Friday, August 30, 2013

Ms. magazine embraces anti-choice women

If you missed Trina's "Ms. magazine praises known homophobe and pro-lifer" please go read it.

It would be so great if Ms. could hire some women with actual minds and not these little bimbos who don't know a damn thing.

Bernice King is a homophobe and a pro-lifer.  She used her mother's memorial service to denounce gay people ("perversion"). She is not a feminist.  She is not a friend of the left.

Some stupid White woman wanted the world to know just how ignorant of the Black community she is so she wrote a stupid Ms. blog post.

In the future, don't assume MLK's children are saints.

Why would you?

Yolanda and Dexter echoed their father and their mother's belief in equality.

Bernice didn't.

Martin III is the wild card of the family.

If you're going to write about something you know nothing about -- especially Black issues -- you need to do some basic research.

I never thought I would see Ms. praise and quote a homophobe and anti-choicer.  A little basic work -- I believe it's called research -- would have prevented that.



This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Thursday, August 29, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, the State Dept alienates and (yes) insults Iraqi to the point that the White House should consider suspending Facebook privileges, Barack loses England (for now), Barack tables an attack on Syria (for now), and more.



Hnery Chu (Los Angeles Times) report, "A sharply divided British Parliament on Thursday rejected the immediate use of force as a response to suspected chemical attacks in Syria, putting Washington on notice that it would be deprived of the assistance of its most trusted ally if it launches a strike on Damascus in the next few days."  Robert Winnett (Telegraph of London) calls it "an embarrassing defeat" for UK Prime Minister David Cameron with the 285 votes against an attack on Syria and 272 for it. Winnett points out, "The Prime Minister had played a leading role in persuading President Obama of the need for action against Syria -- with Britain tabling a draft United Nations resolution – and the Parliamentary vote may also undermine Mr Cameron’s international reputation."  Annabelle Dickinson (Edp.24.co.uk) offers, "In what is thought to be an unprecedented parliamentary reverse over British military action, Tory rebels joined with Labour to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Prime Minister."


Guy Faulconbridge and Andrew Osborn (Reuters) report UK Prime Minister David Cameron is being forced to take the matter to Parliament, "After imploring the world not to stand idly by over Syria's suspected use of chemical weapons, Cameron was forced into an awkward climbdown on Wednesday when the opposition Labour party and lawmakers in his own party said they wanted more evidence before voting for military action."

The Labour and Conservative revolt was actually started by MP Diane Abbott who made clear her opposition earlier this week.   Rowena Mason (Guardian) reported:

 Diane Abbott may be forced to quit Labour's frontbench if Ed Miliband supports military action in Syria, as one of several MPs who are weighing up whether to support their party leaders over the anticipated intervention.
[. . .]
"I voted against the Iraq War. At the moment, I can't see anything that would make me vote for intervention in Syria," she said.
"Essentially it's a civil war. What Libya and Egypt have taught us is that these situations in the Middle East are complex. It's not good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats."


But this apparently isn't Tony Blair's Labour anymore.  Abbott was not ostracized, strong-armed or stigmatized.  Instead, as George Eaton (New Statesman) noted yesterday, Ed Miliband stood up and showed real leadership:


 He announced on Twitter that the party would table an amendment to the government's (then non-existent) motion requiring Cameron to return to the Commons to consult MPs after the UN team had reported on the Ghouta massacre. He added: "Parliament must tomorrow agree criteria for action, not write a blank cheque." Labour sources subsequently briefed that were the amendment not accepted, the party would vote against the motion.

As Ed knows,  the move also further draws a line between Labour and Tony Blair -- something desperately needed if Labour is going to return to power in the near future.  It draws a line because Iraq and Syria are tied together by comparisons and it draws a line because Tony Blair has mistakenly thought he had a voice the world need to hear and has spent the last days demanding an attack on Syria.

Melanie Hall (Telegraph of London) notes 'prophet' Tony sees a "nightmare scenario" coming.  Andy Wells (Daily Star) noted:


After the long and painful campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand every impulse to stay clear of the turmoil, to watch but not to intervene, to ratchet up language but not to engage in the hard, even harsh business of changing reality on the ground.
But we have collectively to understand the consequences of wringing our hands instead of putting them to work.


At his website, Blair has even posted a column he wrote this week for the Times of London calling for action on Syria:


  People wince at the thought of intervention. But contemplate the future consequence of inaction and shudder: Syria mired in carnage between the brutality of Assad and various affiliates of al-Qaeda, a breeding ground of extremism infinitely more dangerous than Afghanistan in the 1990s; Egypt in chaos, with the West, however unfairly, looking as if it is giving succour to those who would turn it into a Sunni version of Iran. Iran still — despite its new president — a theocratic dictatorship, with a nuclear bomb. Our allies dismayed. Our enemies emboldened. Ourselves in confusion. This is a nightmare scenario but it is not far-fetched.

People wince, actually, at the thought of Tony Blair giving advice.  Even those who would not call for him to be tried for War Crimes re: Iraq remember his lie that Iraq had WMD and they could be launched on England within 45 minutes.  As Glenn Greenwald revealed in 2009 while at Salon:


The British are conducting an actual public investigation into the litany of false claims made by their government to justify the attack on Iraq.  Even for those who have long known it, the disclosures are underscoring just how truly criminal this deceit was:
An Iraqi taxi driver may have been the source of the discredited claim that Saddam Hussein could unleash weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a Tory MP claimed today.
Adam Holloway, a defence specialist, said MI6 obtained information indirectly from a taxi driver who had overheard two Iraqi military commanders talking about Saddam’s weapons.
The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair published the information to bolster public support for war.
Other disclosures reveal that Blair was making claims that his own intelligence services were vehemently rejecting.


But for many Labour voters Blair's greatest crime was the way he degraded and destroyed Labour.  That's his 'New Labour' neoliberal policies, his war crimes and so much more.  Gordon Brown's biggest problem as prime minister was attempting to fix a few of Blair's errors without calling them errors.


Simon Hoggart (Guardian) points out:

A spectre hung over the prime minister's speech. Like most phantoms, the spectre wasn't corporeally present – it has been holidaying on a millionaire's yacht – but Tony Blair was there in spirit all right. Cameron said carefully over and over again that this was different from Iraq. "I am deeply mindful of previous interventions," he said. Thanks to Iraq and Afghanistan, the well of public confidence had been poisoned.


Had Brown broke with Blair publicly, Labour might have been able to start the rebuilding process that Ed Miliband has been stuck with.  Some wrongly assume Blair can be 'rehabbed' or note that his polling is not as awful as it could be.  Blair's inability to apologize for his actions(he still maintains he was right -- even with his lies revealed) make image rehab impossible.  And when you look at his polling, you find out just what a liability he is to the future of Labour -- the younger you go, the more he's hated.  40 and under have less tolerance for him.


Blair's support for an attack on Syria probably helped motivate protests like the one Sarah Ensor reported on in "'Don't Bomb Syria' protesters block Whitehall" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

Up to 1,000 people blocked Whitehall and stopped traffic in central London yesterday evening, Wednesday, against David Cameron’s threat to bomb Syria.
The Stop the War Coalition (STW) called the protest at short notice once the British and US governments looked set for an immediate attack Syria. The current crisis began with a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.


The British parliament has been recalled for today, Thursday, to discuss an attack. The degree of hostility to intervention is so high that Cameron has had to retreat from voting on an immediate attack.


Obi, a student from London, was on her first demonstration. She told Socialist Worker, “This is a very flammable situation and the West could escalate it. Intervention won’t help the situation—we’ll just add fuel to the fire.”


Front bench Labour MP Diane Abbott addressed the crowd, saying she wanted to put it “beyond doubt” that she would vote against an attack.


Stop the War chair Jeremy Corbyn MP also spoke. Other speakers included Steve Hedley from RMT the transport union—who called for civil disobedience—and Mark Campbell, chair of Kurdish Federation in Britain.
This does not mean US President Barack Obama will not still launch an attack on Syria.  It does mean he has lost the fig leaf he needed.  The United Nations Security Council is very unlikely to approve an attack.  This would make a US attack illegal.  By having England (again) stand side-by-side (as they did with the attack on Iraq) would give the appearance to many that the attack was legitimate (as with Iraq, this crowd would dismiss international law).   Without England at his side (at least currently), Barack is left stranded.  France (as noted this morning when I discussed what 2 White House friends were saying) is not thought to have the same impression for Americans that England would carry -- in part because 2002 and 2003 saw US officials and the US press attacking France publicly and repeatedly.


He is also facing a Congressional critique has been led by Senator Rand Paul.  Alex Pappas (Daily Caller) notes that Paul has argued an attack on Syria is without any US "national security" rationale. And as in England, it's taking only one person to stand (and survive a flurry of attacks) for others to start questioning.  Michael O'Brien and Tom Curry (NBC News) report:

 A growing minority of lawmakers in both parties are demanding that President Barack Obama seek approval from Congress before launching an attack against Syria.
Most senior leaders in Congress appear content with the administration’s efforts to keep lawmakers abreast of what appears to be a fast-approaching military response to Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against opponents in that country’s protracted civil war.
But ahead of any possible military action, a chorus of voices is calling for at least a Congressional debate, if not an explicit vote authorizing the use of force. 


David Lightman and William Douglas (McClatchy) add, "House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio on Wednesday wrote a lengthy letter to the president, asking about the administration’s objectives. It came after a day of mounting concern among lawmakers anxious for an explanation for the possible action against Syria."  And Rebecca Shabad (The Hill) reports, "More than 100 lawmakers, including 18 Democrats, have signed a letter that says President Obama would violate the Constitution by striking Syria without first getting authorization from Congress.  A total of 116 lawmakers had signed the letter as of 6 p.m. Wednesday, highlighting bipartisan interest and growing momentum in ensuring a role for Congress in any decision to use force in Syria."  AP reports that Iraq War veteran and US House Rep Tammy Duckworth has come out today against a US strike on Syria.  Speaking in Thailand at a Bangkok college, Duckworth voiced her concerns about US military being used to assist people who may be part of al Qaeda.
 
On Democracy Now! (link is audio, text and video), Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez moderated a debate between the great intellectual Tariq Ali and Steve Clemons who wore a severe hair do that appeared to suggest he'd just visited Mr. Kenneth.  Excerpt.



AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Tariq Ali in London. You spoke at a rally against an attack on Syria. Your response to what Steven Clemons is saying?
TARIQ ALI: Well, I think the main evidence which has been supplied is from an ally, certainly, but the name of the ally is Israel. Israeli intelligence has supplied the signals intelligence to the United States. It should be made public so we can judge it for ourselves. But virtually no one who knows the region believes that these attacks were carried out by the Syrian government, or on its orders. It’s crazy, if you think about it. They let the inspectors in, and then in a hotel barely 10 miles from—in a location barely 10 miles from where the inspectors are staying, there’s a chemical attack. And what good does it do the Syrian government to actually open fire on these inspectors? They want them there. So, I think it’s slightly incredible. And given that citizens in the United States and Europe were lied to in the run-up to the Iraq War—simple, straightforward lies—it’s very difficult to take the West seriously when it cries wolf again. So, 'til the evidence is there, it's impossible to take this at face value.
Secondly, the country that has of course used chemical weapons is the United States, which used white phosphorus in Fallujah. No red lines were drawn them, except the red lines of Iraqi blood.
Thirdly, why is the United States wanting to do this? And I think the reasons are to do with the situation on the battlefield in this awful, ugly, depressing civil war, which is that the opposition to the regime had been losing out, and, effectively, the West wants to improve the relationship of forces on the field. They’ve sent in more arms to the opposition—whoever it may be, and it’s dubious in many cases. And now they want to punish the regime, once again, to push it back. Meanwhile, the civil war continues. You know, no one is really pushing for talks. In Geneva, the opposition refused to come and participate in these talks. And what is required is a political solution; otherwise, you have endless war. And this policy of Obama, we’re not going in for regime change, I think he’s right about that. He’s not—he’s not misleading us. But we are basically wanting to weaken the regime so the civil war continues. What other option is there?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Tariq, I’d like to ask you—Tariq, I’d like to ask you about the—what the potential impact is of yet another U.S. military attack on another Arab country, especially in view of the fact that Syria has a mutual defense pact with Iran. And what would be the possible repercussions of such an attack?
TARIQ ALI: Well, I think the Iranian regime has made a very strong statement—whether it’s pure bluff, we don’t know—saying that if Syria is attacked, they will retaliate as they see fit. And this is a regime which has been recently elected, the new government, which people said was going to be very different from Ahmadinejad, and yet is saying exactly the same things as the prior government was saying to this, that an attack on Syria will be taken as an attack on Iran because of their defense pact. And they have the possibility, of course, of escalating in Iraq, of escalating in Lebanon and escalating in Afghanistan—three battlefield areas where the United States are involved, which I think is one reason that there has been a lot more caution in the Pentagon and from British military officers, who’ve been on television screens—you know, recently retired, who were involved in Iraq—saying that there is no justification for this war.
People are extremely worried about the consequences. I mean, in Britain, we have 70 Conservative members of Parliament, the ruling party, from the coalition, saying they will not vote for a war. Eighty percent of the population is opposed to it. So, of course, the United States can push it through, and probably the British government, which, you know, is a sort of vassal state-type outfit, will go along with it, but against the will of a huge majority of its people.


[. . .]

 

AMY GOODMAN: Steven Clemons, you said that you became convinced by the signal information, in speaking to intelligence officials in the United States. What exactly is that?
STEVEN CLEMONS: Signals intelligence—you know, one of the unfortunate realities is we do have in the United States today a many—much infrastructure that’s part of a security-obsessed national security state. And we’re listening—
AMY GOODMAN: Well, as we’ve learned in all the NSA scandal stuff. But what—
STEVEN CLEMONS: Yeah, we’re listening to—well, every—no, but everything that—
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, what exactly is the information?
STEVEN CLEMONS: I’m sorry, how did I get the information?
AMY GOODMAN: Yeah—no, what exactly is that information that has convinced you?
STEVEN CLEMONS: What is—so, from the moment this began to unroll—one of the areas I report on and work on is in the intelligence sector. And when there were attacks, low-level attacks, reported previously, and they were popping up here and there in Syria, it seemed to me natural, given the many months we talked about red lines, that the opposition would be the biggest winner if those were crossed. And so, I went at the time to people that I knew had access to and that were close to what’s called signals intelligence, electronic and digital eavesdropping, if you will, of which there are enormous, not just Israeli interceptors, but lots of other states that are essentially picking up communications inside Syria and filtering that. The NSA’s raison d’être is this. And at that time, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was command staff authority or Assad. There was speculation, but it just didn’t exist. And I got a very clear read from intelligence sources that we just had no evidence at all at that time of this lower chemical weapons usage that it was there.
This time I went in, and said, "Steve, it is—it is definitive, and it’s definitive that members of the command staff of the Syrian army are responsible." There may be factions, and subsequent—you know, reported in the press by Foreign Policy magazine, have reported that there was dismay and shock in some part of the command staff and a panic call to other elements of that. That’s the tip of the iceberg of the communications material we have. But it seems that a portion of the Syrian army, this time, communicated strongly enough that these attacks were held. And so, that intelligence is held there. I agree it should be made public. I think it should be put out into the public.
AMY GOODMAN: So you haven’t seen it, but they told you that this is what it said.


 Steve Clemons, the Ethel Mertz of the global village.  From one national joke to another: Marie Harf.  Laugh as the State Dept's own Minnie Pearl can't handle a basic question, enjoy the way Said Arikat (Al Quds) runs circles around herl.


QUESTION: Does the United States State Department have a definition of what constitutes a war by one country over another?


MS. HARF: A war?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: I’m –

QUESTION: What constitutes a war of one country over another?

MS. HARF: I don’t have a specific definition in front of me, Said. What is the crux of the question that you’re asking?

QUESTION: The crux of the question is that the President is saying that whatever action is taken in Syria, which is obviously alluding to some sort of bombardment, perhaps, by cruise missiles and so on –


MS. HARF: Well, he hasn’t made a decision yet.


QUESTION: No, I understand. But he says accountability – they want to hold with accountability.


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.


QUESTION: I want to ask you: Does lobbing off cruise missiles, whether there are 10 or 90 or 100, does that constitute an act of war on another country, especially if Country B that is being attacked has not provoked any kind of belligerence towards the United States of America?


MS. HARF: I’m not going to define hypothetical actions that haven’t been decided to be taken yet. I will point to a couple points the President made in his interview last night. He talked at length about the national security interest for the United States that are wrapped up in any indiscriminate use of chemical weapons – I think he made that point very clear – and that we need the Assad regime to understand that they’re not only breaking international norms by using chemical weapons, but they’re creating a situation – and I’m quoting directly here – where U.S. national security interest are threatened.


QUESTION: Okay. So Syria – you concur that Syria at the present time presents an imminent threat to the national security of the United States of America?


MS. HARF: I didn’t use that term, Said.


QUESTION: Okay. But do you feel that Syria should be held accountable because it does compromise the national security of the United States of America?


MS. HARF: The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons –


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: -- against their own people –


QUESTION: Right.


MS. HARF: -- presents a situation where, yes, U.S. national security interests are threatened. It’s in our interest – in our national security interest, but in the world’s security interest –


QUESTION: Okay.


MS. HARF: -- to not allow this use – these use of chemical weapons to go un-responded to.


QUESTION: Could you explain to us how the use of chemical weapons, whether at this scale that we have seen last Wednesday or before, how does that in any way or directly affect the national security of the United States?


MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, I think I talked a little bit about this yesterday. Clearly, we have an interest – a national security interest in upholding an international norm against the use of chemical weapons. There’s a reason that 98 percent of the world’s peoples live in countries that have said these weapons should not be used.




We'll come back to the State Dept in a moment.  This was a good day for peace, it was not a great day.  Even if you reduce it only to the possible Syrian attack, it was still only a good day.  Good for the British lawmakers and citizens who said no but grasp that Barack is still angling for an attack.  Today appears to be just a setback or temporary delay.  Julie Pace (AP) explains that.

There are people who have expressed disappointment in e-mails that I have no position on Syria (other than foreigners don't need to attack).  We do the "Iraq snapshot," try to grasp that.  We have Iraqis in the US and in Iraq who are part of the community.  Some are Sunni, some are Shi'ite, some are Kurds, and we have 2 religious minorities as well.

I am not Syrian, it is not my job to stick my big nose into their civil war to begin with.  But even more than that, we can't treat all segments in Iraq equally if I'm pulling for a side in Syria.

Iraq shares a border with Syria.  Passions run high in Iraq on the issue with the various groupings tending to support their own ethnic group in Syria.

Were I to take a side, it would discredit everything else we do here.  It would upset at least two of the three major groups in Iraq.  I completely understand that.

Does the US State Dept?

This morning, we noted the US Embassy in Baghdad and the State Dept's silence on the worst attacks (judged by death toll) this month in Iraq.   Adam Schreck and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) report 80 died yesterday in Baghdad alone.  All Iraq News notes:

The British Government condemned the car bombings that took place in Baghdad on last Wednesday.

A statement by the British Embassy in Iraq received by AIN cited “The British Government condemns the terrorist attacks that took place across Baghdad yesterday morning. My thoughts are with the families of those who were killed and injured.”
The statement quoted the British Ambassador to Baghdad as saying “I offered my condolences to Foreign Minister Zebari yesterday afternoon, and affirmed the United Kingdom’s solidarity with the Iraqi government in its efforts to combat terrorism.”

And they note:

The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (UNAMI), Jaclyn Babcock, strongly condemned the series of recent terrorist explosions that took place in Baghdad and resulted in killing and wounding many innocent people.
UNAMI quoted Babcock as saying ''These terrorist operations can not be justified by any political goals or sectarian rancor where these operations are killing innocent  people continuously without any mercy.''

But due to silence, they couldn't note any statement from the US State Dept or the US Embassy in Baghdad.  I pointed out that the US Embassy in Baghdad posted a lot of nonsense on their Facebook page yesterday.  And let's point out that there is worse than "nonsense," there is "harmful."  The US Embassy in Baghdad is like a pre-teen that really shouldn't be left alone on Facebook.




MLK?  He's an international inspiration, one of the world's all time greats.  By all means, note him and the 50th anniversary.  But why in the world would you decide to post those speeches by Secretary of State John Kerry to the US Embassy in Baghdad's Facebook page?  We'll share one example:

Aug 27, 2013 6:45am
‫شاهدوا معنا التسجيل الكامل و المترجم لبيان وزير الخارجية السيد جون كيري حول سوريا، 26 آب/2013
Remarks of Secretary of State Kerry on Syria, 26 August, 2013‬
1 · Comment · Share
  • Tareq Al Wady انا ضد الاسد ولكن امريكا بلد لايهتم بالشعوب وانما همهم الوحيد هو اسراءيل نحن العراقيين ذقنا من الويلات مالم يراها بشر غيرنا ومازلنا نتجرعها وذلك بفضل امريكا انظروا المشهد العراقي كل يوم نزيف دم للابرياء والحكومه العراقيه تتفرج وتقتل بالسنه والشيعه وتعتقل السنه فمن جاء بالحكومه العراقيه انها امريكا لكن نحن شعب نوءمن بالله واقداره فنحمد الله على كل حال لان الله مولانا وانتم لامولا لكم وحسبنا الله ونعم الوكيلSee Translation
    Yesterday at 3:07am via mobile
  • Holy Diamond God curse America
    22 hours ago


"God curse America"?  Not a surprising comment when you consider how divisive the Syrian civil war is in Iraq.  It was outrageous for that Embassy to post that speech.

Don't give me the crap that it's a speech by the US Secretary of State.  Kerry recently gave a speech on LGBT rights.  You know how many Embassy Facebook sites posted that video (I do, I know the actual number).  Among the many not posting that speech?  The US Embassy in Iraq.

I didn't rip them a new one here.  I was disappointed but they're supposed to be doing diplomacy and I could write off a decision I didn't agree with by noting they did not want to antagonize.

But if you don't want to antagonize, why the hell are you posting John Kerry taking sides and calling out one group in Syria?



  • Nadheer Mahmoud هل الأسلحة التي استخدمت في العراق من قبل الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية والتي تحتوي اليورانيوم المنضب والتي يعاني العراقيين من آثارها من حصول التشوهات الخلقية للمدنيين الأبرياء لا يحاسب عليها القانون الدولي وان القتل هو واحد مهما اختلف نوع السلاح والفضل لأمريكا بنشر ثقافة العنف من قبلكم من خلال تقسيم المجتمع في البلدان العربية على أساس عرقي أو ديني أو عقائدي والذي كان يعيش في أجواء أخوة


Nadheer Mahmoud replies to the Kerry post by rightly noting the US used chemical weapons on Iraq.  Nadheer is elequent and to the point -- there's nothing alarming or shocking in his words. From Monday's snapshot:
 
Today, US Secretary of State John Kerry idiotically made a declaration (link is text and video):

 What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.
 I like John Kerry but he needs to learn to shut his mouth and stop trying to lead the administration.  He wants war on Syria, I don't.  That's not the issue.  The issue is the State Dept is over US efforts in Iraq currently.  That's where Kerry's in charge.  With that reality in mind, let's look at that statement one more time:
What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.
If those words really mean anything, Iraqis have every right to expect Kerry to speak out for them, especially when the WHO report is finally issued.  You never, as Secretary of State, paint yourself into a corner.  The Secretary now has painted himself into a corner and, in doing so, painted his Dept and the administration into one.   The State Dept is supposed to practice diplomacy which is another reason John Kerry should be a lot less quick on the draw and a little more concerned with dialogue.

The reaction taking place on Facebook is not shocking or surprising.  The fact that the State Dept is less intelligent than I am is highly disappointing.  I don't expect genius, I do expect better than me from them.  If I saw the fall out potential, they should have.  But they're so repeatedly stupid, they can't see a thing and destroy chances of goodwill over and over.

Read through the comments -- I'm going by the Arabic ones but you can just read the English ones -- this is nightmare.  How could the US Embassy have been so stupid to post that speech?

Were they trying to inflame Iraqis?

Are they so stupid that they don't grasp it's not just Moqtada al-Sadr's movement calling for the "occupiers" to go home.  This is a feeling that's probably around 52% (at least) currently in Iraq.  And that was before the idiots at the State Dept and the Embassy couldn't be bothered with a message of condolence for the victims of Wednesday's violence and before they were stupid enough to post John Kerry's speech.

The stupidity needs to stop immediately.  If it can't, the US needs to close all embassies and consulates in Iraq.  Not just because they're wasting billions of US taxpayer dollars with their stupidity but also because their stupidity is putting diplomatic staff in Iraq in jeopardy.   If nothing's being accomplished except for painting big targets on the backs of American there, the Iraq mission needs to stop and all those dollars can be spent on programs in the US.



In Iraq, violence continues.  NINA reports a 1 police officer and 1 Iraqi soldier were shot dead in Mosul, 1 person was shot dead in Basra, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and 2 civilians, 1 Shabak was shot dead near his Mosul home, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left three people injured, and a Hilla bombing claimed 1 life and left two more people injured.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports, "The deadliest attack was in Samaeea, where 16 people died when a car bomb exploded in an outdoor market" with twenty-seven left injured.  He counts 23 dead today.


Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count counts 823 violent deaths in the country so far this month.  AFP's Prashant Rao Tweets:



  2. 3h
    So far this month, at least 633 killed and 1,682 wounded by violence in Iraq - tally:
    View photo













amy goodman
















 


 

on No comments:

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Greenwald unearths key statements

Glenn Greenwald unearths some damning quotes:

In 2008, President Obama, when he was a candidate for President, had this question-and-answer exchange with the Boston Globe:

"Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
"OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Given that not even the most ardent interventionists for Syria contend that the bombing is necessary for US national security, how can a military attack on Syria without Congressional approval possibly be reconciled with that position?


It can't be reconciled.  But watch Barack get a pass as he usually does.  It will be a smaller pass since people are slowly waking up to what a fraud he is.

I've said that before but Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) notices it too so it's not just me:

There have been tons of commentary and what passes for analysis of the Black condition in the United States, 50 years after the March on Washington. The most fascinating recent data on how African Americans assess their situation in the U.S. comes from the Pew Research Center. The Pew researchers are noted for accumulating data over long periods of time, but their latest report also shows a dramatic change in Black outlook in the past four and six years, based on surveys taken in 2007, 2009 and this summer.

When questioned at the beginning of August, only 26 percent of Blacks said they believed the situation had improved for African Americans over the past five years – which is roughly the Age of Obama. However, when the same question was asked back in November of 2009, near the end of Obama’s first year in office, 39 percent of Blacks said African Americans were better off than five years previously. In other words, Black Americans today are significantly less optimistic about their actual condition than back in 2009. Back then, the bottom had fallen out of the Black economy, yet African Americans in huge numbers somehow believed that their situation was better than before the Great Economic Meltdown.

Lots of other polling organizations took notice when the Pew numbers came out in 2009, and did their own surveys to confirm that, yes, Blacks were the most optimistic ethnic constituency in America – even though the hard facts showed that they had been hurt worst of all.


You may remember that last week Betty served DC Blogger (see "The idiot DC Blogger at Corrente and the lies she ...") and pointed out what the dope didn't know -- this wasn't racism.  Barack was fading a bit with all segments of the population.

Let's hope the awakening speed up because I can't take 2 more years of this nonsense.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


Wednesday, August 28, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri puts security forces on 'high alert,' concerns over how a US-strike on Syria might effect Iraq are aired, some ethical voices (Robert Scheer, Sara Flounders, Debra Sweet, David Swanson, Justin Raimondo, Dennis Kucincih) demonstrate it is possible to call out War Hawks even when they are Democratic War Hawks, CodeStink demonstrates they'll 'act' for the media even if they won't take real action or show leadership, and much more.

We're going to kick off with Truth Dig's Robert Scheer and his thoughts on an attack on Syria.  We called out Scheer for his verbal attacks on Ralph Nader and Hillary Clinton and have avoided him since.  He's getting pulled back in now because he spoke out against the Iraq War and he's speaking out against an attack on Syria.  We'll ignore him with regards to election politics (although, who knows, he may now regret his blind cheer leading of Barack) but I will applaud him for speaking out.  Ava and I are planning a piece for Sunday on all the human crap that has chosen to remain silent -- but, wait, is silent promoting yourself?  No, they're not silent, they Tweet and blog about their albums, concerts and movies -- they can hawk their wares, they just can't call out the illegal spying or the attack on Syria.  But, oh, how they had a great deal to say when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House.  I strongly and loudly applaud Robert Scheer for having the ethics to speak out today as he did during the Bully Boy Bush reign.


Philip Maldari:  So in this piece, you sort of run down the history of the US close relationship with Saudi Arabia indicating that the Saudis are very interested in encouraging an attack on the Assad regime and, in this case, the possible -- I'm using the word "possible" -- nerve gas attack on the civilians there as a pretext to your way of thinking.  Do you want to elaborate?

 Robert Scheer:  Look, the US record in the whole MidEast is so tawdry, so wrong headed for so long, I mean, gosh you could go back to the overthrow of [Prime Minister Mohammad] Mosaddegh in Iran, you know the last really significant, secular, democratically elected leader.  Now we're financing the military and they've overthrown a democratically elected government in Egypt. And for  John Kerry and others to oh-we're-shocked-and-we-have-to-act-and-we-have-to-respond?  No, the US does not have to do anything.  I mean this idea that we are somehow the moral force keeping the peace when we're still the people who believe in using nuclear weapons.  We're the only ones who have used nuclear weapons.  And we just went through the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a couple of weeks ago and we still, as a nation, have not absorbed the significance of killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.  And yet we get on our high horse, here is Kerry -- you know, how did Kerry come to prominence?  He was an officer in Vietnam and, you know, War Crimes were committed, 3.5 million people were killed.  So I'm only going through this whole litany to challenge the whole idea here that somehow a US response or France -- the great colonial power -- or England, that they have to respond.  It's utter nonsense.  But the real subtext here, the important subtext is this is all being done for a theocracy, for oil.  This is all driven by Saudi Arabia for gosh sake.  This is, all markers [point to], as I pointed out in my column Bandar bin Sultan the guy who was the Saudi ambassador in Washington for two decades -- and they're the great winners in this thing -- whether you're talking about Egypt or Syria or anything else that's happening.  They have made Iran the great enemy here.  Somehow Iran is identified with terrorism and so Syria has a connection with Iran and Hezbollah and so forth.  And the real issue here is whether Saudi money and along with Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates should be allowed to buy, purchase what was the Arab Spring.  And that's what's happened.

 Philip Maldari:  And in the meantime, we've got the video of hundreds of men, women and children were murdered.  We're talking about no visible trauma on their bodies.  It has not been proven by the UN inspectors yet that it's nerve gas.  This is playing on TVs around the world.

 Robert Scheer:  Yes.

 Philip Maldari:  And for you to suggest, 'Oh well, what's a person to do' is just -- 

 Robert Scheer:  No, no, no.  Not 'what's a person to do,' you know, no.  What is the United States to do.  And the idea that the United States has a responsibility everywhere in the world to be the moral force and decider and 'Oh, the UN inspectors got in there too late' and so forth.  And by the way, you're talking about a people killed what about the people killed in Egypt?  We didn't do anything.  We still haven't even cut off aid even though legally our president's required to cut off.  So we are the ones who are intimately involved in a military coup to destroy democracy in Egypt, the most important Arab country in the MidEast by far.  You know, we are the people who supported intervention in Egypt forever.  And, no, we are not the great decider, old George W. Bush.  Why do you buy into that?

 Philip Maldari:  [snapping] I'm not buying into anything! 

Robert Scheer:  You know what about these pictures, there are pictures all over the place of people killed in Egypt.  Did we then intervene to prevent this military coup?  No.  So this hysteria that is created and then somehow -- What I am challenging is, yes, the basic assumption that the US is the great moral force that should intervene everywhere in the world.  And what's happening in Syria, which we should understand here, we don't know, it's very murky, who is creating, producing poison gas or what have you.  But the fact of the matter is that the people who are opposed to the regime are people who we claim are terrorists.  They're supporters of al Qaeda, they're coming in from all over the world.  We forget that it was Saudi Arabia, the same Bandar who supported the Taliban in Afghanistan where the whole war on terror started. And Saudi Arabia's financing the opposition in Syria, they're supporting the military in Egypt and they were one of the three governments in the world that recognized the Taliban along with the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan and we're now following their lead.

 Philip Maldari:  So in the meantime, Bob, we've got Obama already having said, more than a year ago, there's some kind of red line if chemical weapons are used in Syria.  So he appears, if he does nothing, to be essentially a wimp internationally and that is actually his reputation with Republicans right now.  So that's okay with you?

 Robert Scheer:  What is this language wimp?  This is how we discuss foreign policy? Because Obama's speech on this or his comments on this the other day were very clear that you should have evidence, and you should be international and the UN should -- and so on.  All the things that Bush did not do.  Everyone's forgetting this horrible war that Bush waged on Iraq -- which by the way extended Iran's influence enormously and put people who had been living in exile in Iran in power in Iraq.  And Saddam Hussein, by the way, is someone who did use chemical warfare.  We supported Saddam Hussein.  That's what Rumsfeld went and met with Saddam Hussein after he had used that against Iran in the Iraq - Iran War.  We didn't think that was such a horrendous thing.  And then we invented the charge of Weapons of Mass Destruction which turned out to be a big lie.  You would think after waging this war and totally upending the whole life and politics of the MidEast on the basis of lies that you would have some humility.  Where is humility in foreign policy?  George Washington in his farewell address said, "never use force in international relations, use gentle means."  He was against this arrogance and foreign entanglements.  The whole notion of the American republic was not to be an empire, not to follow the lead of Rome, France and England and their empires -- Spain.  And so you're talking like -- what is this wimp language, it's stupid. Frankly, it's stupid.  What is this machismo?

We'll stop there.  Robert Scheer's exactly right and if Philip is more concerned about Barack's image than Syrians who would be harmed in killed in missile strikes?

Oliver Holmes and Erika Solomon (Reuters) report today, "People in Damascus stocked up on supplies on Wednesday and some left homes close to potential targets as U.S. officials described plans for multi-national strikes on Syria that could last for days."  And Philip's fretting over Barack's image?  Where are the priorities?  And Philip needs to stop talking about Republicans -- it was the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show last week (Diane was not part of the broadcast) when the guest host and 3 journalists advocated for war (if you're late to the party, see "Media: Pimping War") and basically called Barack a p**sy.

Philip really needs to re-examine why Lew Hill started Pacifica Radio and ask himself why he's at Pacifica?  What a sad day for Pacifica, as an on air (with KPFA for too many years -- forced retirement needs to be raised at Pacifica) implores for war on the basis of 'not attacking will mean the man I want to suck off will be called a wimp.'  Actually, Philip should have been removed from the air in 2008 when he was saying, on air, that Barack was a Socialist.  At this point, Philip's KPFA's Bertha Mason -- who knows what horrors took place before he was confined to the attic and seen as insane?

Picking up on a point Robert Scheer made above, we'll note Robert Fisk (Independent via ZNet):

 

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

It's a point that pops up when Julian Pecquet (The Hill) interviews former US House Rep Dennis Kucinich:


Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda's air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.
The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad's regime.
“So what, we're about to become Al Qaeda's air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we're just going to have a 'targeted strike' — that's an act of war. It's not anything to be trifled with.”

Kucinch spoke out then and speaks out now.  Another person who spoke out against war on Iraq and speaks out against the push for war on Syria is Sara Flounders.  From this Workers World video:



 Sara Flounders: A big thing on Syria, and a reason that the US is determined to destroy it, to shred it, to rip it apart is that it is a secular state and there is nationalized property.  And, as Barbara just described, there's a rich culture.  There's enormous -- whether it's in TV or it's archaeological or its the high education level, or it's the fantastic, really, I mean, the medical schools?  Top notch.  The pharmaceutical industry.   They want to destroy all of this.  And they also -- It's what they want to destroy.  It's what they're targeting in Iran.  The idea of a country using its oil wealth for its own development and the development of the culture and the educational level of its people and a huge improvement in life expectancy -- a big cut in child mortality.  That's big accomplishments.  But the very fact that Syria -- it's an example to the whole region --  could be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural, secular state.  And it's secular, see.  And the US response has been how to bring in intolerant religious fanaticism.   And fund it.  And fund it and use it as a battering ram against any kind of progress.


Debra Sweet also spoke out against the Iraq War.  She and her group World Can't Wait are the only left group that has remain true and ethical with regards to opposing wars others folded shop (United for Peace and Justice) and others offered cover for Barack (and whine today -- but we'll save that for Sunday).  Debra is calling out proposed military action against Syria and she notes David Swanson so let's point out that he too called out the Iraq War and he's now calling out the proposed violence aimed at Syria:

 But while the U.S. never contemplated an intervention to stop the killing in Egypt by an illegitimate government it supports, President Obama is already intervening in Syria, "supplying paramilitary material, intelligence, and training and working to define the politics of the armed opposition forces. Its close allies—especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey—are supplying weapons to these forces" according to Revolution.
The US Navy is putting ships into place for an action that could have huge consequences: the killing of many more civilians in urban areas in aerial attacks; the increase in violence on both sides (both of which have terrorized the people); the widening of war into Iraq, Iran, Lebanon? Nothing good or the people of Syria can come of this "humanitarian intervention."
David Swanson wrote Saturday Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying:
“Threatening to attack Syria, and moving ships into position to do it, are significant, and illegal, and immoral actions.  The president can claim not to have decided to push the button, but he can't pretend that all the preparations to do so just happen like the weather.  Or he couldn't if newspapers reported news.
“(Yes, illegal.  Read the U.N. Charter: ‘All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’)”
Ask the population of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia — the most recent recipients of U.S. "humanitarian intervention" — how it has U.S. presence worked out?


I only thought we were saving it for Sunday.  We'll touch on it there but I just went to the website of CodeStink.

Medea Benjamin, stop lying.

 She whines to Buzzfeed that it's just so hard these days to mobilize and Syria and blah blah.  Well you know what,  it's a lot damn harder to mobilize when you don't even bother to mention Syria on your website's front page.

3 action alerts, 3 events and 8 news items on their main page and six changing items (all listed below the slide show) and not one of them -- not one damn one -- is about Syria.

Medea, stop whoring.

You're not trying to do a damn thing re: Syria so stop lying.  No one needs it.  And no one needs to take you or Jodi seriously.  CodeStink is a joke because it was used in 2007 and 2008 to clear the path for Barack.  You whored before he was president, you whore now.

And don't bother telling me, "We had an action alert."  Yes, I found your attempt to get media attention ploy.  You just didn't put it on the main page of CodeStink, did you?  I already took a screen snap so don't try to rewrite history again.    Wait and see where Ava and I go on Sunday.  People's lives are at stake and we've had it with the Brigade of Barack's Bitches.  Maybe we'll call the piece "The Burial of Barack's Bitches"?  Tick-tock, find a spine by Saturday or be prepared for the humiliation that's coming.  That includes CodeStink's friends (I'm not referring to grassroots members of CodeStink -- believe me, when I say "CodeStink's friends," a shiver just went up Jodie's spine).


From the right, Libertarian Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) spoke out strongly against war on Iraq.  (And Antiwar.com was one of the first to call out the frauds of CodeStink, noting Medea's embrace of the Afghanistan War after Barack became president.)  Today he notes talk of attacking Syria:


The UN inspection team in Syria has been "delayed" due to a dispute among the rebels, who could not or would not guarantee the team’s safety. While the Assad government has granted them access, the suburb of Damascus where the alleged chemical attacks occurred is in rebel-controlled territory. Western news media aren’t reporting the reason for the delay, mostly sticking with the official UN statement:
“Following yesterday’s attack on the U.N. convoy, a comprehensive assessment determined that the visit should be postponed by one day in order to improve preparedness and safety for the team. Considering the complexities of the site, confirmation of access has not been obtained but is expected later today.”
The "complexities of the site" include a rebel occupation force that has everything to fear from a real inspection. These are same people responsible for serial hoaxes, some of them pretty crude, and all designed to fool us into believing Assad’s forces had launched a poison gas attack – not against rebel forces but against civilian bystanders. The last UN inspection led to the conclusion that if anyone had used chemical weapons it was the rebels, and after this tremendous buildup that’s the last news the US and its Syrian sock-puppets want to hear.
Of course it’s just a coincidence that the US government told the UN inspection team to turn back even before they arrived on the scene, with Washington claiming they already have enough evidence to convict the Assad regime out of hand.

At the State Dept today, their very own Minnie Pearl handled another briefing.  Could someone tell spokesperson Marie Harf that if she's going to be a spokesperson, she needs to pay attention to her appearance?  That means dressing appropriately, combing your hair before the briefing and choosing a non-ridiculous pair of glasses.  Those tasks shouldn't be too difficult, Jay Carney manages to accomplish them before every one of his White House press briefings and doesn't appear to be winded or wiped out from doing so.  Marie Harf's annoying "let me finish, I'm talking" b.s. is also starting to tick off the press so her superior may need to talk to her about that. Excerpt of Minnie Pearl's performance today.
MS. HARF: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the daily briefing. I do not have anything at the top, so I’m going to go ahead and open it up for questions.

QUESTION: Can we start with Syria and maybe never leave Syria, actually --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and the – what’s going on or what did go on at the UN earlier? Is it the Administration’s position that UN authorization is required for any kind of response that you might undertake, and did you or do you have any feelings about what – the British move to get, apparently unsuccessfully, to try and get authorization?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, as you know the P-5 just met this morning to discuss the text of a draft UN Security Council resolution, which as you pointed out, was drafted by our UK counterparts. We’ve consistently said that we support UN Security Council action. My understanding is that today we heard nothing different from the Russians in today’s meeting than we have for months and, indeed, years about Syria, including – let’s just go through some of the history here – three vetoes of UN Security Council resolutions. Just last week, the Russians blocked a press statement – a potential press statement condemning the attack without even assigning culpability. So we have no reason to believe that efforts at the Security Council would be any different than these previous efforts that have failed.

QUESTION: Okay, but that doesn’t really answer my – that’s good to know, but –

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- do you believe that UN Security Council authorization is required for any kind of response to the chemical weapons attack?

MS. HARF: Well, I’d say a few points. First is that there’s been no decision made on what the response will be.

QUESTION: But --

MS. HARF: Second, in --

QUESTION: Regardless, you have said --

MS. HARF: Can I make my second point, please, and then if you have a follow-up, we’ll get to that next?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: Well, our initial read of the text put forward this morning is that it is a strong and compelling text. We see no avenue forward given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful council action on Syria. Therefore, the United States will continue its consultations and will take appropriate actions to respond in the days ahead. I think I would like to point out a statement that I think is appropriate from William Hague, the Foreign Secretary – I think he made it recently – that the UN Security Council should rise to its responsibilities by condemning these events and calling for a robust international response. But all previous attempts to get the Security Council to act on Syria have been blocked, and we cannot allow diplomatic paralysis to be a shield for the perpetrators of these crimes. I think we would certainly share that view.

QUESTION: Right. But my question is --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Do you believe that UN Security Council authorization is required to make whatever response you’re going to come up with legal?

MS. HARF: Well, as I just said, we see no avenue going forward given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful council action. We will continue our consultations and take appropriate actions going forward. I don’t have anything further for you than that.
  Yes, James.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on this --

MS. HARF: I’ll go to you next, Arshad.

QUESTION: -- specific question, though? It seems as though the U.S. and its allies on the Security Council deemed the Security Council an appropriate venue for some sort of preliminary diplomatic action that would precede whatever other action is going to follow, but having not gotten the result desired from that venue, is then blithely moving on and saying we really don’t need that venue to do what we want to do.

MS. HARF: Well, I’d make a few points. We’ve consistently said that we support UN Security Council action. Instead, what we’ve seen – not just today, not just last week, but over the course of many months – is the Russians at every move doing things to fail to hold the Syrian regime accountable. They’ve had three resolutions vetoed, as I said. They’ve blocked many other statements condemning the Syrian regime. So we do not believe that the Syrian regime should not be able to hide behind the fact that the Russians continue to block action on Syria at the UN, and we will make our decisions on appropriate action going forward, and we will stay in close consultation with the United Nations, with the Secretary General, with our partners on the P-5 and around the world.

QUESTION: So in other words, if you don’t get the verdict or result that you want from the Security Council, then you blow off the Security Council and do with your allies what you planned to do anyway, right?

MS. HARF: I think I would respond to that by saying we believe it’s very important, as others have said – including the Arab League, the most important regional group of Arab nations – that the Syrian regime needs to be held accountable here. We firmly believe that. We will take action towards that end after the President makes the decision, and that’s what we’re going to do going forward.

QUESTION: So why did you bother with the Security Council in the first place if you were so accustomed to Russian obstructionism there?

MS. HARF: Well, we believe it’s an important venue, obviously. Again, the P-5 just met this morning. We value the work of the UN. We’ve long said that we welcome UN actions on Syria. This case was no different, but again, we cannot be held up in responding by Russia’s intransigence – continued intransigence at the United Nations that, quite frankly, the situation is so serious that it demands a response.

QUESTION: Why not --

MS. HARF: Yes, Arshad.

QUESTION: -- take it to – why not take it to a vote and, in effect, dare the Russians to veto again?

MS. HARF: Again, in terms of a vote, we don’t see an avenue going forward with a vote given 
continued Russian opposition. And I would underscore again, as I did yesterday, that no decision’s been made, so much of this is hypothetical. But again, that’s our position, and I don’t think I have much further than that.

QUESTION: Are you afraid that if you took it to a vote and the Russians vetoed, as they have the three previous efforts, that you would then have the – made manifest the absence of Security Council authorization, and in fact you would have – it would be very clear that the Security Council had ultimately decided not to authorize such a resolution? Are you afraid that that makes anything you might do much harder?

MS. HARF: I’m not going to venture a guess in answering that question. I think the Russians have made clear repeatedly what their point of view is. I don’t think there’s any secret about where the Russians stand on Syria in the Security Council, so it’s not like anybody’s hiding anything here. We just, at this point, don’t think it’s the proper course of action.

QUESTION: So do you believe that the U.S. decision to bomb Kosovo in – or to bomb – excuse me – Serbia in ‘99 was legal?

MS. HARF: I’m not going to do a legal analysis on many things, but certainly not a historical event that happened some time ago. I just don’t think that’s relevant for this discussion today.


If you're unable to state whether an action the US government took 14 years ago was legal or not, you're really not ready to handle press briefings.


Syria is not located on the moon or Mars.  Syria borders Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Iraq.   An attack on Syria would effect the entire region.   Catholic World News notes:

 The destructive results of Western intervention would be felt not only in Syria but also in neighboring Iraq and Lebanon, said Patriarch Louis Raphael I Sako. He said that Syria could be torn apart by “a proliferation of jihadist militias,” leaving the country in chaos.
The Chaldean Patriarch pointed out that Iraq is still suffering from the consequences of American-led intervention 10 years ago. Iraq, he said, is “still battered by bombs, security problems, by the instability of the economic crisis.”

Father Sako is calling for dialogue.  He is not the only with serious concerns in Iraq.  Today, Marco Werman (PRI's The World) spoke with Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera and the Christian Science Monitor).  Excerpt.


 Marco Werman:  And on top of all of that, as I said, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki put Iraqi security forces on high alert because of the possibility of a US-led strike on Syria.  Connect the dots if there are dots to be connected here. Is what's happening in Iraq linked to a possible strike on Syria?

 Jane Arraf:  The Iraqi government believes it is and lots of Iraqis themselves believe that's what's happening there with the increased attacks is absolutely linked to Syria 

 Marco Werman:  How so?

Jane Arraf:  If we just go back a little bit -- Well, a decade let's say to 2003 when al Qaeda really didn't exist in Iraq, the Americans coming in, toppling Saddam Hussein and installing US forces in the country provided the perfect battle ground for al Qaeda and other groups.  Syria has now become that perfect battle ground.  There are all sorts of reasons to be fighting there.  There are Iraqis going to fight on either side.  And it has become the new rallying call.  Now the problem is that it's a very long border between Iraq and Syria.  There are a lot of tribal links and there are a lot of other links.  In fact, fighters and weapons are going back and forth across that border.  If you talk to the prime minister, he will say that a lot of their problems are coming from Syria.  It's not clear whether you can blame most of the violence, most of the chaos in Iraq on what's happening in Syria.  But Iraqi officials, and American officials as well, do seem quite confident that there is a link between groups in Iraq that are engaging in violence and groups in Syria that are not only engaging in violence but that seem to be in the ascendancy there.

 Marco Werman:  I mean, so could you see, Jane, how a possible US strike on Syria would just completely open up that border and suddenly all sorts of violent, bad people would be crossing back and forth?
Jane Arraf:  To some extent yes.  But that's not the only danger there.  As the Iranians have pointed out, if there is a strike on Syria, that will be the spark that sets the whole region alight because then, all of the sudden, you have history in a sense replaying itself and you have the United States and other western powers coming in in what will be seen -- no matter what side you're on -- as -- in many cases, it will be seen -- as an unprovoked attack.  So they're in a rather impossible situation.  But there does seem to be a consensus that if there is an air strike, it will inflame the situation.  What that means is it will provide more reason for fighters to go to Syria because all of the sudden you have the West again attacking an Arab country.  And terms of the border?  Iraq has been trying to beef up that border.  It's physically trying to deepen and widen a trench that exists.

Iraq already suffers enough.  For example, through yesterday, Iraq Body Count puts the violent deaths for the month at 725 so far.   And Iraq is yet again slammed with violence today.


Kareem Raheem, Raheem Salman, Sylvia Westall, Yara Bayoumy, Sami Aboudi and Mark Heinrich (Reuters) count 71 dead today and another 201 injured.  Charlie Campbell (Time magazine) notes the Baghdad and immediate surrounding area death toll has risen to 80.   AFP counts over a dozen bombs in Baghdad. In Baghdad, Haddad Salih (BBC News) notes of the areas hit, "Some of these areas are Shia dominant, others are mixed, Shia-Sunni, while Mahmudiya and Saydiyah to the south are mainly Sunni."  Fu Peng (Xinhua) explains, "The attacks occurred during the morning rush hours when 12 car bombs went off in Baghdad, while a suicide bomber struck a restaurant in the nearby town of Mahmoudiyah, an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua on condition of anonymity."



Prensa Latina notes, "According to the Iraqi police, the explosion of a car bomb near a movie theater in the capital's southern neighbour Yadida was the most serious attack, which caused the death of five people and wounds to 15."  Agencia EFE goes with, "The worst incident occurred in Latifiya, a city located about 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) south of the capital, where gunmen killed seven members of a family."  Adam Schreck and Sinan Salaheddin (AP) emphasize, "In one particularly brutal attack, a Shiite family was shot dead at home in the largely Sunni town of Latifiyah, about 30 kilometers (20 miles) south of Baghdad. Four children, ages eight to 16, were killed along with their parents and an uncle, police said."  Sadie Gray (Times of London) repeats  Reuters' report of an eye witness in Sadr City believes he saw a man park a car, eat "breakfast and drank his tea" before setting off a car bomb,  "I heard a huge explosion when I was inside the kitchen.  When I went outside, I saw his car completely damaged and he had disappeared.  Many people were hurt."  AFP observes, "Angry residents of one neighbourhood chased down a suspected attacker and killed him before setting his corpse ablaze."

In addition to violence in Baghdad, NINA reports a Tikrit roadside bombing left two police officers injured, a Hilla armed attack claimed the life of 1 military captain (eleven soldiers left injured), a Mosul roadside bombing claimed 1 life and left four other family members injured (all were Shabaks),  and 1 police officer was shot dead in Kirkuk.  The Voice of Russia adds, "The Sunni governor of Mosul, Athiel al-Nudjaifi survived an attack in which people ignited explosives near his convoy, reported security forces."


Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) points out, "This comes as Iraqi security forces have been conducting "The Revenge for the Martyrs" -- an operation designed to track down al Qaeda members in and around Baghdad."  Because violence doesn't solve violence.  But why should Nouri grasp what his puppet master Barack doesn't?  Alsumaria reports Nouri has declared Iraq to be on maximum alert.  Gulf Today explains he did this in his weekly address.  Yasir Ghazi and Tim Arango (New York Times) report:


 For days before the strikes, the local media published warnings by the government that a new wave of attacks was imminent, and security forces set up new checkpoints and other security measures. But in the end, the security forces were unable to stop the attacks, further undermining the confidence Iraqis have in the government to protect them. In recent weeks, the security forces have undertaken a series of operations, mostly in Sunni neighborhoods, as part of a campaign the government is calling “the revenge of the martyrs.” The Shiite-dominated government claims to have arrested hundreds of Sunni extremists and discovered a factory that makes car bombs, but the operations have also further antagonized the Sunni community, with only limited effect on reining in the violence.


 As W.G. Dunlop did earlier this week, Ghazi and Tim Arango put it on the record that the Iraqi government is attempting to bury the death toll (the Ministry of Interior -- headed by Nouri because he failed to ever nominate someone to head it -- issued a statement this evening claiming only 18 people were killed in Iraq today).



Turning to the topic of illegal spying, what's wrong with this item Amy Goodman delivered on Democracy Now! this morning:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged new abuses of its surveillance powers. In a statement, the NSA said it had uncovered "very rare instances of willful violations of NSA’s authorities" by agency operatives. Some NSA officials were found to have spied on love interests, with one monitoring a former spouse. According to The Wall Street Journal, the practice is "common enough to garner its own spycraft label: LOVEINT."

Someone may have thought that was cute.  It wasn't.  It was stupid and offensive.  A "love interest" is a character in a film that's the hero or heroine's partner and is little more than that.  It's Robert Redford in The Way We Were -- no matter how many script tantrums he had, the film is the story of Barbra Streisand's character (his inability to play the naming scenes -- when Hubbel names names -- also go to his character being nothing but the love interest) or it's Michelle Pfeiffer in Wolf.

A "love interest" is not a former spouse.  Even in the medically enhanced sixties, Paul Newman couldn't sell that as his pursuit of ex-wife Janet Leigh (Harper) just seemed creepy.   Today, we're much smarter -- except for whomever wrote the item Goodman read -- and grasp someone obsessed with a former spouse is a stalker.

So call what it is and stop trying to cute-en it or sweeten it.  And stop being stupid enough to accept the crooks own terminology ("LOVEINT").  This is offensive.  The National Organization for Women has this fact sheet on violence against women.  I suggest people familiarize themselves with it before they next want to play cute with stalkers.

Not only is playing 'cute' insulting to the victims of violence and not only does it distort obsession and stalking by treating them as funny and cute (in a newscast, come on), it also allows the offensive spying to sound better.  'Oh, we all do crazy things when we're in love, ha ha.'  No, that's not love.  Spying on someone is not love.  The American people most recently rejected that lie on a massive scale in their response (box office) to 2012's 'romantic comedy' This Means War -- in which two CIA agents spy on Reese Witherspoon.


There was nothing funny about the US government and the UK government terrorizing David Miranda at a London airport.  Miranda is the spouse of Glenn Greenwald, the reporter who has broken many of the NSA spying stories (including the first scoop).  Greenwald speaks with  Jonathan Franklin (Truthout via ZNet):
 
JF: How do you think history will remember this whole affair? It is still unfolding but nonetheless, a lot has already gone down. What is Glenn Greenwald’s prediction on the historic legacy of all this?
GG: I think this will be the time the world realizes that the US and its closest allies are trying to build a surveillance system that has as its primary objective the elimination of privacy globally, by which I mean that everyone’s communications electronically will be collected, stored, analyzed and monitored by the US government.
I think it will be seen as the moment that the United States showed its true face to the world in terms of attacks on journalism and their desire to punish anyone who brings transparency.

 [. . .]
JF: You have cracked many a secret at the NSA, but we all think this is just the tip of the iceberg. What are your deepest fears about surveillance and spying? How much more insidious, widespread is this?
GG: The goal of the United States, which they are rapidly approaching fulfilling, is to be able not just to collect and monitor everybody’s electronic communications, but to store them for increasingly long periods of time. They are building a massive facility in Utah that has as its purpose storage of electronic data that they are collecting. They are collecting electronic data in such large quantities that they are incapable of storing it for very long, and they want to make sure that they can keep it for as long as they want. So you are really talking about a radical transformation in what kind of society we have if everyone of our electronic communications is being monitored and stored by this government that operates with very little accountability or transparency for anybody.


And we'll close with these two Tweets Greenwald made today:

  2. 22h
    Ongoing NSA work

    Expand


  3. 27 Aug

    Here's what candidate Obama said about a President[s power to authorize military strikes without Congress


    Expand






kpfa


on No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)