KILLER BARRY O IS IN HOT WATER FOR HIS SEXISM. THE MAN WHO GOT AWAY WITH CALLING FEMALE REPORTERS "SWEETIE
" AS WELL AS MULTIPLE SEXIST ATTACKS ON HILLARY
, DECIDED TO TRY TO PROVE HE WAS A REAL MAN BY REDUCING A FEMALE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO A PIECE OF MEAT
BY NEVER-ENDING RUMORS ABOUT HIM AND FORMER "BODY MAN" REGGIE LOVE AS
WELL AS RUMORS OF PAST DAYS IN A GAY CHICAGO BATH HOUSE, KILLER BARRY O
TRIES REALLY HARD TO LOOK MANLY.
BEING BULIMIC AND SMOOTH OF CROTCH, IT'S A TOUGH BATTLE.
SO KILLER BARRY USES HIS DRONES AS A PENIS SUBSTITUTE.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Where Barack Obama flips the middle finger to the Iraqi people
. Let's go back to Kitabat reports
that Brett McGurk, a US State Dept advisor, dined with journalists at
the American Embassy in Baghdad and declared that a majority government
was fine and dandy. We mentioned The Erbil Agreement earlier. It's
amazingly important and so rarely reported on by the western press which
appears to have mistaken a major in whoring for one in journalism.
March 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections. They have a
parliamentary government and the person with the most members in their
'Congress' is named prime minister-designate and given 30 days to form a
cabinet. Not a partial cabinet. A full cabinet. You do that in 30
days or someone else named prime minister-designate.
of the 2010 elections? Iraqiya headed by Ayad Allawi. It's a mixed
political slate attempting to include of all Iraq. Iraqiya offers and
embraces a national 'we are all Iraqis' identity. It is also the
political slate that has female members of Parliament and not tokens.
(Al-Fadhila's Susan Sa'ad is not a MP I would want to represent me but
she's also not a token. One of the few non-Iraqiya female members who
can make that claim.) In the 2009 provincial elections a thread in
those results was that it appeared Iraqis were moving away from a
(US-imposed) Sunni-Shi'ite split and going for a national identity.
This was confirmed in the 2010 results when Nouri's State of Law was
defeated by the new Iraqiya coalition (whose members were killed in the
lead up to the election, whose members were barred from running by the
Justice and Accountability Commission).
Nouri stomped his feet and demanded a recount. The results were the same.
It was now time for Nouri to step down and for a new prime minister to emerge via the process outlined in the Constitution.
Nouri refused to allow that to happen. It's as though, in January
2009, Bully boy Bush announced he wasn't leaving the White House and
Barack Obama wasn't going to be named president.
Nouri kept the
country of Iraq in an eight-month political stalemate while he refused
to step down as prime minister. He was only able to do that with the
backing of the governments of Iran and the United States. Nouri is a
White House puppet. He was first appointed by the Bush White House when
they didn't want Ibrahim al-Jaafari to become prime minister in 2006.
By 2010, Nouri's secret prisons, torture cells, corruption and much more
were well known and documented. While Barack and others in the White
House love to sneer at the Iranian government's alleged embrace of
torture, their hands are just as dirty.
And the Iraqi people had
gone to the polls. They had expressed their wishes and the votes were
counted and then recounted. And yet the US that supposedly wanted to
introduce 'democracy' to Iraq immediately pissed on democracy, pissed on
the voters, pissed on the Iraqi Constitution.
During the eight
month political stalemate, US officials repeatedly pressured the
political blocs to let Nouri have a second term. No surprise, most said
no and said no repeatedly. After it hit the eight month mark, US
officials began telling the political leaders that Nouri was willing to
go another eight months, that nothing would ever get done in Iraq. So
why not be the adult in the room, give Nouri a second term as prime
minister and, in exchange, we'll put your concerns on paper in a legally
binding contract that Nouri will have to follow.
concerns? One example. Kirkuk is oil rich. Because it's oil rich,
it's disputed. The semi-autonomous KRG in the north claims it and the
Nouri's Baghdad-based government claims it. How do you solve who gets
it? Well Iraq wrote and passed a Constitution in 2005. Article 140
explained how this would be addressed: A census and a referendum. Nouri
took an oath in 2006 to obey the Constitution. He never implemented
Article 140. Before you say, "Maybe he was busy," the Constitution
mandates that Article 140 be instituted no later than December 2007.
Nouri ignored the Constitution.
It is thought that a vore would see Kirkuk go to the KRG. So Nouri's delayed the vote, repeatedly ignoring the Constitution.
say US officials, we'll put it in writing, it'll be a binding contract
and Nouri will have to honor it. [He wasn't honoring the Iraqi
Constitution but he was going to honor a contract?] US officials did
this with the leader of each political bloc to get them to agree that
Nouri would get a second term. This is the US-brokered Erbil Agreement.
is extra-constitutional because it goes around the Constitution which
clearly defines how someone becomes prime minister. For example, Nouri
never formed a full cabinet. Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." Those
positions were supposed to have been filled before the end of December
2010. They were not. They are still not filled. Nouri refused to fill
them because once the Iraqi Parliament confirms a nominee, that nominee
is autonomous. Nouri can't fire them, only the Parliament can. (Which
isn't easy. Nouri's gotten Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi convicted
of 'terrorism' and sentenced to death with the Baghdad courts he
controls but he can't get Parliament to strip Tareq of his title.)
he was governed by The Erbil Agreement and not the Constitution, he
didn't have to meet any requirements. And he trashed The Erbil
Agreement. Immediately. A census was supposed to take place in Kirkuk
the first week of December 2010. Nouri called it off, said it was
postponed. It's never been brought up again. He was supposed to
appoint Ayad Allawi to head an independent national security agency.
Immediately after President Jalal Talabani named Nouri prime
minister-designate, Nouri told Parliament that Allawi's position would
have to wait. It's 'waited' ever since.
The US image in Iraq
wasn't good before then. For obvious reasons (an illegal war that
destroyed Iraq). Barack Obama's election meant that Iraqis thought a
real change might be coming. They were hopeful. They no longer are.
They have seen through Barack Obama and his 'withdrawal' which is
actually more counter-terrorism US troops in Iraq today than at the
start of 2012. (Not surprising because he told the New York Times
do that when he was first running for the presidency.) But what it
mainly did was send the message to Iraqi political leaders that the US
can't be trusted. For example, there is so much damage in the trust
that did exist among Kurdish leaders. They now realize they will be
screwed over every time. It didn't have to be this way.
could have supported the will of the Iraqi people, the votes, the
attempt at democracy. He refused to do so. Let's again note John
Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq
" (Daily Beast
Washington has little political and no military influence
over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq’s first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government,
it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might
have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."
What The Erbil-Agreement put forward was a power-sharing
government. This week, Brett McGurk announced that the US government
now supports a majority-government. that's what Nouri has been
insisting on all along. He couldn't accomplish that at the ballot box
-- hell, he couldn't even win a term as prime minister at the ballot box
-- but now the US is backing his power grab. This is major news and
will have huge implications on the way the Iraqi people see the US.
went to Karbala today. Speaking alongside his political cronies, Nouri
refused to take off his sunglasses. None of the over 16 people
standing beside him required sunglasses but Nouri had to hide his eyes.
He has to hide a lot. Alsumaria reports
that he accused other political parties and slates of being terrorists.
And what is a reach around to Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq, he
declared that some political parties work to keep smaller ones from
success. (al-Mutlaq is currently the leader of the National Dialogue
Front which is a part of Iraqiya. al-Mutlaq and Nouri have gotten very
tight as al-Mutlaq's leadership has fallen into question.) He
also pushed his desire for majority government -- again, something the
voters did not sign off on -- and declared it was the only way to end
the "political impasse
." Kitabat notes
that he declared this is what has kept Iraq from moving forward.
Parliamentary elections are currently supposed to take place in March of
2014. Nouri called for early elections and said the 2010 elections
were marred by vote rigging. This is the piece of crap that the United
States government has backed -- under Bush, under Barack. There's not a
damn bit of difference between Bush and Barack except Barack can speak
properly and Bully Boy Bush knew how to come off human (and not like the
first place winner in a Leonard Nimoy competition).
that Brett McGurk has announced he will be entering discussions with
various political leaders on how to solve the political crisis. Well
it's "crises" -- not crisis. And the roots go back to the failure of
Nouri to honor The Erbil Agreement and the failure of the US to keep
their promise that they would ensure The Erbil Agreement would be
honored. It's 2013. It's a little damn late, even if the US was trying
to strong arm Nouri, for the 2010 contract to be honored (because come
2014, new parliamentary elections will be held). But why would any
Iraqi politician expect either Nouri or the US government to be honest
at this point? With their track record of lying over and over, why
should Nouri or the US government be trusted?
Recommended: "Iraq snapshot
"Iraqi protesters wonder if the BBC will provide co...
"Shinseki, the VA and resignation
"Catfood Meat Loaf in the Kitchen?
"Support Labor, Not Liars
"Down here, it's our time
"On the assassination of MLK
"Violet Socks closes shop, not feeling a huge loss
"Why did she flub?
"scandal 'molly, you in danger, girl'
"can you believe this crap?
"At my age, I just do not have time for press whores
"What he did?
"More bad jobs numbers
"Because he's a pig
"IVAW needs to watch the sexism
"The ghetto of race roles
"Sexist in the White House
"Nikita: 'Tipping Point'
"45 years ago today . . .
"THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHAT THE BITCH DRAGGED IN!
"Even Helen Keller could have seen it coming