Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Real foreign policy

comedianhil

That's Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Stand Up Hillary."  Also check out
Kat's "Kat's Korner: The Lesbian Who Preferred Men."

Jill Stein is the Green Party's presidential nominee.


  1. We need an arms embargo on the Middle East and principled collaboration with the international community to end conflicts.
  2. Hillary Clinton herself identified Saudi Arabia as a major funder of terrorism yet the US continues arms sales to the Saudis.
  3. We need to stop supporting human rights violations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel & Egypt.
  4. We need a new foreign policy based on international law & human rights, not military & economic domination.


And that's why she deserves votes.

She's talking about real issues.

She's talking about issues that matter.

What's Hillary talking about again?

Donald Trump's locker room talk?


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


Tuesday, October 11, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, Erdogan snarls for Haider al-Abadi to know his "place," the federal court rules against Haider, and much more.

We have to start with the Clintons -- because so much is avoided today.

Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and other unattractive goons working for MSNBC are in a tizzy.


They are appalled that Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaddrick and Gennifer Flowers are back in the news.  At least three of them were invited to Sunday's debate by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

There's no reason to clutch the pearls.

These women are part of history and if you are unable to deal with that fact, one wonders how you'd be able to deal with another Clinton presidency?

In the 90s, when human filth David Brock was working for trash but on the right (he still works for trash but now on the left), these women came forward.

Gennifer was the first.

She maintained, in 1992 as Bill Clinton was running for president, that she'd had an affair with Bill -- a long standing affair.  This was born out behind closed doors by opposition research carried out by another Democrat seeking the party's presidential nomination that year.  He ended up not using that research but everyone knew about it.  Gennifer sold tapes of her conversations with Bill to the tabloids.

Bill and his dowdy wife Hillary -- still struggling with how to shape an eye brow -- appeared on 60 MINUTES and denied the affair though Bill did give vague responses acknowledging he cheated.  Vague responses, over 20 years later, is all the likes of Andrea and Chuck can handle -- with Andrea, it's understandable -- for decades there have been rumors that her husband was cheating on her, that she knew and that she felt unable to address that in any way without suffering a loss of personal prestige.

Gennifer and Bill did have an affair.

Bill would have to own that under oath, but we're getting ahead of the story.

Bill had multiple affairs as governor of Arkansas and he continued to have affairs as president.

David Brock attempted to unearth one and ended up naming Paula Jones.

Paula Jones was outraged.

She had not had an affair with Bill Clinton.

She had, however, been assaulted by him.

She would eventually make that accusation publicly and sue him.

On the advice of Hillary, Bill would refuse to settle out of court.

This would allow the matter to drag on and for Bill to continue lying to the American public.

Kathleen Wiley next stepped forward to state that Bill had assaulted her while he was president.

Kathleen Wiley's charges linger.

Though idiots like Bob Somerby -- who painted himself into a corner long ago and can't be rational on the topic as evidenced by his referring to claims of assault and rape as the press "sniffing panties" -- charges of rape and assault are charges of crimes but like James Carville and other liars and whores, they destroy women who step forward and minimize charges of rape and assault.

Though idiots like Bob Somerby try to say that Starr himself -- Ken Starr -- found Wiley "unreliable" that doesn't disprove her statements or her charges.

Nor would any woman aware of violence against women look back at the 90s and some man sitting in judgment on a woman's charges of rape and/or assault and think that's the end of the story.

I don't know what -- if anything -- happened between Kathleen Wiley and Bill Clinton.  I do know I believe her about what happened after she went public.

She was harassed.  She was made to fear for her own safety.

For me, that's not in question.  She was very believable when she spoke of that.

That doesn't mean the threatening acts came from Bill or were ordered by Bill (or by Hillary), it does mean -- just look at the press -- when somebody's hero is threatened, a lot of people who should know better turn into bullies and worse.

Another thing I should note about Kathleen.

Her 'friend' Julia said she lied.

Is it Julia or Julie?


I don't know.

When I despise someone, I tend to blot out there name.

As a Clintonista, I used to think Julie/Julia was so wonderful.

She'd stepped forward and helped Bill by telling the truth!

A few years after the whole thing was over, I met Julia/Julie who was being use to fund raise and I spoke with her.  Maybe she was having a bad moment.  But everything she said -- as she relived that period -- contradicted herself and I found her to be dishonest.

So we've got Katheleen, Paula and Gennifer in the public mix.

Hillary's shading business dealing -- and assorted other scandals -- had led to Kenneth Starr being allowed to investigate and he expanded his investigation.

Enter Monica Lewinsky.

Monica and Bill Clinton had an affair while he was President of the United States.

Though Hillary would attack her publicly as a stalker and worse, Monica didn't lie.

More importantly, Monica didn't come forward.

Someone she thought was a friend (Linda Tripp) outed her affair.

Left to her own devices, and not forced to give sworn testimony, Monica probably would've kept the affair quiet -- as she'd already done.

Forced to tell the truth or risk charges of perjury, Monica told the truth.

And Hillary branded Monica -- who loved Bill and didn't want to expose him -- a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."

Hillary and others trashed her as a liar, a stalker, obsessed with the president.

Bill himself stood before the nation, wagging his finger, and swearing that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

He lied.

I have now idea why any woman would keep a dress that a man shot his wad on but, for whatever reason, Monica kept her blue dress that Bill "bedazzeled" with his penis.  And good thing, because that was one of the pieces of evidence that forced Bill to get semi-honest.


Yes, they had an affair, a long standing one.

Bill had lied to the American people, worse from a legal stand point, he'd lied under oath.

This began impeachment proceedings against him.

The House of Representatives voted for impeachment.

The Senate decided to censure him.

Monica told the truth.

Gennifer told the truth.

Bob Somerby dismisses Kathleen Wiley as "unreliable."

Here's the reality about "unreliable."

If you lie about something under oath, you are considered unreliable.

More to the point, you're unreliable on the topic you lied about.

Bill lied about having sex with women under oath.

Confronted with Monica's dress -- that she'd never cleaned so his sperm contained his DNA -- he was forced to then get honest -- after having already demonstrated he would lie under oath about sex.

Bill is not reliable on this topic.

He has been proven to be a liar in a court of law.

He and Gennifer had an affair, he and Monica had an affair.

There were other women -- besides Kathleen and Paula -- who accused him of assault and worse.  Some members of Congress felt their hands were tied because they knew of these charges but could not come forward.

One such woman was Juanita Broaddrick who maintained that Bill Clinton raped her.

Shortly after the impeachment proceedings concluded, NBC NEWS aired their interview with Juanita.

She has witnesses who back her up.

She made that charge nearly 20 years ago and has continued to stand by it.

Bill Clinton has never responded to that charge.

A sitting president was accused of rape and never publicly spoke to the issue.

To this day, in all of his interviews, no one has ever asked him about it.

Most men, if they were accused of rape, wouldn't need 18 years to respond.

They'd say, "No, I didn't rape her."

They'd say it to anyone who would listen.

But Bill Clinton has never said one word publicly on this matter.

(Bob Somerby, whore that he is, will insist Bill had a spokesperson speak.  That doesn't count.  Bill knows the law and he knows that.  Which is why he had a spokesperson speak about his testimony -- trying to muddy the waters -- but refused to speak about it himself.)

Bill Clinton is now a public disgrace at this point.

He was impeached.  He barely survived removal from office.

He's in the lame duck period of the presidency.

The Supreme Court will take action against him in terms of his ability to practice law.

But during this period, Bill Clinton pays Paula Jones nearly a million dollars.

That's for damages.

He settles out of court with her on the charges that he assaulted her.

Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Gennifer Flowers for years and was only exposed when put under oath.  Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and was only exposed when put under oath.

He then went on to settle with Paula Jones -- which in the court of public opinion is an admission of guilt.

Especially since, what more could be done to him at that point?

He'd already been censured.

Why settle then?

Bill Clinton is not a reliable witness.  He is dishonest and that's established in the legal world.

I don't know what happened with Kathleen Wiley.  I do believe she was threatened for her public statements.  I do not know that the threats were orchestrated by Bill Clinton (or by Hillary Clinton).  I do not believe her friend Julia/Julie (Hyatt Steele?) because I spoke with that woman for nearly half an hour and Julia/Julie's story doesn't hold up.

That leaves Juanita Broaddrick.

Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley's charges of assault are serious.  These would be criminal actions.

Juanita's charge of rape is also be serious.

From Katha Pollitt's "Re: Juanita Broaddrick" (THE NATION, March 4, 1999):


Now that the impeachment trial is over, it’s time for progressives to get back to their drawing boards and let Bill Clinton clean up his own mess. If, as NOW president Patricia Ireland said, “There’s no way that Bill Clinton can look into the cameras and deny it and have anybody believe it,” that is a problem entirely of the President’s own making, and it would be a grave mistake for feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists and civil rights and civil liberties advocates to lend him a penny more of their moral capital. For six years too many progressives have given Clinton the benefit of the doubt, whether it was their ill-founded hope that he wouldn’t sign the Personal Responsibility Act or the equally ill-founded skepticism about the existence in an unlaundered state of a certain blue dress. We’ve seen Jesse Jackson hailing “our President” as the bombs were falling on Iraq and Barney Frank defending–wittily, tirelessly–the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. As the anti-impeachment slogan put it, enough is enough.


Juanita never stood a chance for people to hear her.

The American people were just exhausted by that point.

Bill was a liar.

It was embarrassing to the country that he was such a liar.

It was embarrassing on the world stage.

(Though the media kept pimping that in 'sophisticated' countries like France, rulers have affairs all the time -- to be clear, Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley were not saying they had affairs, they were saying they were assaulted.  It's a point that many in the media missed.)

(Which is why we don't use the term "sexual assault."  It's not about sex.  Rape is not about sex, harassment is not about sex.  Using the term "sexual assault" allows many in the media to treat it as something less than the crime it is.  And we saw that on CBS nearly two years ago -- and called it out here.)

A tired nation just wanted the whole thing over.

So Juanita was never going to get a fair shake.



And by refusing to speak to the matter publicly, Bill Clinton ensured the story died quickly.

(If you charge something, the media reports that.  For a second story, they need something else.  If the person you're speaking about doesn't respond, the story can be allowed to die.)


I've admitted here that I didn't want to believe, at the time, that Bill would rape a woman.  And that certainly Hillary would not stand by a man who raped a woman.

Two things changed, one I've already talked about here.

Hillary's defense of a rapist and attack on a rape victim.

Yes, it was an attack and I'm so sorry that THINK PROGRESS and other whores are so ignorant of the law.

If I'm an attorney and filing papers demanding that you submit to counseling, if I'm filing papers charging that you have delusions, I'm attacking your character.

And Hillary did that to an 12-year-old child.

A lot of liars/whores are saying she was his attorney and she owed him the best defense.

She did.

You don't have to assassinate someone's character to defend a rapist.

She could have, for example, used the court to attempt to create sympathy for her client.

There is no law or legal guideline that declares an attorney must assassinate someone's character.

(It is what Hillary does -- in a court of law and in a court of opinion.)

Today, such tactics in a court room would be considered outrageous.

'But that was the seventies!'


Last Sunday night was not 'the seventies.'

As we noted in "Thoughts on the second presidential debate (Ava and C.I.)," that 12-year-old girl is now a grown woman and she was present at the debate, Kathy Shelton was present.

Hillary was insisting in the debate that Donald Trump "never apologizes for anything."

But Hillary could have made an attempt to heal wounds she helped create by stopping to say, "To Kathy who is here tonight, I am sorry for any pain I may have caused you.  I was attempting to offer a vigorous stand.  By today's standards and looking back, I realize I crossed a line that I would not cross today and my apologies to you."

But she didn't.

She didn't even acknowledge Kathy.


Hillary wouldn't stand with a rapist?

Why not, she was right in front of Kathy, who she harmed as a 12-year-old girl, and she wouldn't even look at her, let alone apologize.

That's one reason I'm willing to consider Juanita's telling the truth.

Another reason?

When this site started, there was a man -- who I knew -- who was on cable constantly as a Democratic talking head.  He was attractive, I'd even say he was sexy (so we know I'm not talking about James Carville).

He's not on now.

Because a woman wrote a very long e-mail to the public account explaining how this man had raped her daughter.  I had the matter investigated and it confirmed the woman had been raped.  Going forward would have destroyed the woman.  She couldn't extract justice.  But I could ensure that he wasn't on TV anymore and I did.  And the word was put out what he'd done and what he was.  He could have ended up with his own cable show.  But he's rapist and when the word got out he was unemployable.  And when I spoke to DNC friends, he also found himself encouraged to ease out of politics.

I knew that man.  I would never have though he would rape a woman.

But we never know.  (Which is not saying all men are rapists.  They are not.  But it is saying that some people can be so charming that you never know who they really are no matter how much time you spend with them.)


The above is public history.

If discussing it is too much for Andrea Mitchell or Chuck Todd, or anyone, then they need to find another line of work.

If Hillary is elected, Bill is back in the White House.

Americans to young to remember or have lived through the 90s deserve to know what that most likely means.

And the women of America would be bolstered by a serious discussion because that would make clear that a Clinton presidency this go round would not mean more press attacks on women.

Meanwhile in Iraq, the country Hillary Clinton helped set on fire, conflict continues between its government and the government of Turkey.


REUTERS reports that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president declared, "The Iraqi prime minister is insulting me, first know your limits."

How is he being insulted?

Iraq wants the Turkish troops out of their country.

Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, is only one of the officials calling for this.

Erdogan is the one who needs to "know your limits."

Iraq is not a part of Turkey.

It is its own country.

If the government is asking Turkish troops to leave its country, that's not open to debate.

Turkish troops either leave or they're declaring war by refusing to.



In terms of the region, should a war break out between Iraq and Turkey, Turkey's the odd one out.  Iraq would find plenty of support from its neighbors.


So few people know the law (a point we noted earlier in the snapshot).  If you're the leader of the country, you're still governed by its constitution and laws.  So if you start trying to change the government by your mere word, you're going to be breaking the law.  Haider has.  ASHARQ AL-AWSAT reports Iraq's federal court has ruled that Haider does not have the power "to cancel the three posts of vice presidents" and they've overturned his action.  Which would mean Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki remain vice presidents of Iraq.


At this point, we need to note the hypocritical US State Dept which repeatedly -- when something happens that they want -- says it's great but -- when something happens that they don't want -- insists the law must be followed.

The Iraqi Constitution never allowed the prime minister to abolish the post of vice president.

But the US State Dept spun it as 'reform.'

It was not reform, it was unconstitutional.

The US State Dept supports the law -- except when it doesn't.


We'll close on the topic of singer-songwriter Demi Lovato.



  1. Watch Demi Lovato perform "Confident" live on her Future Now Tour!







visited Iraq to talk with officials about the refugee crisis! Celebs, take notes!! ❤️








Demi Lovato visited in Iraq with Cast Centers to talk and help Syrian refugees! Such an angel. 💕🇮🇶



















Sunday, October 9, 2016

Smug Hillary Clinton

So what did you think of the Sunday duopoly debate?

I wouldn't watch that.  But I did log on to the 3-way livestream.

Thanks to the millions of you who watched my 3-way livestream and those of you who participated in the Facebook Town Hall afterward!


Hillary Clinton looked so smug.

I don't believe I've ever applied that term to her before.

I'm not used to seeing her so smug.

I think she was smart to laugh when Trump raised some issues but not as much as she did.

And she kept looking down her nose throughout the debate as she popped her head back repeatedly.

I don't like people who look down their noses at others.

I was surprised by how unprepared she was, actually.

She kept saying go to her website.

As though she couldn't really dispute Donald Trump herself so she needed the aid of fact checkers in her campaign.

I thought she came off weak too often and smug.

I think Jill Stein is the only hope we have.


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


Friday, October 7, 2016.  Chaos and violence continue, tensions between Iraq and Turkey continue to heat up, the US has a split position (no surprise), and much more.



In Iraq, demands continue for Turkish troops to leave the country.


- Spokesperson for Coalition against says forces not part of the Coalition against ISIS in

 
 
 


RT adds:

Dorrian announced during a briefing in Baghdad that Turkey is operating “on its own” in Iraq, AP quoted him as saying. The coalition position is that every unit “should be here with the coordination or and with the permission of the government of Iraq,” he is also quoted as saying.



The issue arose at yesterday's Pentagon press briefing moderated by spokesperson Peter Cook.



Q:  There have been some reports coming from Iraq claiming that Colonel Dorrian called Turkish military presence in northern Iraq as evil and called Turks as invaders.

I got a statement from here saying that these are false, but I wonder about the Pentagon's general assessment -- of the Pentagon itself about Turkish armed forces presence in northern Iraq.

MR. COOK:  Again, you -- you -- my understanding is that the question about the words that were represented, that was not factually correct as to what Colonel Dorrian said.

Our views on this should be well known.  And this is something for the Turkish government and the government of Iraq to speak to.  And -- and we would urge them, those two governments, to speak to this issue and the presence of Turkish troops in Iraq.  This is something that we feel those two governments should be able to speak to most directly.

And the view of the United States has been that, of course, the sovereign territory of Iraq -- that the Iraqi government should be able to speak to foreign troops on its soil.  And that's something that -- again, this is a sovereign issue for the government of Iraq.

Q:  You -- (inaudible) -- some kind of -- by saying this is sovereign right of Iraqi government to, you know, to decide about foreign troops on its territories.

So do you imply that Turks are there without request or knowledge or consent of the Iraqi government?  Have you spoke to any of the parties about the issue?

MR. COOK:  This is -- this is an issue for the government of Turkey and the government of Iraq to speak to.  The government of Iraq can answer that question.  That's not something I can answer from this podium.  And again, we are -- the coalition of which Turkey is a member, is focused very much on -- on ridding Iraq of -- of the ISIL threat; Syria as well.

And that's -- will remain our focus and we think there's ample opportunity for the coalition to work very closely with the government of Iraq to achieve that goal.



Iraq wants Turkish troops off its soil.

They have appealed the matter to the United Nations Security Council.


Majeed Gly (RUDAW) quotes United Nations spokesperson Farhan Haq stating, "Any support to Iraq must conform to the principles of UN charter notably the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference. The Secretary General hopes the government of Turkey will ensure that all activities in Iraq are conducted with full consent of the government of Iraq."


That seems pretty clear.

Apparently not to officials in Turkey.


AFP quotes Turkey's Prime Minister Binali Yildrim stating, "No matter what the Iraqi government in Baghdad says, a Turkish presence will remain there to fight against [ISIS], and to avoid any forceful change of the demographic composition in the region."


All of this conflict comes as Iraq hopes to 'liberate' or liberate Mosul from the Islamic State which seized the city over two years ago (June 2014).


US President Barack Obama wants the battle plan to be carried out so that he can claim some success with regards to his failures on Iraq and he also hopes it will help promote Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.


The fact that there are thousands of civilians held hostage in Mosul was never a concern -- certainly not a primary concern for the Iraqi government or the US government.

Instead, it's been no big deal that Mosul has been occupied for over two years.

In fact, Barack may have hid behind the Yazidis trapped on the mountain top to justify sending 500 US troops into Iraq in 2014 (the number's now up to over 5,000 -- not counting Special Ops) but the reality was that the move was prompted by repeated movements which made many fear the Islamic State was going to attempt to take Baghdad.

For the non-Kurdish national politicians, anything can happen in Iraq, any suffering, any doing without electricity or potable water, just as long as it stays far, far away from the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad where so many politicians hide out when in Iraq.

Now the battle for Mosul looms and there have been repeated cries to prepare for the civilian crisis that liberation or 'liberation' may create.


THE ECONOMIST expresses hope in what the battle for Mosul might achieve:

Mosul, by contrast, could yet become a model for defeating the jihadists and creating a saner politics that recognises Sunni Arabs’ stake in Iraq (see article). Iraqi, Kurdish and local Sunni forces are closing on the city, with American support; the jihadists are fraying. The operation to retake Mosul is due to begin this month, and may give Mr Obama a farewell triumph. The loss of Mosul would deal a blow to IS; it was from there that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the IS leader, declared his caliphate.
Much can go wrong in Mosul. Nobody knows how hard IS will fight. There are worries that the Iraqi government has not done enough to prepare for a mass exodus of civilians; or that it will be unable to prevent an armed free-for-all by Shia, Kurdish and rival Sunni militias. But for all of its violence and chaos, Iraq offers real hope. Its politics are more open than those of most Arab countries, with a feisty press and an obstreperous parliament. Cross-sectarian alliances are starting to form. Shia politicians want to shake off their image as clients of Iran, while Sunni Arab ones are moving away from the politics of rejection and the dream of reconquering Baghdad.



Not everyone is so optimistic.

Human Rights Watch issued the following release yesterday:


The Iraqi government should make a commitment to prevent any armed forces implicated in laws of war violations from participating in planned operations against the extremist armed group Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in Mosul, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.
Those prohibited from participating should include elements of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a group of armed forces allied with the government known as the Hashd al-Sha’abi. The government should also ensure the protection of fundamental rights and nondiscrimination in security screenings and detention of people detained during the Mosul operations. Up to 1.2 million civilians are estimated to remain in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, which ISIS captured in June 2014.
  “Civilians in Mosul have suffered under ISIS rule for more than two years and will need support if the city is retaken, but risk reprisals instead,” said Lama Fakih, deputy director of the Middle East and North Africa. “The last thing the authorities should allow is for abusive forces to carry out revenge attacks in an atmosphere of impunity.”
In the most recent operation against ISIS, to retake Fallujah in May 2016, Human Rights Watch research indicates that members of the Popular Mobilization Forces and in at least one instance Iraqi Federal Police officers beat men taken into custody; tortured, summarily executed, and forcibly disappeared civilians including children; and mutilated corpses. Human Rights Watch has previously reported widespread abuse by the Popular Mobilization Forces, including the intentional destruction and looting of civilian property in al-‘Alam, Amerli, al-Bu‘Ajil, al-Dur, and parts of Tikrit after retaking territory from ISIS in March and April 2015.
Al-Abadi should prevent armed forces under his command or control who have been implicated in laws of war violations, including the Badr Brigades, the Hezbollah Brigades (Kata’ib Hezbollah), and other groups within the Popular Mobilization Forces, from participating in planned operations to retake Mosul. The authorities should take steps to protect civilians fleeing and in camps from revenge attacks.
Human Rights Watch documented the recruitment of child soldiers by two government-backed tribal militias (Hashad al-Asha`ri) participating in the fight against ISIS. The Iraqi government should stop working with armed groups that recruit child soldiers and those that have failed to demobilize them.
The Iraqi authorities should hold fighters and commanders in the Iraqi security forces and militias accountable for any abuses committed during military operations and make public the results of investigations into these abuses.
In light of violations in previous operations to retake territory from ISIS, Human Rights Watch has also provided al-Abadi with recommendations to prevent abuses during any screening and detention processes linked to the Mosul operation. If Iraqi and allied Kurdish forces set up centers to screen people who leave Mosul, only Iraqi Security Forces or Kurdistan Regional Government forces should operate them, not abusive armed forces. Authorities should ensure that the screening process is limited to a period of hours, and that anyone held longer is treated as detained and entitled to all protection of detainees under Iraqi and international law. No one should be presumed to be ISIS-affiliated or otherwise suspected of criminal activity based only on gender, age, religious sect, or tribal name.
Human Rights Watch noted with concern that under Iraqi law, the age of criminal responsibility is nine. If authorities screen children leaving Mosul and suspect that they were recruited or used as child soldiers by Islamic State, their treatment should focus on rehabilitation and social reintegration, not detention or prosecution.
The Iraqi authorities should promptly inform detainees of any charges against them and provide them with an opportunity to promptly challenge their detention before an independent judicial body, as required under Iraqi law. The authorities should allow independent protection monitors access to all screening and detention centers.
Since the Fallujah operation, al-Abadi’s government has refused to make public any information on the number of people killed and detained during and after the operation despite numerous requests from Human Rights Watch. The authorities should make public the number of fighters and civilians killed or detained as a result of the conflict with ISIS, and the charges brought against those in detention.

“Iraqi officials operating the screening centers and detention facilities should appreciate how vulnerable fleeing civilians will be, and treat them with care, respect, and the presumption of innocence,” Fakih said.



The issues Human Rights Watch is shining a spotlight on were raised in yesterday's State Dept press briefing -- then quickly deflected by spokesperson John Kirby.



QUESTION: Yeah. Human Rights Watch has made public a letter to Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi and they say there that, quote, “Any armed forces implicated in laws of war violations,” unquote, particularly the Hashd al-Shaabi, should not participate in the battle for – to liberate Mosul. Is anything being done to address their concerns?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think that’s a, first of all, question better put to the Abadi government. And I don’t want to speak for Prime Minister Abadi, but I think it’s fair to go back and talk about how – what he has said, and how we have publicly supported what he said, that these popular militia units – these Popular Mobilization Forces, excuse me – they have been useful in helping expel Daesh from areas of Iraq and they will continue to be useful. But we’ve long said that they need to be part of Iraqi organizational command structure, and they have been to a degree that satisfies Prime Minister Abadi, because this is his country. And we fully expect that they will have a role to play going forward.
Now, I think he’s also said – he’s been very clear about what role they won’t play in terms of Mosul, but I – again, I don’t want to get ahead of campaign planning here.

QUESTION: In terms of the role they’re playing, is it that they’re not going to enter Mosul but might be --

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to – the Mosul campaign plan is an Iraqi campaign plan, and Prime Minister Abadi and the Iraqi Government should speak to how they’re going to implement that campaign plan. It’s theirs. I’m not – certainly, you know I don’t like talking about military operations, and I certainly don’t like to talk about future military operations. They have – the PMF have played a role in Iraq. I suspect that they will continue to play a role. Exactly what that role is going forward in Mosul is not for me to say; it’s not for Prime Minister Abadi to describe.

QUESTION: Maybe I can formulate the question more State Department-like.

MR KIRBY: You can try. You’ll probably get the same answer, but go ahead.

QUESTION: Have you raised with the Abadi government the problem of these abuses that the Hashd al-Shaabi have committed and preventing them in the future?



MR KIRBY: We have – the short answer is yes, but that doesn’t mean that our hand was forced to do it. Prime Minister Abadi himself has expressed deep concerns about reports and allegations of violations of human rights in the conduct of operations in Iraq. In fact, he – I think this report was referring to allegations revolving around the operations in Fallujah, and the prime minister has talked about those exact allegations. And they have launched an investigation and they’ve been very honest and open about that. So of course, we’ve discussed it with the prime minister and his government, but it’s not like we had to bring it up. I mean, he was aware of these allegations on his own and launched an investigation on his own.


Kirby can't confirm anything -- but, as he admitted last week, he doesn't know anything about Iraq, he'd have to study up.  Poor little tax paid employee in over his head and unable to rise to the level.


The US Defense Dept announced yesterday:


Strikes in Iraq
Attack, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft, as well as rocket artillery, conducted 18 strikes in Iraq, coordinated with and in support of Iraq’s government:

-- Near Al Huwayjah, two strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle.

-- Near Baghdad, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit.

-- Near Haditha, a strike engaged an ISIL staging area.

-- Near Hit, a strike engaged an ISIL tactical unit, destroying two ISIL-held buildings, a vehicle and a weapons cache. A second ISIL-held building was damaged.

-- Near Mosul, six strikes engaged four ISIL tactical units and destroyed three vehicles, a weapons cache, two supply caches, a command-and-control node, a mortar system and an anti-air artillery system.

-- Near Qayyarah, a strike destroyed an ISIL mortar system and a fighting position.

-- Near Ramadi, two strikes engaged an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed two vehicles, two bunkers and a tunnel entrance.

-- Near Rawah, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.

-- Near Sultan Abdallah, a strike destroyed an ISIL vehicle.


-- Near Tal Afar, two strikes engaged two ISIL tactical units and destroyed two ISIL-held buildings and a vehicle.


At THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, Andrew Bacevich sees Iraq as a quagmire like Vietnam before and wonders how this fails to register:

Today accountability and remorse are in short supply. Whatever capacity the public once possessed to rouse itself when faced with a military enterprise gone awry has apparently dissipated. With the normalization of war, Americans have learned to tune out events occurring on distant battlefields. Public malaise frees Congress of any obligation to exercise serious oversight. Why ask difficult questions when rote expressions of supporting the troops suffice to win votes?


Votes is closer to the answer.

The couch potato generations just want to kick back and lie to themselves.  Heaven forbid they face the truth about Hillary, let alone about Barack.


Take this idiot on Twitter:


I get so tired of correcting this. George W Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement for Iraq on December 18,...
 
 
 



He -- and the idiots at 'THINK' 'PROGESS' (Podesta cage for the blind veal) -- insists that nothing can be be Hillary or Barack's support because Bully Boy Bush, by golly, by gum, was behind the SOFA!!!!!

No, that's not an explanation.


As Glenn Kessler (WASHINGTON POST) points out:



In fact, both sides assumed that before the SOFA expired, the two countries would negotiate an extension. “There was an expectation that we would negotiate something that looked like a residual force for our training with the Iraqis,” Rice told a reporter in 2011. “Everybody believed it would be better if there was some kind of residual force.”
The Obama administration also anticipated there would be an extension, and officials began negotiations for a new one as the deadline approached. Vice President Biden, who oversaw Iraq policy, was so convinced a deal could be struck that he was quoted as saying: “Maliki wants us to stick around because he does not see a future in Iraq otherwise. I’ll bet you my vice presidency Maliki will extend the SOFA.”
For complicated reasons, a deal was not reached. A key sticking point was whether the SOFA could exist as simply a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or needed formal approval by the Iraqi parliament. Maliki was willing to sign an MOU, but administration lawyers concluded that parliamentary approval was needed, in part because parliament had approved the 2008 version. Moreover, there were serious questions about whether an MOU signed by the prime minister would really be binding, especially given Iraq’s independent judiciary.
But politically it was much more difficult to win parliamentary approval of a SOFA that would have allowed U.S. troops to be prosecuted outside Iraq, under U.S. jurisdiction, for crimes committed in Iraq — especially because of fierce opposition from a key Shiite parliamentary bloc that backed Maliki. Indeed, his political survival depended on the support of the Sadrist bloc that was dead-set against any presence of U.S. troops. (All other parties in parliament wanted U.S. troops to remain.)
“There was a lot of effort to work through with the Maliki government what such a status-of-forces agreement would look like,” Clinton said in 2014. “At the end of the day, the Maliki government would not agree.”
Separately, it’s debatable whether the number of troops Obama offered to remain in Iraq was enough to make worthwhile such a politically difficult choice for Iraqi leaders. U.S. military commanders wanted to leave at least 16,000 troops in Iraq, but Obama’s final number ended up being much lower: 3,500 trainers and advisers.
Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in his 2014 memoir “Worthy Fights,” said that he warned Obama that without U.S. troops in place, Iraq “could become a new haven for terrorists.” But he said that White House was “so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests.” Panetta added: “To my frustration, the White House coordinated the negotiations but never really led them. Officials there seemed content to endorse an agreement if State and Defense could reach one, but without the President’s active advocacy, Maliki was allowed to slip away.”

When the negotiations collapsed, Obama was happy to make the withdrawal of U.S. troops a key part of his 2012 reelection campaign. “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did,” he declared at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.



That's reality.

And it's not even the full reality.

Here's another reason Barack and Hillary own it.

Hillary said a SOFA would have to go through the Senate.  She said that when she was campaigning in 2008 for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Because Hillary said it, Barack then said it -- remember how he hid behind her skirts?

Then, on Thanksgiving Day 2008, after the election, the White House announced that the SOFA had been signed and quickly we saw incoming president Barack (sworn in January 2009) drop from his official website the promise he made that any SOFA would face Senate approval.

So it's on Barack (and Hillary) even more than Glenn has space to acknowledge.

The wars continue because the whoring continues.