Ruth's Report: Charles Haymarket plays drama queen in an e-mail

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Snipper" went up last night.

A great comic and I believe it is a nod to Harold Lloyd. I need to check that with Isaiah. I meant to but ended up on the phone with C.I.

August 23rd I wrote a post entitled "Charles Haymarket is part of the problem." You can refer to that via the link. It was not a life altering post to me. I honestly did not remember it.

I go into my folder at the public account and have an e-mail from Charles Haymarket and I am asking myself, "I panned Haymarket books?"

I did not remember him. I called C.I. to ask her and she said, "Give me a second. Ruth, near the end of August. You called him out near the end of August. It was after the 20th and before the 25th. Does that help or do you want me to try to remember more?"

No, that helped.

So I am posting Mr. Haymarket's e-mail and responding as I go along.

Hi Ruth, I enjoyed reading your hit piece on my opinion peace on Counterpunch and was surprised it caused such an emotional response. I was also surprised you didn't seem to have a comment section readily assessable. I'd be honored if I were much of the "problem" because I could easily fix the world by offing myself.

I did not recommend you "off" yourself. I called out your bad writing and noted the damage it does. You writing is not reality or factually based. So it is no surprise that you threaten suicide to a woman you do not even know and do so in your first paragraph.

Here is a tip for you. It is October. You and your writing do not mean anything to me. In the future, when you are having a drama fit, let the person know the title and when it was published of whatever has set you off. It will be a huge help.

I do not do comments. Sorry. This is a long standing practice. But if someone wants to e-mail, I am happy to share comments as I am doing now.

The fact of the matter was, I was trying to name well known people (great thinkers) who have managed to keep hope alive since Bush The Junior destroyed our nation and I'm still going to stand by those names, including Mike Moore, because his movies (his thinking) reached more people than all our blogs put together. And sorry you do not think Chris Hedges is a thinker because he's one of the best unpurchased journalists we have presently.
He labeled a group of people "great thinkers" and I pointed out (back in August) that only Noam Chomsky qualified as a great thinker. That was the only name on his list that was a thinker. I wrote with regards to that:

For example, Noam Chomsky? He is an intellectual giant. No one on that list qualifies as a "great thinker" except him. Chris Hedges is a journalist and often a very great one but he is not an intellectual. Naomi Klein once strove towards great reporting but last did anything of significance in 2007, over six years ago. Since then, she has talked about an event that did not transpire and has not realized how embarrassing that was for everyone. In addition, she has whored herself out to President Barack Obama. The reason no one has heard of her of late has nothing to do with being a new mother (she gave birth in June of 2012) but everything to do with the constant criticism of her -- accurate criticism -- as a whore for imperialism and as a a faux climate activist.
As for Michael Moore?
He is not a thinker. And he is not pertinent to today's discussions and has not been since around 2005. I am an elderly woman and even I grasp that. People 29 and under probably chuckle at Mr. Haymarket's inclusion of Michael Moore.

Since I published that, Ms. Klein got into some trouble with faux environmentalists for noting their fake actions. For five years she sat on her ass being silent. So if my calling her out gave her the push she needed, good. But that does not make her a great thinker and certainly no great thinker would have created the lie she did for an interview with Matthew Rothschild. I am being kind -- and was then -- by leaving that vague. Michael Moore is a joke who rails against the criminality of President Barack Obama one moment and then rushes to whore for him the next.

I really do not see that I need to defend myself on this point. But apparently Mr. Haymarket's education failed him to such a degree that he does not understand terms like "great thinkers" even though he uses them.

As for "whoring out to Obamba" who'll have to excuse those who once though the Democratic party could be moved leftward, and those of us who never give up on that idea, though we have our @sses handed to us daily over that. And sorry, as a "journalist", you're in that group that think no one should have anything ever to do with those we don't 100% agree with and who do 100% of everything we demand, because that will certainly keep things as they are, and I'm sorry you think a person expressing their opinion makes them a "bad person" a "problem" and such. I got that a lot growing up and always kept my two middle fingers ready and able.

You know, if I was going to jump on a high horse and write someone to tell them that they were wong about me, I think I would try to make sure I had typed correctly.

"As for 'whoringout to Obama' who'll" -- I believe you meant to use "you'll" and "who once though the Democratic" -- I believe you mean "thought."

As for people whose opinion I do not necessarily agree with?

I am an old, left Jewess. But Republicans read my site and e-mail me. That is because I do not play "shirts and skins" or whore. I do not change my ethics based on which political party is in charge.

While your timid little ass sucks up, I was calling out the media whores. I have been writing online for eight years. My record stands for itself. I can, and do, communicate with left, right, center, and apolitical in my writing.

You do not.

You write childish rants that would be embarrassing for their writing if a third grader handed them in and rants that are embarrassing as well for the fact that they are echo chamber pieces completely lacking in original thought.

And your final point was kind of laughable, if the think George Soros' money has had anywhere near the result and impact of the Koch Brother's million and their Tea [homophobia is not allowed at my site, my grandson Jayson is gay and I will not allow homophobia] "party. Plus, Air America was leftist but the closest we ever got to such a thing and the donors weren't there to keep it together.
I do not need your ill informed remarks regarding Air America Radio. You do not know what you are talking about. You repeat nonsense but you have no clues. Danny Goldberg is not a best friend of C.I.'s but he is a friend of C.I.'s and I pumped him for over an hour on what happened at A.A.R. when he was in charge. C.I. is also friends with four on airs at A.A.R. (She is friends with Al Franken but I am not referring to him.) I pumped them repeatedly about what happened and what went down.

So I would argue I have first hand information from them. I also know the pitches that were made to C.I. and her friends from the A.A.R. board on three occassions.

Long before A.A.R.'s problems emerged, C.I. had already told them they were making a mistake with their model. They were an internet sensation which forced Real Player to change their streaming and Windows Media Player as well. Mr. Haymarket, when you can give me one example for each -- one example of changes resulting from Air America Radio -- I will believe you actually know something. But C.I. argued that they were an internet sensation and that they should build on that and not try to purchase radio stations.

But A.A.R. could only see success in a by-gone model of success. They could have been the hugest thing on the internet but they refused to value what they had.

Mr. Soros funds many things including Open Society. You want billionaires to save the world.

You are an idiot, a suck up, and a waste of time, Mr. Haymarket.

When I lived in N.Y.C., there was a newspaper, a radical one, entitled The Guardian.

And it did not have big money backing. It had a large audience and that is what funded it.

Stop discounting people power.

The model Mr. Haymarket wants is the one that controls our discourse. They will fund you as long as you do what they want and say what they want you to say. The Nation, for example, infamously killed the story exposing the corruption of Senator Dianne Feinstein to avoid losing their big money backing.

The answer is not to have it, not to have Soros funding, Tides funding, etc.

The people will support you if you tell the truth.

But don't get me wrong. I enjoyed your piece and I'm sure the same old circular firing squad on the left, over nit picking details, will do us, and our nation, all wonders eventually. We all see how that's worked so far.
Best Wishes, Charles
You are a stupid man who tries to defend his corruption by insisting it is about reaching change. But this model never brings about change. You whore and you lie and no change comes from it.

Dr. Matin Luther King Jr. did not whore. And when many in the press turned on him for taking on the war machinery, Dr. King did not whore or fall silent. That is our model of success. Do not try to pretend that your craven and cowardly writing leads to anything but more lies and more whoring.

Mr. Haymarket wrote (in his CounterPunch piece), "Millions protested the Iraq Invasion, but it drags on, and those huge demonstrations are now long ago echos."

What is he saying?

I think I know what he is saying and that he is saying it in a cowardly way. U.S. troops remain in Iraq. This is from the May 2, 2013 "Iraq snapshot" and I will end the lengthy excerpt with "***************" but notice how C.I., a strong woman who does not behave cowardly, notes reality:

From Tuesday's snapshot:

December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

Mike and Elaine covered Iraq at their sites on Tuesday noting their disbelief that Daniel Ellsberg and Phyllis Bennis would make fools of themselves twaddling on about how US troops have left Iraq. All US troops never left Iraq. Last March, Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Washington Post) included the claim that all had left in his "Five myths about Iraq" column.

Last week, the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." The report was written by Kenneth Katzman.

General [Martin] Dempsey's August 21, 2012, visit focused on the security deterioration, as well as the Iranian overflights to Syria discussed above, according to press reports. Regarding U.S.-Iraq security relations, Iraq reportedly expressed interest in expanded U.S. training of the ISF, joint exercises, and accelerated delivery of U.S. arms to be sold, including radar, air defense systems, and border security equipment. [. . .]
After the Dempsey visit, reflecting the Iraqi decision to reengage intensively with the United States on security, it was reported that, at the request of Iraq, a unit of Army Special Operations forces had deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence, presumably against AQ-I. (These forces presumably are operating under a limited SOFA or related understanding crafted for this purpose.) Other reports suggest that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) paramilitary forces have, as of late 2012, largely taken over some of the DOD mission of helping Iraqi counter-terrorismf orces (Counter-Terrorism Service, CTS) against AQ-I in western Iraq. Part of the reported CIA mission is to also work against the AQ-I affiliate in SYria, the Al Nusrah Front, discussed above.
Reflecting an acceleration of the Iraqi move to reengage militarily with the United States, during December 5-6 2012, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller and acting Under Secretary of State for International Security Rose Gottemoeller visited Iraq and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed with acting Defense Minister Sadoun Dulaymi. The five year MOU provides for:

* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises

The MOU appears to address many of the issues that have hampered OSC-I from performing its mission to its full potential. The MOU also reflects some of the more recent ideas put forward, such as joint exercises.

So the Congressional Research Service explains, in a report for the US Congress, that US troops have gone back into Iraq? The liars aren't capable of shame. Phyllis Bennis, since the 2011 drawdown (the US Pentagon called it a "drawdown" and not a "withdrawal" and did so for a reason), has sometimes declared all have left and sometimes noted some remain. It's apparently too hard for her to tell the truth so she needs little 'breathers' to catch her breath. This isn't something that should vary. If you're an analyst and billed as such and discussing US troops in Iraq, there's only one answer, only one correct one.

Let's go over what the report said the Memo of Understanding provided for:

* high level U.S.-Iraq military exchanges
* professional military education cooperation
* counter-terrorism cooperation
* the development of defense intelligence capabilities
* joint exercises

Pretty obvious. But so was the explanation of what the MoU provided that we offered in the December 10th snapshot. Even so, we were compelled to review it again in the December 11th snapshot:

In yesterday's snapshot, we covered the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department of Defense of the United States of America. Angry, dysfunctional e-mails from Barack-would-never-do-that-to-me criers indicate that we need to go over the Memo a little bit more. It was signed on Thursday and announced that day by the Pentagon. Section two (listed in full in yesterday's snapshot) outlines that the two sides have agreed on: the US providing instructors and training personnel and Iraq providing students, Iraqi forces and American forces will work together on counterterrorism and on joint exercises. The tasks we just listed go to the US military being in Iraq in larger numbers. Obviously the two cannot do joint exercises or work together on counterterrorism without US military present in Iraq.

This shouldn't be surprising. In the November 2, 2007 snapshot -- five years ago -- we covered the transcript of the interview Michael R. Gordon and Jeff Zeleny did with then-Senator Barack Obama who was running in the Democratic Party's primary for the party's presidential nomination -- the transcript, not the bad article the paper published, the actual transcript. We used the transcript to write "NYT: 'Barack Obama Will Keep Troops In Iraq'" at Third. Barack made it clear in the transcript that even after "troop withdrawal" he would "leave behind a residual force." What did he say this residual force would do? He said, "I think that we should have some strike capability. But that is a very narrow mission, that we get in the business of counter terrorism as opposed to counter insurgency and even on the training and logistics front, what I have said is, if we have not seen progress politically, then our training approach should be greatly circumscribed or eliminated."

This is not withdrawal. This is not what was sold to the American people. Barack is very lucky that the media just happened to decide to take that rather explosive interview -- just by chance, certainly the New York Times wasn't attempting to shield a candidate to influence an election, right? -- could best be covered with a plate of lumpy, dull mashed potatoes passed off as a report. In the transcript, Let-Me-Be-Clear Barack declares, "I want to be absolutely clear about this, because this has come up in a series of debates: I will remove all our combat troops, we will have troops there to protect our embassies and our civilian forces and we will engage in counter terrorism activities."

So when the memo announces counterterrorism activies, Barack got what he wanted, what he always wanted, what the media so helpfully and so frequently buried to allow War Hawk Barack to come off like a dove of peace.

The administration is as empty as the media. If you doubt that, September 26th, the New York Times' Tim Arango reported:

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

This is not a minor topic. If you claim you pulled all troops out and you didn't, that's called news. If you claimed you pulled all troops out and September 26, 2012, it's reported you didn't, that's big news. If you're running for re-election and you have debates after September 26th, that topic should be front and center.

************************************

And that is the end of the excerpt. But C.I. has covered that repeatedly and in real time. Mr. Haymarket, coward that he is, can only allude to it.

Cowards like Mr. Haymarket are why most Americans wrongly believe U.S. troops are no longer in Iraq.

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

Monday, October 14, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, al Qaeda remains the 'catch all' (much to Nouri's relief), protesters demands have not been met, calls for an end to strife as Iraq gears up for Eid, correcting an 'analyst' who attempts to correct me, and more.

First, we addressed the coverage of al Qaeda in Iraq earlier today. A 'sweet' 'analyst' e-mailed to advise me of how "uninformed" I am for this statement:

Starting in 2009, regular press reports pop up about how Nouri's failure to pay or create other jobs for Sahwa (Sunnis and a few Shi'ites paid to stop attacking US forces and US equipment) was leading them to join rebel groups or terrorist groups or other groups.

"Everyone," the e-mail informs me, "knows that the Sons of Iraq are Sunni." Sahwa is also known as "Awakenings" and "Sons Of Iraq" (with the less covered female counterparts known as "Daughters Of Iraq." As for what "everyone" knows, I know reality, what do you know? Oh, that's right, you know crap ass nothing.

You read the conventional wisdom in the press and you think you know something. Here? We report on Congressional hearings and have for years.

That means that the April 2008 week of The Petraeus and Crocker Show, where the then top-US commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, and then-US Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified to Congress, we were at everyone of those hearings. That included catching both the morning and the afternoon hearings on April 8th. From that day's snapshot:

Today The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour took their act on the road. First stop, the Senate Armed Services Committee. Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to be providing a status report on the Iraq War. They didn't. In fact, Petraeus made clear that the status report would come . . . next September. When the results are this bad, you stall -- which is exactly what Petraeus did.

The most dramatic moment came as committee chair Carl Levin was questioning Petraeus and a man in the gallery began exclaiming "Bring them home!" repeatedly. (He did so at least 16 times before he was escored out). The most hilarious moment was hearing Petraeus explain that it's tough in the school yard and America needs to fork over their lunch money in Iraq to avoid getting beat up. In his opening remarks, Petraues explained of the "Awakening" Council (aka "Sons of Iraq," et al) that it was a good thing "there are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni -- under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect their neighborhoods and secure infrastructure and roads. These volunteers have contributed significantly in various areas, and the savings in vehicles not lost because of reduced violence -- not to mention the priceless lives saved -- have far outweighed the cost of their monthly contracts." Again, the US must fork over their lunch money, apparently, to avoid being beat up.

How much lunch money is the US forking over? Members of the "Awakening" Council are paid, by the US, a minimum of $300 a month (US dollars). By Petraeus' figures that mean the US is paying $27,300,000 a month. $27 million a month is going to the "Awakening" Councils who, Petraeus brags, have led to "savings in vehicles not lost". Again, in this morning's hearings, the top commander in Iraq explained that the US strategy is forking over the lunch money to school yard bullies. What a [proud] moment for the country.

Crocker's entire testimony can be boiled down to a statement he made in his opening statements, "What has been achieved is substantial, but it is also reversible." Which would translate in the real world as nothing has really changed. During questioning from Senator Jack Reed, Crocker would rush to shore up the "Awakening" Council members as well. He would say there were about 90,000 of them and, pay attention, the transitioning of them is delayed due to "illliteracy and physical disabilities."

What did Petraeus testify too? "There are now over 91,000 Sons of Iraq -- Shia as well as Sunni . . ." Maybe 'analysts' should take off their pajamas and stop depending upon other people for research?

Yes, the press has repeatedly and consistently reported of SOI/Awakenings/Sahwa being just Sunni. But Petreaus implemented the program and reported on it to Congress so I would give that a little more credence than a wire report.

'Well people get flustered in hearings and can mispeak.'

They can. Petraeus didn't that day or that week. That day, his toughest moment came in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when Senator Barbara Boxer questioned him about the monies being paid to these groups. He got nervous but he didn't mispeak.

But in terms of the "Shia as well as Sunni"? As I recall that moment in the hearing (I could be wrong, it was over five years ago -- but, thing is, I'm not wrong), Petraeus didn't just say it, he had a visual aid, a chart, to illustrated it. So the chart would have had to have been wrong too.

In addition, and this is what really nails it, I remember being really ticked off when he said it. What really pisses me off in a hearing? Someone wasting everyone's time reading their written statement for the record out loud. There's no reason for it. It's put in the record. Stop it, please. When Secretary of State John Kerry chaired committees, he would instruct/beg witnesses not to waste everyone's time by reading those prepared remarks.

Prepared remarks. Meaning Petraeus was reading from his written submission. This was not an ad-lib in response to a question. He said. He meant to say it, he put it in writing before he said it and he brought a visual aid.

At your own website, you're drowning in errors so I am touched that you took the time to try to find an error by me. I'm sure they are here. I am human being, not a computer. But, thing is, Shi'ites being a small part of the Sahwa, Awakening, Sons Of Iraq, was not a mistake. If you want to question it, you take the question to David Petraeus but don't tell me I have something wrong when it's based upon the testimony of the person who implemented the program. I sat through the hearings, I covered them. I know what was said.

On the topic of attacks in Iraq, cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr granted an interview to Asharq Al-Awsat:

In an exclusive interview with Asharq Al-Awsat the head of Shi’ite Sadr Movement Moqtada Al-Sadr said that Iraq is ruled by terrorism, and predicted that the situation will worsen in the near future.
“Iraq today is at the height of danger and has become a prisoner of terrorism, extremism and violence,” Sadr told Asharq Al-Awsat.
“Iraq is under the rule of terrorism, bombing cars, murder and bloodshed,” he said, adding, “This is how Iraq is and this is the situation it is in.”
The Shi’ite leader accused the country’s prime minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, of being a failure, claiming that Iraq needs a “father-like ruler,” instead of Maliki whom he expected would attempt to remain in power for a “third or perhaps fourth term… or even forever.”

And Nouri is a failure. And Moqtada's probably correct about Nouri wanting a "fourth term . . . or even forever." We already know he wants a third term and -- this after promising AFP in 2011 that he would not seek a third term. Back then, people were rightly complaining about him and his lack of leadership -- as is taking place today. But back then, leaders were being toppled throughout the region in what was dubbed the Arab Spring. Afraid of becoming just another ousted leader, Nouri made a series of promises including that he'd end corruption in 100 days and that he wouldn't seek a third term. 100 days? That was the first broken promise. He didn't care, he just used it to by time and when 100 days rolled around, he didn't even make the pretense of ending corruption and he and his flunkies have spent the last two years insisting that his promise to AFP wasn't a promise.

His intended end of the month visit to DC is about making sure that he still has the White House backing. While the US government has refused to acknowledge the visit and the last official statement (from State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf) this past week is that there is no visit, the Iraqi press tells a different story. Nouri's office announced the visit October 6th the one the State Dept was denying on Wednesday. Saturday, All Iraq News reported on Nouri's planned visit to DC noting that security issues will be the focus of the meet-up. National Iraqi News Agency reports today the visit is scheduled for October 25th. And, by the way, this visit Marie Harf lied about? NINA notes it comes "in response to an official invitation of U.S. President Barack Obama."

Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi has declared parliamentary elections will take place April 30th. All Iraq News reports today that the Independent High Electoral Commission has approved the schedule. IHEC also announced they will begin training election employees shortly. Of course, an announcement or a declaration isn't the same as passing a law and the Parliament still hasn't passed the required election law. al-Nujaifi has declared a date and stated Iraq can use the previous election law. From the October 7th snapshot:

Alsumaria reports that Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi presided over a session today which 220 MPs attended and that the election bill was raised.
NINA states that a date for the elections was agreed upon: April 30th. Before the session started, Iraqiya MP Mudhhir al-Janabi predicted to All Iraq News that a law would not be passed in today's session. Of course, he was correct. NINA notes Iraqiya MP Haider Mulla has announced no law was passed and states they will not allow "the will of the Iraqi people [to be broken] through the postponement of elections and the failure to approve the law. This is a red line will not allow it because entitlement for each of the Iraqi people." Alsumaria notes National Alliance MP Ammar Tohme held a press conference decrying the inability to pass an election law and stating that this is failure that keeps repeating. Alsumaria reports al-Nujaifi states if they can't pass a law, they will use Law 16 of 2009 -- the parliamentary election law used for 2010.

Of course, just saying it doesn't make it so. And while MP Mahmoud Othman's been telling everyone for days (NINA here) that as soon as soon as Eid al-Adha ends (the holiday starts tomorrow) that the Kurdish bloc will cease objections to the bill and vote for it, those are just words as well. Also true, if Othman spoke for the Kurdish Alliance, he wouldn't be billed as an "independent MP."

Currently, the Parliament agree on a law but somehow, magic?, they're all going to agree with Osama al-Nujaifi's announcement that a previous law can be used?

That seems pretty pie in the sky for a country that is always 'turning a corner' to listen to the spinners but whose government continues the same death march it began in 2006.

On elections and security, Mustafa al-Kadhimi (Al-Monitor) offers these thoughts:

The electoral campaigning that actually begins in Iraq more than a year prior to any elections prevents the resolution of the security crisis and stands in the way of taking the necessary steps needed to achieve social peace.
Why is this? The answer is that all competing factions consider any progress on the security, political, or service levels to be an electoral card that must be exploited in Iraq. Supporters of the regime view progress as an effective card to be played during electoral campaigns. Meanwhile, their opponents strive to prevent such progress from being attained prior to elections, because they know that it would be exploited by others at their expense.
It is a vicious and extremely complex cycle of death. It cannot be escaped without a return to the main principle upon which states are established: to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his The Social Contract, to a redefinition of the Iraqi state’s central mission to safeguard the security, rights, freedoms, and welfare of its people. States must be tools by which these “contracts” are implemented. It is wrong for the populace, and Iraqi politicians in particular, to erroneously believe that the term “government” equates to “state”.
Security must not be made into an electoral issue. Security and military forces must not be transformed into a tool used by governments or parties. They are the people’s right arm and their protector.

If the premise of the above argument is correct, six months before an election may be a little late to start insisting, "Security must not be made into an electoral issue." Then again, Nouri's slate is all about making security into an electoral issue -- it's why they're called State of Law.

Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes, "A string of car and roadside bombings across Iraq on Sunday killed at least 44 people and wounded more than 140 others, police officials told CNN." Yesterday, All Iraq News reported that the Ministry of Interior was insisting 45 people were killed or wounded -- with over 30 of that 45 being wounded. And that's among the reasons few trust Nouri's government. It was just last week that the Iraqi Times was calling out Nouri's government for its repeated lies on the number of dead and wounded. The paper noted the government attempts to lower criticism by lying about the number of dead and wounded.

While Nouri's headless security ministries can pretend the death toll isn't that hight, Adnan Abu Zeed (Al-Monitor) reports on a place that can't avoid the realities of the death toll:

During the past few months, Iraq’s memory of the “morgue refrigerators” has returned — after having somewhat diminished over the past two years but never having completely disappeared.

Iraqis have many sad stories to tell about those cold rotting corpses covered with camphor. Hatem Hassan, a resident of Mahmudiyah — 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) south of Baghdad — told Al-Monitor how he searched for the body of his elder brother who went missing two months ago. Hatem visited various hospitals and labs until he found his brother’s corpse, still in the clothes he died in, preserved in the morgue refrigerator of Al-Naaman Hospital in the Adhamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad. Once he found his brother, he started worrying about something more important: those who had killed him.

The western press has a knee jerk reaction of blaming all violence on 'al Qaeda in Iraq.' That certainly let's Nouri and his thugs off the hook. Friday NINA reported an Imam was also assassinated in Mosul. Aswat al-Iraq reported on Saturday:

Mutahidoun Bloc MP Mohammed Iqbal said that "there is governmental connivance in assassinating Sheikh Ali al-Shama' in Mosul city yesterday, Friday.
The statement, by his office, denounced the assassination, expressing "astonishment" for the absence of the security forces.
The deceased was one of the activists in Mosul city, whose "killing was to intimidate all activists", the statement added.

It is highly unlikely 'al Qaead' is killing Sunni activists. Since December 21st, protests have been ongoing in Iraq. Usman Butt (Policy Mic) notes:

In addition to direct violence, groups organized along sectarian lines often seek to intimidate one another and instigate more violence. The latest clashes involved a group of young Shia men who marched into a Sunni neighborhood, chanting and cursing Sunni holy figures and labelling them "Nawasib," a derogatory term. To make matters worse, the protesters marched alongside the Iraqi security forces who were protecting them.
That Iraqi security forces protect and abet anti-Sunni protests should be no surprise to many Sunni and Shia leaders in Iraq. Nouri Al-Maliki has been accused of running a sectarian government by both Sunni and Shia religious leaders. Earlier this year, thousands of Sunnis marched against the Al-Maliki government complaining of institutional discrimination, high unemployment, and corruption. The wave of demonstrations was referred to as the "Sunni spring."

Again, it's highly unlikely that al Qaeda is killing Sunni activists. Nouri al-Maliki (prime minister and chief thug of Iraq) is supporting Shi'ite militias -- arming and paying them to attack Sunnis. At the end of last month, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported on that and noted:

In supporting Asaib al-Haq, Mr. Maliki has apparently made the risky calculation that by backing some Shiite militias, even in secret, he can maintain control over the country’s restive Shiite population and, ultimately, retain power after the next national elections, which are scheduled for next year. Militiamen and residents of Shiite areas say members of Asaib al-Haq are given government badges and weapons and allowed freedom of movement by the security forces.

Again, it's highly unlikely that al Qaeda is killing Sunni activists. But the western press really isn't interested in that, are they? They're certainly not interested in amplifying Arango's reporting.

They're interested in pimping lies about how Nouri's gone out of his way to meet the demands of the protesters. No, he hasn't. He would not (finally) meet this month with a representative for the demonstrators if he was meeting their demands. Mushreq Abbas (Al-Monitor) reports today:

The Sunni demonstrators that have been protesting for more than 10 months are awaiting the results of the talks between Anbar’s governor Ahmed Khalaf al-Dulaimi and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki about the demonstrators’ demands. On Oct. 3, Anbar’s tribes authorized the city's governor to negotiate with the government. But this authorization caused a split among the demonstrators and was rejected by some tribal elders and clerics.

Sheikh Ali Hatem al-Dulaimi, one of the leaders of the Anbar demonstrations, asserted in an Oct. 3 speech that the Sunni demonstrations have authorized Anbar’s governor to negotiate with the government and that the decision was made in consultation with tribal elders and the main leaders of the demonstrations in the cities. He also said that the objectives of the authorization are to achieve security in the province and stop the government' from claiming that the demonstrations have no one to negotiate in their name.
A spokesman for Anbar protesters, Basem al-Anbari, indicated immediately after the announcement of the appointment that “A meeting was held between the leaders of the protests in Anbar, tribal elders and members of the provincial council, during which they decided to appoint Ahmed al-Dulaimi as head of the committee to negotiate with the federal government on the demonstrators’ demands.”
In fact, Anbar’s governor met with Maliki on Oct. 5 and told him of the demonstrators’ demands.

One of their demands -- prompted by the 'disappeared' and the rapes of women and girls in Iraqi prisons and detention centers -- was for the innocent to be released. Nouri's long pretended to have heard and met that demand.

For those late to the party, this refers primarily to those who have not been charged with anything. Following the hideous example of the US government in Iraq, Iraqi law now allows for the arresting of people who are suspected of no wrong doing. Your brother is a terrorist suspect. The police and military can't find him? They can arrest you. Or his mother. Or his father. Or his children. Or his wife. Or . . .

These are the innocents. They have committed no crime, even the Iraqi police don't accuse them of a crime. But they're related to a suspect and may spend months or years in prison.

That's Iraqi 'justice' for you and, again, it's only following the example the US government earlier set in Iraq.

Back in June, Nouri's little committee announced that 7,000 prisoners (including 200 women) had been released since January as part of the demand to release the innocents. The problems with the number are many. First and foremost, no list has been provided naming those released. Nouri's already lying about the death toll. Is it really a big stretch to think he might lie about the number of prisoners released as well? Second, 7,000 seems like a big number . . . unless you pay attention. In the last two weeks, over 900 people have been arrested in mass arrests. Today alone, 20 were arrested just in Kirkuk and 25 in Mosul. And that qualifies as a slow day. Saturday, NINA reported:

Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, urged the three presidencies to release "innocent prisoners and the honorable resistant fighters who have not stained their hands with the blood of innocent Iraqis.

He said in a speech delivered on his behalf during the seminar held in Najaf and hosted by the Sadrists today : " Sadr sent two letters to the three presidencies, including his demand to release the Sadrist detainees .

Staying with Iraqi 'justice,' in last Thursday's snapshot, we noted the 42 executions in Iraq last week brought the total to 132 for the year so far, three more than were executed in Iraq in 2012. NINA reports today Iraqiya MP Talal Zobaie has declared some of the executed had been set for release and called out the government for "executing innocent Iraqi detainees in spite [of] a clear provision to release them due to their innocence of the charges against them." What Nouri's government has long been accused of is true, according to Zobaie, he's using the death penalty to kill Sunnis. That's why his State of Law has repeatedly blocked an amnesty law. This rumor has been behind many of the prison riots. The western press never cares about what's behind it, they're too busy trying to link it to al Qaeda. But many of the riots start because Nouri's moving death row prisoners from their cells to another facility where they can be executed.

Violence continues in Iraq. Through yesterday, Iraq Body Count notes 490 violent deaths for the month thus far. AFP's WG Dunlop Tweeted:

Today? National Iraqi News Agency reports an armed clash between al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar Assuna left 3 of them dead "and others wounded," 2 Kirkuk car bombings left 4 people dead, 1 government employee was shot dead outside his Falluja home, a Ramadi bombing left two police officers injured, an Aneh bombing left a military colonel injured, a Tikrit roadside bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers and left five other people (including three police officers) injured, and Ali Hussein Ali was killed in Balad by a roadside bombing which also left his son injured (he was a Yahtrib council member).

The UN News Centre notes:

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today condemned in the strongest terms a string of bombings which have killed or wounded scores of Iraqis ahead of the Eid Al-Adha holiday.
The bombings are “particularly despicable” due to the timing given Eid is a time when Iraqis extend their hands to the needy and the suffering, Mr. Ban said in a statement from his spokesperson.
“On this holiday, the Secretary-General reiterates his call on Iraqi leaders to work for political unity and bring the country back from the brink of sectarian violence,” according to the statement.
Dozens of people have reportedly been killed in the past days, including school children.
Mr. Ban extended his deepest condolences to the families of the victims and the Government of Iraq, and wishes the wounded a speedy recovery.

Today, US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft issued the following statement:

As Muslims in Iraq and around the world commemorate the faith, devotion and self-sacrifice of Abraham, I would like to join President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry in extending warm greetings and best wishes to everyone celebrating Eid al-Adha. We are all deeply moved by the outpouring of charity and the spirit of community that this holiday inspires. The U.S. Mission in Iraq extends its best wishes to all of you. Eid Mubarak.

And UNAMI issued the following:

Baghdad, 14 October 2013 – On the occasion of Eid Al-Adha Al-Mubarak, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, extends his best wishes to the people and Government of Iraq, on behalf of the entire UN family.

“On this Eid and at this crucial time, I would like to plead for unity and understanding among all the Iraqis and their political, religious, and civil leaders. It is only through working together that the people of Iraq can stand up to the violence that is tearing society apart”, Mr. Mladenov said.
““I hope that as people extend their hands to the poor and those suffering, they will remember that only through sharing, tolerance and justice can peace and prosperity be achieved. Eid Mubarak!”

On Eid, AFP's Mohamad Ali Harissi Tweeted about Eid at the Syrian refugee camp in the Kurdistan Regional Government (semi-autonomous government in northern Iraq).

Mohamad Ali Harissi (AFP) conducted an interview with KRG President Massoud Barzani over the weekend:

The Kurdish people have a right to self-determination and statehood, but this will not be accomplished through violence, Iraqi Kurdish leader Massud Barzani said.

It is "a natural right for there to be a state for the Kurdish people, but this will not be achieved by violence, and must be done in a natural way," Barzani, the president of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region, said in an exclusive interview with AFP.

This "age is the age of understanding, and we encourage dialogue between the Kurds and... the states" where Kurdish populations live, he said.

We'll touch more on Barzani's statements tomorrow.

iraq
asharq al-awsat
aswat al-iraq
afp
w.g. dunlop

cnn

mohammed tawfeeq
national iraqi news agency
all iraq news
iraq body count

the new york times
tim arrange

Ruth's Report

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Charles Haymarket plays drama queen in an e-mail

About Me

Blog Archive

Ruth's Report