Hillary Ready

 

From November 26, 2015, that's "Hillary Ready."  C.I. noted:

Surrounded by dead presidents Richard Nixon, JFK, Lyndon Johnson and FDR, Hillary whips it out and declares, "Don't worry, I got the biggest one."  LBJ explains, "I said she was a big enough dick to be president -- not that she had one."  FDR wonders, "Where's Bill?  He's always up to wagging his weinie."   Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.


This is a rough week for Hillary.  She's seeing her big dreams of bombing Syria waft away.  She'd wanted it destroyed as badly as she was able to destroy Libya.  But now with the announcement that US troops will be leaving Syria, Hillary's suffering -- as only a War Hawk can.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, December 21, 2018.


Yesterday's snapshot noted the joint-hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees.  Appearing before the Committees were VA Secretary Robert Wilkie who was accompanied by VA's Melissa Glynn and Steven Lieberman.  Yesterday, we focused on Senator John Tester, Ranking Member, questioning Wilkie while also noting US House Chair Phil Roe's observation, the Blue Water bill (stalled in the Senate) and some of US Senator Patty Murray's questioning.  We'll resume with her.



Senator Patty Murray: But I do want to ask about the caregivers program because according to briefings from the VA, the Department has ruled out trying to narrow the eligibility criteria for the caregiver program.  But I'm still very concerned that there is a number of issues the VA is looking at that I'm concerned about including changes to the stipend, restricting veterans based on their type of injury or requiring a minimum disability rating.  This seems to be VA still focused on keeping people out of the program instead of making it work better for our veterans.  And yesterday, NPR reported on several cases where veterans --  including a double and a triple amputee -- were downgraded or kicked out of the program completely, inappropriately.  And these are, by the way, not one-off VA cases.  We're hearing that this is a continuing problem in the VA's management of this program.  When the VA previously downgraded and terminated caregivers, the VA assured me that it had resolved the problems that led to these type of actions but it's very clear that's not true and I would like you to immediately re-instate a ban on downgrades and terminations until VA can demonstrate to us that the serious management problems have been corrected and these type of outrageous errors will not occur again.

Secretary Robert Wilkie: Senator, I will say that caregivers is especially important to me.  I am the son of a gravely wounded Vietnam warrior.

Senator Patty Murray:  I appreciate that.

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  Uh, and I've seen my mother and family, uh, take care of my father prior to his passing last --

Senator Patty Murray:  I appreciate that.

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  The stories --

Senator Patty Murray:  Will you reinstate the ban?

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  I --

Senator Patty Murray:  Will you reinstate the ban?

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  I-I-I'm not familiar with all the rules but I will tell you the National Public Radio story, that, uh, problem was corrected within 24 to 48 hours.

Senator Patty Murray:  Those are not isolated cases.  We're hearing many of them.

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  And-and those cases, is my understanding, have been corrected because of directives from this department that people were not reading the regulations properly. So my promise to you is that I am going to do everything I can to make sure everybody stays in the program.  It's that important to me personally.

Senator Patty Murray:  Can I have your assurance that no one else will be downgraded or kicked out of the program until you look and make sure that the regulations are being implemented at every level correctly?

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  Absolutely, I will -- I will make that commitment and will brief these Committees.

Senator Patty Murray:  Okay.  And I won't have enough time but I'd like you to give me what your guidance to the program office is and your guidance to the field on how this is being implemented so that we can see what you're telling your staff

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  Yes, ma'am.

Senator Patty Murray:  Okay and I'm also very concerned about the implementation of the changes to the caregiver program that was passed as part of the Mission Act.  Before the expansion can begin, you have to certify that a new IT system is in place and the law required you to have that system in place by October 1st, that was a month and a half ago.  This was not a new requirement.  GAO's initial recommendation to fix the IT system was made in September of 2014 and the VA has repeatedly assured us that it's working on that issue.  I want to know when you will have that IT system in place and make the certification as the law requires.


Secretary Robert Wilkie:  The goal is October 1st. I would --

Senator Patty Murray: That was a month and a half ago.

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  I would not be telling the truth if I told you I was absolutely certain that given the state of VA's IT system that that date would be met.

Senator Patty Murray:  That was a month and a half ago.The date's passed.

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  No, I'm talking about -- it's October, 2019.

Senator Patty Murray:  No.

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  To certify that IT works.  Are we confusing two dates?

Senator Patty Murray: That's your new goal.  That's not the goal you were given by Congress.

Secretary Robert Wilkie:  It --

Melissa Glynn: The timeline to certify the new system is ready is 19 -- October [20]19.


Senator Patty Murray:  Okay?

Melissa Glynn: We did miss the October [20]18 date to --

Senator Patty Murray:  So you gave yourself another year?

Melissa Glynn:  Well there were two dates.  There are two dates, Senator, associated with the requirement.  The first date, which was October of this year, was for validating and deploying a new system.  We have not deployed the new system.  But the certification of that system --

Senator Patty Murray: Have you --

[Cross talk.]

Senator Patty Murray: -- fully defined requirements for that system.

Melissa Glynn:  We have fully defined requirements and we're working, as the Secretary mentioned, on user acceptance testing of the system and we are working through that.  We do not want to deploy a system until they're thoroughly tested and we're feel is capable of serving caregivers and veterans.


Secretary Robert Wilkie: And I would say that has been the problem identified and talked with -- discussed with this Committee.  Uh, GI Bill was a classic case, Senator, uh, of a program being imposed on a system that was incapable of handling it.  That's why I had to make a decision to go back to the old system on the GI Bill.  The same applies here. The system was not capable of addressing it.  Uh, I give you my commitment that I'm doing everything I can and so is the Department to bring the IT system up to modern standards.  The GI Bill?  We were talking about a fifty-year-old IT system and it's not acceptable.  But you have my commitment that we are working with the best minds we can find to make VA a modern healthcare administration --

Senator Patty Murray:  Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up.  I've been on this Committee for more than 20 years and I always hear that we're not going to get an IT system because there's a problem.  Every time it changes, every time there are problems.  We've got to get this right.  People are counting on it.

US House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Phil Roe noted that he'd been serving for ten years and had heard the same repeated excuse as well.


I didn't want to break that up, but maybe I should have?

Did we all get that the VA missed the deadline?  Back in October 2018?  But they wanted to insist that they hadn't because there was also an October 2019 deadline?

Can we try that with the repo people?  No, I didn't miss my payment last month because I also have a payment later this month and I might meet that payment?  You think that'll work because I don't.

The VA missed the deadline and then they wanted to argue that because there is another deadline -- for a different aspect -- that they hadn't.

A VSO (veterans service organization) is congratulating Wilkie, praising him, for agreeing to not kick out or downgrade anyone while the program is reviewed.  Why?

He had to be pressured into agreeing -- by Senator Murray.  And first, he wanted to dance around the topic and play dumb there too.  If you're going to congratulate anyone, congratulate Senator Patty Murray, she's the one who made it happen.

And the IT excuses?  They're getting old.  Remember when Barack Obama was going to fix the VA?  Remember his promise of the seamless transition -- the electronic record -- that would follow the service member from active duty to veteran status?  That would make it easier to receive an adequate disability rating if one was required?  Never happened, did it?  The VA still can't get it together.  They were supposed to be working on it, fixing it, when Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House.  They were supposed to be doing it when Barack was president for two terms.  The press lapped up every lie Eric Shinseki served up.  They even looked the other way when he lied in a Congressional hearing and attempted to pin the blame for the delay on Chuck Hagel.  They looked the other way over and over for Shinseki.  He's gone now and there's no more debate, he was hideous as Secretary of the VA, he was unprepared, he was oblivious to the needs of veterans.


The press is not our friend, let's quit pretending.

Jim Sciutto‏Verified account @jimsciutto 4m4 minutes ago

Overseas defense commitments Trump is rolling back: -Syria -Afghanistan Overseas commitments he has questioned: -South Korea -NATO -Iraq Together, they encompass greatest US NatSec threats: Russia, Iran, North Korea, Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS

11 replies34 retweets63 likes

Oh, look, it's self-important Jimmy.

Maybe we'd respect him if he was a journalist.  But he's not, is he?  He was working for the government under Barack.  Journalism wasn't good enough for him.  (It still isn't good enough for him -- obvious if you follow his 'reporting.')

The revolving door needs to stop.  And I might have some respect for FAIR if they'd argue that position over and over.  But they only seem to care when it's journalists who go to work for Republican administrations.

Journalists who go to work in the government are not journalists -- not even if they come back out.  They are no longer pursuing truth, they are now under the impression that they must serve the public interest not from a journalism standpoint but from a Daddy Government I Know Best standpoint.

Jim needs to sit his ass down.


Murtaza Hussain (BLACK AGENDA REPORT) observes:

As public attention has waned, it has become easier for the U.S. government to obscure its own role in helping foment violent crises that have sent waves of desperate refugees streaming across the world. It has also helped deflect attention from wartime expenditures that are now estimated to have sucked up over $6 trillion in public funds — money that could have done much good in a country that is starving for infrastructure and public health spending.
While Americans continue to search for explanations for their own eroding domestic national stability, the wars that continue to rage outside of public notice may help explain some of the ugly direction of U.S. politics in recent years.
“There is a perverse dynamic at play, in which we’re killing more people, creating adverse consequences like mass displacement and refugees, and then banning those very people from our shores,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Security Project. “We really need to question both the fairness and necessity of these policies, which are inflicting devastating human costs abroad while harming our own civil rights at home.”

That's a reality Little Jimmy can't share because he's not a journalist, he's a government employee temporarily laid off, waiting to be re-installed in the next Democratic administration.  He will not tell the truth, he will not offer anything that might offend.  There should be a petting zoo for these neutered 'reporters.'

I agree with Jill's call.

Dr. Jill Stein 🌻‏Verified account @DrJillStein 13h13 hours ago

End the war in Syria. End the war in Afghanistan. End the war in Iraq. End the war in Yemen. End the war in Somalia. End the war in Libya. End the war in Niger. #NoMoreWar

318 replies1,980 retweets5,164 likes

And, sorry to go there, Jill, but I'm not FAIR, I actually am fair.  That means I applaud you for the Tweet above but I damn well remember that in 2016 and 2012, you refused to address the wars seriously in your campaign -- there was no speech, there was nothing more than a sentence or two.  So, Jill, I'm glad you found your voice.  I hope you don't lose it again.  It's a real shame that you had two presidential runs and didn't use either to call out the ongoing wars.


Okay, Liz Sly is a journalist, an actual one.

Liz Sly‏Verified account @LizSly

"There is a question of trust. This will cause many governments to rethink their alliances with a superpower that can just abandon them and leave them in the lurch and throw them under the bus" - Iraq's ex FM Hoshyar Zebari on another US betrayal of Kurds

5:59 PM - 20 Dec 2018

At THE WASHINGTON POST, she writes:

Residents of northeastern Syria were bracing Thursday for the fallout of President Trump’s unexpected move to withdraw U.S. troops, a decision that many in the region regard as a betrayal that will reverberate well beyond this corner of Syria.

With Turkey threatening to invade from the north, the Syrian government threatening to retake the area by force and the Islamic State regrouping in their midst, Kurds and Arabs were unsure — and divided — over what most to fear next.

In the Syrian town of Kobane, where the United States’ alliance with Syria’s Kurds began in 2014, thousands of Kurds marched in anger and dismay toward a U.S. military base, many clutching photographs of their children killed fighting the Islamic State alongside U.S. forces. They urged Trump to reverse his decision.

Guess what?  Grow the f**k up and defend your own damn selves.  You've been pathetic and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.  The US government has repeatedly betrayed you, the Kurds, since the start of the Iraq War.  Did you get that article implemented to resolve Kirkuk yet?

Hell no.

It's part of the Iraqi Constitution and it was supposed to take place no later than the end of 2007.  Eleven years later and nothing.

And remember when Barack Obama insisted that even though Nouri al-Maliki lost the 2010 elections, he would get a second term?  Remember that contract that Barack told you the US would stand by, the concessions Nouri made to get that second term?  Yeah, you were going to get that article finally implemented.

Now the fact that it was required in your own Constitution didn't make Nouri do it but now because Barack was going to make sure it happened, you believed it would.

Because you acted like idiots.  Barack didn't stand by it -- or anything in The Erbil Agreement.  It was a lie.  You are repeatedly tricked and lied to.  And we've cited, repeatedly, the Pike Report (US Congressional report) which demonstrates that Henry Kissinger was lying to you and using you under Richard Nixon.

If you're repeatedly lied to and you keep believing?  You're a stupid idiot.  I'm sorry to speak bluntly but maybe this time you'll finally wake up to the truth.

When your areas are bombed by Turkey, we call it out here.  Does the US government?  No.  Not under Bully Boy Bush, not under Barack Obama and not under Donald Trump.

At some point, you really need to buy a clue.

They know you fold, they know you compromise, they know they can take you for granted.  So they repeatedly have.  That's on you.

Your Peshmerga -- when the Talabanis leave them alone -- can fight ISIS.  That's your fighting force, use it.  Stop pretending you need US forces.  I'm not going to keep playing.

US forces need to be out of Iraq.  The Kurds need to wise up to reality, the US government has never been their friends.  As Aimee Mann says, wise up.





The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley and Cindy Sheehan -- updated:

Trina's Kitchen

Out of Syria

27 seconds ago 

Oh Boy It Never Ends

SECOND ACT - Jennifer Lopez's new film

36 minutes ago

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

can our nation just grow the f**k up already?

40 minutes ago

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

James Wolfe broke the public trust

44 minutes ago 

Ann's Mega Dub

Oh, look, it's fake ass Jeanne Shaheen

6 hours ago

Mikey Likes It!

US out of Syria now

7 hours ago

Like Maria Said Paz

That disgusting Rachel Maddow

7 hours ago 

The Official Jody Watley Website

Albumism- Celebrating 20 Years of Jody Watley – Flower.

9 hours ago

SICKOFITRADLZ

Gatwick?

12 hours ago

Ruth's Report

Have you heard?

12 hours ago

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

Maybe don't treat Chomsky like a saint?

12 hours ago

Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox

Archives: Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox 2014

12 hours ago

Read on ...

The Second Term

From November 7, 2012,  that's "The Second Term."  

C.I. noted: 

While Barack sleeps, Bill Clinton says, "He doesn't have a clue."  Ronald Reagan adds, "The second term is where they destroy you."  Tricky Dick Nixon adds, "Ain't that the truth."  While Bully Boy Bush says, "Hey guys, you forgot to invite me," causing Nixon to explain, "This was for the elected, not the selected, George."    Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.

You should pair that with the amazing "Let the fun begin (Ava and C.I.)" which was so great.

Barack's second term?

Not so great.

Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Saturday, May 2, 2015.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq's Shi'ite leaders (and some Iraqi bloggers and Twitters) need to learn that the US government is not the Iraqi government and that Nouri may have bullied and bossed other branches around but Barack doesn't control the US Congress, the US Congress discusses Iraq and the Islamic State, they also discuss how Baghdad's not keeping its promise to supply Kurds and Sunnis with weapons and equipment, the US State Dept still can't acknowledge the execution of Iraqi journalist Thaer Ali and much more.



Eleven months ago, US President Barack Obama insisted that the only solution to Iraq's multitude of crises was "a political solution."

Eleven months ago.

And yet there is no progress on that.

And there has been no US government focus on that.

Barack has had officials in the administration -- Defense Dept, State Dept,  Vice President Joe Biden, etc -- focus on lining up other governments to join in bombing Iraq from the air and 'training' Iraqi forces.

Nothing has been done to aid a political solution or to press for one.


 "At the end of the day," Tamara Cofman Wittes declared Thursday, "civil wars end in only end in a couple of ways.  Either one side vanquishes and exterminates or expels the other or they fight to the point where an external power can help -- sometimes impose, sometimes negotiate -- a political solution -- and that's guaranteed by outside powers.  That's how civil wars typically end.  We wouldn't want the first outcome so we should be driving for the second.  And I think the extent to which the administration has articulated a longterm vision, that's its vision.  The question is: How do we get there?"

Dr. Wittes is with the Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.  She was testifying at the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa.  Also appearing before the Subcommittee were the RAND Corporation's Dr. Seth Jones and the Institute for the Study of War's Jack Keane (who is a retired US General).  The Subcommittee Chair is Illeana Ros-Lehtinen and the Ranking Member is Ted Deutch.

Some people want to explore issues.

Let's start with one of those.


US House Rep Brian Higgins: We tried to do one thing in Iraq, and I think we could only do one thing in Iraq, and that is through our military involvement to create a place -- a breathing space -- within which Sunni, Shi'ites and Kurds could develop a political contract.  And they failed miserably. And the guy that we put in there, Nouri al-Maliki, we put him in there first, Iran put him in there the second time basically created another sectarian divide.


To be clear, Iran did not put Nouri in there for a second term.   Iran favored him but he was named prime minister of Iraq on November 11, 2010 -- over a month after Iran got Moqtada al-Sadr to drop his objection to Nouri's second term -- and one day after -- one day after -- the US-brokered Erbil Agreement giving Nouri a second term was signed -- I know Patrick Cockburn's repeated lies have misinformed many but check the archives, it's a day after the US-brokered contract giving Nouri a second term is signed that Nouri gets a second term

In fairness to  Patrick Cockburn, in October 2010, he reported on Iran strong arming support for Nouri.  And then Patrick did what worthless trash always does -- focus on something else.

When The Erbil Agreement was being finalized and signed?

He was off in Libya reporting on Libya.  Seven days later, he hopped over to Syria for two stories before going back to Libya. Then to Iran.  He never filed on Iraq the entire month -- though he did make time for Ireland and Greece.


The Parliament meets for the first time, a president is named, a Speaker of Parliament is named, Nouri is named prime minister-designate and Patrick never reports one word on Iraq.


Playing catch up some time later, he invents the lie that that Iran installed Nouri (The Erbil Agreement is what overturns the votes of the Iraqi people, not Iran -- and that was a White House led objective) and people believe him.  Largely because his clique -- including the increasingly sad Noam Chomsky (oh, the stories I could tell . . .) -- keeps insisting he's the best reporter on Iraq.


Of course, they don't pay attention to Iraq which is why they think he's so damn good.


Arabs in the region see him as anti-Arab, by contrast, and that's due to the fact that they pay attention to his shoddy and misleading 'reporting.'



None of that is a slam at Higgins but I am so tired, almost five years after The Erbil Agreement, of people still trying to pretend it doesn't exist or not knowing that it does.

Higgins explored.

Another member?


Showed their ass.


Lois Frankel is both a member of the US House of Representatives and a deeply disturbed person whose lack of ethics twist and turn, choking in on itself.  We may cover Lois at Third.  Hopefully, in the real world, someone will give her the counseling and/or meds she so desperately needs.


The issue is not my disagreeing with her opinion.  The issue is her disagreeing with her stated opinion about two minutes after she argues it only to turn around and argue the other side.  Not to be philosophical, please understand.  Just to try to absolve Barack Obama of any guilt for the state of Iraq currently.

She is a deeply disturbed person and, sadly, deeply dishonest as well.

(Deeply dishonest includes distorting what the general said.  She pulled words that he had not said out of thin air and accused him -- falsely -- of blaming America.  In his rebuttal, he noted that he had not blamed America but that, yes, American actions in the region were among the contributors to the violence.)

A multitude of opinions were offered throughout the hearing -- by members of the Subcommittee and by witnesses.  And you could agree with them or disagree with them or be apathetic.  But with Lois Frankel, you couldn't agree with her because, just as soon as you did, she was ripping apart her stated beliefs to argue something else.  Her district needs to look very closely at her statements -- which please remember, the last time we covered her, included her calling the American people stupid instead of attacking the media if she believed the American people had received the wrong message.


From the March 26th snapshot:


US House Rep Lois Frankel:  I have a couple of questions.  First relates to underlying conditions that led to the rise of ISIL.  Would you -- would you agree that ISIL is not the cause of the turmoil in the region but a symptom of a deeper problems?  And I'd like to get your opinion is it unstable governments, poverty, desperation, radical religion, what?  I'd like to get your take on that.  And secondly, I think the American public somehow thinks that you can simply get rid of ISIL by bombs or dropping -- or drones.  Could you just explain the difficulty of -- of their assimilation into the population, and so forth, the terrain.


Oh, that stupid American public!


A Congressional representative who makes a statement like that is one who should seriously be primary-ied and should she emerge from the Democratic Party primary still standing, let's hope a Green or a Republican can take her out of office because when you're using your soapbox to attack the very people who vote for you, you don't deserve a spot in the US Congress.

We should probably also note shrill and hysterical Gerry Connelly.  No doubt, he'll again blame his wife for his performance but he shows up in the final minutes of the hearing and goes on to attack a witness for what he thinks a witness said at the start of the hearing.

Gerry's attack is weak in every way.

But mainly because he yet again almost cried in the midst of it.

Is there a reason he's that unbalanced?

He spoke for maybe two minutes and he had to tear up.

I'm sorry, what's the deal with cry babies in Congress.

Now I've defended any woman or man's right to cry when they're discussing serious issues.

Gerry was not, as one did, noting his parent who had suffered under the VA.

Gerry was just trying to attack.

Maybe he was about to cry because his attack was failing?

Maybe he was about to cry because his tighty-whiteys were crawling up his ass?

Maybe he was crying because his running in to attack meant he missed the end of General Hospital?

I have no idea.

But if he can't hold it together for two minutes without crying, it may be time for his peers to suggest he get some counseling or for him to announce he's retiring from Congress.  He clearly has other things on his mind.


Let's go back to Thursday's hearing.


Brian Higgins: The second issue is the panel seemed to be dismissive of the sectarian nature of the conflict in Iraq and in Syria and I don't think it can be dismissed at all.  I mean, it amazes me.  General, you had made reference to Qaem Soleimani who heads the Quds forces in Iraq.  I mean, he's not only a tan -- He's not a tangential player in what's going on in Iraq today and Syria, he's there physically.  He's on the ground directing Shia militias to prop up the the Shia government in Iraq.  And there not doing that as a goodwill measure, they're doing that to ensure that in the aftermath of ISIS, that Iraq remains Shia. And one could argue that ISIS basically wants their country back, they want to re-establish Sunni dominance in Iraq.  And, you know, someone had said here -- it's a fair assertion -- that we should talk less to our enemies and more to our friends. We don't really have friends in that part of the world.  You know, there's the discussion when Americans are in the room and the discussion when Americans are not in the room.  And typically we count our friends as people whose interests are aligned with ours at any given time but they're not really helping us.  And it just seems that given everything that Americans have invested in towards peace in Iraq -- $25 billion dollars to build up, to help them build up an Iraqi army, security force, $25 billion dollars -- and their first test, they ran.  They ran from a fighting force of less than 31,000.  The Iraqi army at that time was estimated to be anywhere from 180,000 and 240,000 fighters.  And then we depend on our allies who have proven to be helpful to us, the Peshmerga, good fighters, experienced fighters, pro-Western, helped us in the early stages of the Iraq War. [. . .] Shi'ite militias?  Who are controlled directly by Qasem Soleimani.

I don't make a point to identify "this person is a Democrat!" or "this person is a Republican!"  If you're interested in party labels, look it up.  I'm more interested in what's being discussed.

But we will note that Higgins is a Democrat.

And we'll note that because, pay attention here, he's commenting on who the US is arming.

Not the Peshmerga, not the Sunnis.

Though certain Shi'ite politicians in Iraq would like to pretend that it is Republicans only who are disgusted with the Shi'ite controlled Baghdad government refusing to adequately share the weapons and equipment the US is supplying, that's not the case.

Higgins is on record in many hearings -- and he's not the only Democrat who is -- expressing dismay over the lack of help to the Sunnis and the Kurds.

The proposal that was voted out of the Armed Services Committee on Thursday -- which will now go to a vote by the full House -- was not about creating three governments in Iraq.

That is a lie.

It could have been a misunderstanding on day one.

But as certain Shi'ite politicians -- not all -- continue to insist that it splits Iraq into three governments, they're now lying.  There's been plenty of time to grasp reality.

What it would do is arm the Kurds and the Sunnis in addition to supplying Haider with weapons.

It would guarantee that what was supposed to happen -- the US was supplying all Iraqi forces with weapons to combat ISIS -- actually was happening.

Take it up with Haider al-Abadi who refused to do what he was supposed to.

Those weren't his personal gifts to give to Shi'ites.

Those were supposed to go to Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds.

And to certain bloggers and Tweeters in Iraq, you don't the US government.

The Congress can stop all weapons from going to Iraq.

You seem to think -- wrongly -- that Barack Obama is a King.

He is a public servant.

He heads the executive branch which is equal to the legislative branch and to the judicial branch.

Unlike thug Nouri, Barack doesn't control the US Parliament (Congress) or the Supreme Court.

And it is the US Congress that determines how much money (and weapons) Iraq will or will not get from the US.

If that's not clear enough to you, study up on  former US President Ronald Reagan and grasp that had he been in better health, he would have been impeached for going around the US Congress to arm a group that the Congress said no to (Iran-Contra).

I grasp that Saddam Hussein did not instill democracy in Iraq.

I also grasp that Nouri al-Maliki bullied the Parliament and the Supreme Court.

But that's not the United States.  And the US Constitution makes the three branches co-equal, they are checks and balances written into the system as such.

So you can pout and you can bitch, moan and whine but that's not going to change the fact that the US Congess will decide whether Baghdad gets arms or not.



Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen: I'll ask you, do you believe that the current government in Baghdad -- that is certainly a breath of fresh air compared to the previous one -- can work cooperatively with the Kurds and provide them military hardware?

Gen Jack Keane: Yeah and that's a great question.  You -- I think you probably know the answer here.  The -- It's pretty frustrating what's unfolding.  We want to assist the Sunni tribes, we want to assist  the Kurds and the Iraqi government is constipating that process. And I know that there's a thought that we should find a mechanism to go around the government.  Look it, this government is an improvement and much of the success in Iraq is dependent upon their ability to politically be inclusive -- particularly with the Sunni tribes and the Kurds.  The advisors with the training program with the Sunni tribes is inadequate.  It's not going to get us there.  The arms program is inadequate because they're not reaching them.  The same thing with the Kurds.  The Kurds have skill and they have will but they need better weapons and that's not getting there either. More pressure needs to be put on -- I would rather go through the government and make that happen then go around the government and find another program to do it.  We've got to move the government in the right direction to do that.


Possibly the threat of legislation -- which has so alarmed a few significant Shi'ite officials in Iraq -- will prompt Haider al-Abadi to get off his fat ass and do what he's supposed to have been doing the whole time.

And to those Shi'ites so alarmed -- this means Nouri and his State of Law -- you better let go of the weapon issue and start focusing on the World Bank issue.

Iraq doesn't need funds from the World Bank.

Shi'ites have stolen billions from the Iraqi government.  And want to continue to steal billions.


So instead of ending corruption, they want to bring in more money from the World Bank.

You really want Saddam Hussein laughing in his grave?

Because he will.

To bring in the World Bank is to surrender autonomy.

And in 20 years, Iraqis will most likely -- regardless of sect -- remember that Saddam Hussein at least protected Iraq from foreign looters whereas consecutive Shi'ite governments have invited the wolf into the hen house.

Back to the hearing.



Chair Ileana Ros- Lehtinen: Despite the clear and vocal calls for a comprehensive strategy, US policy in Iraq and in Syria, the administration continues to treat the conflicts as separate or at least as situations that should be dealt with one at a time.  And this is either a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand or willful ignorance due to a political calculation -- namely the administration's misguided and naive nuclear negotiations with Iran.  It must acknowledge that air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat ISIL in either Iraq or in Syria, that Assad must be removed from power, and that Iran -- even if it is "the enemy of our enemy" -- it is still an enemy.  And hearing yesterday former Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford testify that if the United States allies with Iran, we are playing into ISIL's narrative and helping it's recruitment, I ask the panelists do you believe that we are cooperating with Iran -- directly or indirectly -- against ISIL?  And, if so, is this helpful to our national security interests?  Dr. Jones, Gen -- whoever wants to tackle this.


Dr. Seth Jones: Sure. I will start.  Look, I think in particular in Iraq, there is and there are areas with Iranian backed militia organizations in various areas.  The campaign has involved a complex set of state governments including Iraq and substate actors such as Kurds but also Iranian-backed Shia militias so  I think the answer to your questions is: Yes, the US has cooperated somewhat with Iran, particularly at the substate level.  There have been discussions about the uh-uh political issues -- Sunni - Shia issues with the Iraqi government that Iran has been involved in.  I think ultimately the US is in a very complicated position here but I do agree with your comments that a strong, allied relationship with Iran, if that's the direction we go in, would be very counter-productive and would certainly walk into an anti- -- would certainly help with the ISIL narrative --

Chair Ileana Ros- Lehtinen: Dr. Jones:  Thank you, sir.

Dr. Seth Jones:  -- exactly what they're saying.

Chair Ileana Ros- Lehtinen:  Gen Keane?

Gen Jack Keane:  I agree with the doctor about Iraq's level repeated but in Syria --  I think really the elephant in the room with Syria with the administration's reluctance to provide assistance to the Free Syrian Army despite a very credible and experienced national security team recommended that as I pointed out in my testimony I think is Iran, it is the elephant in the room in the sense that we've been -- because the nuclear talks and establishing the deal, I think, is the unstated, foreign policy major objective of the administration.  It has handcuffed our ability to do what we should have done in Syria because of a potential setback from the Iranians so de facto our policy decision in Syria have certainly helped Iran's bonafide client-state relationship with Syria, contributes to their expansionist policies  and certainly encourages them to do what they are doing right now in Yemen which if they're able to achieve what they want to achieve in Yemen -- political and military control in Yemen -- then they change the strategic balance of power in  the region by gaining control of strategic waterway at the Gulf of Aden at the Straights of Bab-el-Mandeb and effect and control and leverage shipping that comes out of the Suez Canal -- a major objective for the Iranians that they would not have though of  without the progress that they've made in Syria.

Chair Ileana Ros- Lehtinen:  Thank you.  And Doctor?

Dr. Tamara Wittes:  Thank you.  You know, I think part of the challenge I think that our regional partners who are absolutely necessary to any successful outcome in Syria have, until very recently, been pretty divided themselves on the question of what should follow Assad and what kind of political order they would see as a desirable end state.  Uh, and in many ways, there elevation of the Iranian threat above the threat of ISIS, above the threat of political Islam, is a product of the last year or so.  But up until recently, different Arab States were supporting different factions in the Syrian opposition and I think that vastly complicated any ability we had to forge unity among them.  Now there might well have been a time early in the Syrian conflict when a more forward leaning American policy would have created that unified front but I think we're long past that point now unfortunately.



Chair Ros-Lehtinen referenced Ambassador Ford.  She's referring to the Wednesday's House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing on Terrorism.  In Wednesday's snapshot, we noted the remarks she was referring to (and covered the hearing in greater detail in Thursday's snapshot):

Former Ambassador Robert Ford:  We should not fall into the trap, and I've seen this discussed in some policy circles here in Washington, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that working with Iran will help fix our Islamic State problem.  The Islamic State rose in part -- not entirely -- but in part from long standing grievances and fears within Sunni communities in the Levant and Iraq about growing Persian and Shia influences.  Working with Iran, even indirectly, will feed the Islamic State narrative and will immediately help its recruiting.



These are issues that need to be explored and addressed, not ignored or dismissed without any real consideration given to them.


Back to Thursday's hearing, we'll note the Ranking Member's line of questioning.


Ranking Member Ted Deutch: The Iranian Foreign Minister was on American television the other night, was talking -- when asked about Iranian influence in the region and-and the way that it is perceived pushed back against the argument that anyone could perceive what's happening in the region as a Sunni - Shia conflict -- that there's -- that there's absolutely nothing to that.  I'd like to hear from our panelists a response to that. And if you agree with that statement, what roles can the United States play if his assertion is wrong and it is indeed perceived that way among our allies and those who are not.

Dr. Seth Jones: Sure, I'll -- I'll start.  I think we're often prone to gross generalizations about the state of sectarianism.  Being recently, for example, in Djibouti and looking closely at the situation in Yemen, one can easily gravitate to the argument that this is a Saudi -- because they've been involved -- [and] Iran proxy war. But the reality when you get on the ground in Yemen and look at it is there's a range of tribal politics involved and the Houthis have been battling Saudi Arabia for a long time.  They are not an arm of the Iranian government.  They do get some assistance. So I would say the answer to your question is there is clearly a-a Iranian grand strategy for the Middle East, for north and east Africa, for other locations, that has caused them to provide assistance to some groups and not others, some governments and not others.  But when you actually look on the ground, whether it's Syria or Iraq, or Yemen, or take your pick, I mean I think we do have to understand that we are also then bringing in very localized elements of the dispute.  So I would say that there is a combination of both local and these grand strategic issues that is going on in all the conflicts we are talking about here.

Gen Jack Keane: Yeah.  I-I agree.  One of the things that happens when you look at this region because of the sectarianism that has been there historically, we have a tendency to throw that out as the underlying cause for all the trouble we're having.  It's been a contributor but there's a lot of peace between these sectarian groups as well.  The Iranians -- I mean, I clearly think this is a geopolitical strategy of theirs to dominate the region, to influence and dominate Shia countries as well as Sunni countries.  And I believe that is what is driving them.  Like other radical Islamists, they will take advantage and manipulate the sectarian divide as much as they can to their own geopolitical ends.

Ranking Member Ted Deutch: Dr. Wittes?


Dr. Tamara Cofman Wittes: I think both sides of this regional power struggle -- and I would agree it is a regional power struggle -- have found the sectarian narrative useful.  It helps them rally around the flag.  It helps them mobilize allies.  And, unfortunately, they have fed off of one another repeatedly, whether it's in Bahrain or in Yemen or in Syria.  Uh, once that narrative takes hold and is advanced by one side, the other side ups the ante.  And we've seen this in the regional media.  It's been quite vicious and nasty.  But I think that the problem with just looking at it through that lens is that it becomes a self-fulfilling process at a certain point.  Just as we saw in the Balkans in the 1990s, at a certain point when people have lost the ability to find security through the state or through the government, they're going to fall back on community identities.  And if everybody around them is choosing friend or foe -- according to sectarian identity -- they'll be forced to do that too.  So the reality for Syrians, sadly today, I think is a reality of sectarian conflict.  It didn't have to be that way, but that's where we are.

Ranking Member Ted Deutch: And so then where should it go?  And specifically to the point you made about young people who -- particularly those in their teens, early 20s who have now endured four years of this?  Many of them displaced or refugees.  What's the message from the United States going forward.  What do they need to see to counter their understandable -- as you put it -- their understandable decision, in many cases, to fall back on tribal affiliation?

Dr. Tamara Cofman Wittes:  Yeah.  I think in the Iraqi case, there is a fierce debate going on and an effort to try and demonstrate that there's space within Iraqi politics and the Iraqi state for all of Iraq's people.  I don't know, uh, whether the angels will win that argument. I certainly hope so.  And I think that both Iran and our Sunni Arab partners have important roles to play in helping to stabilize Iraq by making sure those decisions on behalf of political inclusion like establishing the national guard move forward.  Syria, I think, is much harder because the conflict is so severe because half the population has been displaced. But as part of what we need to do, whatever the political architecture, we need to generate within society  over the longterm the ability to build dialogue, to build inter communal dialogue, to build mechanisms for conflict resolution so that, while those tensions will always be there, they don't erupt into violence.


Let's stay with the US government before we move over to events in Iraq.

On Friday, the US State Dept held their latest press briefing which was moderated by spokesperson Jeff Rathke.

MR RATHKE:  Hello, good afternoon. 

QUESTION:  Happy Friday. 

MR RATHKE:  And likewise.  I have a couple of things to mention at the top.  So first is press freedom – which, as you know, we’ve been talking about all this week at the top of the briefing.  Today, we wrap up the Free the Press campaign with two final cases. 

The first comes from Uzbekistan, where a newspaper editor named Muhammad Bekjanov has remained in prison since 1999, the longest ongoing incarceration of a journalist in the world, by some accounts.  His newspaper, Erk, which means freedom, published articles advocating for democratic reform.  And he is thought to have been arrested for his public criticism of President Karimov’s administration and for his affiliation with a peaceful political opposition party.  We call on the Government of Uzbekistan to release Mr. Bekjanov and to take the steps necessary to create space for independent journalists to work without fear of violence.  We also urge the Government of Uzbekistan to allow international observers to visit prisons and to grant all citizens access to full due process in accordance with international commitments.

And for our last Free the Press campaign case, we are highlighting the country of Nicaragua.  Nicaragua suffers from a restricted media environment that includes censorship, self-censorship, and examples of harassment.  We urge the Government of Nicaragua to recognize and support the vital role of independent media and the free exchange of ideas as critical components of a free and democratic society.

And one additional note, although it’s unrelated to that campaign.  I also want to express on behalf of the United States our sympathy to the family of Somali journalist Daud Ali Omar and his wife, who we understand were killed by gunmen in Somalia on Wednesday.  Somalia remains one of the world’s most dangerous places to be a journalist.

As we have noted repeatedly this week, Iraqi journalist Thaer Ali was executed in Mosul by the Islamic State this week.  Yet in five press briefings, Monday through Friday, while pimping a concern for the press and the shallow "Free the Press" campaign, the State Dept has never once noted Thaer's murder.

Why is that?

Two State Dept friends point out that while the executions of journalists were used by the White House to galvanize support for their operations in Iraq and Syria, advertising that these executions are still taking place is acknowledging to the horrified American public that the White House's plan or 'plan' has not accomplished anything.

Apr 27

Methaq Al -fayydh ‏@AlFayth

#داعش يعدمون الصحفي والناشط المدني ثائر محمود بعد اعتقاله قبل 20 يوم

Apr 27

Methaq Al -fayydh ‏@AlFayth

Daesh executed journalist Thaer Ali in Mosul

Apr 28

Methaq Al -fayydh ‏@AlFayth

Iraq: Stato islamico giustizia giornalista e attivista Musli Thaer Ali https://shar.es/1pdRRp عبر @sharethis

Over 300!

Over 300 Yazidis killed in Iraq!!!!

Or maybe just 25.

That's what AP reports and bases it on the numbers supplied to them by Yadizi Mehma Khalil

Who knows?

Margaret Griffis (Antiwar.com) counts at least 65 violent deaths across Iraq on Friday.  Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) has an important piece you should read.







iraq
antiwar.com
margaret griffis
jason ditz

Read on ...