The World Today Just Nuts

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Hillary's Reaction To Losing West Virginia To Bernie

From May 11, 2016, that's "Hillary's Reaction To Losing West Virginia To Bernie." C.I. noted:

Hillary [Clinton] has drawn a picture of Bernie Sanders hanging from a noose. She turns to us and says, "It's my right to get hellish. I still get jealous." Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.

That comic resulted from a woman at work playing Nick Jonas' "Jealous" for me. I'd never heard him sing before -- I'd heard of the Jonas Brothers but never heard them. She loved "Jealous" and it grew on me so I worked it into a comic.

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

Saturday, July 20, 2019. Another VA scandal, the US State Dept 'honors' a murdered person by forgetting to name them, and we look some more at the Senate's Iraq hearing.

Yesterday on NPR's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, Ari Shapiro explained the latest VA scandal, "The Department of Veterans Affairs has spent more than $25 million to help people with spina bifida, a debilitating spinal cord disease. Now, prosecutors say nearly 20 million of that money went to one fraudulent scheme led by a man who coordinated seven shell companies."

THE DAILY BEAST's Seamus Hughes joined the program to discuss the VA's Joseph Prince who ran a Denver call center.

HUGHES: And families of kids with spina bifida would call, and they would request services and reimbursement. And he would direct them towards the right folks. The right folks in this scenario were seven companies that he set up with his wife, his half-sister and a bunch of friends.

SHAPIRO: They were, in fact, the wrong folks.

HUGHES: Absolutely.

SHAPIRO: And what happened to the families of children with spina bifida once they were directed to these shell companies?

HUGHES: So what they would do is get paid about $15 to $16 an hour for taking care of their sick children, and then these companies would charge the VA $146. Allegedly, they would pocket the rest of the money, and then they would kick back Joseph Price something north of $1.5 million.

SHAPIRO: Has anyone other than Price been charged in this case?

HUGHES: One other individual - he's going to plead out next week.

SHAPIRO: And yet, with seven shell companies, you would have to think this must not be over.

HUGHES: Yeah. I think you're talking about a massive investigation. In fact, they've filed 40 seizure notices to seven different companies and a bunch of different bank accounts. I think it's still ongoing.

SHAPIRO: Did this affect the people who are struggling with this debilitating spinal cord disease?

HUGHES: You know, they thought that when they called Joseph Price, they would get someone who would help them. And in many ways, he directed them - he said, you know, here's a form. Here's the company you should use. It made it easy for them, but in actuality, he's - you know, it's basically a scheme. He used these individuals and tricked them and made something that should've been an easy thing in their life a lot harder.

[. . .]

SHAPIRO: Almost $20 million - that's a lot of money. How did Joseph Prince spend this?

HUGHES: So if you look at the seizure notice that's been filed in court records, you know, you had some folks of part of this scheme spending $120,000 on furniture, another $30,000 in plastic surgery, paying off student loans, buying houses, beachfront property.

SHAPIRO: Tell me about where the VA sits in all of this because the Veterans Affairs Department has had a lot of scandals, and this is yet another.

HUGHES: It is yet another. Now, we should note that this was investigated with the VA inspector general's office. The concern here is that this scheme went on for at least a year, and so the tripwires didn't happen until $18 million had already left the stables. And so you would hope that they set up some sort of system so that they don't have to wait 365 days till they figure out what's happening.

SHAPIRO: The question is, if somebody like Joseph Prince was allegedly able to do this, is somebody else doing it with a different fund for a different disease?

HUGHES: Exactly. I mean, it raises questions about oversight. It raises questions about whether there is enough checks and balances in the system.

SHAPIRO: He allegedly did that, according to prosecutors.

Click here for the report Hughes did with Lachlan Markay for THE DAILY BEAST.

Yet another VA scandal.

Congress is supposed to provide oversight. Supposed to.

Wednesday, we noted some of the hearing entitled "Iraq: A Crossroads of US Policy." The hearing was held by the Near East Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Mitt Romney is the Subcommittee Chair and Senator Chris Murphy is the Ranking Member. Appearing before the Subcommittee was the State Dept's Joan Polaschik (Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs) and the Defense Dept's Michael P. Mulroy (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East).

Mitt Romney spent his time largely noting -- and lamenting -- Iraq's oil and other "significant natural resources" and the failure "to exploit them." He also moaned over a $53 billion deal ExxonMobil had that had been "placed on hold."

The hearing existed to pivot for continued war yet again. Even ISIS isn't enough to justify US troops for the Senate these days so they have a new rationale to keep US troops on the ground in Iraq -- to neutralize the influence from neighboring Iran.

I'd noted that we'd cover the amount of State staffers in Baghdad next time so let's pick up there.

Ranking Member Chris Murphy: . . . something that I want you to address which is a report over the weekend -- a really disturbing report suggesting that the Embassy in Baghdad is down to 15 functional, political staffers. Help me understand the conundrum that I laid out in my opening remarks which is how do we maintain our political mission in Baghdad if we have pulled so many of our personnel out of Baghdad if we are down to 15 functioning, political staffers in Baghdad. And if we were able to maintain a full diplomatic corp there during the height of the Iraq War in the 2000s, why can't we do the same today? The report from this weekend suggests that this is a permanent decision that we -- that State has made a decision that they are going to keep these low level staff for a -- for a time uncertain. So given that report, I was wondering if you could clarify some of that for the Committee today?

Joan Polaschik: Of course. First, I'd like to go back a couple of months to early May where we faced a very serious, specific, credible threat stream against US personnel in Iraq and that threat stream has not diminished. It's still there. So that was the reason that Embassy Baghdad requested authorization to go to go to ordered departure status and the Secretary of State approved that on May 14th. This is a temporary situation. Ordered departure is something that is done in thirty day increments. We constantly evaluate the situation looking closely at the threat information that we have and the personnel on the ground to make sure that we've got the right-right fit. And the Secretary just renewed the ordered departure status on July 12th for another thirty days. I would prefer not to into specific numbers of personnel that we have on the ground in this open setting but I would be very, very happy to brief you later. I would note again though that this is just a temporary decision. We have not made any decisions to permanently withdraw our staff. We are constantly evaluating the situation. And it is certainly the hope that we are able to have a maximum presence on the ground in order to achieve all of the important objectives that we have.

Senator Chris Murphy: Without -- Certainly, without getting into the classified threat assessment, I think it's -- I think it's hard to suggest that the threat is higher today than it was during the height of the insurgency and the fighting in and around Baghdad. And so while I would never second guess security decisions, I would hope that if there is a long term decision made to have lower levels of staffing there that we start to think about how to increase security so that we can return to some level of political functionality. Because if we don't, if we maintain a dozen or two dozen political staffers there, it is an invitation for ISIS to re-emerge because we are not there helping Iraqis do the hard lift of political reconciliation that ultimately protects our interests against the future rise of ISIS or a follow on organization. So I-I-I understand how sensitive this is because you're talking about the lives of American personnel there but the risk of a longterm political withdrawal from Baghdad could, in the end, cost as many American lives as we are saving in the short run. And that's just something that I hope the State Dept is contemplating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The State Dept and the Defense Dept are trying yet again to do what they've tried for 16 years now and counting -- have the puppet government put down roots. It's not supported by the people. That's the real reason that US troops remain in Iraq. The puppet government remains unpopular and it also remains corrupt and ineffective which only increases its unpopularity.

But that's who the US government has elected to get into bed with.

"I would say that we're partners," insisted Joan Polaschik to Senator Tim Kaine. Of course, she also said with a straight fact that "This Iraqi government in particular has made it very clear that it's -- it is intent upon, uh, ensuring Iraq's sovereignty, it's independence, uh, it's unified democratic status."

Wow. They're clear on that, are they? But then we've heard that every four years about each of the puppet governments. It's never come to fruition because they really don't want a unified democrat nation. They are Shi'ite cowards who fled Iraq and only returned after the US invaded. The US government keeps putting these cowards in charge and these cowards come with a huge chip on their shoulder and are unable to move Iraq forward because, among other things, they are out for vengeance, determined to settle old scores -- real and imagined.

Senator Tim Kaine: And the current government continues to want US engagement as they pursue that strategy, correct?

Joan Polaschik: Absolutely. We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government.

Senator Tim Kaine: Mr. Mulroy, how would you describe the relationship?

Michael P. Mulroy: I completely agree, sir, it's a partnership. And I think -- I think they would actually say the same thing specific to the government of Iraq. If you look at the president, Barham Salih, used to be the chairman of the, uh, American University in Salahuddin and I think most of my colleagues have known him for 10 or 15 years in the Dept of Defense. The prime minister is very similar relationships. Uh, the Speaker of the House, [Mohamed] al-Halbousi, he worked very closely with us when he was the governor of Anbar and many of us know him. So it's, uh, I think they talk to us pretty bluntly and I think we know what they're saying when they're saying it and I think that we both view this as a longterm partnership because we have been together so long.

Let's move over to another continuing problem, the Turkish government's violation of Iraqi sovereignty. This has taken place over and over, year after year. From time to time, an Iraqi official, usually the Foreign Affairs Minister, will speak out against Turkey bombing northern Iraq or Turkey's military entering northern Iraq. Turkey doesn't care and the US government sticks its head in the dirt.

Wednesday's snapshot noted that a Turkish diplomat and two other people were killed at an Erbil restaurant. The diplomat was Osman Kose. The Turkish government is attempting to use this killing to justify even bolder violations of Iraq's sovereignty. ALJAZEERA reported, "Turkey on Thursday launched an air attack on the Kurdish region in northern Iraq in response to the killing of a Turkish diplomat in the region, the country's defence minister said." DEUTSCHE WELLE noted:

Turkey carried out an airstrike on Iraqi Kurdistan on Thursday in retaliation for the killing of a Turkish diplomat in the region, the Defense Ministry said Friday.

Defense Minister Hulusi Akar said the airforce had "launched the most comprehensive air operation on Qandil," a difficult-to-reach area of Northern Iraq where the Turkish separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) has its headquarters, according to the AFP news agency.

Retaliation? Don't we just love governments that act like the mafia?

Back and forth, back and forth, no one breaks the cycle because apparently there are no grown ups in the room.

‏ @Musa_Tatar_

Turkish citizens attack tourists wearing Kurdistan scarves

Nine tourists from northern Iraq were attacked by residents of Turkey’s north-eastern province of Trabzon while having their photo taken with scarves on which the word Kurdistan is written, Gazete Duvar news portal … 

2 likes

The US government Tweeted about the attack. We'll note that and the only response the Tweet has received.

.@SecPompeo spoke with Turkish Foreign Minister @MevlutCavusoglu, expressed condolences regarding July 17 attack in Erbil, which resulted in the death of a Turkish diplomat, and reaffirmed commitment to addressing Turkish security concerns along the Turkey-Syria border.

19 replies78 retweets181 likes

‏ @specialkgagnon

Replying to @statedeptspox @SyriacMFS and

It was just a set up so Turkey could attack Iraq again which they did.

4:10 PM - 20 Jul 2019

There's something really sad and embarrassing when the US State Dept's spokesperson -- currently Morgan Ortagus -- Tweets to express sympathy over a death and can't even name the person who was killed. Did no one notice that? Did no one ask, "Hey, Morgan, you're Tweeting a sympathy Tweet on Saturday, three days after the man was shot dead, and you're not even going to include his name in the Tweet?" Again, his name was Osman Kose.

ALJAZEERA reports:

The main suspect in the killing of a Turkish diplomat in the Iraqi city of Erbil has been arrested, authorities in semi-autonomous Kurdish region have announced.

"The Kurdistan Region announced on Saturday the arrest of a man who planned the assassination of a Turkish diplomat in a restaurant in Erbil, less than a week after the attack," the Asayish internal security service said in a statement.

The following sites updated:

Read on ...

Sunday, July 7, 2019

Carly Stays On The Ticket

From May 14, 2016, that's "Carly Stays On The Ticket." C.I. explained:

Carly Fiorina struggles for a conclusion, as she explains, "Okay, Ted dropped out but I didn't. So I'm still the pick for my party's vice presidential candidate, right?" Isaiah archives his comics at The World Today Just Nuts.

Carly was forgotten throughout the 2016 campaign. By the time Donald Trump was seeking a running mate, that's the reality, Carly was long forgotten.

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

Friday, July 5, 2019. Justice in Iraq? About as likely as justice for Iraq.

‏Verified account @belkiswille

1000s detained, including kids, in degrading conditions in #Iraq. Overcrowding doesn't solely affect the detainees, but also the community as a whole. Authorities should ensure that conditions in prisons do not foster more grievances in the future.
hrw.org/news/2019/07/0…

5 replies81 retweets91 likes

What's she talking about?

Late Wednesday, Human Rights Watch issued an alert which opened:

Nineveh’s extremely overcrowded detention facilities are holding thousands of prisoners in Iraq, most on terrorism charges, for extended periods in conditions so degrading that they amount to ill-treatment. The authorities should ensure that prisoners are not held in inhuman conditions and that there is a clear legal basis for detentions, Human Rights Watch said today.

“The Iraqi government urgently needs to rebuild and rehabilitate its detention facilities,” said Lama Fakih, acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Iraq has a duty to ensure that detainees are housed decently, in line with international standards.”

Tal Kayf, Faisaliya, and Tasfirat (in the Faisaliya compound), the three pretrial detention facilities in the northern Iraq governorate, have a combined maximum capacity of 2,500 people, according to a senior Iraqi penitentiary expert who requested anonymity. As of late June 2019, they were holding about 4,500 prisoners and detainees. Of that number, 1,300 had been tried and convicted and should have been transferred to Baghdad prisons. The authorities had yet to take the steps needed to transfer them, the expert said, even six months after some were convicted.

The expert shared photos taken in May of female terrorism suspects with their children in one cell in Tal Kayf prison, and juvenile terrorism suspects in another. Two other people who had visited the prison corroborated the conditions of extreme overcrowding seen in the photos and their location. The expert said the cells at Tal Kayf prison holding detainees on other charges are less crowded because of lower numbers.

The expert said the detainees have no space to lie down in their cells or even sit comfortably. Prison authorities have not provided mattresses because there is no room for them in the cells, he said. “These prisons are meant to be a place for rehabilitation but if authorities house detainees in these kinds of conditions, I can only imagine what will happen to them after they are released,” he said. Lawyers do not have access to the prison to visit their clients – among other reasons, because there is no space for meetings.

Human Rights Watch has previously documented deaths in custody in Nineveh stemming from severe overcrowding.

The evidence shared with Human Rights Watch strongly suggests that conditions at the Nineveh pretrial detention facilities are unfit to hold detainees for extended periods of time and do not meet basic international standards. Holding detainees in such conditions amount to ill-treatment.

International norms regarding prison conditions, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the “Mandela Rules”) require that “[a]ll accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation.” The Mandela Rules state that “sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner” and that “[a]dequate bathing and shower installations shall be provided.”

The Interior and Justice Ministries should, as an urgent priority, improve conditions and expedite the investigative process, guaranteeing everyone in pretrial detention a speedy and fair trial or release. Authorities should transfer all detainees from these facilities to official prisons built to accommodate detainees and equipped to meet basic international standards.

Of course, working with the Ministry of the Interior can be problematic since there's no one in charge of the ministry. September was really the last time there was a Minister of the Interior. Though the current prime minister Adil Abdul Mahdi was supposed to nominate someone back in October, all these months later, he still hasn't. All these months later -- nine months, for those keeping track -- few are bothering to note this reality so I'll assume very few are keeping track.

Tamara Qiblawi and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) report:

An Iraqi rights group has corroborated the findings. "Unfortunately it is true," Ali Akram al-Bayati, a member of the Independent High Commission for Human Rights of Iraq told CNN. "(It is) because of the large number of detainees and imprisoned persons, poor Iraqi infrastructure ... corruption at the level of administration or staff in such places."

The unnamed Iraqi penitentiary expert cited by HRW said Niniveh's three pretrial detention facilities -- Tal Kayf, Faisaliya, and Tasfirat -- had a combined maximum capacity of 2,500 people.

But one senior security official, who declined to be named because he is not authorized to give statements to the media, told CNN Thursday that two of these facilities alone currently housed at least 5,400 people.

ALJAZEERA adds:

Nearly one-third of detainees had already been convicted and should have been transferred from the three northern prisons to the capital, Baghdad. Some were supposed to have moved as long as six months ago.
Legal advocates have no access to their clients partly because the prisons have no space for meetings, according to a senior Iraqi penitentiary expert who visited the prisons and provided HRW with the photographs.
Iraq declared victory over the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group (ISIS or ISIL) in late 2017, and has continued to carry out arrests of suspected fighters, including in Nineveh province and its capital, Mosul - once ISIL's main Iraqi bastion.

The Iraqi government does not provide figures on detention centres or prisoners, but some studies have estimated 20,000 are being held for alleged ISIL links.

Staying on the topic of legal issues . . .

Sarah Abdallah‏ @sahouraxo 18 hours ago

Just your daily reminder that Julian Assange faces up to 175 years in jail merely for exposing US war crimes in #Iraq to the world.

Meanwhile, those who invaded Iraq on a pack of lies, killing a million people, are still out there planning new wars against #Iran and #Venezuela.

25 replies846 retweets1,457 likes

Publisher Julian Assange remains persecuted. As Sarah notes, the ones who started the Iraq War do not. They roam freely when they should be behind bars. But Julian exposed the truth so the likes of Hillary Clinton have long been demanding his arrest and worse.

On the topic of Julian, Jean Shaoul (WSWS) reports:

The Frontline Club, bringing together journalists and photographers with an interest in war reporting and international relations, organised a meeting in London Tuesday night, Julian Assange: The Debate.
The Frontline Club has a long connection with Assange. In December 2010, one of the club’s founders Vaughan Smith stood surety for Assange to the tune of £20,000 along with eight others, hosting him for more than a year in his home after a two-month stay at the Club. Since then, Smith has faced a barrage of criticism for speaking in Assange’s defence.
While the ticketed event for around 100 was publicised as a debate, it took the form of a series of questions by the chair, veteran journalist Robin Lustig, to former Guardian editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger, Times columnist and broadcaster David Aaronovitch, Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg, Assange’s barrister Jennifer Robinson, as well as Smith.
Arguably the most despised among the advertised speakers, Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore, pulled out at the last minute. Moore famously tweeted of Assange, “He really is the most massive turd.” It was left to Aaronovitch, like Moore a former member of the Communist Party who has lurched ever further to the right, to take up the role as the event’s most vitriolic and unprincipled critic of Assange.
In 2012, Aaronovitch likened Assange’s “celebrity backers” to Quasimodo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame, “swinging down from a flying buttress to scoop up the doomed and swooning Esmeralda and swinging back, shouting ‘Sanctuary! Sanctuary!’” He had declared that Assange “should be arrested the second he steps outside the Ecuadorean embassy,” and headlined another article with the claim, “It’s Sweden that Assange fears, not America.” In November 2017, he proclaimed that “Assange isn’t a dreamer, he’s a destroyer,” in “the same destructive club as Putin and Trump.”
Lustig opened the meeting by asking whether Assange “deserved” solidarity and support. He declared his own passive and deliberately evasive position, “I hope the award-winning journalist is not be extradited, but that if he is, he would be acquitted.” This was a position the despicable Mr. Aaranovich was happy to sign off on, given the fact that Assange faces a kangaroo court in the UK whose verdict in favour of extradition is a foregone conclusion.
Rusbridger followed. His role in betraying and defaming Assange during his period as Guardian editor is a matter of public record. Yet he used his appearance to airbrush history, emphasising he was opposed to Assange’s extradition to the US. He cited 10 articles he had written in Assange’s defence and spoke of journalists’ obligation to defend Assange’s release of documents exposing US war crimes. He recalled the Guardian’s early collaboration with Assange — stressing his newspaper’s careful editing of the Wikileaks documents as “responsible” journalism. He had promised to stand by Assange if he faced prosecution for his work with the Guardian, a pledge he relayed to the audience without any evident shame.
When questioned about the Guardian’s failure to retract its long-discredited report that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign manager Paul Manafort met with Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2016—a claim flatly denied both Assange and Manafort—Rusbridger washed his hands of the issue, replying the article was written after his departure from the Guardian in 2015. He said nothing of the anti-Assange campaign begun under his own editorship and was not pressed seriously on this by Lustig.
Aaronovitch was far more explicitly hostile to Assange. When he referred to the Swedish allegations of sexual misconduct as “charges,” the pro-Assange audience shouted, “allegations not charges!” But he dismissed their protests, claiming, “I have to say that for most people, such distinctions are pretty small” and repeatedly referred to “charges” throughout the remainder of his venomous contribution.
While he did not name Assange, he insinuated that there are people in the media who are working with Russia—not as spies but as “agents” —who are manipulating the news and seeking to sway elections.
Vaughan Smith spoke with considerable feeling for the persecuted journalist, who he said had been “smeared on an industrial scale” to divert attention from the crimes he had exposed. Citing UN rapporteur Nils Melzer, he said that there was a well-funded attempt to demonise Assange, whom journalists had a responsibility to defend.

Following the Swedish allegations of sexual misconduct, Smith said there was a marked shift in the way Assange was treated in the press. He was smeared as a rapist. Facts were misrepresented. Crucially, the allegations were used not to prosecute Assange, but to defame and demonise him. He pointed out the ugly way the media had gloated over his illegal and brutal removal from the Ecuadorian embassy. He added that Assange had been sent to Belmarsh jail, dubbed Britain’s Guantanamo, in a bid to portray him as a danger to society.

In other legal news, Julie Watson and John Antczak (AP) provide an update on Edward Gallagher:

A decorated Navy SEAL acquitted of murder in the killing of a wounded Islamic State captive in Iraq but convicted over posing with the corpse was given a demotion by a military jury Wednesday after the Bronze Star recipient acknowledged making ethical and moral mistakes.
Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher, 40, was also handed the maximum penalty for the offense of four months in confinement, though he will serve no jail time because it is less than the time he spent in custody before the trial.

Kevin Reed (WSWS) offers:

Gallagher’s record of murderous behavior goes back further than 2017. He was investigated for shooting a young girl in Afghanistan in 2010 but subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing. During his eighth deployment at the battle for Mosul, Gallagher was reported numerous times by fellow Navy SEALs for actions that were not in keeping with the “rules of war.”
Meanwhile, the prosecution’s case was thrown into a tailspin on June 20 when the medic, Special Operator First Class Corey Scott, who had been granted immunity, testified that Gallagher’s stab wounds did not kill the ISIS captive. Instead, Scott said that he placed his finger over the captive’s breathing tube until he died as an act of mercy.
The prosecution also suffered from the last-minute removal of its lead military lawyer one week before the trial was to begin. Navy Judge Captain Aaron Rugh removed prosecutor Cmdr. Christopher Czaplak for secretly attempting to track the communications of the defense team and a journalist covering the trial. The judge also ordered Gallagher released from custody while awaiting trial.
The military jury of five Marines and two sailors, including one SEAL, deliberated for eight hours over two days before they returned their decisions. The one conviction on the least serious of the charges carries a sentence of four months for which Gallagher will get credit for time already served. He will be released on Tuesday.
The court martial lasted for two weeks and the lead up to it became the occasion for right-wing US political figures to advocate for Gallagher and support his family’s campaign to “Free Eddie.” Republican Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas, a former Navy SEAL who deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy demanding that Gallagher’s detention circumstances be improved. On March 30, President Donald Trump ordered Gallagher transferred to “less restrictive confinement” following complaints from his supporters.

If Reed is correct about past actions, why is the rage at Edward Gallagher and not at a system and the higher ups who would have not only covered up the alleged crimes but also sent someone like that into further battles?

I'm all for accountability. But if Reed is correct, the guilt goes much further than Edward Gallagher. If Reed is correct, Gallagher was just a pawn and he was deployed with the knowledge on the part of the brass that he would break rules and laws and commit War Crimes. At best, Edward would be the low hanging fruit. Is there a reason that so many are scared to aim higher when calling people out?

It's like the attacks on Judith Miller. As we've repeatedly noted, she did not write articles in the paper, edit the paper, take it to the printers, put content online and deliver print copies each morning. It's funny how history has made one person, a reporter, responsible for all the lies THE NEW YORK TIMES printed -- both in her articles and outside of her articles -- and allowed so many others -- including those in actual power over what made it into the paper (yes, Jill, we're talking about you again) have largely been allowed to skate free.

Accountability is always needed. Scapegoating one person for the crimes of many? Not so much.

Meanwhile Nick Meyer (ARAB AMERICAN NEWS) reports:

Iraq is in a fragile state and its great rivers including the iconic Euphrates and Tigris are dying, scientists say, as the country works to rebuild itself after thirty years of near constant war.
Iraq is now in the process of running out of water, which is sourced from the two mighty, historical rivers. Both run the length of the country supplying drinking water, irrigation, and hydroelectricity to a booming population.
But recently, the Euphrates has been reduced down to a quarter of its normal flow. In 2018, the Tigris sunk so low that people in Baghdad could wade across it.

The two rivers combine in a central point called the Shatt Al-Arab, but this area became so poisonous last summer that 100,000 people were hospitalized, sparking riots in the city of Basra, which was once nicknamed the “Venice of the Middle East.”

And that's going to be it for today. As Rebecca noted Monday, I've got other things to focus on today.

The following sites updated:

Music

'Rootless And Ruthless': Nadia Tehran Invokes Life In The Diaspora

2 hours ago

Dissident Voice

Independence?

6 hours ago

Antiwar.com Original

Putting the Warriors on Terror on Trial

7 hours ago