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

CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O RETURNED TO D.C. FROM HIS LATEST ENDLESS VACATION JUST AS HIS MENTOR AS WELL AS HIS COMPETITOR IN THE SEXISM OLYMPICS LEFT THE ADMINISTRATION TO RETURN TO HARVARD.

THE APPARENT MESSAGE IN ALL OF THIS?

WHITE GUYS WITH FAT ASSES HAVE "INNATE DIFFERENCES" WHICH MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO HANDLE POLITICS. THEY'RE ALSO MORE PRONE TO EMOTIONAL OUTBURSTS, THEREBY EXPLAINING SUMMERS TEARFUL GOOD-BYES TO SOME WHITE HOUSE STAFF.

THE REALITY THAT WHITE GUYS WITH FAT ASSES ARE INDEED INFERIOR AND UNABLE TO DO THE COMPLEX REASONING REQUIRED OF POLITICS HAS SENT A CHILL THROUGH TUBBY WHITE HOUSE PLUS-SIZE SPOKESMODEL ROBERT GIBBS WHO INSISTS THAT, FAT OR NOT, HE WILL IMPLODE THE STEREOTYPE OR MAYBE JUST THE PORCELAIN TOILET BOWLS IN THE WHITE HOUSES.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Opening with this bit of perspective from from Richard Cohen's "A stranger's wars" in today's Washington Post:

Little wars tend to metastasize. They are nourished by chaos. Government employees in Nevada direct drones to kill insurgents in Afghanistan. The repercussions can be felt years later. We kill coldly, for reasons of policy - omitting, for reasons of taste, that line from Mafia movies: Nothing personal. But revenge comes back hot and furious. It's personal, and we no longer remember why.
The Great Afghanistan Reassessment has come and gone and, outside of certain circles, no one much paid attention. In this respect, the United States has become like Rome or the British Empire, able to fight nonessential wars with a professional military in places like Iraq. Ultimately, this will drain us financially and, in a sense, spiritually as well. "War is too important to be left to the generals," the wise saying goes. Too horrible, too.

War was a radio topic today, specifically one form of warfare. US drone attacks took place in a variety of countries including Iraq under Bully Boy Bush but, as Anthony Fest (New KPFA Morning Show) noted today, they have increased under Barack Obama. Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan and CODEPINK's Toby Blome took part in a discussion with today's hosts Anthony Fest and Adrienne Lauby (the program is now one hour, has a rotating set of hosts and airs from 8:00 am to 9:00 am PST -- those who start listening five to eight minutes late miss out on Aileen Alfandary's daily snit fit passed off as news -- see Ruth's entry from last night). Excerpt:

Anthony Fest: Let's start with you, Toby. Now remote controlled, pilotless war planes are a relatively new weapon but bombers and tanks and artillery have been killing people for decades. Is there something especially insidious about drones?

Toby Blome: Well there's many things that are insidious and distrubing to us. One is that the drones which are actually designed to drop missiles, which is a percentage of the total drones, are controlled from thousands of miles away. Often times, as far away as the desert of Nevada. And the pilot -- they call them "pilots," but they never leave the ground. They're behind computer terminals and the distance between the people being killed and the people doing the killing is very disturbing to many of us.

Anthony Fest: And, Cindy, do you have anything to add?

Cindy Sheehan: Well, of course, because we're against drones doesn't mean that we're for hand-to-hand combat or dropping bombs from airplanes. But the thing is also about, especially the drone bombings in Pakistan, is that, many times, they're being controlled by the CIA which is also collaborating many times with the government or the military of Pakistan which is leading to the total destabilization of that country that is a nuclear power and, you know, it's about the-the total division between what is happening in reality when somebody sits in a bunker thousands of miles away, it dehumanizes that person. And I've heard from -- [about] the person who is dropping the bombs, controlling the drones, dropping the bombs -- I've heard from chaplain's on Air Force Bases that the pilots are having some really, you know, they're having difficulty with dropping bombs on people during the day and going at home at night and trying to lead a normal life. So also we can attach drone bombings specifically to Obama because this is January 4th and there's already been four drone attacks in Pakistan. There was a 118 last year. In five years of the program during the Bush administration, there were a total of 52. So this is something that we can highlight that is increasingly worse than under the Bush administration. And they're being used to as these proxy weaopns in a war against Pakistan that hasn't been declared yet. So we have extreme difficulty with this type of warfare.

Anthony Fest: And, Toby, when did CODEPINK begin this campaign against drone warfare?

Toby Blome: Well we got involved -- We kind of followed in the footsteps of Kathy Kelly and the Voices for the Creative Nonviolence. She and some others in Nevada organized one of the first protests at Creech Air Force Base. Creech Air Force Base is an hour north of Las Vegas and that was in 2009 -- April -- when 14 peace activists were arrested by crossing into the base on Creech and we followed in July [2009] to bring some more resistance to drone warfare. And we've now had four trips down to Creech Air Force Base from the Bay Area. We're now beginning protests at Beale Air Force Base where they control the global hoc -- one of the key reconnaissance drones. That it's controlled from the United States.

Adrienne Lauby: So I think one of the reasons people started to use drones, the military, is the idea that then it's safe for the operator. And, of course, it reminds me of video games. So don't you see these operators -- I guess my assumption is the operator's sitting there playing a video game and pretty divorced from the actual consequences. Now, Cindy, I'd like to know more what it's really like for them?

Cindy Sheehan: For the people who are operating it?

Adrienne Lauby: That's right.

Cindy Sheehan: You know, like I said, the only reports I have are really from some chaplains who are saying that the people are being conflicted about it. But the thing is we know from war, from the beginning of time, that the men and women who have been asked to pay the highest prices, whether killing other people, being injured, they're the ones who come back with -- also wounded mentally and emotionally. So the people who are sitting in the bunker thousands of miles away controlling them aren't free from any kind of effects. But I get this all the time. People will e-mail me and say, "Cindy, you know maybe if they had been using drones in Iraq on April 4, 2004 in Baghdad, your son might be alive." Well you know that's true but as as much as I love my son and miss him, and am so, you know, angry about these wars, there are innocent people that are involved. And these drones, they just announced a new one yesterday called the Gorgon Stare, it's going to have multiple cameras. But these drones that they're using now for intelligence have a very narrow -- what they call a "straw vision" -- that just shows a narrow area. But when you drop a Hellfire Missile on an area, that Hellfire Missile does not distinguish between innocent civilians and so-called militants. And another thing with these so-called militants, they have not been tried in a court of law for whatever and we know that the prisons like Abu Ghraib and Bagram are filled with people who were sold to the US for a bounty based on faulty intelligence. And these wars are so-called based on faulty intelligence. So we don't know if the intelligence that the people who are pressing the buttons are getting are anywhere near complete or if they're just acting out a vendetta by somebody in the Pakistani military or the CIA or the US government. So these programs are basically executing people who haven't had their say in a court of law.

Anthony Fest: Do we know who actually gives the final orders to fire those missiles? Is it an Air Force Officer there or is it CIA?

Cindy Sheehan: I think it's a combination of military and intelligence but we know that 72 hours after Barack Obama was inaugurated in 2009, he gave the order for his first drone strike that killed about three dozen people. So I think it's a combination of, you know, the military working with the CIA working with -- not just the government of Pakistan but the government of Afghanistan -- but it could be just executing political rivals or political enemies.

I have no idea the chain-of-command on drone attacks. northsunm32 (All Voices) covered them briefly in May, an Afghanistan one that even NATO admitted was wrong, and stated that NATO commanders were judged to be at fault, "Letters of reprimand were sent to four senior and two junior officers in Afghanistan." Also in May of last year, Bill Van Auken (WSWS) covered the topic and noted the Los Angeles Times report that the CIA in Pakistan had been given the power -- by Barack -- to conduct "indiscriminate drone missile strikes" and

"Only a combatant --a lawful combatant --may carry out the use of killing with combat drones," Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor from the University of Notre Dame law school, testified at the April 28 hearing held by the National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

"The CIA and civilian contractors have no right to do so," she continued. "They do not wear uniforms, and they are not in the chain of command. And most importantly, they are not trained in the law of armed conflict."

David Glazier, a professor from Loyola law school in Los Angeles, California, concurred with this opinion, stating that CIA personnel are "clearly not lawful combatants, [and] if you are not a privileged combatant, you simply don't have immunity from domestic law for participating in hostilities."

He went on to warn that "any CIA personnel who participate in this armed conflict run the risk of being prosecuted under the national laws of the places where [the combat actions] take place." CIA operatives involved in the drone program, he said, could be found guilty of war crimes.

The Defense Dept's Deployment Health Clinical Center notes, "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. Many people with PTSD repeatedly re-experience the ordeal in the form of flashback episodes, memories, nightmares, or frightening thoughts, especially when they are exposed to events or objects reminiscent of the trauma. People with PTSD also experience emotional numbness and sleep disturbances, depression, anxiety, and irritability or outbursts of anger. Feelings of intense guilt are also comon. Physical symptoms such as headaches, gastrointestinal distress, immune system problems, dizziness, chest pain, or discomfort in other parts of the body are common in people with PTSD." Lark Turner (Daily Northwestern) reports on Iraq War veteran Cpl Justin Owen who was buried last Thursday. The 24-year-old veteran's Christmas Day death has been ruled a suicide and his father, Tom Owen, believes his son suffered from PTSD. Along with his father, his survivors include his mother Rebecca Owen and brothers Nicholas and Thomas Owen. Nick Castele (North By Northwestern) notes that he was a graduate stuent who "graduated cum laude from Marquette University's Diederich College of Communication" and that the family has started a memorial scholarship in Justin's name (details at link and also in this Alex Katz article). Greenwood Today reports on Iraq War veteran Staff Sgt Matthew Scruggs who is a student at Lander University and attempting to treat his PTSD via prescription drugs and sessions at the VA. He speaks of how the PTSD added stress to his marriage and how his and Ashley Scruggs' religious faith helped there. Also helping may be that his support network includes his father who also served in the Iraq War (Sgt 1st Class Frederick Scruggs) and he has a brother, a sister and a brother-in-law in the military as well.

Ann J. Curley (CNN) notes a new study published in the JAMA Archives of General Psychiatry which advocates for PTSD screening and found an increase likelihood of longer-term health problems among those veterans suffering from PTSD. Todd Neale (MedPage Today) adds, "Post traumatic stress disorder -- but not a history of concussion -- strongly predicted postconcussive symptoms and poorer psychosocial outcomes in soldiers returning from a long deployment to Iraq, researchers found." Randy Dotinga (HealthDay) explains, "Melissa A. Polusny, of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the University of Minnesota Medical School, and colleagues surveyed 953 National Guard soldiers who were deployed to combat. They answered questions in Iraq a month before returning home and then a year later. [. . .] The survey found that 7.6 percent of the soldiers were considered to probably have post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, in the first survey. A year later, the number had risen to 18.2 percent."

Paul Purpura (Times-Picayune) reports an estimated 115 members of Louisiana's National Guard will be deploying to Iraq and a send-off ceremony took place yesterday in Baton Rouge. Rebeka Allen (Advocate) adds that Capt John Carmouche got married last March right before he deployed to Iraq and got back in December only to now prepare for Capt Tonya Carmouche (his wife) to deploy as part of the estimated 115 Army National Guard members headed to Iraq. Hatzel Vela (ABC 15) reports 36 members of the Arizona's National Guard are heading to Fort Hood, Texas tomorrow "for two months of training" before deploying to Iraq. The Iraq War has not ended.

Press TV notes, "Six mortar shells were fired on Monday at the US base north of Hillah, the capital of Babil province, Aswat al-Iraq news agency quoted a police source in the al-Mahawil district." Al Jazeerah notes Aswat al-Iraq also reported a US military vehicle was hit by explosives "in west of Diwaniya" yesterday and that "American forces cordon off the whole region, preventing vehicles coming from Najaf to enter the province for hours." This follows the death of 2 US soldiers on Sunday.

Cedric's Big Mix

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The crazy never dies

Saturday, January 08, 2011

They tricked him

Thursday, January 06, 2011

The legacy?

Anatomy of a donut -- or a crawler

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Another White Fat Guy Who Can't Handle Politics

About Me

Links

Cedric's Big Mix