Wednesday, February 3, 2016

When We Two Parted

There are a lot of women who really nail the human experience when they write songs.

Joni Mitchell, Carly Simon, Aretha, Alicia Keys, Mary J. Blige, Anita Baker, Faith Evans, Rickie Lee Jones, Stevie Nicks, etc.

There really aren't a lot of men that can.

Neil Young.

There's Neil.




There's also Greg Dulli of the Afghan Whigs.

Gentleman is a 90s classic.

It is probably the most honest album from a man ever.

And the track (video above) "When We Two Parted" really captures something.

I should have seen the shit coming down the hall
Every night I spent in that bed with you facing the wall
If I could have only once heard you scream
Instead of watching you abandoning yourself

That song always blows me away.

And the music matches the lyrics.

It captures so much of the mood and delivers more than anyone could ever expect.

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


Wednesday, February 3, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, the US government admits there are more US troops in Iraq than they have previously disclosed, Barack Obama is breaking the law by supporting the Baghdad-based regime, and much more.



Today, the US Defense Dept announced/bragged/claimed:

Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 20 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Albu Hayat, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Beiji, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL rocket rail and an ISIL fighting position.

-- Near Mosul, three strikes destroyed seven ISIL weapons caches, three ISIL assembly areas and 14 ISIL fighting positions.

-- Near Qayyarah, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL vehicle bomb facility and an ISIL logistics facility.

-- Near Ramadi, six strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL anti-air artillery piece, an ISIL tactical vehicle, an ISIL recruiting station, four ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL weapons cache and an ISIL assembly area and denied ISIL access to terrain.

-- Near Sinjar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and two ISIL fighting positions and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike suppressed an ISIL mortar position.

-- Near Tal Afar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position and suppressed an ISIL mortar position.


Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.


Another day and more of the same.

But isn't that the story always?


Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) reports, "Iraq said Tuesday it is building a wall and trench around Baghdad in an effort to secure the city from terror attacks."

As Aretha Franklin sings, "Here we go again, it's the same old song."


Doubt it?

From Edward Wong's September 16, 2006 "Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" (NEW YORK TIMES):



The Iraqi government plans to seal off Baghdad within weeks by ringing it with a series of trenches and setting up dozens of traffic checkpoints to control movement in and out of the violent city of seven million people, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Friday.
The effort is one of the most ambitious security projects this year, with cars expected to be funneled through 28 checkpoints along the main arteries snaking out from the capital. Smaller roads would be closed. The trenches would run across farmland or other open areas to prevent cars from evading checkpoints, said the ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf.
"We're going to build a trench around Baghdad so we can control the exits and entrances so people will be searched properly," he said in a telephone interview. "The idea is to get the cars to go through the 28 checkpoints that we set up."



Ten years later and it's time to trot out the same old thing and pretend it's a new idea.


Of the 'new' proposal, AP adds:

The interior ministry’s spokesman, police Brigadier General Saad Maan, told the Associated Press that work began this week on a 100km (65-mile) stretch of the wall and trench on the northern and northwestern approaches of the capital.
The wall will be three metres (10 feet) high and partially made up of concrete barriers already in use across much of the capital, he said. He declined to specify the measurements of the trench.


And BBC NEWS notes:

The barrier will also have a two-metre deep trench running alongside it, Al-Sumariyah news website reported. Surveillance cameras, explosives detection devices and towers will also be installed.
Many parts of the capital are surrounded by concrete barriers. Some of these walls will be taken out of the city's streets and re-installed as part of the new barrier, Mr al-Shammari said. 
The Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Saad Maan, said work began this week on a 65-mile stretch of the wall and trench around the capital, the Associated Press reported. The wall will be 10-feet high and partially made up of concrete barriers, he said."




Let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot for a moment:




In the age of Barack, we're all supposed to politely bite our tongues.
Barack's also a War Criminal.
At his most laughable, Gregory types, "The first step would entail convincing key regional players to pursue the requisite policies to achieve the designated goal. The Iraqi government would be an enthusiastic partner but would need to demonstrate its inclusiveness and ability to unite the country’s diverse ethnicities and religious sects."
I guess that's one way to put it.
Not accurate but who needs accuracy when, like Gregory, you're arguing for more war.

Seth J. Frantzman (NATIONAL INTEREST) notes:

 In addition to the abuses against non-Sunni minorities in Mosul by Islamic State, the Sunni residents who make up the city told local reporters and human rights organizations in 2014 that Iraqi security forces executed prisoners before withdrawing. Human Rights Watch relayed stories of more than a dozen men executed after being removed from the Counterterrorism and Organized Crime prison.
This sense of persecution at the hands of Nuri al-Maliki’s Shia-led government prompted many to support ISIS when it arrived.




And the abuses continue under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's rule.










  • Saturday, Human Rights Watch noted:




    Members of Shia militias, who the Iraqi government has included among its state forces, abducted and killed scores of Sunni residents in a central Iraq town and demolished Sunni homes, stores, and mosques following January 11, 2016 bombings claimed by the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS. None of those responsible have been brought to justice.
    Two consecutive bombings at a café in the town of Muqdadiya, in Diyala province, some 130 kilometers north of Baghdad, on January 11, killed at least 26 people, many of them Sunnis, according to a teacher who lives near the café. ISIS claimed the attacks, saying it had targeted local Shia militias, collectively known as Popular Mobilization Forces, which are formally under the command of the prime minister. Members of two of the dominant militias in Muqdadiya, the Badr Brigades and the League of Righteous forces, responded by attacking Sunnis as well as their homes and mosques, killing at least a dozen people and perhaps many more, according to local residents.

    “Again civilians are paying the price for Iraq’s failure to rein in the out-of-control militias,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Countries that support Iraqi security forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces should insist that Baghdad bring an end to this deadly abuse.” 




    Can you grasp that?

    If you can, grasp this:  It is illegal for the US government to support a regime or government that attacks its own people.  It is against domestic US law and it is against international law.
    Barack's a War Criminal.
    Maybe because he wants to be, maybe because he's lazy (and would rather just continue the same instead of transform it into something different), who knows why he is how he is?
    But a War Crime is taking place and he is the War Criminal.







    Concerned Reader e-mails, "There is no such law.  Even if there were, you are holding President Obama to a higher standard than you would any other leader.  No White House would ever threaten Iraq with losing funding or support because their government forces were attacking the people.  No one."


    No one?


    Refer to the front page of the September 30, 2006 NEW YORK TIMES which featured Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "U.S. May Cut Aid to Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses" which explained:


    American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit "gross violations of human rights" and are not brought to justice.


    So I'm expecting too much from Barack when I expect him to follow the law?


    And I'm also expecting too much from Barack when I expect him to at least do the bare minimum on human rights that Bully Boy Bush did?


    That's really lowering the bar.


    Barack said in 2014 that his Iraq 'mission' or 'plan' would not put US boots on the ground.

    Wrong.


    AFP reports:

    But the Pentagon on Wednesday quietly increased that official accounting to 3,850 troops. Then, Baghdad-based military spokesman Col. Steve Warren said it was “fair to say” there are hundreds more troops than even that number.



    And more planned to be sent in.

    But apparently for some -- like Concerned Reader -- holding Barack to his word is unfair.


    Changing topics . . .






                        Liked 137 times


    For 100 years they've tried to make this country [] work. It doesn't work b/c it is built on the wrong foundations via .



    Masrour Barzani's father is Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani.

    REUTERS reports, "Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region should hold a non-binding referendum on independence, its president said on Tuesday, despite the numerous crises it is facing.  Massoud Barzani has previously called for a referendum but set no timetable for a proposed vote."




    Margaret Griffis (ANTIWAR.COM) 'covered' the issue of the KRG:


    Kurdish President Massoud Barzani has called for a non-binding referendum on Kurdish independence. Kurdistan’s finances, however, are so poor that Peshmerga fighters are abandoning the fight against the Islamic State over unpaid wages.




    That's covering the issue . . . poorly.


    If Griffis is your primary or sole knowledge, you're probably highly uninformed.


    Why are they not being paid?

    Griffis repeatedly misses the point and leaves readers uninformed.

    The federal government out of Baghdad is still not dividing up the revenues.






  • RUDAW reports of the meet-up:


    A high-level meeting between the Kurdish Prime Minister and his Iraqi counterpart in Baghdad on Sunday ended with an agreement to form a joint committee to continue talks between both sides to seek a solution for their budgetary dispute.
    A Kurdish delegation led by PM Nechirvan Barzani met Iraqi premier Haider Abadi in Baghdad to discuss the unpaid Peshmerga funds as part of Iraq’s defense system as well as Kurdistan’s share of the fedral health budget.




    This is not a new development.

    It's been going on for years now.

    It's why, a few weeks ago, the KRG sent representatives to DC to see about financial assistance.

    It's also why Brett McGurk met with them on Monday in Baghdad -- and why they were in Baghdad to begin with.

    The State Dept's doing its best to play dumb on the McGurk visit but that was the primary focus of the conversations the KRG reps had with McGurk -- what is the status on the financial aid request, what can the US do to help get Iraqi funds from Baghdad flowing, etc.

    On McGurk's end, he was seeking more commitment on the battle against the Islamic State and more options for US troops to be stationed in the KRG.

    Fact that no one wants to explore: 3,700 US troops are in Iraq (not counting special ops) and there are a lot more in the region -- especially in Kuwait.

    The hope on the part of the White House is to take some of the thousands in the region and move them into the KRG, to use the KRG as a staging area.



    Turning to US politics, Hillary Clinton who voted for war on Iraq 'won' Iowa's caucus.  Former US House Rep and 2008 Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney Tweeted on the outcome:




  • I don't care what Hillary says, She lost in her first outing. 6 coin tosses do not a victory make!



  • Cynthia may seek the 2016 Green Party nomination.


    In the meantime, Hillary goes up against Senator Bernie Sanders again in New Hampshire which will be the first actual primary in the Democratic Party's race to select a presidential nominee.  Sanders' campaign notes:





    A family making $50,000 would save $5,807 a year under my Medicare-for-all plan.
    Embedded image permalink









    Tuesday, February 2, 2016

    What does it say about her supporters?


    iowa cozy

    Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Iowa Cozy" captures the liar Hillary.

    She's a liar.

    She's a crook.

    And some Democrats are so corrupt, they'll still support her.

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


    Tuesday, February 2, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, the chickens come home to roost for a left that failed to speak out against the continued war on Iraq, John Kerry is officially a failure and being iced out by the administration, and much more.


    Today, the US Dept of Defense announced:


    Strikes in Iraq
    Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 20 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Albu Hayat, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL staging area.

    -- Near Habbaniyah, a strike struck a large ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two ISIL vehicles, three ISIL front end loaders, and an ISIL bomb-making cache.

    -- Near Kisik, three strikes struck three separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL fighting position, and an ISIL mortar system.

    -- Near Mosul, four strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and an ISIL checkpoint and destroyed an ISIL bomb-making cache.

    -- Near Qayyarah, six strikes struck six separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed an ISIL mortar system, an ISIL vehicle, an ISIL bunker, and an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Ramadi, four strikes struck two separate ISIL tactical units, destroying four ISIL staging areas, an ISIL vehicle, four ISIL fighting positions, an ISIL weapons cache, and denying ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Sinjar, a strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.


    Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is a strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.



    The above is a failed tactic.

    It is not a strategy.

    Matthew Gregory disagrees.

    Because he's an idiot.

    He's not just any idiot at Georgetown, he's an idiot who shows where whoring leads.

    In a column, he insists that US President Barack Obama has a strategy.

    The fool can speak like this -- and it gets worse -- because whoring has allowed it.

    In the early years of the never-ending Iraq War, students on campuses overwhelmingly opposed the Iraq War and demanded US troops leave Iraq.

    After nearly eight years of Barack in the White House, and all the whoring that entails, there is a large -- not yet a majority -- number of students on college campuses today who are wallow in their stupidity and revel in their sense of entitlement.

    Gregory, for example, dictates that Iraq will not split up.

    Because he will impose on Iraq what he wants.

    Let's be honest for a moment.

    Iraq is a false creation by outside forces.

    It has never hung together peacefully as a country.

    In instances like this, at one point or another, the 'country' splits up.

    That will likely take place with Iraq.

    It might be next year, it might be 100 years from now.

    If Iraq is stay together this year or any other?

    It's going to be the decision of the Iraqi people.

    We have repeatedly said here that only they can make the decision to split up or to stay together.

    It cannot be imposed upon from the outside.

    That's what self-will and democracy are all about.

    But Matthew Gregory's been lied to for so long he doesn't grasp that.

    He's Samantha Power all over again.

    The Cruise Missile Left, as they've been called.

    He's been failed by his own sense of entitlement and by the silence on the left since Barack was elected.

    The refusal to demand an end to the Iraq War.

    The refusal to call a liar a "liar."  And Barack is a liar.

    "No boots on the ground."  That lie just gets bigger and bigger as he continues the Iraq War.

    As Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) points out, "The US has repeatedly added boots on the ground to the war, and has some 3,700 ground troops in Iraq now, with Pentagon officials pushing a proposal to get that up to 4,500."


    Barack's a liar.

    During the age of Bully Boy Bush, a liar could be called a liar.

    In the age of Barack, we're all supposed to politely bite our tongues.

    Barack's also a War Criminal.

    At his most laughable, Gregory types, "The first step would entail convincing key regional players to pursue the requisite policies to achieve the designated goal. The Iraqi government would be an enthusiastic partner but would need to demonstrate its inclusiveness and ability to unite the country’s diverse ethnicities and religious sects."

    I guess that's one way to put it.

    Not accurate but who needs accuracy when, like Gregory, you're arguing for more war.

    Seth J. Frantzman (NATIONAL INTEREST) notes:

     In addition to the abuses against non-Sunni minorities in Mosul by Islamic State, the Sunni residents who make up the city told local reporters and human rights organizations in 2014 that Iraqi security forces executed prisoners before withdrawing. Human Rights Watch relayed stories of more than a dozen men executed after being removed from the Counterterrorism and Organized Crime prison.
    This sense of persecution at the hands of Nuri al-Maliki’s Shia-led government prompted many to support ISIS when it arrived.



    And the abuses continue under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's rule.











  • Saturday, Human Rights Watch noted:



    Members of Shia militias, who the Iraqi government has included among its state forces, abducted and killed scores of Sunni residents in a central Iraq town and demolished Sunni homes, stores, and mosques following January 11, 2016 bombings claimed by the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS. None of those responsible have been brought to justice.
    Two consecutive bombings at a café in the town of Muqdadiya, in Diyala province, some 130 kilometers north of Baghdad, on January 11, killed at least 26 people, many of them Sunnis, according to a teacher who lives near the café. ISIS claimed the attacks, saying it had targeted local Shia militias, collectively known as Popular Mobilization Forces, which are formally under the command of the prime minister. Members of two of the dominant militias in Muqdadiya, the Badr Brigades and the League of Righteous forces, responded by attacking Sunnis as well as their homes and mosques, killing at least a dozen people and perhaps many more, according to local residents.

    “Again civilians are paying the price for Iraq’s failure to rein in the out-of-control militias,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Countries that support Iraqi security forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces should insist that Baghdad bring an end to this deadly abuse.” 



    Can you grasp that?

    If you can, grasp this:  It is illegal for the US government to support a regime or government that attacks its own people.  It is against domestic US law and it is against international law.

    Barack's a War Criminal.

    Maybe because he wants to be, maybe because he's lazy (and would rather just continue the same instead of transform it into something different), who knows why he is how he is?

    But a War Crime is taking place and he is the War Criminal.


    Ready for some more truths?

    The US government has failed in Iraq yet again.

    How so?

    More US troops.

    Barack thought that could be avoided -- at least until after he left the White House.

    How was that going to happen?

    Did you miss what he had John Kerry doing?

    Because John Kerry failed.

    In June of 2014, Barack publicly stated a political solution was needed in Iraq.  That was the only answer, he insisted.

    Instead of having the US State Dept work on that, he treated them as a junior branch of the Defense Dept.

    He didn't task them with diplomacy.

    He had them traveling to this and that country trying to get them to commit to sending troops -- more troops in many cases -- into Iraq.

    It's failed.

    John Kerry's a failure.

    No wonder he's so bombastic.

    He should have made  a great State Dept leader but instead he's an embarrassing failure.

    And, yes, he knows this, Barack even thinks so.

    More and more, John's being iced out.

    Brett McGurk is the State official the White House is vested in.

    John's just fighting to hold onto whatever turf he can keep.

    He was in Rome today, blow-harding before a small group -- even State described it as a "small group" -- about the Islamic State.

    But no one cares.

    Even the press that covers the State Dept didn't care.

    At today's US State Dept press briefing, no one asked one question about Kerry's meaningless 'big' meet-up in Rome.

    At yesterday's press briefing?

    Spokesperson Mark C. Toner was peppered with questions about Brett McGurk's visit to Syria.

    Kerry has lost the confidence of the president.

    That's the reality and even John Kerry knows it.

    He and his small group of supporters are trying to spin Australia's former Defence Minister's disagreement with the country's Prime Minister as proof of some success on Kerry's part.  It's no such thing.  It's not even a sitting Defence Minister but, even if it was, the prime minister has made the decision not to send more Australian troops into Iraq.

    Kerry's failure.

    He's worked and worked and worked on one country after another, promising Barack he would get the numbers necessary so that US forces would not have to be increased.

    But he failed.


    The failure is all around.

    Which is why, even by UN figures, January was another devastating month for Iraq.

    UNAMI issued the following on Monday:


    Baghdad, 1 February 2016 – A total of 849 Iraqis were killed and another 1,450 were injured in acts of terrorism, violence and armed conflict in Iraq in January 2016*, according to casualty figures released today by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI).


    The number of civilians killed in January was 490 (including 24 federal police, Sahwa civil defence, Personal Security Details, facilities protection police, fire department), and the number of civilians injured was 1,157 (including 47 federal police, Sahwa civil defence, Personal Security Details, facilities protection police, fire department).
    A total of 359 members of the Iraqi Security Forces (including Peshmerga, SWAT and militias fighting alongside the Iraqi Army but excluding Anbar Operations) were killed and 293 were injured.
    The Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Ján Kubiš, deplored the continuing high casualty toll, particularly a sharp increase in the number of injuries among civilians in January as compared to the previous month.
    “One casualty is one too many. The suffering of the Iraqi people must end,” the SRSG said. “Iraqis, civilians in particular, continue to pay the price in this conflict. The Iraqi people should have the opportunity to live in peace and security.”
    The figures showed that Baghdad Governorate was the worst affected, with 1,084 civilian casualties (299 killed, 785 injured), Diyala 61 killed and 79 injured, Ninewa 55 killed and 24 injured, while Kirkuk had 12 killed and 3 injured, and Salahadin 2 killed and 14 injured.
    According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, in January 2016 the Governorate suffered a total of 304 civilian casualties (56 killed and 248 injured). Anbar casualty figures cover the period from 1-30 January, inclusive.
    *CAVEATS: In general, UNAMI has been hindered in effectively verifying casualties in conflict areas. Figures for casualties from Anbar Governorate are provided by the Health Directorate. Casualty figures obtained from the Anbar Health Directorate might not fully reflect the real number of casualties in those areas due to the increased volatility of the situation on the ground and the disruption of services. In some cases, UNAMI could only partially verify certain incidents. UNAMI has also received, without being able to verify, reports of large numbers of casualties along with unknown numbers of persons who have died from secondary effects of violence after having fled their homes due to exposure to the elements, lack of water, food, medicines and health care. For these reasons, the figures reported have to be considered as the absolute minimum.













     

    Saturday, January 30, 2016

    Ralph finds his spine

    Ralph Nader (COUNTERPUNCH) writes:

    Before announcing for President in the Democratic Primaries, Bernie Sanders told the people he would not run as an Independent and be like Nader—invoking the politically-bigoted words “being a spoiler.” Well, the spoiled corporate Democrats in Congress and their consultants are mounting a “stop Bernie campaign.” They believe he’ll “spoil” their election prospects.
    Sorry Bernie, because anybody who challenges the positions of the corporatist, militaristic, Wall Street-funded Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, in the House and Senate—is by their twisted definition, a “spoiler.” It doesn’t matter how many of Bernie’s positions are representative of what a majority of the American people want for their country.
    What comes around goes around. Despite running a clean campaign, funded by small donors averaging $27, with no scandals in his past and with consistency throughout his decades of standing up for the working and unemployed people of this country, Sanders is about to be Hillaried. Her Capitol Hill cronies have dispatched Congressional teams to Iowa.

    The shunning of Bernie Sanders is underway. 


    It took him long enough, didn't it?

    But Ralph did finally find his spine.

    It's a little late.

    Hopefully not too late to help Bernie.

    But at least it's not another series of lies about how great things are.

    Let's hope this column signals a change for Ralph.


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



    Saturday, January 30, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, the US death toll continues, Hillary Clinton continues trying to minimize her support for the Iraq War, and much more.



    The never-ending Iraq War continues.  Today, the US Defense Dept announced:


    Strikes in Iraq
    Attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft conducted 17 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

    -- Near Asad, one strike destroyed two ISIL bomb-making facilities.

    -- Near Baghdadi, one strike destroyed three ISIL rocket rails.

    -- Near Ar Rutbah, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit.

    -- Near Habbaniyah, three strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL staging area and an ISIL vehicle and suppressed an ISIL fighting position and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Mosul, seven strikes struck five separate ISIL tactical units and destroyed 10 ISIL fighting positions, two ISIL heavy machine guns, and an ISIL weapons cache.

    -- Near Ramadi, one strike destroyed an ISIL command-and-control node and denied ISIL access to terrain.

    -- Near Sinjar, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL heavy machine gun and an ISIL fighting position.

    -- Near Tal Afar, two strikes struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL vehicle.


    Task force officials define a strike as one or more kinetic events that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative, effect. Therefore, officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIL vehicle is a strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against buildings, vehicles and weapon systems in a compound, for example, having the cumulative effect of making those targets harder or impossible for ISIL to use. Accordingly, officials said, they do not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.



    No one questions how these bombings -- this continued war -- makes America safer.  It certainly doesn't make Iraq safer.


    They can talk of how many more US troops to send to Iraq, they just can't talk about what is the point?  Where is the success?  What is the end game?

    Dropping back to Thursday's snapshot:


    The continued talk of sending more US troops to Iraq comes as there's yet another US death in Iraq.
    STARS & STRIPES reports, "A coalition servicemember supporting operations against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria died of a noncombat-related injury in Iraq, the Combined Joint Task Force in charge of Operation Inherent Resolve said in a statement."
    Back in November, Pvt Chrisopher J. Castaneda died at Al Asad Air Base from a "non-combat related incident."
    These are deaths in Barack's endless wars.
    His endless and illegal wars.




    Yesterday, DoD identified the fallen:


    The Department of Defense announce today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
    Sgt. Joseph F. Stifter, 30, of Glendale, California, died Jan. 28, at Al Asad Airbase, Al Anbar Province, Iraq, from wounds suffered when his armored HMMWV was involved in a roll-over accident. The incident is under investigation.
    Stifter was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas.
    For more information related to this release, the media may contact the 1st Infantry Division public affairs office at 785-307-6744.


    Ryan Fonseca (LOS ANGELES TIMES) notes, "Stifter is survived by his wife, daughter, mother and father, the Army statement said."


    Why was he deployed to Iraq?


    All these years later, why are any US troops in Iraq?

    There is no strategy, there is no logic, there is only continued death and destruction.


    Which is why it does matter that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

    In 2002, she was a US Senator and she chose to vote for the Iraq War.

    She chose to support it for years after.

    It's only in 2008 that she can call it a 'mistake' publicly and then, this week, she insisted it was a 'mistake' only because Bully Boy Bush had prosecuted the war wrongly.


    She's a liar.

    As a US Senator, as a First Lady, as a Secretary of State, she's a liar.

    But she thinks she deserves the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

    Other are less likely to agree.  Take Angela Ross of Eugene, Oregon who writes a letter to the editor of THE REGISTER GUARD explaining:


    Many of my women friends favor electing Hillary Clinton as our next president because she’s a woman, but I can’t base my vote on gender.
    Because Clinton voted to support the Iraq war while in the U.S. Senate, I can’t in good conscience vote for her for president. If she’d argued against invading Iraq (as Sen. Bernie Sanders did), it would have shown leadership. Instead, she went along with the Bush-Cheney program.
    [. . .]
    I not only will vote for Sanders, I’ll also work hard participating in the democratic process his campaign engenders. He has 21st century ideas, whereas the ideas of Clinton and other establishment figures are from the 20th century.

    Hillary may have foreign policy experience, but when push came to shove, she showed an extreme lack of judgment on the most important foreign policy decision in a generation. As in 2008 when she was running against Obama, it casts serious doubt on whether she's the Democrats' best presidential nominee.
    Hillary voted for the Iraq War either out of rank political opportunism, because as a prospective presidential candidate, she feared that an anti-war vote would make her look weak. If so, she voted to send thousands to their deaths to further her political career.
    Or she voted for the war out of a sincere belief in the benefits of American military intervention in the Middle East and the good that could come from regime change. If so, her beliefs showed an extreme lack of foreign policy judgment.
    I'm not sure which is worse: voting for a needless and destructive war out of political opportunism or out of poor judgment. In either event, the Iraq War vote remains a big black mark on Hillary's claim that her foreign policy experience makes her the best choice to be Commander in Chief on Day 1.



    Academy Award winning actress Susan Sarandon spoke out against the Iraq War.  While Hillary used support of the Iraq War to increase her own profile, Susan opposed the war and was verbally attacked for that.  She saw a charity event cancelled because she supported peace.

    As Gregory Favre (POYNTER) explained March 28, 2003:

    This week, the folks at United Way of Tampa Bay, in their infinite lack of wisdom, canceled an event because the actor Susan Sarandon was to be the speaker. This decision was made the day after she flashed the peace sign during the Academy Awards telecast.
    How dare she have an opinion, much less express it.
    So the $75 a plate dinner was sacrificed. (In the interest of full disclosure, Sarandon's fee was being paid by the St. Petersburg Times, which is owned by The Poynter Institute, my employer. And my boss, our dean, Karen Dunlap, was scheduled to interview her as part of the program.)
    It had nothing to do with Sarandon's views, a United Way spokesperson said. It's just that her presence would have been divisive.
    But isn't this kind of heavy-handed response to dissent happening all over this country? Just listen to the violence of the language aimed at those who may raise questions. Are we back in the '50s and '60s of the last century?



    And it didn't end there.  Roger Catlin (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reported the following month:

    Last week, she and her partner, Tim Robbins, were told by Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey, a former assistant press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, that he was canceling a 15th anniversary celebration of their film "Bull Durham." Petroskey said the couple's antiwar stance "ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." Earlier, Sarandon's appearance at a United Way event in Florida was canceled.



    Hillary didn't just speak out for the war, she voted for it.  Despite the fact that she was supposedly representing the state of New York which gave her no mandate to support the Iraq War.

    She voted for in direct opposition of the will of the citizens she represented.

    So she attacked democracy and logic to embrace illegal war.


    In an attempt to bury the issue before her planned run for the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Hillary 'addressed' the issue in her ghost-written, poor selling book entitled HARD CHOICES.  Lesley Clark (MCCLATCHY NEWS) noted in 2014:

    Democrats such as Clinton believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat, a belief they said was fed by their own research beyond the word of the Bush White House, all of which later proved to be wrong.
    Clinton said in the book that she’d voted to authorize war “after weighing the evidence and seeking as many opinions as I could inside and outside our government, Democrats and Republicans alike.”


    But as Stephen Zunes (FPIF) pointed out earlier this week:

    “Her vote was simply a mistake.”
    While few Clinton supporters are still willing to argue her support for the war was a good thing, many try to minimize its significance by referring to it as simply a “mistake.” But while it may have been a terrible decision, it was neither an accident nor an aberration from Clinton’s generally hawkish worldview.
    It would have been a “mistake” if Hillary Clinton had pushed the “aye” button when she meant to push the “nay” button. In fact, her decision — by her own admission — was quite conscious.
    The October 2002 war resolution on Iraq wasn’t like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing military force in Vietnam, which was quickly passed as an emergency request by President Lyndon Johnson when there was no time for reflection and debate. By contrast, at the time of the Iraq War authorization, there had been months of public debate on the matter. Clinton had plenty of time to investigate the administration’s claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as to consider the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion.
    Also unlike the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was disingenuously presented as an authorization to retaliate for an alleged attack on U.S. ships, members of Congress recognized that the Iraq resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation. Clinton had met with scores of constituents, arms control analysts, and Middle East scholars who informed her that the war was unnecessary, illegal, and would likely end in disaster.
    But she decided to support going to war anyway. She even rejected the advice of fellow Democratic senator Bob Graham that she read the full National Intelligence Estimate, which would have further challenged some of the Bush administration’s claims justifying the war.

    It was not, therefore, simply a “mistake,” or a momentary lapse of judgment. Indeed, in her own words, she cast her vote “with conviction.”



    She made a decision and it wasn't based on the will of the citizens, it wasn't based on the law, it wasn't based on facts.  She made a decision that started the Iraq War and all the destruction that followed -- all the destruction that continues.

    This is no mere 'mistake.'

    This goes to a serious lack of judgment and leadership.



    Susan Sarandon is supporting Senator Bernie Sanders -- who, in 2002, voted against the Iraq War authorization.  She Tweets:


    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24768997.html#storylink=cpy



  • This campaign is about a political revolution - millions of people standing up and saying enough is enough.
    Embedded image permalink
  • Retweeted
    If we stand together on Monday night, there is nothing we cannot accomplish. :
  • Retweeted
    Brothers and sisters: Now is not the time for thinking small. Now is not the time for the same-old establishment politics.







  • For many Democrats, 2016 is boiling down to a question of do you support a liar (Hillary) or a leader (Bernie)?


    The people of Iowa will be the first to weigh in when they caucus on Monday.


    The people of Iraq get no vote but then they really get no vote in their own country either.

    Haider al-Abadi is prime minister because Barack Obama wants him to be.  The US President made the decision in the summer of 2014 -- not the Iraqi people.

    Before Haider al-Abadi was prime minister of Iraq, the position was held by thug Nouri al-Maliki.

    Nouri was installed as prime minister in 2006 not by the Iraqi people but by Bully Boy Bush.  In 2010, the Iraqi people went to the polls.  One of the things they were deciding was whether to keep or ditch Nouri as prime minister.

    Nouri lost.

    He refused to step down as prime minister.  For eight months, he refused.

    In the end, he didn't have to.


    Why?

    Barack had US officials negotiate a contract, The Erbil Agreement, which went around the will of the Iraqi people and democracy to give Nouri a second term.

    Please note that State of Law lost the 2010 election to Iraqiya.

    Yet, in 2014, when Barack replaced Nouri, he didn't go with a member of Iraqiya but again with the loser State of Law.


    The following Tweet best represents the attitude of the Iraqi officials to the Iraqi people they are supposed to serve.















  • iraq