Saturday, July 23, 2011

Nepotism in hiring and US combat operations continue in Iraq

Dar Addustour reports on the way important, high-paying jobs are parceled out in Iraq: Nepotism. So being Moqtada al-Sadr's cousin, for example, translates into a job as an MP (Jaafar Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr has since resigned fromthe Parliament). Tareq al-Hashemi (Iraq's Sunni vice president) ensures that his nephew (Asad al-Hashemi) is employed. Nouri al-Maliki's relatives are sprinkled throughout Iraq's government system including on the Electoral Commission which, you may remember, found additional votes for him when he whined and complained in March of 2010. Ayad Allawi, Chalabi, all the names you recognize have ensured that their relatives are rewarded. Nouri, in fact, put it in writing demanding special treatement, after becoming prime minister in 2006, for his family and tribal members in the armed services. He celebrated becoming prime minister in 2010 by naming Ahmed Nouri al-Maliki (his son) as the head of his office. Those named to head Ministries staffed the ministries with their family.

So follow this if you can, the exiles were put in place by the US government after the start of the Iraq War. Once put in place by the US government, the exiles then ensure that their own relatives have jobs and no one can figure out why the 'government' is so unconcerned with unemployment (officially at 15%, actually far higher with some estimates currently at 32%). And they were all surprised that Iraqis would take to the streets demanding jobs.

The 'government' of Iraq is a system of graft and cronyism and that's what Nouri and the White House want the US military to continue to support in Iraq beyond 2011. Al Mada notes that the two-week deadline (imposed by Jalal Talabani) has passed. Two weeks ago, the president of Iraq threw his latest house party (a meet-up between various political blocs) and announced that day to the press that in two weeks there would be an answer as to whether or not Iraq wanted to ask the US military to stay. Some argue that there's too much conflict between the political blocs to work it out while the National Alliance's Abdul-Hussein Abtan notes that there are a host of issues that are also postponed such as basic services, apparently arguing that this is one of many decisions that the government needs to be making. Alsumaria TV carries the accusation by Izzat al Shabander (State of Law) that "certain political parties" (he's accusing Iraqiya) are responsible for the failure to reach a decision.

Hossam Acommok (Al Mada) notes that Parliament intends to explore the ministries. This would include a ne plan whereby any Minister who veers more than 75% from the budget would have to be accountable to the Parliament. That seems a careful way to acknowledge the vast monies disappearing from the ministries (and appearing in officials bank accounts). So the Parliament's laying down the law, apparently: You can embezzle 25% but no more.

Can you float the idea of withdrawing confidence in Nouri's government and holding new elections? Al Rafidayn's article suggests only if you are prepared for non-stop attacks. State of Law is having a fit over the possibility that their own Nouri al-Maliki might be unseated should Iraqiya (the political slate that actually won in the March 2010 elections) successfully lead a no-confidence vote and call for early elections. Aswat al-Iraq quotes Moqtada al-Sadr's Ameer al-Kinani insisting it would be "a new political crisis" if a vote of no-confidence went forward. No confidence could stem from the fact that violence continues to increase in Iraq and yet Nouri still hasn't named heads to the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of National Security. The security ministries, like all other ministries, were supposed to have been named within 30 days of Nouri al-Maliki being named prime minister-designate. Per the Constitution, failure to name the Cabinet heads (each ministry head is a member of Nouri's Cabinet) would result in someone else being named prime minister-designate and given 30 days to form a Cabinet (which means nominating and getting Parliament to confirm each individual). Aswat al-Iraq reports on Iraqiya's reaction to the still unnamed posts:

“The State of Law Coalition has not agreed on anything, neither the formation of the NCSP, nor the settlement of the Cabinet’s security ministries or the balancing of the security dossider,” Maysoun Damaloujy told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.
She said that according to a previous accord, an agreement had been reached that the security cabinet posts be distributed among a minister by al-Iraqiya Coalition, another by the Kurdistan Coalition and a third by the State of Law Coalition; but the negotiator from the National Coaliltion, Hassan al-Sunaid had said that “the issue is to be decided by the Council of Ministers and that Dr. Ali al-Allaq, was the official in charge of the balancing; hence no agreement had been reached on those issues by the negotiating committees.”


On the no-confidence vote, a few things to remember. If Nouri hasn't already made an agreement with the US (some reports exist he has an he's merely waiting to unveil it), a no-confidence vote could cause US troops to leave Iraq. It took nine months for Political Stalemate I to end, nine months after the election. Since the Constitution wasn't followed by Nouri, another prime minister-designate could ignore the 30 day deadline (to name a full Cabinet and have all posts voted on by Parliament). Iraq could even struggle on for several months without a prime minister. (If that happened again, many believe the UN would be forced to do its job and set up a caretaker government. During Political Stalemate I, the UN shirked their responsibilities and allowed to Nouri to remain in office even though his term had expired.) A no-confidence vote could toss the entire stay-or-go up in the air because, for the appearance of legitimacy, a would-be prime minister might not want to go against the Iraqi people (who overwhelmingly favor all US troops out of Iraq now).

Meanwhile Prashant Rao (AFP) reports US Col Michael Bowers has announced that, on August 1st, the US military will no longer be patrolling in northern Iraq with the Kurdish forces and forces controlled by Baghdad. For those who have forgotten,the two were at each other's throats not all that long ago. I guess that was "trainers" in action, huh? It wasn't combat, right? Patrolling couldn't be combat because Barack Obama declared an end to all combat operations August 31st. They don't do anything in Iraq, they just sit around now, right? Aswat al-Iraq reports:


“The U.S. Air Force had carried out a landing early Saturday in Fudeiliya village, 15 km to the east of Nassirya, the center of Thi-Qar Province. The force detained 7 persons, charged with having carried out attacks against American forces in the area,” the security source told Aswat al-Iraq news agency.
The security source said that the detainees were “a municipality employee in Fudeiliya village and three of his sons, along with a member of the Province’s Emergency Battalion, who were all moved outside the Province.”


And in more combat operations that aren't supposed to be happening, Alsumaria TV reports, "US Forces increased military patrols in the regions surrounding its military bases in Babel, Diwaniya and Waset, the US military said. These measures aim to protect US military bases in these regions and around Iraq against attacks by Iran-supported groups, the US military noted." Securing the perimeter? Some might argue that sounds like a combat operation. Still in related news:

Southern Iraq Missan Province’s Governor, Ali Dawai, has said on Friday that a special parliamentary committee was formed to “investigate violations by the American troops in Amara, the center of Missan Province last Monday and Tuesday.
“A special committee was formed to investigate the U.S. air raids on Amara city by live ammunition,” Missan Governor Ali Dawai said, adding that the committee would arrive in Missan in few days to carry out its investigation.

If it's really true that Barack's penis loses an inch every time he lies, his must be an 'inny' by now.


We'll close with this from Thomas C. Mountain's "Libya War Lies Worse Than Iraq" (CounterCurrents):

The lies used to justify the NATO war against Libya have surpassed those created to justify the invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both had honest observers on the ground for months following the rebellion in eastern Libya and both have repudiated every major charge used to justify the NATO war on Libya.

According to the Amnesty observer, who is fluent in Arabic, there is not one confirmed instance of rape by the pro-Gadaffi fighters, not even a doctor who knew of one. All the Viagra mass rape stories were fabrications.

Amnesty could not verify a single “African mercenary” fighting for Gaddafi story, and the highly charged international satellite television accounts of African mercenaries raping women that were used to panic much of the eastern Libyan population into fleeing their homes were fabrications.

There were no confirmed accounts of helicopter gun ships attacking civilians and no jet fighters bombing people which completely invalidates any justification for the No-Fly Zone inSecurity Council resolution used as an excuse for NATO to launch its attacks on Libya.

After three months on the ground in rebel controlled territory, the Amnesty investigator could only confirm 110 deaths in Benghazi which included Gadaffi supporters.

Only 110 dead in Benghazi? Wait a minute, we were told thousands had died there, ten thousand even. No, only 110 lost their lives including pro-government people.

No rapes, no African mercenaries, no helicopter gun ships or bombers, and only 110 ten deaths prior to the launch of the NATO bombing campaign, every reason was based on a lie.







The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.























Troy Yocum and veterans issues

army_mil-73865-2010-05-19-060544

(Troy Yocum photo taken by John Crosby)

Hike for our Heroes is a non-profit started by Iraq War veteran Troy Yocum who is hiking across the country to raise awareness and money for veterans issues. He began the walk in April 2010 with the plan of 7,000 miles. WSYR (link has text and video) reports Troy has already met his goal in miles and has now journeyed over 7,000 miles. In Syracuse he met with the family of Cpl Kyle Schneider who was killed in Iraq last month. Troy is quoted stating, "It's families like Kyle's that we met today, who really inspire me to keep going. I know that no matter what they would always soldier on." Kyle Schneider's mother, Lorie Schneider, stats, "We take it step by step, breathe by breath, and Troy takes it step by step across America." Jennifer Kingsley (Star-Gazette) adds:

"In the last six years, over 19,000 military families have applied for assistance but only about 50 percent of those soldiers have been helped," Troy said.
Troy came up with the idea while he was deployed in southern Iraq. An e-mail from a good friend and fellow Iraq war veteran told of the struggles on the home front -- how he'd lost his job in a struggling economy.

Matthew A. Ward (Reuters) reports on unemployment among the young veterans of today's wars and notes that (male) veterans between the ages of 18 and 24 are the hardest hit with 28.3% unemployment (an increase of 5.4% from last year) while (male) veterans aged 25 to 34 have an unemployment rate of 14.5%. Iraq War veteran Vincent Moore Jr. notes that, in the Air Force, he "worked as a medical technician" but that "The only certification that I left with that was recongnizable was my Basic Life Support (CPR) certifcation." As some members of Congress have noted, it's the lack of certification that may be hurting veterans the most. The training, for example, in the medical field that they receive in the service is not counted in the civilian world because the military does not have a certification program.

US House Rep Bob Filner raised the issue in the June 1st House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.

US House Rep Bob Filner: But what are we all doing here? I mean this ought to be a top priority for everybody. And I can imagine -- you guys are the experts -- but if I just thought about it for a few seconds I could think of what the VA could be doing. I mean, why isn't every regional office, for example, putting out a list of veterans and their specialties and what they're seeking jobs as? You guys all said we have trouble linking up with who the veterans are. Well the VA knows every veteran. Let's just put out a list of everybody who's looking for a job. I mean, it just doesn't seem difficult. We hear about the transition of skills in the military being hard to translate. We could deem anybody who's in electronics or a medic or a truck driver -- I mean, we can give them a certificate that says "For the purposes of hiring, this serves as" you know "what ever entry level." And people can be trained further. But they have incredible skills. We've been working on this civilian certification for, I don't know, decades. Nobody can seem to solve it. We've got guys truck driving all over Iraq or Afghanistan, they come home and they find out they have to take a six month course to get a commercial driving license. They say, "Hey, what do I need that for?" And they get discouraged. They're truck drivers. They know how to do it and they do it under the most difficult conditions you can imagine. Let them have a certificate that starts with a job. Or electronics people or medics. I mean, I've watched these medics. They have incredible -- they do things that no civilian would ever think of doing and yet they've got to go through some other certification, masters and go to this college and that college. Come on. They have the training. And we could just do it.

And it's an issue that US Senator Patty Murray's Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 is attempting to address. Murray is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and June 8th, when the Committee met to discuss proposed bills, she explained the Hiring Heroes Act of 2011.

Committee Chair Patty Murray: For too long, we have been investing billions of dollars training our young men and women to protect our nation, only to ignore them when they come home. For too long, we have patted them on the back and pushed them into the civilian job market with no support. This is simply unacceptable and does not meet the promise we made to our men and women in uniform. Our hands-off approach has left us with an unemployment rate in February of over 27 percent among young veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is over one in four of our nation's heroes who can't find a job to support their family. Over one in four of our service men and women lack the stability that is so critical to their transition home. That's why last month I introduced the bipartisan Hiring Heroes Act of 2011 which now has 19 co-sponsors. This legislation will help us rething the way we support our service members as they return home and search for living-wage jobs. I introduced this critical legislation because I've heard first-hand from the veterans for whom we've failed to provide better job support. I've had veterans tell me that they no longer write that they're a veteran on their resume because they fear the stigma they believe employers attach to the invisible wounds of war. I've heard from medics who return home from treating battlefield wounds who can't get certifications to be an EMT or to drive an ambulance. These stories are as heartbreaking as they are frustratng. But more than anything, they're a reminder that we have to act now. The Hiring Heroes Act would allow our men and women in uniform to capitalize on their services while also ensuring that the American people capitalize on the investment we have made in them. For the first time, it would require every service member transitioning from active duty to partipate in the Transition Assistance Program [TAP]. This program supports our veterans by providing them with broad job skills training before they separate from service. This bill would also allow service members to begin the federal employment process prior to separation. It would also require the Department of Labor to take a hard look at what military skills and training should be translatable to the civilian sector. This is a much needed step toward making it simpler for veterans to obtain much needed licenses and certifications. And, finally, my legislation would allow for innovative partnerships between VA, DoD and organizations that provide mentorship and training programs designed to lead to job placements for veterans. All of these are real, substantial steps to put our veterans to work and they come at a pivotal time for our economic recovery and our service members.
The following community sites -- plus Random Thoughts, Watching America, Jane Fonda, On The Wilder Side and NOW -- updated last night and today:





We'll close with this from Sherwood Ross' "Impeach Obama" (Bodhi Thunder):

It's time to impeach President Obama and urge candidates who stand for peace to run in the upcoming presidential primaries.


President Obama is no Democrat in the traditional meaning of the word. He has not only failed to tackle the nation's unemployment woes and retraining needs, as a real Democrat would do, but he's been a player in the Bankers' Bailout and he's indicated his willingness to compromise Social Security and Medicare, two highly successful, humanitarian systems that are a lifeline to the vast majority of the nation's elderly, sick, and infirm.


Mr. Obama has also failed to lift his hand effectively in behalf of the struggling poor, particularly our Hispanic, African-American and rural poor. Again, as in the time of Franklin Roosevelt, we see one-third of a nation ill-housed, while true unemployment hovers at Depression Era levels, closer to 20 per cent than 10 per cent and college graduates cannot find jobs.


Yet worse than anything Obama has done or not done domestically, are the illegal wars he's waging across Asia and Africa, several of which he inherited from the preceding criminal in the Oval Office and to which he might have made a speedy end. Quite on his own, however, he has expanded the war in Pakistan and has initiated new wars in Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. These wars are being pushed despite a building majority opposition of Americans who are telling Congress and the pollsters they want the return of our troops from distant battlefields and bases.


Mr. Obama has also granted himself kingly powers to destroy human beings on suspicion of wrongdoing, and has sent hundreds of innocent people, children included, to their deaths in the process via drone plane attacks. He continues to operate countless prisons around the world created by his criminal predecessor President George W. Bush, a mass murderer, where human beings have been tortured and murdered, denied due process of law, and where kidnapped men are suffering year after year in gray limbo, and, incredibly, where even children have been tortured and raped. He is keeping Guantanamo open despite his promise to close it and he denies those imprisoned there, as elsewhere, lawyers and fair trials. If he is the best Harvard Law School can produce it should be shut down. A constitutional lawyer who conducts himself this way should be disbarred; a president who conducts himself this way should be impeached and prosecuted.


One tipoff to Mr. Obama's character has been his cruel punishment of Army intelligence specialist Bradley Manning for performing a humanitarian service---blowing the whistle on U.S. helicopter pilots in Baghdad who killed defenseless civilians and reporters. You would think that the Pentagon would want to know if any of its soldiers committed war crimes. Instead, it looks the other way. No president in our history ever has gone after whistle-blowers with the vengeance of this man; and only his immediate predecessor has shown so great a proclivity not to prosecute the guilty torturers and murderers among the jailers of the military, CIA, and contract fighters.



The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.













thomas friedman is a great man






oh boy it never ends

















Friday, July 22, 2011

Iraq snapshot

Friday, July 22, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Roy Gutman advocates for the US military to stay in Iraq (will McClatchy speak to him of perceived conflicts of interests?), Raed Jarrar exhibits a new form of crazy, Justin Raimondo calls out a faux peace member, Iraqis take to the streets, and more.
 
Yesterday on Flashpoints (KPFA, Pacifica), guest host Kevin Pina spoke with journalist Patrick Cockburn about the propaganda on the Libyan War.  Flashpoints Radio airs live on KPFA from 5:00 to 6:00 pm PST, Monday through Friday. Excerpt.
 
 
Kevin Pina: Patrick recently wrote an article called "Remember the Kuwaiti Incubators! Those Libyan Atrocities: Do They Really Stand Up?" which was seen on CounterPunch.org.  Patrick Cockburn, welcome to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio.
 
Patrick Cockburn: Thank you.
 
Kevin Pina: Patrick, obviously we've seen a lot of propaganda, what people would consider propaganda -- what people would consider propaganda -- around the invasion, the NATO attacks on Libya, everything short of an invasion of ground forces at this point. But now of course in the last week we heard that Gaddafi had to go and just two days ago we've heard a complete reversal by France and now seemingly the United States and the United Kingdom seem to be softening their positions as well.  How do we make sense out of all of this?
 
Patrick Cockburn: Well I think it's easy enough to understand when they started the air war in Libya, they thought Gaddafi would go almost immediately and he's still there months later. So it's really the consequence of failure.
 
Kevin Pina: Well failure but they seem to have been very successful in terms of pulling the wool over a lot of people's eyes.  People thought, you know, that Gaddafi was the Great Satan again and the United States was involved in yet another Holy War to unseat a dictator -- and the United Kingdom as well.
 
Patrick Cockburn: Yeah, I find it pretty amazing after the experience we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan that the propaganda and the acceptance of propaganda has in many ways been worse.  I mean initially this was presented  -- the armed intervention -- by Britian, France, the United States and some others --  was presented as purely humanitarian venture. This was to keep Libyans alive. And then this very rapidly transmuted into regime change to getting rid of Gaddafi.  And systematically throughout atrocities have been exaggerated.  You know, you'll remember the mass rape story that Gaddafi's forces had been told to rape and been given viagra to encourage them?  Well this story was on CNN, it was elsewhere, people were shocked by it, I think it was even mentioned by Obama, but this has been investigated very carefully by Amnesty International, by Human Rights Watch in New York who had their people in Libya and they found that there was absolutely no evidence for it.  Another story was that mercenaries were being used from the rest of Africa.  Again it turned out when that was investigated that people being presented on TV as mercenaries from other parts of Africa were in fact undocumented migrant laborers.  [. . .]  the people who appeared on television, were later in fact released because whatever they were, they weren't mercenaries.  So these propaganda stories appear on television, appear in the media and to a greater degree even when they're wrong, they're never refuted, even when it emerges there's no evidence for them.
 
 
 
Another segment started off promising . . .
 
 
Kevin Pina: And next we're going to take a look at the human rights situation in Iraq.  After all, what on earth did we fight this war for, what have we spent all of this money for on the war in Iraq if not to bring better government and "democracy" to the Iraqi people? Unfortunately what we're hearing is that the government that has replaced -- the US installed government -- is equally as oppressive as the so-called dictator Saddam Hussein who we released them from. Let's go to this clip from Al Jazzera to set this piece up.
 
Rawya Rageh: 19-year-old Aya Mohammed has seen it all.  Her entire family was killed in an uprising against Saddam Hussein soon after she was born and she recently fled from an abusive foster family. Now after joining Iraq's protest movement, Aya and seven other colleagues were sexually harassed and beaten while protesting in Baghdad's Tahrir Square last month.
 
Aya Mohammed: Pro-government supporters started calling us "whores" and "prostitutes." Then they began molesting and groping us. Five men restrained me and tried to rip my clothes off. When I approached security forces bleeding and with a broken tooth, asking for help, they said its not their responsibility.
 
Rawya Rageh: Angered by the attack, activists have waged a campaign demanding an apology from the government. Those who assaulted them, they maintain, were members of the security forces. Street molestation is not common in tribal Iraq and until now women campaigners had not been specifically targeted.
 
Yana Mohammed (Women's Freedom In Iraq):  For the first time this happens in Iraq. We have never heard of it.  And at this moment, we are telling the society and especially those in the Green Zone that this is an era of women.  They cannot lock us into our houses.
 
Rawya Rageh:  In a report on the June 10th assault against both male and female protesters, Human Rights Watch said Iraqi soldiers not only stood by while Iraqi protesters were attacked but also that some of those abusing the demonstrators were carrying police identification badges.
 
Joe Stork (Human Rights Watch): It's not every day that thugs with clubs flash their police i.d.s at us. The government needs to find out who was responsible for the assaults and punish them appropriately.
 
Rawya Rageh: Al Jazeera has requested comment from Baghdad Operations Command but we did not get a response. Not a surprise say activists.  The sexual assaults on female protesters is symptomatic of a much bigger problem in Iraq, they say.  Writer and radio host Ahlam Al Obeidi was also beaten up in the protests.  She says women's rights are being flouted all around the new Iraq -- even in Parliament.
 
Ahlam Al Obeidi: I asked Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, why make claims about freedom and democracy when women are being attacked on every corner?  Why claim there's any change when it's for the worse? 
 
Rawya Rageh: She's calling for an open-ended sit-in in the heart of the capitol until the government investigates the attack against them.  Rawya Rageh, Al Jazeera, Baghdad.
 
 
But after the above, the segment quickly went to Crazy Town.  Raed Jarrar's newest lie/fantasy is that reporting on the above, as Rawya Rageh did, is done to argue that the US should stay. Jar-Jar: "These attempts to bring up the crimes of the Iraqi government in the last few weeks are not really about exposing the crimes of the Iraqi government, they are more about justifying a longer US occupation."
 
Raed is a DUMB ASS.
 
And that needs to be said because he's now introducing a whole new level of CRAZY into the conversation.  As I said in 2008 and 2009 and 2010 and this year, the SOFA didn't mean the Iraq War ended and liars like Raed Jarrar were prolonging the war by LYING and telling people the SOFA meant the end of the war.
 
And as Dona told Raed at one point when he tried to back peddle on the damage he was doing, Take the damn counter off your site!  He has a counter -- it's probably still there -- announcing X Days until the Iraq War is over -- based on the SOFA.  He's a stupid, stupid idiot who has done untold damage.
 
And although he's now apparently an American citizen, he pisses on the Constitution as much Bush and Barack.  The SOFA is a treaty.  It's an illegal one because it violated the Constitution by refusing to get the advice and consent of the Senate -- this was all established in Congressional hearings in 2008.  After Barack's in office, Raed bores the hell out of me and anyone else he can bother by insisting he's doing 'serious' work, he's meeting with House members to get them to sign on to the SOFA.  What? Yeah, he wants them to sign off on and support a violation of the Constitution.  If that ass took a citizenship test, the United States needs to revamp the citizenship test.
 
I noted Raed in passing last week when Kevin Pina felt the need to have him on the show.  I didn't say anything negative and hoped that since it's been demonstrated HE WAS WRONG ABOUT THE SOFA, he'd have a little humility.  But that didn't happen obviously.  Now he wants to unleash more CRAZY on this country and Iraq.
 
His idiotic claim that Rawya or anyone else is reporting on violence to keep US forces on the ground in Iraq?  That it's a media plot?
 
I think he means US media so he'd have to leave out Rawya but if you leave out Al Jazeera, you lose a significant portion of the English language coverage from Iraq.  But let's set Rawya to the side.  This vast conspiracy?  If it existed it would make my days a lot easier.  I wouldn't have to repeatedly, in one group after another, explain what happens to Iraqi protesters.  Now who's been reporting on that, Raed?  Not really the Los Angeles Times.  Not really the New York Times.  Not really McClatchy Newspapers.  The Washington Post did report on it.
 
If it were a conspiracy, don't you think they all would have?  Do you really think that when Iraqi reporters were attacked on February 25th that the New York Times would have been turning in the embarrassing 'some say, Nouri says' piece  if they were trying to say "IRAQ'S SENDING OUT AN S.O.S. TO THE WORLD!"?
 
It must be 'freeing' to do none of the work required to make a charge.  You don't have to read the coverage, you don't have to be familiar with it, you don't have to be able to support anything you say, you just blindly make your charge.
 
Reality: While Raed's beat his little pud in public and insisted "Barack's ending the Iraq War 'cause he's so dreamy and sexy!!" for the last three years, some of us have been calling attention to the realities in Iraq.  Raed didn't do a damn thing to draw attention to the attacks on Iraq's LGBT community.  Raed hasn't done a damn thing to note the massacres of the Camp Ashraf residents.  Despite working with a group that pretends it's a religious group (to be a group of Christians, you have to believe in Christ -- that's non- negotiable, that is the very definition of Christian), Raed's done nothing as Iraqi Christians were targeted.
 
He can tell us how groovy Barack is.  He can tell us what it's like to dream and drool of Barack all night and wake up with his wang stuck to the sheets, but he can't do a damn thing about Iraq.  I'm not in the damn mood.  I was prepared to let it all just slide by and act as if none of it ever happened.  But that was dependent on Raed, at the very least, not starting another harmful wave.  But he's doing it again.  He's lying and going to Crazy Town.  He's trying to start this fear tactic which will mean no one will talk about what bad things in Iraq "because Raed says it's a media conspiracy to keep US troops there!"
 
I don't have time for his Crazy and Iraq can't afford his crazy. 
 
As he trashed the 'vast media' for their conspiracy to keep the troops in Iraq, he never showed the slightest clue of how little Iraq coverage there actually is.  US?  There is AP, there is McClatchy, there is the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine and CNN.  That is it.  NPR doesn't have a reporter permantently in Iraq.  Kelly McEvers is pulled out anytime something might be happening elsewhere in the Arab world and sent there.
 
For Raed to suggest -- as he did -- that Ned Parker is part of some vast conspiracy is just deplorable.  In fairness to Raed, he didn't name Ned.  Because he doesn't know who the hell Ned is.  But he does know that a report was just done on the secret prison.  That was Ned Parker's report.  And, no, he didn't write it because he wants US troops to stay in Iraq or because he wants them to leave Iraq or because he wants to do a Zodiac chart reading on each of them.  He reported on the issue because it's news and because it's the issue he's been reporting on forever.  And before he was zooming in on the secret prisons?  He was reporting on the realities of the Ministry of the Interior (the third and fifth floor especially) which is of course related to the current scandals.  But Raed couldn't tell you that either. 
 
But he can go on the radio and insult Ned Parker's nonstop work on this issue and suggest that Ned Parker has just reported on the secret prison for the first time and did so only because Ned Parker wants to keep US troops in Iraq.  That's not only insulting to the fine work Ned Parker's consistently done, it's damaging and we can't afford the damage from Raed again.
 
Repeating, the know-nothing began (WRONGLY) insisting publicly at the end of 2008 that the Iraq War would be over in 2011 due to the SOFA.  Come December 31, 2011, all US troops would leave Iraq.  They had to, he insisted, it was in the SOFA.
 
As I said at one point when I was pissed, when you can -- as I have -- break a multi-million dollar contract with a corporation and walk away without being sued, then you come talk to me about contract law.  Until then, sit your tired ass down.  And for bonus points, let's see you, as I did, walk away with the money the contract promised you.
 
Raed didn't know what he was talking about then, he doesn't know what he's talking about now.  But he's laying down the party line: PANHANDLE MEDIA SHALL NOT REPORT ANY BAD THINGS HAPPENING IN IRAQ BECAUSE TO DO SO IS TO TAKE PART IN THE MEDIA CONSPIRACY TO KEEP U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ.  Fools believed Raed last time, I'm sure many a fool will this time as well.  But the ones they're hurting are the Iraqi people.  Iraqis who have the guts to protest despite all the obstacles, Iraqis who speak out about the repression under Nouri (aka Little Saddam) need to be heard.  They're not as lucky as Raed, they can't run -- with their tail between their legs -- back to the US. You got a serious charge, go into it, establish it.  I'll show you how.
 
 
Scott Horton: Sounds like it's been a rough time over there in Iraq.  You had some reports from a couple of weeks ago about the bombings there.  But I think first I'd like to ask you in the context of the recent violence in Iraq, if you could verify that I read it right, that they sort of have made a deal where the Americans have agreed, they're not asking to keep combat troops in the country anymore, just trainers, and that that's basically the loophole in the Status Of Forces Agreement that's going to keep troops in Iraq, that both sides are happy with that and the deal has been made?  Do I read that right?
 
Roy Gutman: I have to be honest, I am not up with the very latest thing of the last 48 hours simply because I've been traveling.  There was that possibility though, I know, to have trainers stay on.  I think it's inadequate. I think that forces are needed for other purposes and that one should not be satisifed with trainers.  That said, my visits to US bases and talks with Iraqis, as well as with Americans, leads me to think that American training is very much prized by the Iraqis and I think the American military really feels it's doing the right thing by carrying on with training.  So if that is the deal, it's only partially what needs to be done but it is certainly a very important component. 
 
Scott Horton: Well I guess my question would be is the Parliament representative of the people of the country enough that Maliki and the current government represent the power that would rule Baghdad, would be in charge of the country if America wasn't there helping them or not because if so, it seems like, why would they need American troops, you know?
 
Roy Gutman:  Well, you know, they've had elections. It was in March of last year.  A government emerged from that election but it took all of last year.  And it is not yet a completed government yet because there is a lot of wrangling at the very top between Maliki and Ayad Allawi who is the other leading politician who actually won more seats than Maliki's coalition but in fact not enough to actually have a majority. So that Parliament is a representative Parliament.  No one that I know of has indicated that that election was anything but a real, genuine, fair election and with a minimum of corruption and fraud. So, yes, that's a real Parliament. But now,here's the problem Scott, you get a real Parliament elected with a lot of factions involved and it is very tough to get a bill through that Parliament. Well, look at our Congress, I mean, if you want to look at the debt debate right now. Not an easy thing to get real things done.  Why do they need Americans to stay on?  Basically it's because the Iraqi army, there was an Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein and it had some very professional officers but on the whole the army was tained by some of the things they did, you know, the use of gas against the Kurds, some of the firing of missiles into Iran, a lot of the things. So the whole officer corps was really tainted by it. with some exceptions.  And then the Americans basically dissolved their military.  So you have a new institution being created there and it is not easy, it is not fast.  And they're training, as I've had it explained to me, was never anything like the kind of training Americans do.  They're in a dangerous neighborhood and they recognize that they're not up to speed.
 
Scott Horton: So this isn't -- you would say then if I understand you right that it's not that the Iraqi army needs the American forces there to keep them as the Iraqi army to prevent internal dissent from taking their power away simply that power is natural enough to them.  What they  need is specialized training so they can keep other countries from messing with them.  Is that what you're saying?
 
Roy Gutman: Uh - uh, that's right in a nutshell.
 
Roy continues, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about especially when he's starts talking 'internal' and 'insurgents.'  I've heard what he's describing before.  I heard it in 2008 from Joe Biden but Joe knows a thing or two and what Joe was pointing out was that doing this would be CHOOSING SIDES.  Roy Gutman has no awareness of that. 
 
And I want to know how Roy Gutman gets to continue to cover Iraq?  He shouldn't be allowed to cover Iraq.  There are reporters who offered the opposite side of Gutman and were punished.  But now every one reading Roy's filings from Iraq knows that Roy feels the US needs to stay in Iraq.  How is that shaping his coverage?
 
Some may insist Roy can be objective. Were it true, that's not the standard.  The standard is do your actions provide cause for anyone to question your objectivity? 
 
And the political situation in Iraq is always up in the air.  So how does McClatchy justify Roy Gutman's labeling Ayad Allawi "feckless and inept" and "no where near as impressive as Maliki's been"?
 
And how do you reconcile the praise for Nouri with his secret prisons -- Oh, wait.  Roy Gutman never reports on that.  Roy Gutman never reports anything uncomfortable for Nouri. Possibly we now know why.
 
With the interview alone, I've raised questions and documented why.  We could do Roy's entire Iraq file.  We could do all of his remarks. We could drop back to last year -- want to? --  when Ava and I pointed out his embarrassing appearance on The Diane Rehm Show in June of 2010.  From  "Media: Let's Kill Helen!"
 
 
On things worth hearing, Iraq did surface briefly and accidentally on Diane Rehms's show Friday. Yochi's usual and expected attacks on Iran resulted in Ashraf calling in to correct Yohci's incessant lies. In the process, Ashraf declared, "I think that, for all the reporters, they should be more responsible because what happened in Iraq was because of the reporters. Misinformation and stirring just to get the rage up. "
You just knew Yochi wasn't having any of it. He stopped digging around his asshole with his own tongue long enough to exclaim, "I think all of us who work for a somewhat beleaguered industry would wish that the media was as powerful as to have caused a war. [Roy Gutman is heard guffawing if you listen closely. Shame on him.] There were deep flaws in the reporting pre-war in Iraq. To say that the media caused the war is, I think, a stretch."
First off, Yochi, the economy sucks for nearly everyone, it's a recession, you idiot. Second, the media lied, the media is responsible for helping Bush sell the illegal war. That Roy Gutman's fat ass could be heard chortling on air was disgusting since Roy worked for Knight-Ridder which was the only outlet that refused to play megaphone and actually and consistently do reporting. Shame on you, Roy Gutman. You damn well know better.

Roy of course tried to lie his way out of the above.  Insisting that wasn't him laughing (it was him, you can hear it yourself, it was also confirmed that it was him by Diane's staff).  (For more chuckles on Roy, see Mike's post here -- killer line "You sort of get the impression that Roy Gutman's spent the last decades covering socials and tea rooms.")
 
McClatchy's position is not Roy's laughter.  McClatchy's official position was represented in the debut of Bill Moyers Journal, "Buying The War" and provided by Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott.
 
Roy rejects that view.  Roy goes on the radio with Scott Horton and 'explains' that the US military must stay in Iraq -- a decision that supposedly hasn't been made yet.  Readers desperate for independent and unbiased state of Iraq coverage to form their own opinions can still have faith in Roy Gutman's call?  I don't think so.
 
This is the same Roy Gutman, please remember, who made the most siginficant error you can make in print: DISTORTING THE WORDS OF ANOTHER.  January 8th of this year -- and we called it out repeatedly -- Roy insisted that Moqtada al Sadr had "called on his followers Saturday to abandon the use of violence" but that's not what he said at all.  And McClatchy never issued a correction.  Not everyone got it wrong:
 

In his report of the speech, Jim Muir (BBC News -- video) observed that "he said the resistance goes on by whatever means and so on." (For a text report by Muir, click here.) Here's Aaron C. Davis (Washington Post): "His followers, he said, must continue to focus on fiercely resisting the United States, but perhaps also targeting their own government if it cannot restore services or security and hold to a timeline for a full U.S. military withdrawal by the end of 2011." Does that sound like the end of violence? No, it does not. And here's Ned Parker, Saad Fakhrildeen and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times):

Roy Gutman is a lousy reporter.  (And incredibly touchy.)  His statements to Scott Horton should get him pulled off Iraq coverage.  This isn't debatable.  He's not a columnist.  He's supposed to be a reporter and the editor in Iraq of the moment.  He crossed serious lines and we can document doing that over and over throughout his Iraq coverage.
 
Some might disagree with me.  That's their right. And they may be right.  But I didn't say, "Oh, there's this vast conspiracy and everytime you read bad news it's because they're trying to extend the US presence! Case closed!"  I offered specific examples.
 
Roy Gutman advocated a position that no reporter's allowed to do unless they're doing particpatory reporting.  His comments were out of line and he should be pulled from the beat.  (He actually should be written up for what he said during that interview.  He won't be.  As Chris Hedges and others can tell you, you're only punished by your newspaper for personal opinions when they go against the Embrace of War.)
 
But let's address his nonsense which argues that the US must stay in Iraq as "trainers."  They won't be "trainers" anymore than "combat operations" ended August 31, 2010.  There was a time when Thomas E. Ricks was still a reporter and he would have had a good laugh over Roy Gutman's assertion that US military can be "trainers."  (Ricks is for continuing the war, I am only noting that Ricks wouldn't have gone along with that nonsense in his hey day.)
 
"Combat operations" ended, Barack proclaimed months ago.  But in today's news cycle,
 Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraq's Ahrar bloc member Youssef Attai accused US Forces of carrying out intensified patrols in residential neighborhoods in Diwaniya and arresting citizens without the knowledge of the local government, a source told Alsumaria."  Alsumaria TV notes, "US Forces increased military patrols in the regions surrounding its military bases in Babel, Diwaniya and Waset, the US military said. These measures aim to protect US military bases in these regions and around Iraq against attacks by Iran-supported groups, the US military noted."
But Gut Man wants you to believe they can just be "trainers."  Trainers with guns.  Trainers with the right to defend themselves.  Trainers who will do police operations throughout Iraq. 
 
Reality, the US can't afford to keep forces over in Iraq. Ask the American people about the spiraling debt and they say: END THE WARS.  Reality, the US can't stay in Iraq forty years to keep Nouri in office until he gets his golden parachute (or bullet to the head -- the latter being far more likely).  They had eight years.  That was way too many.  They're an installed regime that most likely cannot stand its own and it is for that reason that they want the US to stay.  It is for that reason that they are (again) asking the US to choose sides in a civil war.
 
They've had 8 years.  This regime is incapable of learning anything other than learned helplessness.  It is not the responsibilty of the US to train or WEEN Nouri's regime and it is not worth one US life.  Enough US blood has been spilled for that illegal war that didn't bring democracy but damn well put a despot in charge and looks the other way now as he becomes more and more the New Saddam.  And I can go out on a libm and say that because it's not much of a limb.  Even if Barack's re-elected, there are people will be leaving his administration and making similar points when they do -- for example, people who've always seen Nouri as a despot and won't have any reason to hold their tongue after they're out of the administration.
 
Roy Gutman's based his opinion (publicly) on Nouri needs this and Nouri needs that.  But the reality is that actual independent organizations -- whether it's Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch or even the Carnegie Endowment for Peace -- have documented what Nouri's doing.  It doesn't match up with the happy little spin Gut Man gave it.
 
And while Raed Jarrar thinks that the bad news out of Iraq will insist that the US stays, the reaction should be the complete opposite.  Other than supress the Iraqi people, there's nothing left to be done by the US in Iraq.  Staying means particpating in the harm of the people.  Staying means endorsing attacks -- physical attacks (beatings, kidnapping) -- on journalists who tell the truth that Nouri doesn't want them to.  Staying means ignoring human right abuses (continuing to ignore them).  The US-installed regime is one of the most corrupt in the world.  Why do you think the oil-for-food money vanished?  Why do you think Nouri tries to insist it was a US issue? 
 
There has been and will be no progress.  The Iraqi people are not represented by their government at all.  Their government is made up of hand-picked politicans that got the US stamp of approval (even Moqtada had his usefulness when it came to scaring the Iraqis into submission), these exiles who left Iraq and only returned after the US invaded.  They now rule over a people who grew up in Iraq, who lived in Iraq. 
 
You wouldn't stand for that if it happened to you and, unlike Roy Gut Man, I don't look down on the Iraqi people, I don't dismiss this or insist that it is the "political elites and the military elites" of Iraq that we need to listen to.
 
There has been no progress.  There will be no progress.  And if Barack's re-elected and he keeps the US military in Iraq, look for him to kick Samantha Power out of his inner circle by 2013 because even he won't be able to pretend she's got wisdom that long.  She's selling her usual crap and insisting it's "humanitarian intervention" and that it just needs a little more of that to kick start the whole democracy "bloom" (her term) in Iraq.  It is not happening.  No roots of democracy can be planted by installing thugs to rule a nation.
 
Because he's a coward, Raed Jarrar invents a media conspiracy instead of calling out Todd Gitlin.  What he falsely accuses the media of (notice, Gutman's advocating for the US to stay, he's not, however, saying "Oh the violence! The violence! The US must stay to end the violence!") is what Toad Gitlin did in his embarrassing piece of trash that justified the Libyan War and tried to provide cover to cop outs like himself. Naturally, when trash floats online it can be traced to Salon. We called it out Sunday. Medea Benjamin called it out Tuesday and, late last night, Justin Raimondo's definitive rebuttal went up.  Excerpt.

The last person we need to hear from on the state of the antiwar movement is surely Todd Gitlin, the has-been "New" Left leader now a college professor of something-or-other. After all, it was none other than Gitlin, in the run up to the invasion of Iraq – and the biggest antiwar demonstrations since his own heyday – who took to the pages of Mother Jones magazine and criticized the antiwar movement for not "rebuking" Saddam Hussein. He was appalled at the signs at antiwar rallies calling for "No Sanctions" and "No Bombing." Sure, the sanctions were "a humanitarian disaster for the country's civilians," wrote Gitlin, but –echoing the claims made by Washington – he averred that the Iraqi government "bears some responsibility for that disaster." This was nonsensical back then, and it is even more so now that we know there never were any "weapons of mass destruction," as the US government claimed, and therefore no justification for the sanctions.

And what, pray tell, would an "antiwar" movement that refused to oppose bombing amount to, exactly? What universe is Gitlin living in? The same universe he's living in today – one in which a former antiwar "leader" has turned into a cheerleader for "liberal" imperialism of the sort practiced by his hero, Barack Obama. This is clear from the content of his latest screed, a tract purporting to explain why the antiwar movement is in the doldrums.

 
Medea's rebuttal included:
 
He [Todd] leaves out some other daggers to the heart of the movement: grass-roots election campaigns that lured away millions of activists; betrayals by the president and groups like MoveOn who used and abused the antiwar sentiment; craven congressional reps who violate the will of their constituents by continuing to fund war; powerful lobbyists for the war industry who wield enormous power in Washington; and the utter exhaustion that sets in after 10 years of standing up to the largest military complex the world has ever seen.
 
Raed just pretends like it never happened.  While inventing a media conspiracy.
 
In the real world, Iraqis face enough real threats and don't need to practice 'creative visualization' in order to invent ones.  Al Jazeera's Rawya Rageh Tweets.
 
 
Rawya Rageh
RawyaRageh Rawya Rageh
 
 
The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "REAFFIRMATION OF IRAQ'S DIGNITY FRIDAY - Masses of people answering the call to attend the protests despite the fact that that there are a great many strictures and restrictions and the presence of Haliki's hooligans in great numbers armed with clubs and knives as well as guns." They note that security forces in Baghdad are chasing photographers and "confiscating mobiles [cell phones] wherever they are seen!" And that "A short while ago the use of fire arms and bulllets by government forces in Tahrir to stop the burning of the Iranian flag." Revolution of Iraq notes that all but one entrance has been blocked and people are being prevented from bringing in water bottles and that protests are also taking place in Mutanabi.  The Great Iraqi Revolution notes that Ramadi saw a large turnout as "the Albu Faraj Bridge close to the Speed Way" and that they burned the US and Iranian flags  and that "The burning of the Iranian flag came in soldiarity with the Tahrir Youth who were stopped from burning the flag in Tahrir, today, and whose demonstrations and protests were suppressed today with live ammunition."  And we'll again note Rawya Rageh.
 
 
Rawya Rageh
RawyaRageh Rawya Rageh
 
 
Violence was scattered across Iraq today.  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports 2 people dead in a Baghdad bombing by a store selling alcohol and eight people injured. Reuters notes a Tarmiya bombing which injured six people, a Mosul mortar attack that injured an Iraqi solider, a Baquba checkpoint attack in which 4 police officers and 1 bystander were killed, a Mosul grenade attack injured one police officer, a Mosul armed clash resulted in 1 person dead and two more injured and a doctor was killed in Kirkuk. Lebanon's Daily Star reports 6 Iranian soldiers were "killed in clashes with Kurdish rebels on the boarder with Iraq".
 
 
Political Stalemate II continues. Al Mada cites an unnamed State Of Law official for the claim that there will be another meeting at Jalal Talabani's home ('the second in less than a month") in which an attempt will be made to resolve outstanding differences between the parties. Those outstanding differecnes would be the failure of Nouri al-Maliki to abide by the Erbil Agreement which ended Political Stalemate I (the nine month period after the March 7, 2010 elections) and allowed Nouri to remain prime minister. Nouri took what he wanted from the agreement but refused to otherwise follow it.

Those pinning big hopes on the upcoming Jalal House Party should be aware that the other house parties haven't solved anything. In addition, Alsumaria TV observes, "Al Iraqiya List threatens to give a no-confidence vote for Iraq's government and call for early elections in case national partnership fails to be achieved. State of Law Coalition MP Khaled Al Assadi on the other hand accused Al Iraqiya of trying to incite Sunnis under the pretext of political imbalance." Aswat al-Iraq reports that there are doubts that Iraqiya would follow through with a no confidence vote:

The Political Analyist, Issam al-Feily, told Aswat al-Iraq news agency that the pressures, exerted by some political blocs against others are part of a political pressure, confirming that "all political blocs are keen to stay in power and non-withdrawal from it."
"Al-Iraqiya Coalition had been counting highly on the so-called National Council for Strategic Policies (NCSP), because it wanted to achieve something practical from it in drawing Iraq's internal and foreign policies, and when it failed to form the NCSP, al-Iraqiya began to threaten to withdraw from the political process, because in case if it would be formed, it would affect the whole political arena, though it would lead in the end to undermine the current government, due to the existence of more than one party in it, and not the State of Law, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, alone," Faily said.


Aswat al-Iraq also notes, "Aswat al-Iraq: Al-Iraqiya Coalition, led by Iyad Allawi, has called on the Iraqi government to raise a complain at the UN Security Council, about Iranian violations of Iraq's water interests, according to a statement it issued on Thursday." Iran is a topic in Iraq these days for many reasons including the fact that it has entered northern Iraq to attack Kurds it sees as terrorists. Aswat al-Iraq reports of the CIA-backed Goran ("Change") political party in the KRG, "Opposition Kurdish Change Movement Spokesman said that the Iranian atrocities on the Iraqi borders in the Kurdish region are done with the approval of certain circles within the Kurdish authority."

 
 

Protests, corruption, combat and stalemate continue

Protests are taking place in Iraq today. Screen snap is from Revolution of Iraq's footage of today's Baghdad protest.

7 22 protest baghdad

The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "REAFFIRMATION OF IRAQ'S DIGNITY FRIDAY - Masses of people answering the call to attend the protests despite the fact that that there are a great many strictures and restrictions and the presence of Haliki's hooligans in great numbers armed with clubs and knives as well as guns." They note that security forces in Baghdad are chasing photographers and "confiscating mobiles [cell phones] wherever they are seen!" And that "A short while ago the use of fire arms and bulllets by government forces in Tahrir to stop the burning of the Iranian flag." Revolution of Iraq notes that all but one entrance has been blocked and people are being prevented from bringing in water bottles and that protests are also taking place in Mutanabi.

While protests take place, Dar Addustour reports that Parliament's Integrity Commission is stating that there is "mafia control" over contracting in the Ministry of Commerce and that an arrest warrant has been issued against Abdul Falah al-Sudani (former Under Secretary of Commerce).

Corruption continues in Iraq even though Nouri al-Maliki claimed back in February he'd be whipping it in 100 Days. 100 Days came and went. Corruption remains. (In fact, the Integrity Commission avoids naming people until the last minute if they're in the country because they fear them fleeing.) Corruption continues, Political Stalemate II continues. Al Mada cites an unnamed State Of Law official for the claim that there will be another meeting at Jalal Talabani's home ('the second in less than a month") in which an attempt will be made to resolve outstanding differences between the parties. Those outstanding differecnes would be the failure of Nouri al-Maliki to abide by the Erbil Agreement which ended Political Stalemate I (the nine month period after the March 7, 2010 elections) and allowed Nouri to remain prime minister. Nouri took what he wanted from the agreement but refused to otherwise follow it.

Those pinning big hopes on the upcoming Jalal House Party should be aware that the other house parties haven't solved anything. In addition, Alsumaria TV observes, "Al Iraqiya List threatens to give a no-confidence vote for Iraq’s government and call for early elections in case national partnership fails to be achieved. State of Law Coalition MP Khaled Al Assadi on the other hand accused Al Iraqiya of trying to incite Sunnis under the pretext of political imbalance." Aswat al-Iraq reports that there are doubts that Iraqiya would follow through with a no confidence vote:

The Political Analyist, Issam al-Feily, told Aswat al-Iraq news agency that the pressures, exerted by some political blocs against others are part of a political pressure, confirming that “all political blocs are keen to stay in power and non-withdrawal from it.”
“Al-Iraqiya Coalition had been counting highly on the so-called National Council for Strategic Policies (NCSP), because it wanted to achieve something practical from it in drawing Iraq’s internal and foreign policies, and when it failed to form the NCSP, al-Iraqiya began to threaten to withdraw from the political process, because in case if it would be formed, it would affect the whole political arena, though it would lead in the end to undermine the current government, due to the existence of more than one party in it, and not the State of Law, led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, alone,” Faily said.


Aswat al-Iraq also notes, "Aswat al-Iraq: Al-Iraqiya Coalition, led by Iyad Allawi, has called on the Iraqi government to raise a complain at the UN Security Council, about Iranian violations of Iraq’s water interests, according to a statement it issued on Thursday." Iran is a topic in Iraq these days for many reasons including the fact that it has entered northern Iraq to attack Kurds it sees as terrorists. Aswat al-Iraq reports of the CIA-backed Goran ("Change") political party in the KRG, "Opposition Kurdish Change Movement Spokesman said that the Iranian atrocities on the Iraqi borders in the Kurdish region are done with the approval of certain circles within the Kurdish authority."

Iran is not the only foreign government facing accusations in Iraq. Alsumaria TV reports, "Iraq’s Ahrar bloc member Youssef Attai accused US Forces of carrying out intensified patrols in residential neighborhoods in Diwaniya and arresting citizens without the knowledge of the local government, a source told Alsumaria." What is known is that Barack Obama is a liar. Combat operations did not end August 31, 2010 despite Barack's lies that they did. Alsumaria TV notes, "US Forces increased military patrols in the regions surrounding its military bases in Babel, Diwaniya and Waset, the US military said. These measures aim to protect US military bases in these regions and around Iraq against attacks by Iran-supported groups, the US military noted."

And we'll close with this from Ruth Sherlock's report (Telegraph of London via Information Clearing House) on the Libyan War:

The streaks of blood, smeared along the sides of this impromptu mass grave suggested a rushed operation, a hurried attempt to dispose of the victims.

Who the men were and what happened to them, close to the Libyan rebels' western front line town of Al-Qawalish in the Nafusa Mountains, remains unknown.

But the evidence of a brutal end were clear. One of the corpses had been cleanly decapitated, while the trousers of another had been ripped down to his ankles, a way of humiliating a dead enemy.

The green uniforms were the same as those worn by loyalists fighting for Col. Muammer Gaddafi in Libya's civil war. No one from the rebel side claimed the corpses, or declared their loved ones missing.

There was no funeral, or call to the media by the rebels to see the 'atrocities committed by the regime'.

Since the bodies were seen by the Daily Telegraph attempts to discover their identities have been unsuccessful, in part because of obstruction by rebel authorities in the area. Having highlighted the discovery to those authorities the area was subsequently bulldozed and the bodies dissappeared.

The find will add to concerns highlighted in recent days over human rights violations by rebel forces. Human Rights Watch last week said that had looted homes, shops and hospitals and beaten captives as they advanced.

The Daily Telegraph found homes in the village of al-Awaniya ransacked, and shops and schools smashed and looted. The town, now empty, was inhabited by the Mashaashia, a traditionally loyalist tribe that has long been involved in land disputes with surrounding towns.





The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.