John Feffer's still a punk ass

First, let me say I'm not as C.I.

So when John Feffer consider's e-mailing thinking, like C.I., I will show some sympathy for him?

Ain't happening.

Feffer was a full on whore for Barack Obama.


Now that Barack has no more elections to pursue, Feffer finally notes some problems:

And yet the Obama administration has been ruthless in its prosecution of whistleblowers. I recently had an opportunity to ask a trio of America’s bravest whistleblowers — John Kiriakou, Jesselyn Radack, and Tom Drake — to explain why the president came into office like a civil liberties lion and has behaved instead like a national security sheep (albeit one with very sharp teeth). Their responses were both revealing and depressing.
Airbrushing the Past
All governments engage in leaks. They do it to control how the media reports a story. For the same reason, all governments hate unauthorized leaks, because suddenly they lose control of the story.
There’s a crucial difference between a whistleblower and a leaker. A whistleblower identifies a problem— an act of questionable legality — notifies a supervisor of the impropriety, and only provides information to Congress or the press if going through the normal chain of command fails to rectify the problem.

John Kiriakou, Jesselyn Radack, and Tom Drake all tried to address impropriety through the proper channels. John Kiriakou raised his concerns about torture within the CIA, Tom Drake alerted higher-ups within the NSA about illegal surveillance, and Jesselyn Radack communicated her discomfort about the interrogation of the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh to her supervisor at the Justice Department. Frustrated by the lack of response — or, rather, by the very negative response — of the institutions where they worked, they risked everything to expose the misconduct.


Feffer, you're nothing but a little bitch boy.

A little whore, spreading his ass cheeks with both hands and moaning, "Rape me!"

You still can't call out Barack.

But even worse, you're defining whistle-blower?

And saying it's only someone who goes through a chain of command?

You're a damn embarrassment and you should shut your dirty, lying mouth.

If I work for Ford and know the Pinto is unsafe and I go straight to the press?

I'm a whistle-blower.

Feffer can't stop tonguing the nuts of his torturers.

He's a bitch boy begging for more abuse.

He's disgusting and he should be forced to resign from Foreign Policy In Focus for trying to strip a Chelsea Manning or Ed Snowden of whistle-blower status.


Most of all, he should shut his disgusting lying mouth.

He's a traitor to the cause.


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

Saturday, October 10, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, the PUK political party appears willing to stir up and incite in the KRG, Congress discusses the Ashraf community, concern is expressed over exactly how long Haider al-Abadi will remain prime minister of Iraq, and much more.



Wednesday, former US Senator Joe Lieberman declared, "I will just say briefly that the very fact of this hearing is important today because the greatest because the greatest enemy of the people in Camp Liberty is invisibility."

What was talking about?

The Ashraf community.


Background:  As of September 2013, Camp Ashraf in Iraq is empty.  All remaining members of the community have been moved to Camp Hurriya (also known as Camp Liberty).  Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were  welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks.  The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one.  As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out."  Those weren't the last attacks.  They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept.  (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.)   In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions."  So the US has an obligation to protect the residents.  3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf.  They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part.  A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday.   That was the second attack this year alone.   February 9th of 2013, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah.  Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured.  Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."  They were attacked again September 1, 2013 -- two years ago.   Adam Schreck (AP) reported back then that the United Nations was able to confirm the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents.


Those in Iraq remain persecuted.

Lieberman was testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday (we covered part of the hearing in the Wednesday's Iraq snapshot).  Senator John McCain is the Chair of the Committee, Senator Jack Reed is the Ranking Member.  Lieberman was one of three witnesses appearing before the Committee.  The other two were  retired US Gen James Jones  and retired US Colonel Wesley Martin.

The topic was the Ashraf community still trapped in Iraq at Camp Liberty.



Senator Jeanne Shaheen: [. . . ] and to our witnesses for testifying to what I also believe is a travesty and that we have not lived up to the commitments that we have made to the people who are now at Camp Liberty.  I was in Iraq back in 2009 and we heard about this issue.  And I've had a chance to see the video -- a video of one of the attacks on Camp Liberty and the people being murdered.  So I think it's an area where we need to do much more to address what has happened there.  And I don't understand why people who have relatives here are not able to come and join their relatives and be resettled in America.  So I guess I appreciate that I'm asking you all for a subjective analysis of why the resettlement has been so slow.  But is it just beauractric foot dragging?  Is it because it has not risen to the level of some of the people at State who can make it happen to put pressure on Iraq to release the residents of Camp Liberty?  Or is there something else going on?  And General Jones or Senator Lieberman, I don't know if either of you have a perspective on that?

General James Jones: Senator, I don't know the answer to that.  All I know is that for the last several years, things that look like they're finally going to move are replaced by another obstacle. The-the delisting of the MEK [a decision then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made under pressure from the US courts] would be the end of it but it was replaced by another listing [a  designation by the Dept of Homeland Security classifying the MEK as "third tier" -- a listing that is in violation of the court order served on then Secretary of State Clinton] -- that was, somewhat, in my view arbitrary.  But it has served to delay the process even more.  I don't think the Iraqi government has been particularly helpful.  They-they play cat and mouse with the residents.  Sometimes they deny food, they deny protection, they turn off the water, they don't take out the trash or garbage for days on end.  It's just a constant problem.  But I really think that the real answer is for someone in authority to just make a decision, "Enough, we're going to do the right thing.  We made a commitment to these people.  We didn't live up to it. It's time to finish it."  And I think it's that simple.  It's a humanitarian gesture. I frankly don't care what the Iranians think about this.  I think it's the right thing to do.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen:  Senator Lieberman, one of the things I have heard from relatives of people at Camp Liberty that they're very concerned about is this requirement that they renounce MEK and concerned about what that might mean in the future and if somebody could use that and come back to address their ability to come back and live in the United States?  I've not had anybody explain that to me adequately why that is something people are being requested to do.  Have you had anybody explain to you why that's so important?

Senator Joe Lieberman: I have not.  First, Senator Shaheen, let me thank you for the leadership that you've shown on this matter. You've been a real great advocate for the people in Camp Liberty and I know their families and friends appreciate it a lot.  This requirement of renouncing membership in an organization that is no longer considered a threat or a terrorist organization by any means -- and really there are questions of whether it should ever have been on the list of terrorist organizations seems to me to be very unAmerican.  It's like a -- it's a belief test. It seems contrary to the First Amendment.  And the truth is that there are a lot of people there in Camp Liberty who've had a long history with the MEK.  As I mentioned, they're-they're freedom fighters.  I mean, they were against the Shah [of Iran] for part of the revolution and then they turned against the Ayatollah because they replaced one dictatorship with a worse dictatorship.  So I have never -- to what extent members of Congress can to push the State Dept to explain that or really to rescind that because it's an unfair obstacle and you've made a good point: It's going to raise insecurity in the minds of people coming into the country that somehow this is going to come back three, four, five years from now and they may be subject to deportation. I-I would say to you, Senator King, the State Dept if they were here now would not question the promises made to the residents of Camp Ashraf and then Camp Liberty.



Senator King?

Lieberman was referring to an earlier and lengthy exchange that took place which included King noting that no one from the administration was present to testify.


Senator Angus King: Several times you gentlemen used the term "the US made assurances," the term "solemn promise,""guarantee," and Col Martin, you mentioned a card.  What did that card say?  I'd like to know specifically: what assurances were delivered, by whom and when?

Colonel Wesley Martin: Yes, sir.  This was the protected persons status under the Geneva Convention.  And I have a copy of it.  If you give me a second, I can find it real quick.

Senator Angus King: Well I'd like to know what is says.

Colonel Wesley Martin:  Okay. 

Senator Angus King: What I'm searching for here is what are the assurances specifically and who delivered them and when.  I think that's a fair question given that seems to be the premise of this discussion.

Colonel Wesley Martin: "This card holder is protected person under the agreement of the Fourth Geneva Convention.  Should the assigned person" uh, it's a little blurry "should an incident occur, we request that the person contact the [US] military police brigade."  And then it goes on the agreement that they made: "You are being offered your release from control and protection in exchange for your promise to comply with certain regulations."  And it clearly states they are protected, they will not be -- they will not be arrested, they will not be harmed.

Senator Angus King: What did they have to do?

Colonel Wesley Martin: And what they had to do, sir, is go ahead and sign an agreement --

Senator Angus King: That's when they were moved from Ashraf to Liberty?

Colonel Wesley Martin: No, sir. That was a whole set of different promises.  If I may, sir, Senator McCain, [holding clipped stack of papers], if I could, I'd like to make this submitted for the record.

Senator Angus King: Well you can make it for the record but I want to know who made assurances -- 


Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.

Senator Angus King (Con't): -- and what those assurances were.  And saying they were protected person under the Geneva Convention isn't a promise that the US will take you in.  I just want to understand what the promise is that we're being urged to honor.

Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.  I understand.  The first one is they would be protected and they would remain at Camp Ashraf.  That was 2004. That was with the US State Dept in agreement with the United States Dept of Defense and [then-Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was the person that finally approved it -- but working with the State Dept.  The person that issued those cards, working with the Embassy, was US Brigadier General David Phillips --

Senator Angus King: But it is your position that this Geneva Convention of being a protected person constitutes a solemn promise of the United States to look after these people indefinitely? 


Senator Joe Lieberman: Part of this was -- correct me, Wes -- that these people gave up their arms.  They were disarmed.  And that was part of a post-Saddam [Hussein] policy in Iraq.  Gen Odierno was actually involved in some ways -- not at the higher level he ultimately reached -- but he was on the ground in these negotiations.  I'll tell you, Senator King, to me one of the most compelling -- I've had it happen two or three times -- most compelling moments in my own understanding -- or getting more understanding of what happened here was to hear leaders of the US military -- including Gen Phillips, but that includes people on up who were Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time standing up and saying at a public meeting, 'We made a promise to these people and we broke it.'  I mean -- 

Senator Angus King: Well all I'm looking for was what was the promise, when was it made and who made it?  Perhaps you could submit that for the record?  That's what I'm interested in.

Colonel Wesley Martin:  We can do that, sir.

Senator Angus King: I'd appreciate it.

Colonel Wesley Martin:  And matter of fact, I just did.

Senator Angus King: The other -- the other piece that I want to follow up on is that I'm a little uncomfortable with this hearing because we don't have anyone here from the administration.  I'm old enough to realize that they're are always two sides to every story and you've made a very strong case.  In fact, the case is so strong, you have to wonder why isn't this -- what wasn't this taken care of some time ago?  And there must be some reason and I would like to hear -- perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could solicit the comments of the administration, the State Dept or the Dept of Homeland Security to determine why this hasn't been dealt with?  I'm just -- Again, I'm not taking any side here but I-I-I'm uncomfortable not hearing both sides of the situation.

Colonel Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.  If I may, Congressman Dana Roehbacher offered them the chance of what you speak of. I would be at the table along with Colonel Gary Marsh and a representative of the State Dept.  They refused. I would love to sit at a table in front of you ladies and gentlemen and go through the issues with the US State Dept.  Every time we have made that offer, they've refused.  Earlier your question was the promises, the series of promises, especially in 2012 from [Secretary of State's Special Advisor on Camp Ashraf] Dan Fried that these actions would be taken to get them out of harms way.  He came to us.  And General Jones was on the phone calls as well as myself, [former FIB Director] Louis Freeh, [former Pennsylvania] Governor [Tom] Ridge, [former Governor of Pennsylvania] Ed Rendall, [former Governor of Vermont] Howard Dean and many others -- and [retired General and former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] Hugh Shelton and others actually.  And 'we will do this, we will do this.'  And even one of the promises: "We're going to be out at that Camp on a continual basis."  And I have that one in writing in this packet.

Senator Angus King: Well I understand.  And I understand that the circumstances have changed because of Iran's influence in Iraq at this moment and that that raises the level of, as you said, stress in this situation and, perhaps, urgency.  I fully understand that.  I just want to get some of the details and some of the background.  And I want to understand why -- if it's so obvious -- we should do this that it's not being done.  


King's time had run out.  Committee Chair McCain attempted to clarify a point.


Chair John McCain:  I will just mention, Senator, that we have been trying for years to get the State Dept to react -- correspondence, meetings -- every method that I know of besides a Congressional hearing -- to try to get this issue resolved and these people who are now in greater and greater danger what we promised them.  And, I've got to say Colonel Martin, you didn't exactly describe it.  That was in return for -- That guarantee was in return for their giving up their weapons and in giving up their weapons we said we would guarantee their safety and gave them, under the Geneva Conventions. But that doesn't mean anything other than that the United States used that as a rationale for guaranteeing their protection.  And it's been going on now for years and -- Go ahead, General, go ahead, please.


Gen James Jones:  I just wanted to say that we have worked diligently with the administration on a regular basis, on a daily basis.  All of Colonel Martin's reports have been sent both to the National Security Council and the State Dept.  And there are three of us at the table but it's part of a larger group including six former Ambassadors, a former Director of the FBI, a former Attorney General, 8 five-star generals, one former Speaker of the House, four former governors, six members of Congress, one White House Chief of Staff, 



Some may have been bothered by McCain's clarification/lecture. But at least it wasn't like his September 29th outburst during an Armed Services Committee hearing when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was not prepared to get too outraged (publicly, anyway) over cyber propaganda aimed at US (or 'US' -- most are offshore) companies when the US is doing the exact same thing.  This prompted a loud lecture from McCain that "glass houses" is not an argument for doing nothing.  (Which, for the record, is not the point Clapper was making.  He was attempting to say both sides engage in corporate espionage and he wasn't willing to grandstand on the topic as a result.)

One of the moments from the hearing that should especially be noted?


Colonel Wesley Martin:  [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-]Abadi, as I mentioned before, is very weak.  And this is a golden opportunity for the United States to pressure him into allowing the residents to leave and for us to bring all the residents here. As I mentioned, there are enough families throughout the United States, we can absorb all of them. And when you think of all the torment and all the horror  they have had to go through for the past three, four years especially --  well since 2009 -- and yet they still remain loyal hoping that we will be able to do something to lift them out of that tyranny.  It's time to bring them out.  And it's only a matter of time before the fight between [former Iraqi prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-]Maliki and al-Abadi is going to come to a head.  And I fear Maliki has the strong support of the militias, Abadi will be out.


On the struggle between Haider and Nouri, J. Matthew McInnis (National Interest) offered this near the end of last month:


Following Abadi’s August 9 decision to eliminate Nouri al-Maliki’s position as vice president (which still needs judicial approval), Maliki made a well-publicized visit to Iran, meeting with Supreme Leader Khamenei’s senior foreign policy advisor, Ali Akbar Velayati and other Iranian officials. The prime minister is rightly worried that Tehran is plotting a Maliki restoration, perhaps by using the Iranian-aligned Iraqi Shia militia groups under Soleimani, such as Khataib Hezbollah, that are deepening their grip on large parts of the Iraqi’s security forces amidst the government’s campaign against ISIS.


The violence never ends in Iraq.

Zaid Benjamin Verified account ‏@zaidbenjamin 2h2 hours ago

#Jordan | Sunni Iraqi Preacher Abdelmalek al-Saadi: Iraqi fleeing Sunni cities in #Iraq not from Daesh only but also from coalition missiles

7 retweets 4 favorites

In addition, AP reports that a Husseiniya car bombing left 8 people dead and "nearly two dozen" injured. Isabel Coles (Reuters) notes 3 people are dead in the third day of protests in the Kurdistan Region which also saw "several offices of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP)" torched.

The KDP and Goran (Change) are the two main political parties in Iraq following the last KRG elections.  The once might Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has slid to three.  That slide may be why the PUK is making statements that seemed time to inflame the outrage (which is over the lack of payment of government employees -- as a result of Baghdad continuing to withhold the KRG's percentage of the national budget).  All Iraq News reports that PUK MP Farhad Qadir is insisting that the issue of who will be president of the Kurdistan Regional Government has been blocked by the KDP.



Not all protests have turned violent.  Outside of the KRG, the Friday protests continued.

1. Hayder al-Khoei ‏@Hayder_alKhoei Oct 9

   Anti-corruption protest 10 Fridays on. Najafis tonight calling for judiciary head Midhat Mahmoud's dismissal. #Iraq

   

   

   

   

   48 retweets 25 favorites

Iraq

Rotten Tomatoes is sexist

Meryl Streep's right.

Ava and C.I. pointed it out to me long ago.

Meryl's citing the sheer numbers -- only 176 women reviewers included with nearly 800 men included.

But the reality is that films starring a woman or women always get attacks by the RT reviewers.

It's taken for granted that a movie starring all men is fine and not even worth noting that there are no women.

But let an all female led movie come along and it's time for sexism and shaming.

Ava and C.I. have been the best antidote to online sexism.

Their reviews put feminism front and center.

It's time to dismantle Rotten Tomatoes and its ilk.

And we can only do that when we speak with our own voices.

C.I. at The Common Ills has also done tremendous work by making female artists the reference point.

While every male gas bag cites Bob Dylan and his ilk, C.I. regularly cites Tori Amos, Carly Simon, Tracy Chapman, Joni Mitchell, Chrissie Hynde, etc.

We need to do that.

I remember thinking the bulk of the PUMA sites were idiots and sexists.

They'd do, for example, movie blogging on Saturdays.

And they'd note ten movies to watch and they'd all be movies starring men with no effort to promote films starring women.

PUMA was a prisoner of the patriarchy -- which is why it died.

We have to recreate the world on our terms.



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

Wednesday, October 10, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, claims are treated as fact by the ridiculous NBC News and AFP, Hillary continues to pretend that the 2008 SOFA is the responsibility of Bully Boy Bush (no, it's her responsibility as well and Barack's and Joe's and . . .) and we're going to start calling out 'fact checkers' who lie about what took place in 2008, the US Senate holds a hearing on Iraq with a focus on the Ashraf community, and much more.



NBC News insists, "Iraqi military plans to retake the city of Ramadi from ISIS militants for the first time in months, officials said."  AFP quotes Anbar Council Member insisting, "If operations continue at this pace, I expect the liberation of Ramadi to be possible by the end of the month."


Oh, what wonderful propaganda that almost makes the months long effort to retake Ramadi (begun in May) seem like it might be a success soon.

Almost.

Let's drop back to Alice Fordham report for NPR's Morning Edition (link is text and audio  and transcript) yesterday:


FORDHAM: That's Army Colonel Lawrence al Issawi. He says they're holding ground but aren't strong enough to actually push ISIS back. A major offensive was expected four months ago to take back the provincial capital, Ramadi. I ask defense minister Khalid al Obeidi in Baghdad why that never happened.


KHALID AL OBEIDI: (Speaking Arabic).


FORDHAM: He tells me, "we can't lose any more soldiers," and, "you endanger civilians by going in before your forces are ready." But he won't say when they might be ready, although Iraqi officials cite a dire financial situation and massive corruption in the military as obstacles to fighting ISIS. To get an idea of what's going to be needed, I meet a soldier who's been fighting close to Ramadi.


UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).


FORDHAM: He won't give his name because he's afraid of his commanders but tells me it's not like the government or coalition isn't doing anything. He recently had American training, and they armed his unit, too.


UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) They transfer us to Ramadi. We spent two days there. We liberated from 30 to 40 kilometers.


FORDHAM: Liberated the outskirts from ISIS, that is. And following heavy casualties, reinforcements arrived. But he says the officers are still a problem.


UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).


FORDHAM: They take bribes to let people go on leave and flee themselves as soon as the battle heats up. Food and water are scarce. Plus, he too says ISIS just has way more men and weapons and uses devastating car bombs in battle.
How long do you think before Ramadi is retaken?



UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) Ramadi retaken will last from seven to eight years.


AFP's really been an embarrassment when it comes to reporting or 'reporting' from Iraq for some time now.



Let's stay with cheap liars long enough to note the ongoing disgrace that is Hillary Clinton.


BBC News reports the craven and cranky candidate is firing back at Jeb Bush -- Bush is trying to win the GOP's 2016 presidential nomination, Cranky feels she's owed the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination:


On Tuesday Mr Bush accused the Obama administration of a "premature withdrawal" of US forces from Iraq in 2011, with "grievous" costs.
Mrs Clinton replied by saying it was Mr Bush's brother George W Bush who, as president, negotiated a US withdrawal.



Barack attempted to do another Status Of Forces Agreement to keep US troops in Iraq beyond 2011 (and they actually were but can't continually waste time spoon feeding the stupid and uninformed -- Ted Koppel attempted to in real time on both NPR and NBC).


In 2014, Katie Sanders (PolitiFact) noted ABC News' Martha Raddatz:



Martha Raddatz, ABC’s chief global affairs correspondent, was wearing her TV pundit hat when she said Allen’s idea for a strategy "makes me think back about what the Obama administration originally wanted."

"They wanted 10,000 troops to remain in Iraq -- not combat troops, but military advisers, special operations forces, to watch the counterterrorism effort," she said. "So perhaps they'd go that way, but it would be a tough one."



She evaluated Raddatz' remarks and concluded:


Raddatz said the Obama administration originally "wanted 10,000 troops to remain in Iraq -- not combat troops, but military advisers, special operations forces, to watch the counterterrorism effort."
For a period, at least, the Obama administration did envision leaving 10,000 troops in Iraq past the Dec. 31, 2011, pullout of forces. That number went down to about 5,000 before negotiations stalled amid a legal snare over immunity of American forces in Iraqi courts.

Her claim is accurate but needs additional information. We rate her claim Mostly True.



Now let's deal with an issue -- a fact -- that PolitiFact and other fact checkers have repeatedly ignored.

Cranky Clinton likes to say Bully Boy Bush negotiated the SOFA.

It was his deal, she and other cheap trash insist.



I'm sorry, I didn't join the Cult of St. Barack so I never took an oath to lie for him.



So in my best Cher "Follow This You Bitches" manner . . .

Here's reality that cheap trash doesn't tell you.

The SOFA is a treaty.

The Iraqi Parliament voted on it and approved it.

All US treaties must be approved by the US Senate.

Senator Hillary Clinton was among the first to point that out and campaigned -- in 2008 -- on the promise that she would demand a Senate vote on any SOFA.


As the rudderless and leaderless Barack so often did in 2008, he copied Hillary.

He made that a promise as well.

Joe Biden, while Hillary and Barack were going back and forth, had already dropped out of the campaign for the 2008 Democratic Party's presidential nomination.


But he also was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

We covered the April 10, 2008 hearing he chaired -- did anyone else?  Again, follow this, you bitches.


Joe told the Bush State Dept witnesses that the treaty would require Senate confirmation.


And when Joe joined Barack's campaign as his running mate, the campaign promised on their website that any treaty would require a vote by the Senate.


Hillary was a senator when the treaty went through (Thanksgiving Day, 2008).  So was Barack.  So was Joe.

Where was the damn vote?

There was no vote.


If Hillary's unhappy -- she's always unhappy, look at the corners of her mouth, it's the mouth of a person whose had a miserable life -- she needs to put on her big girl panties and take a hard look in the mirror.


Saying Bully Boy Bush negotiated the treaty?


That's one half of the damn story.


The other half is that Hillary, Barack, Joe and so many others broke their public promise to demand a Senate vote.


And please note, I can also list Democrats in the House of Representatives in 2008 who publicly stated the Senate would have to vote.


Instead, they rolled over.


So the reality is that this is the treaty that Bully Boy Bush (by action) and Democrats like Hillary (by inaction) pushed through.


Stop pretending otherwise.


From nonsense to reality . . .


Retired Col Wesley Martin shared today, "I remember back in the seventies, there used to be this little cartoon of a pair of goldfish in a blender and they're in the water.  And there's this little button for the blender -- they're waiting for it to be turned on. And one  goldfish says to the other, 'I can't handle the stress.'  That's what it reminds me of, for the residents."


He was offering testimony on the Ashraf community moved from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty and still not resettled outside of Iraq.

For a more detailed view, we'll note this.


Senator Jack Reed: This morning, our hearing focuses on Iranian influence in Iraq and the plight of the nearly 2,400 residents at Camp Liberty in Iraq -- members of the Iranian dissident group the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq or MEK. The Iranian dissidents at Camp Liberty are in an increasingly perilous situation having repeatedly come under attack.  And these attacks, which have killed more than 100 MEK members since 2009, clearly indicate the threat to this group from Iran and Iranian-backed militias seeking to eliminate and silence these dissidents.  The deteriorating security situation in Iraq only highlights the urgent need to find safe refuge for these individuals outside that country.  The United States have had a special relationship with the MEK dating back to the height of the Iraq War in the mid 2000s.  This stems in part from the MEK's agreement at the US military's request to disarm and move into Camp Ashraf in north eastern Iraq.  The US military extended under the Geneva Conventions to the Camp Ashraf residents.  However, as the United States drew down its forces consistent with its obligations under the 2008 security agreements signed by President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, US forces were no longer well positioned to provide for the safety and security of the Camp Ashraf residents.  In December of 2011, the government of Iraq signed a memorandum with the United Nations in which the Iraq government committed to ensure the safety and the security of these residents as part of the process of relocating them to Camp Liberty outside Baghdad to facilitate the settlement process.  However, the United States, through the State Dept, has had to repeatedly press the government of Iraq to live up to its obligations to provide for the safety and well being of the Camp Liberty residents and Camp Liberty residents remain in fear that the government of Iraq will extradite them to Iran at Tehran's request. The State Dept now is the lead US government agency advocating on behalf of the Camp Liberty residents. And the State Dept is working the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to find resettlement options for these residents outside of Iraq. It is my understanding that as of the beginning of this month, nearly 800 Camp Liberty residents have been processed by the UNHCR and resettled outside of Iraq.  Unfortunately, this resettlement process has dragged on for years and much more still needs to be done to find homes for the remaining Camp Liberty residents. I would urge all participants in the resettlement process to cooperate fully to advance the resettlement of these very vulnerable individuals.  One issue that I expect will arise this morning is whether the United States should accept more Camp Liberty residents for resettlement.  While the MEK was removed from the list of foreign terrorists organizations in 2012, group members continue to be barred from admission to the United States because of their Tier Three status under US anti-terrorism laws.  Nonetheless, I understand that the administration has adopted a policy that would allow Camp Liberty residents to be paroled in the United States if they renounce their affiliation with the MEK.  Under this policy, some 29 Camp Liberty residents have ultimately resettled in the United States making the United States one of the larger recipient countries for these refugees.  I hope the testimony of our witnesses this morning will help shine a light on what more can be done to accelerate the resettlement process so that the residents of Camp Liberty can be brought to safety outside of  Iraq once and for all.

Senator Reed was speaking at this morning's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.  He is the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator John McCain is the Committee Chair.  The witnesses appearing before the Committee were retired US Gen James Jones, former US Senator Joe Lieberman and retired US Colonel Wesley Martin.



"We wouldn't be sitting here today,"  Gen James Jones declared, "if we'd just had an airlift.  The, uh, there's just some other points I think are outrageous.  The officers -- the Iraqi officers that led the attack on Camp Ashraf and killed -- are responsible for the killing of women and children -- are the ones responsible for dealing with Camp Liberty today. And you talk about an insult?  Adding insult to injury? It's incredible.  And I just -- I just find it unbelievable that this problem has not been resolved three or four years ago.


Noting the Albanian government specifically for taking in a large number of residents, Jones wanted to clarify a point, "By the way the cost for relocation is being born by the MEK.  It's not being born by us, it's not being born by the UN.  Money's been allocated.  I forget the number, but it's [amount whispered to him] $20 million of their funds to relocate their wives, their sisters, their brothers, their family members and their colleagues."

Senator Thom Tillis also wanted to clarify a point.

Senator Thom Tillis: I want to be clear then.  So they're living in horrible conditions every day, worrying about whether or not they're going to be alive the following day.   And these are people who peacefully disarmed --

Col Wesley Martin:  Yes, sir.

Senator Thom Tillis (Con't):  -- and protected American soldiers when we came into Iraq.  And we made a promise that we would take care of them.

Col Wesley Martin:  That is correct, sir.


Let's stay with clarification a bit more.

Senator Joe Manchin: Let me ask another -- and, Gen Jones, this might be to you. In your testimony, you cited the three most lethal events occurred in 2009 to 2013 during prime minister Maliki's time in office.  Since Prime Minister Abadi took office in 2014, have there been any changes in the situation in Camp Liberty when it comes to the security or resettlement?  Have you seen any changes?

Gen James Jones:  Uhm, I'd defer to Wes for the details but, uhm, uh, I think the attacks have been less -- lessened.  But the fact that the Iraqi military who are regularly in the camp are still the ones who conducted the raids in previous years -- and the killings -- is indicative of the kind of pressure that they want to keep on the citizens in the camp.  Wes, you may have more details?

Senator Joe Manchin:  Has it improved is what I'm asking?

Col Wesley Martin:  It hasn't improved and --

Senator Joe Manchin:  It has not?

Col Wesley Martin:  It has not.  And it has not deteroriarted.  They're still in that blender [70s comic reference, noted earlier] waiting for that button to be pushed.  Abadi.  He's the prime minister. But he's in a very precarious position because Maliki still controls Dawa [political] party, Maliki still has the ear of Tehran and, as you recall, Maliki was forced out only after ISIS took over major parts of the country.  Both, uh, the Ayatollah in Iran and President Obama were blessing him for a third term which was against the Constitution -- the Iraqi Constitution -- but he was force out when [Iranian] General [Qassem] Soleimani went to him and said, "You have to step down."  And then a member of his Dawa party was brought up. Abadi has made a lot of great promises.  There are demonstrations going on throughout Iraq.  He's drawing the support of them. [C.I. note: That's what the western press largely says, it is not, however, the truth.  The protesters are clear that they do not feel Abadi's doing anything other than offering empty promises.]  He's drawing the support of, uh, [Grand] Ayatollah [Ali al-]Sistani. And surprisingly he's drawing the support of the Mahdi army with Moqtada al-Sadr.

Senator Joe Manchin:  I have another one.  This is a most difficult question.  It's when the State Dept de-listed the MEK as a foreign terrorist organization in 2012, it stated, "The Department does not overlook or forget the MEK's past acts of terrorism including its involvement with the killings of US citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on US soil in 1992.  The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members."  How has the MEK addressed the concerns raised about potential abuse of its own members since the de-listing, sir?

Col Wesley Martin: Since the de-listing, it hasn't needed to be addressed.  In this same document that [former] Governor [Tom] Ridge provided Senator McCain -- I'll get you a copy of it -- I addressed that thoroughly. I investigated those -- when I was the Base Commander military policeman -- I went and investigated those allegations of abuse and along with a lot of other allegations.  They were unfounded.  What I found, while I was there, and since then, the MEK is the most lied to and --

Senator Joe Manchin:  Is the State Dept corrected its findings?

Col Wesley Martin:  No, sir. This report [the Ridge one] was generated when [the State Dept's] Julia Frifield sent to Congressman [Ed}] Royce a repetition of the previous lies and all the omissions. 


We'll leave that aspect there -- I've not read Ridge's report.  I'm comfortable sharing what Martin testified to that he saw but the discussion of a report (that I've not read) isn't something I'm eager to get stuck on.  We will note that the report was a response to claims of abuse and the report states no abuse took place.



I'm not a Joe Lieberman fan but we're not ignoring him.  We'll note a section of his testimony in the next snapshot.


For now, we'll close this snapshot's coverage of the hearing by noting the reference to recently reported comments and developments.





Chair John McCain: A Shi'ite leader was quoted yesterday as saying that the United States air strikes were ineffective so therefore they needed the Iranian and the Russian assistance.  What-what-what is your assessment of the Iranian influence now in Iraq and how it may more endanger the lives and welfare of the residents of the Camp?

Gen James Jones: Sir, my -- as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, I was present when the former King of Saudi Arabia issued his warning about then-prime minister Maliki which was proven to be correct.  It was my hope that the new prime minister and the leader of Iraq would -- would have shown more appreciation for the sacrifice that was made on behalf of his country by the United States.  I-I think that such statements are not only insulting to our commitment but also just show-show how deeply the Iranian influence has, uh, permeated the, uh, Baghdad, the capital of Iraq and it's leadership.  Unfortunately.

Chair John McCain: Suppose that the Russians begin air attacks in Iraq.  What-what-what -- One, what does that mean?  And, two, what should the United States reaction be?

Gen James Jones:  Well the United -- in my view, it means, uh, unless-unless the Russians, uh, agree to join the, uh, the international, uh, coalition and cooperate under the air tasking orders and, uh, and bring a certain military competence in coordination to the fore, you run the risk of having chaos in the skies. Uhm, the United States, with all -- with all due respect, the United States should do everything in its power, I think, to avert that situation and to make sure that what's happening in Syria does not happen in the skies over Iraq regardless of whether the prime minister welcomes the addition of the Russians. 

Chair John McCain:  But he does have a point about the effectiveness of the air campaign against ISIS.

Gen James Jones:  Yes, it-it does in the sense that the United States has made its decision as to what it's going to do.  My understanding is that we're re-looking at our commitment and we'll hopefully ramp it up a bit more.  As you know, my personal belief is that the longest road to victory here is, uh, is purely an air campaign, uhm, but if that's all that we have, we ought to make it a massive air campaign.

Chair John McCain: Didn't we learn in a campaign that you and I were long ago engaged [Vietnam] that incrementalism doesn't work and air campaigns alone doesn't work?


Gen James Jones:  That's correct.













iraq
npr
alice fordham

The Mindy Project

In response to e-mails, no I'm not watching The Mindy Project.

I know she had the baby.

Don't care.

In real life, I've got a baby.

I love babies.

But The Mindy Project was supposed to be a rom-com about a woman who wanted her life to be a rom-com.

I'm just not interested in her as Mommy.

At the movies, there hasn't been a great rom-com since The Proposal.

The queen of the rom-coms, Meg Ryan, can't even get in a movie.

So to take The Mindy Project and turn it into a raising baby comedy?

Not interested.

I think it's as big a mistake as marrying off Rhoda in the first season of that sitcom.

I'm sure it's a funny show.  It's just not the show I signed up for.



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

Tuesday, October 6, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Tony Blair lies again, Alice Fordham and NPR offer some truth telling, and much more.


War Criminal Tony Blair emerged from beneath the rock he's been living to impart some of the stupidity and blood lust that's condemned him to his own personal hell.


Jewish News reports of Blair:



Speaking to Rabbi David Wolpe  – named the most influential rabbi in America by Newsweek magazine – the former prime minister, said: “We can apologise for the mistakes, but in the end we got rid of Saddam Hussein… Once you get rid of the tyrants, you get competition between Islamists and more moderate groups.”


Saddam Hussein is gone, War Criminal Tony Blair remains -- though Arrest Blair might be able to address that.

Saddam Hussein's actions and crimes did not lead Iraq to the brink of extinction.

Tony Blair's actions -- along with Bully Boy Bush's actions and John Howard's action -- destroyed Iraq.

He seems to think that as long as he points to Saddam, his own guilt vanishes.

It doesn't work that way.

And destruction is not a 'mistake.'  It's a crime.

Lies used to launch a war also don't go to character or nobility.

Tony Blair's a cheap thug who should stand trial at the Hague.

And Saddam Hussein was contained and not a threat to other nations.

Just War theory allows for no war on Iraq.

Tony's a criminal who wants to paint himself as a hero.

It's not an identity the world's prepared to pin on him.

His actions brought down the Labour Party in England.

He's despised around the globe.

And every time he tries to lie his way out, it only reminds people just how much they loathe him.

In fairness, others are also responsible for Iraq.

That list includes Barack Obama.

Liars and whores -- is there really a difference anymore -- work overtime to pretend otherwise.

And they probably fool an ignorant American public that's depended on the US media -- which largely withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2008 -- to inform them of reality.


At Huffington Post, Libertarian Doug Bandow, at best, sports ignorance, and, at worst, flat out lies:


Bush continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up. In 2007 U.S. military adviser Emma Sky wrote of the U.S. military's frustration "by what they viewed as the schemes of Maliki and his inner circle to actively sabotage our efforts to draw Sunnis out of the insurgency." Al-Qaeda in Iraq survived, mutating into the Islamic State. The Bush administration then became one of the Islamic State's chief armorers when Iraqi soldiers fled before ISIS forces, abandoning their expensive, high-tech weapons which U.S. aircraft had to destroy last year.
Third, President Bush failed to win Iraqi approval of a continuing U.S. military presence and governing Status of Forces Agreement. With Americans ready to leave and Iraqis determined to move on, Bush planned an American exit. Retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno explained: "us leaving at the end of 2011 was negotiated in 2008 by the Bush administration. And that was always the plan, we had promised them that we would respect their sovereignty." Indeed, while Republican candidates now treat this departure as a failure--Jeb Bush proclaimed "that premature withdrawal was the fatal error"--attempting to stay would have been much worse. Washington would have had leverage only by threatening to withdraw its garrison, which the Maliki government desired. U.S. troops would have had little impact on Iraqi political developments, unless augmented and deployed in anti-insurgency operations, which Americans did not support. And a continuing military occupation would have provided radicals from every sectarian viewpoint with a target. 



First off, Odierno's comments conflict with others.  When a conflict occurs, you tend to go with the people who were actually in the room.  Odierno did not take part in the negotiations.  Brett McGurk, Condi Rice and others -- who were actually involved in the negotiations (this was a diplomatic effort, not a military one) -- have stated differently and they are correct.

Not only were they in the room but their remarks are also accurate based on the public record.

Bully Boy Bush negotiated the SOFA for three years.  Why three years?

It replaced the United Nations mandate.

That provided the legal cover for the US troops to be in Iraq.

The UN mandate had been a yearly agreement.

At the end of 2006, Nouri signed off on it for another year.

The Iraqi Parliament was furious.

Nouri promised he would get their approval next time.

At the end of 2007, he did not.

It was becoming a political issue.

For that reason, the agreement was a three year agreement.

(And don't forget that Barack tried to extend it.)

That's the reality.

Reality is hard for Doug Barlow so he lies, "Bush continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up."

The ruthless targeting?

You mean in 2010?

After Nouri's secret torture prisons were exposed?

But Barack, Joe Biden and Samantha Power demanded Nouri continue as prime minister?

Even after Nouri lost the election to Ayad Allawi?

Is that what liar Doug Bandow means?

Is that what the cheap, little hustler means?

I'm not seeing any world leaders with cleans hands when it comes to Iraq.


I also think it's less than honest when Barlow cites Emma Sky's book --  The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq. -- and portrays Odierno as supporting US troops leaving at the end of 2011 when Sky notes on page 311, "He believed twenty thousand or so US troops were needed to say in Iraq in post-2011 to train Iraqi security forces and to provide the psychological support to maintain a level of stability.  He envisaged a long-term strategic partnership between the two countries."

Doug Bandow will most likely get away with his lie because the American media has ignored Iraq and even should Emma Sky's book sell a million copies domestically -- and be hugely popular at public and school libraries -- it still won't reach most Americans.

Charlie Rose has never brought Emma Sky on his program to discuss the book.

In part because he can't handle the truths she tells and in part because he's so strongly anti-woman.

In Canada, she can get on TV and radio.  Let's again note her August appearance on Kevin Sylvester's This Sunday Edition (CBC).  Let's excerpt the section on the 2010 election -- when Barack's president and Nouri loses.  Wasn't Bully Boy Bush who "continued to support the Maliki government even as it ruthlessly targeted Sunnis, setting the stage for Iraq's effective break-up" then.

Emma Sky: And that national election was a very closely contested election. Iraqis of all persuasions and stripes went out to participate in that election.  They'd become convinced that politics was the way forward, that they could achieve what they wanted through politics and not violence.  To people who had previously been insurgents, people who'd not voted before turned out in large numbers to vote in that election.  And during that election, the incumbent, Nouri al-Maliki, lost by 2 seats.  And the bloc that won was a bloc called Iraqiya led by Ayad Allawi which campaigned on "NO" to sectarianism, really trying to move beyond this horrible sectarian fighting -- an Iraq for Iraqis and no sectarianism.  And that message had attracted most of the Sunnis, a lot of the secular Shia and minority groups as well.

Kevin Sylvester:  People who felt they'd been shut out during Maliki's regime basically -- or his governance.

Emma Sky:  Yes, people that felt, you know, that they wanted to be part of the country called Iraq not -- they wanted to be this, they wanted Iraq to be the focus and not sect or ethnicity to be the focus.  And Maliki refused to accept the results.  He just said, "It is not right."  He wanted a recount.  He tried to use de-Ba'athification to eliminate or disqualify some Iraqiya members and take away the votes that they had gained.  And he just sat in his seat and sat in his seat.  And it became a real sort of internal disagreement within the US system about what to do?  So my boss, Gen [Ray] Odierno, was adamant that the US should uphold the Constitutional process, protect the political process, allow the winning group to have first go at trying to form the government for thirty days.  And he didn't think Allawi would be able to do it with himself as prime minister but he thought if you start the process they could reach agreement between Allawi and Maliki or a third candidate might appear who could become the new prime minister. So that was his recommendation.

Kevin Sylvester:   Well he even calls [US Vice President Joe] Biden -- Biden seems to suggest that that's what the administration will support and then they do a complete switch around.  What happened?

Emma Sky:  Well the ambassador at the time was a guy who hadn't got experience of the region, he was new in Iraq and didn't really want to be there.  He didn't have the same feel for the country as the general who'd been there for year after year after year.

Kevin Sylvester:  Chris Hill.

Emma Sky:  And he had, for him, you know 'Iraq needs a Shia strongman. Maliki's our man.  Maliki's our friend.  Maliki will give us a follow on security agreement to keep troops in country.'  So it looks as if Biden's listening to these two recommendations and that at the end Biden went along with the Ambassador's recommendation.  And the problem -- well a number of problems -- but nobody wanted Maliki.  People were very fearful that he was becoming a dictator, that he was sectarian, that he was divisive. And the elites had tried to remove him through votes of no confidence in previous years and the US had stepped in each time and said, "Look, this is not the time, do it through a national election."  So they had a national election, Maliki lost and they were really convinced they'd be able to get rid of him.  So when Biden made clear that the US position was to keep Maliki as prime minister, this caused a huge upset with Iraqiya.  They began to fear that America was plotting with Iran in secret agreement.  So they moved further and further and further away from being able to reach a compromise with Maliki.  And no matter how much pressure the Americans put on Iraqiya, they weren't going to agree to Maliki as prime minister and provided this opening to Iran because Iran's influence was way low at this stage because America -- America was credited with ending the civil war through the 'surge.'  But Iran sensed an opportunity and the Iranians pressured Moqtada al-Sadr -- and they pressured him and pressured him.  And he hated Maliki but they put so much pressure on to agree to a second Maliki term and the price for that was all American troops out of the country by the end of 2011.  So during this period, Americans got outplayed by Iran and Maliki moved very much over to the Iranian camp because they'd guaranteed his second term.

Kevin Sylvester:  Should-should the Obama administration been paying more attention?  Should they have -- You know, you talk about Chris Hill, the ambassador you mentioned, seemed more -- at one point, you describe him being more interested in putting green lawn turf down on the Embassy in order to play la crosse or something.  This is a guy you definitely paint as not having his head in Iraq.  How much of what has happened since then is at the fault of the Obama administration?  Hillary Clinton who put Chris Hill in place? [For the record, Barack Obama nominated Chris Hill for the post -- and the Senate confirmed it -- not Hillary.]  How much of what happens -- has happened since -- is at their feet?


Emma Sky:  Well, you know, I think they have to take some responsibility for this because of this mistake made in 2010.  And Hillary Clinton wasn't very much involved in Iraq.  She did appoint the ambassador [no, she did not] but she wasn't involved in Iraq because President Obama had designated Biden to be his point-man on Iraq and Biden really didn't have the instinct for Iraq. He very much believed in ancient hatreds, it's in your blood, you just grow up hating each other and you think if there was anybody who would have actually understood Iraq it would have been Obama himself.  You know, he understands identity more than many people.  He understands multiple identities and how identities can change.  He understands the potential of people to change. So he's got quite a different world view from somebody like Joe Biden who's always, you know, "My grandfather was Irish and hated the British.  That's how things are."  So it is unfortunate that when the American public had enough of this war, they wanted to end the war.  For me, it wasn't so much about the troops leaving, it was the politics -- the poisonous politics.  And keeping Maliki in power when his poisonous politics were already evident was, for me, the huge mistake the Obama administration made. Because what Maliki did in his second term was to go after his rivals.  He was determined he was never going to lose an election again.  So he accused leading Sunni politicians of terrorism and pushed them out of the political process.  He reneged on his promises that he'd made to the tribal leaders who had fought against al Qaeda in Iraq during the surge. [She's referring to Sahwa, also known as Sons of Iraq and Daughters of Iraq and as Awakenings.]  He didn't pay them.  He subverted the judiciary.  And just ended up causing these mass Sunni protests that created the environment that the Islamic State could rear its ugly head and say, "Hey!"  And sadly -- and tragically, many Sunnis thought, "Maybe the Islamic State is better than Maliki."  And you've got to be pretty bad for people to think the Islamic State's better. 





That's Barack, that's on Barack.

Again, I don't believe any leader's hands are blood free when it comes to Iraq.

I certainly don't believe Jill Stein's hands are blood free.

She ran an embarrassing campaign in 2012 for president.  She was the Green Party nominee and she offered mild criticism of Barack but went after Mitt Romney (the GOP nominee) like crazy -- especially after Barack lost a debate to Mitt.


She didn't run a campaign, she acted like the kid sister to the Democratic Party.


As September drew to a close, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported that the US had just sent in a Special-Ops division into Iraq:

Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence.  



Mitt and Barack were arguing over Iraq with each, frankly, lying through their teeth.

Jill Stein didn't even raise the issue or point to the New York Times report to discredit or question Barack (or point out that Mitt was wrong in his charges).

Jill was worthless, a lousy candidate.

And she's another Hillary Clinton.

She thinks she's owed the Green Party's 2016 nomination.

And liars in the press help her.

The Green Party will not select their nominee until the summer of 2016.

She is among those running for the nomination.

And her cult has done their best to pretend she has the nomination and bully other candidates into backing down.

But she can't fight for anything but her own vanity.

Where was Jill when Barack was bombing Libya?

"Where was Jill?" should be the rallying cry of her opponents because she was never anywhere to be found.

By contrast, I know where Cynthia McKinney was.

She was publicly objecting to war on Libya.

Looking at the state of Libya today, she was right.

Cynthia was the 2008 Green Party presidential nominee and she is weighing rather or not to seek the nomination in 2016.

Cynthia's a fighter, Jill's not.

That probably goes a long, long way towards explaining all the fawning press Jill's been getting.


That and the fact that she offers tidy bromides as opposed to penetrating analysis or real criticism.


Where's her critique of Operation Inherent Failure, for example?


Pravda notes, "According to Italian newspaper Corrierre della Sera, Italy will start bombing terrorists in Iraq in the next few hours. Italy will launch the operation only after all the details are coordinated with the US command."


Jill's got no statement on Iraq at her website.


She's got nothing.


This as Alice Fordham reports today for NPR's Morning Edition (link is text and audio  and transcript)..

Fordham sketches out an Iraq plagued by shortage of supplies -- not just guns for recruits but also boots --  and funds with Sunni tribes ready to fight but forced to the sidelines and Ramadi still held by the Islamic State.

She quotes Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi expressing his disappointment over what the US has offered -- he thought it would be more.

A key section of her report is this:


FORDHAM:  To get an idea of what's going to be needed, I meet a soldier who's been fighting close to Ramadi.


UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).


FORDHAM: He won't give his name because he's afraid of his commanders but tells me it's not like the government or coalition isn't doing anything. He recently had American training, and they armed his unit, too.


UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) They transfer us to Ramadi. We spent two days there. We liberated from 30 to 40 kilometers.


FORDHAM: Liberated the outskirts from ISIS, that is. And following heavy casualties, reinforcements arrived. But he says the officers are still a problem.


UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Speaking Arabic).


FORDHAM: They take bribes to let people go on leave and flee themselves as soon as the battle heats up. Food and water are scarce. Plus, he too says ISIS just has way more men and weapons and uses devastating car bombs in battle.
How long do you think before Ramadi is retaken?



UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: (Through interpreter) Ramadi retaken will last from seven to eight years.




Again, it's Operation Inherent Failure.

People might try paying attention.

The call for US troops to be sent into Iraq in larger numbers will only grow.  Those of us opposed to it now should be taking a stand now.


The US State Dept issued the following today:


Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

Washington, DC

October 6, 2015

Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL General John Allen arrived in Baghdad, Iraq today to meet with senior Iraqi government and security officials. During his meetings with Iraqi officials, General Allen will discuss the Coalition’s continued support for Iraqi-led efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL, as well as recent developments in the region.




In some of today's violence, Alsumaria reports 2 dead in a Falluja clash, 2 corpses were discovered in the streets of Baghdad (dead from gunshot wounds), and an armed attack outside of Baghdad left a dentist dead.








iraq
the new york times
tim arango
npr

alice fordham

My favorite ballad

Kat's "Kat's Korner The triumphant return of Janet " went up early Monday morning.




I love the album.

The song with Missy ("Burn It Up") is something, no question.

But the whole album is.

I especially love the ballad "After You Fall" which may be her best ballad ever.

And she's had some great ones already.

My favorite has always been "Again."

But "After You Fall" has now replaced it.

And Unbreakable is now my favorite Janet album (previously it had been The Velvet Rope).

If you're a Janet fan, you've got to get this album.


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

Monday, October 5, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Haider al-Abadi continues his fakery, Ramadi remains held by the Islamic State, Operation Inherent Failure remains an abject one, and much more.




Iraq was slammed by violence today with Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) counting 56 dead with 32 alone killed by an al-Khales car bombing. Ahmed Rasheed, Michael Gregory and Allison Williams (Reuters) quote al-Khales police captain Mohammed al-Tamimi declaring, "The driver begged police to be allowed to park his vehicle in order to buy medication from a nearby pharmacy and five minutes later it (the bomb) went off and caused huge destruction."

That was one of three major bombings.  AFP reports ten people died in another "bombing in Zubayr, near Basra in southern Iraq, was claimed by the Sunni extremist Islamic State group, which has controlled swathes of the country since last year but was thought to have little reach in the deep Shiite south" while a third bombing  left five people dead in Hosseiniyah.




In other violence, Alsumaria notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing left two Peshmerga injured and  Dawn Ennis (The Advocate) reports:

More horrifying atrocities against men believed to be gay have come to light in occupied Iraq, where Islamic militants from ISIS have executed four men by tying them up and tossing them from the rooftops of high-rise buildings.  
Extremists in Mosul executed two Iraqi men in this fashion simply for being gay, local sources reported to the ARA News website. Another report claimed the same fate befell two men in Nineveh, for the same “crime.”

A civil rights activist in the region told ARA News the judgment of who is gay is based on “superficial information without any investigation.”



US President Barack Obama's plan or 'plan' to address the Islamic State and rescue Iraq has yielded no positive results and remains Operation Inherent Failure.

Mosul fell to the Islamic State in June 2014.

And today?

It remains under the control of the Islamic State.

In April of 2015, Ramadi fell to the Islamic State.

And today?

It remains under the control of the Islamic State.


But unlike with Mosul, with Ramadi there's an effort to liberate Ramadi.


How long has the operation to retake Ramadi been going on?


Months.


Haider al-Abadi's government is attempting to portray reclaiming a stadium -- not in Ramadi -- as a victory.


All these months later, the Iraqi government now controls a sports stadium.


That's what passes for 'success' in Iraq.

1. Hayder al-Khoei ‏@Hayder_alKhoei Oct 3

   Abadi: #Iraq hasn't retaken Ramadi yet because of high temperatures.                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYqAi1kkxUY … I hope he won’t say “it's too cold” in winter.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

   23 retweets 15 favorites

Fred Fleitz (Fox News) offers:


In Iraq, ISIS took the city of Ramadi last May despite being outnumbered 10-1 by the Iraqi army.  Iraqi officials said they would retake the city “in days.” 

Four months later, there is little prospect of this or an assault to retake Mosul which was supposed to occur last spring. This is due to the weakness of Iraq’s army and President Obama’s refusal to allow U.S. military advisers or special forces leave their bases and accompany Iraqi forces into the field. 



Operation Inherent Failure.


June 19, 2014, Barack insisted the only answer to Iraq's crises was a political solution.


Yet in all the time since, there's been little effort to address Iraq's crises which include the long targeting of the Sunni population.


They remain excluded.


For over a year now, Barack and others in the administration have insisted that Iraq needs a national guard but the draft law remains a bill as Parliament refuses to pass it due to objections over a Sunni force.

In a surprising development today, Judit Neurink (Independent) reports:

The Iraqi government has embarked on secret talks with Sunni militia figures and former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime in an attempt to secure crucial Sunni support in the fight against Isis.  

After a first meeting in the Qatari capital Doha early last month, a second round of talks took place in Tanzania two weeks later, and three more sessions are planned, according to well-informed Iraqi sources who were party to the talks but requested anonymity because of their sensitive nature. The Independent has seen photographs of the meeting in Tanzania, which showed representatives from Western and African governments alongside officials of Iraq’s Shia-led government. The US and the UN are mediating the talks.



The Doha conference, of course, was used by State of Law to target the Sunnis.

They attempted to use the participation of Salim al-Jabouri in the conference as an excuse to strip him of his post as Speaker of Parliament.

State of Law was created by -- and is run by -- Nouri al-Maliki who was prime minister from 2006 through 2014 and used his post to persecute the Sunnis.

Haider al-Abadi was installed as the new prime minister in the fall of 2014 in an attempt to reset the clock and pull Iraq back from the brink.


During his year and counting as prime minister, he's accomplished very little but flapped his gums a great deal.


For example, protests started (re-started) months ago.

The spark was the lack of electricity in 100-plus degree days.

Ghaith Abdul-Ahad (Guardian) reports:

More than a decade after the US invasion – and more than $40bn (£26bn) of investment later – Iraqis must still make do with limited electricity. In a country with one of the world’s largest oil reserves, this is a matter of great exasperation for locals.
“People here get a few hours of electricity every day, so when the current comes there is a huge demand: everyone plugs in their fridges and air conditioners, the old network is overloaded and transformers fry and cables melt,” said Faris. “We work three shifts, 24 hours a day, trying to patch up the old network and we can’t keep up.”
When summer temperatures peak above 50C (122F), it’s a matter of life and death – a far more emotive issue than Isis and the sectarian divide. This summer, as temperatures surged and tempers frayed, thousands of people staged a series of protests, pressing into city centre squares to denounce the corruption that riddles the system.



All these months later, all these grand pronouncements from Haider later, and the electricity issue is still not addressed.


But Haider did announce, over the weekend, that he'd accomplished something to meet the demands of the people.


Sunday, AFP reported that Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, declared that opening the Green Zone to the public is part of his fulfilling his promise to the Iraqi people.


Strange, I don't require any signs carried by the protesters in recent months that called for opening the Green Zone.


And, of course, it's not really that open.  As AFP noted, "The measure offers limited access to the vast area, with most streets still requiring a special badge [. . .]"

But there's a bigger issue, isn't there?

One AFP ignores for reasons unknown.

Is the Green Zone open to all Iraqis?

No.

It's not.

It can't be.

Not when Baghdad isn't open to all Iraqis.

Or have we forgotten that Sunnis in Anbar Province have been repeatedly denied entry to Baghdad over the last months?

AFP apparently forgot.


Not everyone was so willing to toss aside facts and common sense.  Alap Naik Desai (Inquisitr) explains the results of the 'grand opening,'  "However, many excited Iraqis who rushed to get a glimpse of the territory left disappointed.  This is because severe restrictions, still in effect, prevented the majority of Iraqis access to most of the area.  This didn't stop the PM taking credit for the initiative.



Haider's full of words.


It's in actual action that he's lacking.


The US State Dept also has the gift of gab.

Today's State Dept press briefing found spokesperson Mark Toner offering lots of words -- few possessed any real value.


QUESTION: Just two questions on Syria and Iraq.


MR TONER: Yeah, sure.


QUESTION: The first one: The Kurdish groups in Syria and both in Iraq – the Iraqi Kurdish president has issued a statement. They both welcome the presence of the airstrikes by Russian – by Russia in Syria. Aren’t you concerned that some of your very best partners are now welcoming the Russian airstrikes?


MR TONER: Well, again, we have great respect for the Iraqi Kurds in the fight that they’re waging against ISIL in Iraq. Our position on Russian airstrikes, I think, has been made painfully clear over the last four or five days since the very first airstrikes were carried out. We said many times that we would welcome a constructive role for Russia if it takes the fight to ISIL. Thus far, we’ve not seen that that’s the case. We’ve seen no indication that they’re actually hitting ISIL targets – ISIL targets.


QUESTION: Is it constructive if --


MR TONER: Please, go ahead, sir.


QUESTION: Is it constructive if Russia supports the Kurds in Syria or the Kurds in Iraq?


MR TONER: Is it constructive if – it’s constructive if --


QUESTION: Militarily?


MR TONER: It’s constructive if Russia wants to, as I said, live up to what it’s saying, live up to its words with action, which is – it says it wants to take the fight to ISIL. We’ve not seen that thus far. Frankly, what we’ve seen thus far is that Russia’s decision to undertake military action in Syria and intervene in that civil war that’s taking place between Assad and the moderate Syrian opposition – frankly, we consider it a strategic mistake. If they are serious about taking the fight to ISIL, then, as I said, we can find a role – or we can see a role for them to play constructively, certainly within the context of de-conflicting any action that they may be taking against some of the targets that we’re also hitting.
Our primary purpose here is to support those groups in northern Syria – Kurds, Arabs, others – who are waging successful attacks against ISIL, dislodging them from some key strongholds and frankly clearing ISIL out of that territory. That remains our focus. We’re part of a 60-some-odd member coalition doing that. If Russia wants to play in that sphere, then we would see a role for them, but we don’t see that yet.
Please.


QUESTION: Could you comment on a report in The New York Times that the United States is coordinating with Turkey to open another front in northwestern Syria, and perhaps even get closer to where the Russians are bombing? Could you comment on that?


MR TONER: No, I’m not going to get into – I’m not going to confirm those reports. I mean, obviously, we’ve been working with some of these groups in northern Syria for some time, continuing to provide them support – both the Department of State, nonlethal assistance, DOD, train and equip. We’re going to continue those efforts, but I’m not in a position to really speak to those reports in The New York Times.


QUESTION: (Inaudible) you said – you’re going to continue that? I thought there was a pause or some kind of a hiatus in the train and equip program because it was so – it was not --


MR TONER: I think that they’ve – they’re looking at --


QUESTION: Is that over? This is probably better asked to the Pentagon.


MR TONER: No, I’m not clear on that, actually, but I would refer you to the Department of Defense. My understanding was that they’re looking at how to rejigger it, improve it, but --


QUESTION: All right. And then I hesitate to ask this here, but – rather than have a colleague ask at the Pentagon, but you just said that, in response to an earlier question with – about Russia about de-confliction on targets that we may also be hitting. Are you aware of any shared targets that --


MR TONER: No, that’s – sorry if I was unclear about that point.


QUESTION: So --


MR TONER: We’re trying to hit ISIL targets. We’ve not see that Russia is doing that yet.


QUESTION: So then what is de-confliction?


MR TONER: Sorry.


QUESTION: You just don’t want planes running into each other? Is that – is that what it is?


MR TONER: I mean, we want to avoid those kinds of tragic incidents, yes. And certainly, that’s – on a really tactical level, yes, that’s one of the concerns.


QUESTION: Okay.


MR TONER: But also there’s other concerns as well in this battle space. I don’t really want to speak to it in my capacity, but – yeah.


QUESTION: But would it also involve Russian airstrikes against targets that you do not believe are ISIL or al-Qaida affiliates? Does that also fall under the de-confliction idea, or is this something that’s kind of not – better to ask the Pentagon?


MR TONER: No, I mean, I would say – I mean, that’s – look, that’s been made abundantly clear both in the political sphere as well as in the tactical level. We don’t want to see Russia hitting some of the Syrian opposition forces that we believe they’ve struck.


QUESTION: Okay. Well, does de-confliction also go to Russian planes flying into Turkish airspace, something like that?


MR TONER: Yes, that certainly involves that.


QUESTION: So in terms of that specific incident, again realizing that this might be better directed at the Pentagon, has there been any diplomatic activity other than just what the NATO statement, which I think we’ve all seen, with the Russians – between the U.S. and the Russians about this incident or these – this – these incidents?


MR TONER: So I did try to check on this before. There’s been no follow-up to the de-confliction – I hate that word, but to the efforts at – to de-conflict that started – began last week, I think on Thursday. There’s been no follow-up to that, but obviously we made clear our concerns about this --


QUESTION: No, I’m not talking --


MR TONER: -- in the NAC – right, in the NATO --


QUESTION: Right. No, I’m talking about aside from NATO and aside from --


MR TONER: Right. Not that I’m aware of, no.


QUESTION: -- the de-confliction talks, you don’t know if there’s been any contact, direct contact, between you and the Russians?


MR TONER: Direct contact, no. I don’t believe so.


QUESTION: Because the Secretary spoke about how the Turkish foreign minister called him on Saturday, I think he said, after the first incident.


MR TONER: That’s right, that’s right.


QUESTION: So you’re not aware of anything since then?


MR TONER: No.


QUESTION: So Mark, are you saying to the best of your knowledge they have not spoken about the Russian flights into Turkish airspace?


MR TONER: To my knowledge, no. Now again, I don’t know if our embassy in Moscow has approached the Russian Government. To my knowledge, that has not happened between DOD, but again, to my knowledge. I’m not aware of any --


QUESTION: I mean between Kerry and Lavrov.


MR TONER: Not to my knowledge, no; they haven’t spoken.
Please.


QUESTION: Mark, on the same topic. Do you have the same concerns of Russian cooperation with the Iraqi, like Russia targeting ISIS in Iraq like you have in Syria, or it is different story? Because they have a cooperation in Baghdad. That’s what the Prime Minister Abadi said, like for sharing intelligence.


MR TONER: Yeah, sharing intelligence. But I frankly haven’t seen them actually voice any kind of willingness to actually hit ISIL targets in Iraq. Frankly, that’s a question better asked of the Iraqi Government and how they would feel about actually active Russian attacks in that space.


QUESTION: Right, but they authorized, they welcomed – actually both regional government of – Kurdish Regional Government, also Baghdad. But what is your concern? Do you have the same thing, or you think if Iraqis is not concerned so you’re fine with that?


MR TONER: Well, it’s a sovereign country. They can certainly make those kinds of decisions. Our concern, again, is we’re active in that same space. We’re obviously working, closely advising the Iraqi military we believe with some success over the past year, certainly, to take the fight to ISIL in Iraq. So I can’t really speak to any hypothetical role that Russia may play in that struggle.


QUESTION: Okay. Well, one more on that last one.


MR TONER: Please go ahead, yeah.


QUESTION: You have many forces in Iraq that you are cooperating with – I think the Iraqi Government, Sunnis, and the Kurds. And the recent month is the Kurdish officials, they were concerned about the amount of ammunitions and also the weapons they have received from the United States, it’s really decreased to not – they have not received the share that they – was provided by Pentagon to them.


MR TONER: You’re speaking about --


QUESTION: The train and equip program.


MR TONER: No, no, no, but which group in particular?


QUESTION: The Kurdish group in Iraq, not in Syria. So one of the Kurdish official – I think the chancellor of the council of – security council of Kurdistan – he said that we have not received anything from United States since May. So --


MR TONER: I’m not aware of any lapse in our efforts to supply them. I’d have to check on that. And frankly, it might be a better – question better directed to the Department of Defense.


QUESTION: So I asked the Department of Defense the same issue.


MR TONER: There you go. What did they say? (Laughter.)


QUESTION: Well, they said that’s – that we have sent everything to Baghdad, but that’s for the diplomatic mission.


MR TONER: Well, that is – I mean, that is a critical element of our effort there. We’ve said – we’ve been pretty adamant about the fact that command and control rests with the Iraqi Government. That said, we’ve seen a real effort on the – part of the Iraqi Government, the Iraqi military, and frankly, no lapse in getting that equipment, ammunition, whatever, supplies out to those who need it. So I honestly can’t speak to this particular case. I just don’t have the --



QUESTION: What do you – do you mean, like, those who needs – that they are fighting? You mean maybe they are sending more to Sunnis because they are fighting extensive – in Peshmerga front lines --


MR TONER: We have – again, I – we’ve made that very clear. And frankly, we believe that it is indeed the case where the Iraqi Government is doing a good job at disseminating those supplies to those who are actually fighting the fight against ISIL – Kurds, Sunnis, whoever. Some of these local forces on the ground that are quite effective. I’ve just seen nothing; I don’t know. I can’t speak to any lapse in supply or equipping the Kurdish forces. I just don’t --


QUESTION: Right. Will you take it that seriously, that – these concerns by the Kurdish official, that they are not getting anything from Baghdad?



MR TONER: I mean, obviously, we would – we would obviously take something like that – a comment like that with concern. I just said I don’t have any information about it. I can look into it, but I don’t have anything to – I don’t have any facts or any figures here to refute that.






The last word goes to CNN's Arwa Damon who again notes an import report published last week.

1. Arwa Damon Verified account ‏@arwaCNN 6h6 hours ago

   #iraq has some of strongest most incredible women. By @raniaab Madeeha al-Musawi, An Iraqi Heroine http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/madeeha-al-musawi-an-iraqi-heroine … via @newyorker

   12 retweets 7 favorites

iraq
robert h. reid
qassim abdul-zahra
reuters
ahmed rasheed

alsumaria