Jake Novak (CNBC) writes about the possibility of Al Franken returning to the Senate by tossing aside his resignation.
You know I am opposed to it. Well I am not the only one. Here is Mr. Novak:
But this goes beyond
political flip flopping and partisan hypocrisy. Encouraging Franken to
reverse course could easily incinerate the Democrats' big lead in the
current
2018 midterm election polls
and destroy their credibility on women's issues. In fact, the stakes
are so high that even the idea that Democrats are considering this
course of action is incredible.
How bad would it be if Franken reneges on his resignation vow? Let's count the ways.
1. It would completely
undermine the zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment and misconduct
that his colleagues like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand are promoting. That
wing of the
party got a boost from President Trump's and the GOP leadership's
decision to back accused child molester Roy Moore in last week's special
election in Alabama.
Moore lost his bid for
U.S. Senator, but Democrats will still relish using his name to claim
the political high ground in the continued #MeToo backlash. There's also
a renewed effort
to revisit the sexual misconduct allegations made against
then-candidate Donald Trump just before the 2016 election.
If
Franken stays, that strategy loses a great deal of potency. People like
Manchin may say they're only demanding different punishments for
different levels of alleged misconduct.
But it will come off as partisan hypocrisy and circle-the-wagons
tactics.
Exactly.
And, again, it is an insult to women. He says he is leaving and now he is back? A real insult to women.
Casting doubt on what happened with Franken
now makes it seem as if Democrats take
women’s concerns in this area seriously only when they need them
imminently at the election booth and then abandon those concerns as soon
as they do not. Do Democrats
really want women to believe this?
If Democrats want women
to be there for them, they need to continue to be there for women.
Gaslighting Gillibrand and the other female senators who backed her,
while humiliating Smith and casting doubt on Franken’s
accusers, is the exact wrong way to go about that.
Exactly.
Exactly the point. We do not need this. Not today, not ever. We do not need this.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Tuesday, December 19, 2017. Get ready because the US isn't leaving Iraq
and this could have been discussed in 2012 were it not for the fondness
of fake news (then and now). In addition, protests continue for a
second day in the KRG.
The (latest wave of the) Iraq War began in March of 2003 and it shows no sign of ending anytime soon. Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) reports this morning:
The United States and Iraq have intensified talks to keep an ongoing American military presence in the country following the ouster of the Islamic State.
Both countries want to avoid a repeat of 2011, when American forces withdrew from Iraq after successfully weakening al-Qaeda and driving down violence in the country. Three years later, Iraq’s military collapsed in the face of an Islamic State invasion.
What collapsed?
Are we ever allowed to talk about that?
Or do we all duck our heads and play dumb?
Because ISIS is not why Barack Obama sent ever more troops back into Iraq.
It was the government.
US-installed prime ministers have proven to be, not surprisingly, unpopular in Iraq.
And it was 2012 when Barack started sending troops back into Iraq.
A detail that's forgotten as the media tries to pretend they don't practice fake news.
But fake news is all those whores offered.
It was 2012. A presidential election. Barack was running for re-election on the claim that he had ended the Iraq War. And the media was letting him get away with it.
But the reality?
From the May 8, 2014 snapshot:
There's the fact that all US troops never left Iraq. There's the fact that Barack sent a brigade of Special-Ops in during the fall of 2012. Tim Arango (New York Times) 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." And let's include the news from the April 25th snapshot:
Mark Hosenball, Warren Strobel, Phil Stewart, Ned Parker, Jason Szep and Ross Colvin (Reuters) report, "The United States is quietly expanding the number of intelligence officers in Iraq and holding urgent meetings in Washington and Baghdad to find ways to counter growing violence by Islamic militants, U.S. government sources said." It was 1961 when US President John F. Kennedy sent 1364 "advisors" into Vietnam. The next year, the number was just short of 10,000. In 1963, the number hit 15,500. You remember how this ends, right?
Nouri's continued War Crimes.
When will the world demand he stop practicing collective punishment?
Who knows. But in big news, the US media finally finds the story. Janine di Giovanni and Newsweek become the first to cover the ongoing killing of civilians via collective punishment. From di Giovanni's article:
Let's go over the above slowly, there's a lot in it.
1) Tim Arango's report. What we've quoted should have been an article of its own. But Jill Abramson (who got fired in May 2014) saw her job not as journalism but as a flack for Barack. So those two sentences -- those two very important sentences -- were all THE NEW YORK TIMES would allow in print -- and those two sentences had to be fought over. There was a battle to include them in the report on Syria.
Fake news?
Tim reported it at the end of September. Right before the debates between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. And not once was Barack asked about it. He was allowed repeatedly to take credit for ending the Iraq War (you know, that war that's still ongoing today) and no one asked once, "What about the fact that you've just sent in a brigade of special-ops into Iraq?"
Let's go back to November 7, 2012 when Ava and I wrote the following:
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.
September 26th it was in print.
Days later, October 3rd, Barack 'debated' Mitt Romney. Again October 16th. Again October 22nd.
Not once did the moderators ever raise the issue.
If Barack's sitting before them and he's flat out lying to the American people, it's their job to ask. They didn't do their job. Nor did social menace Candy Crowley who was apparently dreaming of an all-you-can-eat buffet when Barack was babbling away before her about how he wouldn't allow more "troops in Iraq that would tie us down." But that's exactly what he's currently negotiating.
Maybe Candy Crowley missed the New York Times article? Maybe she spends all her time pleasuring herself to her version of porn: Cooking With Paula Deen Magazine?
That is possible.
But she was only one of the three moderators. Bob Schieffer and Jim Lehrer also moderated. Of course, they didn't foolishly self-present as a fact checker in the midst of the debate nor did they hit the publicity circuit before the debate to talk about how they were going to show how it was done.
Poor Crowley, a heavy weight strutting into a non-competition will always look woefully misdressed.
Barack lied and Americans will face that or not.
They lied. They pimped lies. The misled the American people and did so intentionally.
What happened in the second half of 2014 would not have been so shocking for so many if the press had explored what was taking place in Iraq in 2012.
But fake news is all the American people got.
2) Nouri's actions.
Nouri was installed as prime minister in 2006 by Bully Boy Bush. The Iraqi people rejected him four years later in the 2010 elections but Barack had US diplomats in Iraq broker The Erbil Agreement that gave Nouri the second term the voters didn't.
With his second term, he refused to follow The Erbil Agreement (a power sharing contract). Instead of demanding he follow it, Barack acted as though it never existed.
This is what leads to the uprising against Nouri.
You have Shi'ites Moqtada al-Sadr and others joining with the Kurds and Sunnis to demand a vote of no confidence on Nouri -- which Barack prevents from happening.
The whole time Nouri's well documented abuse of Iraqi civilians is only getting worse.
And because Barack is silent, so is the US press.
Fake news.
The government was unpopular. That's why US troops are still in Iraq.
It's not an Iraqi government. It's a US-installed one.
The hope is that if the US stays on the ground in Iraq long enough, they can exhaust the Iraqi people and the government will take hold.
That's a lot of lives to risk for a fantasy.
Equally true, the US is not fostering democracy in Iraq. When you overturn the 2010 election, as Barack did, with a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement), you are not encouraging or fostering democracy.
Back to Jim Michaels (USA TODAY):
Instead of a formal agreement that would need the approval of Iraq's parliament, the U.S. military said it could operate under an existing memorandum of understanding between the two countries, according to one of the U.S. officials.
The memorandum has been in effect since 2014, when American advisers were deployed to Iraq to help local forces battle ISIS.
More fake news.
The MoU is from 2012. We covered it in real time.
We covered it repeatedly.
As late as 2013, some version of the following appeared here repeatedly.
Dropping back to the April 30th Iraq 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."
So last fall [the September 2012 Tim Arango report] saw another Special Ops unit go into Iraq and the end of the year saw a new military agreement allowing for joint US and Iraq patrols in Iraq. From the December 11th snapshot:
For those who struggle with reality, you can refer to the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." The report was written by Kenneth Katzman. We'll note the part on the MoU:
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.
Hopefully, that's clear to even the most delusional member of the Cult of St. Barack. And all that was before last week's news about General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) declaring that the US needed to send more troops into Iraq.
Again, some version of that appeared here repeatedly for over a year from 2012 to 2013.
The fake news churned out then and now by the corporate press did not inform you what was taking place and where it was leading. Take it up with them.
They lied then and they lie today.
Did someone say lie?
The (latest wave of the) Iraq War began in March of 2003 and it shows no sign of ending anytime soon. Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) reports this morning:
The United States and Iraq have intensified talks to keep an ongoing American military presence in the country following the ouster of the Islamic State.
Both countries want to avoid a repeat of 2011, when American forces withdrew from Iraq after successfully weakening al-Qaeda and driving down violence in the country. Three years later, Iraq’s military collapsed in the face of an Islamic State invasion.
What collapsed?
Are we ever allowed to talk about that?
Or do we all duck our heads and play dumb?
Because ISIS is not why Barack Obama sent ever more troops back into Iraq.
It was the government.
US-installed prime ministers have proven to be, not surprisingly, unpopular in Iraq.
And it was 2012 when Barack started sending troops back into Iraq.
A detail that's forgotten as the media tries to pretend they don't practice fake news.
But fake news is all those whores offered.
It was 2012. A presidential election. Barack was running for re-election on the claim that he had ended the Iraq War. And the media was letting him get away with it.
But the reality?
From the May 8, 2014 snapshot:
There's the fact that all US troops never left Iraq. There's the fact that Barack sent a brigade of Special-Ops in during the fall of 2012. Tim Arango (New York Times) 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." And let's include the news from the April 25th snapshot:
Mark Hosenball, Warren Strobel, Phil Stewart, Ned Parker, Jason Szep and Ross Colvin (Reuters) report, "The United States is quietly expanding the number of intelligence officers in Iraq and holding urgent meetings in Washington and Baghdad to find ways to counter growing violence by Islamic militants, U.S. government sources said." It was 1961 when US President John F. Kennedy sent 1364 "advisors" into Vietnam. The next year, the number was just short of 10,000. In 1963, the number hit 15,500. You remember how this ends, right?
Nouri's continued War Crimes.
When will the world demand he stop practicing collective punishment?
Who knows. But in big news, the US media finally finds the story. Janine di Giovanni and Newsweek become the first to cover the ongoing killing of civilians via collective punishment. From di Giovanni's article:
“First it was hospitals, then densely populated
civilian areas,” says Erin Evers from Human Rights Watch (HRW) in
Baghdad. “Now it’s neighborhoods where people are just trying to live.”
The
tragedy in Fallujah was barely noticed in the run-up to the Iraqi
parliamentary elections, which took place on April 30, the first
national elections since U.S. troops pulled out of the country in 2011.
No one much paid attention because violence has become a trademark in
this campaign.
Since January, when the Shia-backed
government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki began a campaign of
retaliation against the Sunni-backed Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shām,
it is estimated that 4,000 have been killed, or roughly 1,000 a month.
Researchers on the ground say 20 to 30 percent of the dead are children.
Meanwhile, government forces have killed 348, according to Iraq Body
Count.
Let's go over the above slowly, there's a lot in it.
1) Tim Arango's report. What we've quoted should have been an article of its own. But Jill Abramson (who got fired in May 2014) saw her job not as journalism but as a flack for Barack. So those two sentences -- those two very important sentences -- were all THE NEW YORK TIMES would allow in print -- and those two sentences had to be fought over. There was a battle to include them in the report on Syria.
Fake news?
Tim reported it at the end of September. Right before the debates between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. And not once was Barack asked about it. He was allowed repeatedly to take credit for ending the Iraq War (you know, that war that's still ongoing today) and no one asked once, "What about the fact that you've just sent in a brigade of special-ops into Iraq?"
Let's go back to November 7, 2012 when Ava and I wrote the following:
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.
September 26th it was in print.
Days later, October 3rd, Barack 'debated' Mitt Romney. Again October 16th. Again October 22nd.
Not once did the moderators ever raise the issue.
If Barack's sitting before them and he's flat out lying to the American people, it's their job to ask. They didn't do their job. Nor did social menace Candy Crowley who was apparently dreaming of an all-you-can-eat buffet when Barack was babbling away before her about how he wouldn't allow more "troops in Iraq that would tie us down." But that's exactly what he's currently negotiating.
Maybe Candy Crowley missed the New York Times article? Maybe she spends all her time pleasuring herself to her version of porn: Cooking With Paula Deen Magazine?
That is possible.
But she was only one of the three moderators. Bob Schieffer and Jim Lehrer also moderated. Of course, they didn't foolishly self-present as a fact checker in the midst of the debate nor did they hit the publicity circuit before the debate to talk about how they were going to show how it was done.
Poor Crowley, a heavy weight strutting into a non-competition will always look woefully misdressed.
Barack lied and Americans will face that or not.
They lied. They pimped lies. The misled the American people and did so intentionally.
What happened in the second half of 2014 would not have been so shocking for so many if the press had explored what was taking place in Iraq in 2012.
But fake news is all the American people got.
2) Nouri's actions.
Nouri was installed as prime minister in 2006 by Bully Boy Bush. The Iraqi people rejected him four years later in the 2010 elections but Barack had US diplomats in Iraq broker The Erbil Agreement that gave Nouri the second term the voters didn't.
With his second term, he refused to follow The Erbil Agreement (a power sharing contract). Instead of demanding he follow it, Barack acted as though it never existed.
This is what leads to the uprising against Nouri.
You have Shi'ites Moqtada al-Sadr and others joining with the Kurds and Sunnis to demand a vote of no confidence on Nouri -- which Barack prevents from happening.
The whole time Nouri's well documented abuse of Iraqi civilians is only getting worse.
And because Barack is silent, so is the US press.
Fake news.
The government was unpopular. That's why US troops are still in Iraq.
It's not an Iraqi government. It's a US-installed one.
The hope is that if the US stays on the ground in Iraq long enough, they can exhaust the Iraqi people and the government will take hold.
That's a lot of lives to risk for a fantasy.
Equally true, the US is not fostering democracy in Iraq. When you overturn the 2010 election, as Barack did, with a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement), you are not encouraging or fostering democracy.
Back to Jim Michaels (USA TODAY):
Instead of a formal agreement that would need the approval of Iraq's parliament, the U.S. military said it could operate under an existing memorandum of understanding between the two countries, according to one of the U.S. officials.
The memorandum has been in effect since 2014, when American advisers were deployed to Iraq to help local forces battle ISIS.
More fake news.
The MoU is from 2012. We covered it in real time.
We covered it repeatedly.
As late as 2013, some version of the following appeared here repeatedly.
Dropping back to the April 30th Iraq 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."
So last fall [the September 2012 Tim Arango report] saw another Special Ops unit go into Iraq and the end of the year saw a new military agreement allowing for joint US and Iraq patrols in Iraq. From 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.
For those who struggle with reality, you can refer to the US Congressional Research Service published "Iraq: Politics, Governance, and Human Rights." The report was written by Kenneth Katzman. We'll note the part on the MoU:
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.
Hopefully, that's clear to even the most delusional member of the Cult of St. Barack. And all that was before last week's news about General Martin Dempsey (Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) declaring that the US needed to send more troops into Iraq.
Again, some version of that appeared here repeatedly for over a year from 2012 to 2013.
The fake news churned out then and now by the corporate press did not inform you what was taking place and where it was leading. Take it up with them.
They lied then and they lie today.
Did someone say lie?
The thugs tried 2 force me to apologize 2 Barzani. I didnt, then all together went on beating me physically, using different tools they had
Sidad Barzani came 2 Parliament, they left me in the office of deputy speaker,10-15 thugs came & tortured me 4 1 hour. They filmed all of it
Rabun Maroof Retweeted
A group of activists arrested by security forces in Slemani while preparing For protesting against Masoud Barzani.
Rabun Maroof Retweeted
#KDP, #PUK & #KRG institutions have begun threatening NO campaign to #KurdistanReferendum! If NO is banned, then why a referendum?
What happened, if anything, to Rabun Maroof?
Who knows?
He could be telling the truth.
But why would we believe him about anything?
He's Goran -- the CIA-created political 'opposition' party in the KRG. It's intent was to sew dissension and wreck Kurdish unity.
That's why US tax dollars have funded it.
So why would we believe Rabun about anything?
Goran was created under Bully Boy Bush around the same time that Bush got the US base in Turkey that's still been little talked about outside of this site. That base wasn't to protect the Kurds. It was to spy on them. It and Goran go together, part of the plan to sew dissension and weaken unity in the Kurdistan so that the US government can manipulate and control them.
Protests did take place in the KRG yesterday (and we covered them in yesterday's snapshot, you can also see this MEM report). Baghdad has still not provided the KRG with their share of the national budget. That predates, by years, the September 25th referendum that the KRG held.
The protests took place yesterday and, RUDAW reports, they continue today:
Hundreds of people protesting against lack of services, demanding a fight against corruption and full payments of state salaries, have continued for a second day in a row in a number of Kurdish cities in the provinces of Sulaimani and Halabja, with the offices of several Kurdish parties and at least one government office set ablaze in Koya.
The protesters, coming from various backgrounds of the society also include state employees who have had their salaries reduced or delayed took to the streets in Sulaimani, Halabja, Kfri, Raniya, and Koya.
People protested against delay of salaries and lack of services in Kifri southwest of #Sulaimani and shots were fired while they protested #NRTnews
Aziz goes on to Tweet some of the issues involved in the protests:
General poor governance. Nobody takes road laws seriously, the malls they keep building are aimed at foreigners more than actual people living there, health standards have slipped, oil companies have too much autonomy compared to the state.
Electricity cuts. This problem has plagued the region for decades now but there still isn't 24/7 electricity. The electric often cuts out and then you have to rely on government generators until the main grid electricity comes back on.
Aziz Retweeted
Protests in the PUK-controlled areas today have become increasingly violent; protesters, mostly under 30, have burnt many local party and government offices and at least 30 people have been injured in the ongoing protests. #Kurdistan
An economy based off of oil sales. Before the drop in oil prices & disputes with Baghdad, KRG had decent economic growth, but the economic growth was based solely off oil sales. Kurdistan has fertile lands & great agricultural potential that has been neglected for oil money.
Poor standards of education. Under Saddam's Iraq, somebody who had graduated from university was highly educated. However nowadays, the average graduate from a private university is less educated than somebody who didn't go to university 20 years ago. Public education is poor.
Disenfranchised youth. Average young adult in Kurdistan has to compete in the private sector which often requires fluency in at least 1 other language than Kurdish. Politics isn't for them. They don't think they have a future so they emigrate elsewhere which leads to brain drain.
Armed forces loyal to political affiliation & not state/gov. The Peshmerga receive their salary along political party lines & are generally not a nationalised institution. This causes disunity & internal weakness. If anything, Peshmerga are more militia like than army like.
Nepotism. Same 2 ruling clans & families are the ones who have been power for nearly 30 years. The current government is run by the previous president's nephew & the previous president of Iraq's son. This doesn't just apply to them, everybody in positions of power employ family.
Lack of transparency when it comes to finance. This is linked to corruption. People still have no idea how much oil is being sold, not to mention all the dodgy oil sales privately done.
Delayed and decreased salaries. The KRG & Iraqi central government had disputes a couple years ago & since then the civil servants in KRG have been getting their salary much later than usual, often months later. Since last year the KRG cut people's salaries by up to 70%.
Overinflated government size. The Kurdistan region has over one million civil servants when the population minus IDPs is 5-6 million. That is a huge amount of people having to rely on the government to get by. It wasn't wise to employ so many people as civil servants.
Ghost employees. People who are either dead or don't officially exist receiving a governmental salary. This is usually somebody else who is already receiving a salary, so now they have 2/3 salaries. Or it could be somebody living in America who is getting a salary for nothing.
Widespread corruption in every aspect of government. There are many civil servants who take money that doesn't belong to them (far more than their allotted salary). This isn't even done behind closed doors, there's plenty who were dirt poor in the 90s who own multiple villas now.
Pretty much every political group is being protested in the KRG.
The following community sites -- plus BLACK AGENDA REPORT -- updated:
Caprese salad in the Kitchen
8 hours ago
Again on Tavis Smiley
8 hours ago
They always push us to the back
8 hours ago
That awful Franken
8 hours ago
A Christmas Story Live
8 hours ago
EMPIRE
8 hours ago
I stand with Rose
8 hours ago
Now they go after . . .
9 hours ago
