Spoilers: Lucy

"Lucy" was the number one film over the weekend.

So why is it becoming a source of discontent for some?

I covered it in "Lucy" but apparently not clearly.

Spoiler.  Stop reading if you haven't seen the film.

The 'problem' is the ending.

There are probably no sequels.

Lucy's powers build as she uses more and more of her mind.

By the time she's using 90%, she's able to explain how we use the wrong measurements.

Her last act, as she goes 100%, is to pass on her knowledge.

She does this by going out of existence basically and, in her final moments, going through a time stream, stopping at various points.

It's a thinker ending.

And there are those who just want rah-rah endings. 

That's the problem -- for some -- with "Lucy."

(I loved the movie.)



Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 

Wednesday, July 30, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri's War Crimes continue, the plight of Iraqi Christians receive some attention, is Nouri being 'eased' out, what is John Kerry's role in the demise of Iraq, and much more.


Ryan Zuke (MLive Media Group) reports that a crowd of over 100 people protested today at Warren City Hall in Warren, Michigan to express their outrage over "the persecution of Iraqi Christians" and that Mayor Jim Fouts and Iraqi Christian leaders noted the lack of movement on the issue from the White House.  The Warren City Mayor declared, "I don't know how the U.S., more specifically, Barack Obama, can overlook this absolute destruction of human rights, knowing full-well what's going on on the ground there.  I don't want this situation to continue in Iraq."

As we noted in Monday's snapshot, "This is becoming an issue around the world.  The Pope has spoken out against the violence repeatedly. Oscar Lopez (Latin Times) quotes Pope Francis stating, 'No more wars.  It's time to stop. Stop, please, I beg you with all my heart, stop'."


Charlotte Hayes (National Catholic Register) reports:


While he deeply appreciates the Holy Father’s strong support for Iraqi Christians, Father Michael Bazzi, a priest at St. Peter Chaldean Church in San Diego, told the Register that members of his church often feel other leaders in the West have abandoned them. His parish is particularly affected by the recent events in Iraq because almost all members still have family there.
“Every day there is a sword in our hearts,” said Father Bazzi.
“Every day we get word of a monastery being burned down,” the Iraq-born priest said. The Christians who are living under Kurdish protection are having a hard time, he said. “They are suffering so much because they have no water, and they have to dig wells, and that takes time,” he said.
Father Bazzi added that one family heard about relatives who had dug a well with great difficulty only to find that the water was salty and undrinkable. But he said that Iraqi Christians do not convert because they have a strong Christian faith and because they “know what Islam is, and they have seen Muslims abuse their wives.”
“I will never say Christianity in Iraq is over, because there have been so many persecutions before, but this is the worst,” Father Bazzi said. “We don’t give up, and we have hope in God. Every day we pray and cry because everybody has somebody who is still there. We are very sad. We have processions, some inside the church and some outside. Procession is a form of prayer. We have processions [to draw attention to the dire situation]. You can see the tears in our eyes, but nobody listens. Where is Obama?”

Where is Obama?

Kirsten Powers (USA Today via Delmarva Now) reports:

Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf has taken to the House floor three times in the past week to plead for action from the U.S. and world community.
Wolf told me, “The Kurds have done a good job, but they are bearing the burden. President Obama should thank and encourage the Kurds for protecting the Christians. He also needs to provide (humanitarian aid), including funds for water and food.”

As we noted this morning, "The administration's doing very little and it's starting to be noticed."  Which is why people protested outside the White House over the weekend.  July vanishes this week and August emerges.  At the start of November, mid-term elections will be held in the United States.

The US government -- White House -- is seen as more distant and estranged from the government of Israel and the people of Israel than it's ever been.

While some wild-eyed lunatics on my side (the left) see that as a good thing, most Americans do not.  If you doubt it, check out the results of the latest ABC - Washington Post poll which finds "There’s a similar, 19-point gap in strong sentiment on Obama’s handling of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians -- 14 percent approve strongly, while 33 percent strongly disapprove."

Into the mid-terms that's the road the administration takes?

Well, of course, they do.  It's not like Barack's up for re-election.

But he'd be on firmer ground in taking action -- of whatever sort -- against the Israeli government if he'd insulated himself to criticism by making a strong speech decrying the targeting of Christians.

A number of girls get kidnapped in a country and we're told this reminds the White House of their own children?  But Christians are told if they remain in Mosul they either convert, pay a tax or get killed and the White House -- Barack specifically -- has nothing to say?

The White House is and has been politically stupid.  That's why Barack near instantly became a lame duck with the 2012 election.

And now the administration risks turning the mid-terms into some form of Holy War.

Again, whatever Barack's doing or thinks he'd doing with Israel is something he could probably get away with if he'd been decrying the targeting of Christians.  His silence feeds into every negative image, narrative and myth that has ever followed him.

And it doesn't help that he's arm-in-arm with Nouri al-Maliki and has been for years.

As Jon Carroll (San Francisco Chronicle) explains of Iraq:

The current government there, the fruit of all our nation building, is corrupt and violent. It persecutes Sunnis; it excludes them from meaningful positions in the government; it demonizes them. The police are often little more than thugs.
Is that the government the United States wants to preserve? We are supporting it diplomatically; we're invested in it, no matter how dreadful it is. 

That is the message being sent.

Right now, Iraqi Christians are being targeted by some Sunnis.  That's just right now.  Most of the displaced Sunnis are Christians.  But you'd have to actually pay attention to the waves of waves of Iraqi refugees to grasp that.

But Shi'ites have targeted Iraqi Christians over and over and, in fact, throughout the most recent wave of attacks.    And that's not just my opinion.  Monday, the US State Dept issued their "International Religious Freedom Report for 2013."  Here's some of what can be found in the Iraq section:

Since politics and religion are often inextricably linked, it is difficult to categorize many incidents specifically as religious intolerance. Grievances over perceived sectarian differences in treatment by security forces were exacerbated after 44 Sunni protesters were killed by security forces when they sought to disband a protest in Hawija in April following months of protests against the government seeking redress for policies they believed were anti-Sunni.
In July government security forces reportedly made mass arrests in predominantly Sunni areas of Abu Ghraib and Taji following a large-scale prison break carried out by AQI terrorists. Government officials denied the arrests targeted Sunni Muslims. Upon release detainees and witnesses reported to NGOs they were not shown arrest warrants and some detainees reported they were tortured while in custody.
In July during Ramadan, armed Shia militants, reportedly with the tacit support of local security forces, raided dozens of businesses in Baghdad, including cafes employing women, restaurants, bars, social clubs, and nightclubs they considered “un-Islamic.” Eyewitnesses reported local police destroyed property and beat staff and patrons; several people were hospitalized for their injuries and at least one individual died. Baghdad municipal officials stated the raids only focused on establishments “engaged in prostitution,” a claim local NGOs dismissed as false. They viewed the attacks as part of a broader assault on secular establishments.
On June 28, the Shia Endowment authorities demolished the house of Baha’u’llah, the founder of the Bahai Faith, in Baghdad. According to local Bahai contacts and the Ministry of Human Rights, the house had been converted into a mosque decades ago and turned over to the Shia Endowment under the Saddam Hussein regime. The mosque had deteriorated and, according to endowment officials, had to be demolished in order to build a new one. The Bahai World Center reported that it had been attempting to regain ownership of the holy site since 2004.


This was going on and the State Dept -- and the White House -- did nothing.

And now people want to get outraged?

And even now, they just want to get outraged about Sunni rebels, Sunni militants and Sunni extremists.  And they lump them all together, as though they're cohesive and universal when they are anything but that.  As Tim Arango (New York Times) points out while writing of the backlash to the attacks:

The rising public anger also resonates with a strategy being pushed by American officials and some moderate Sunnis here: working to win over some of the Sunni insurgent groups that have allied with ISIS.

Those groups — which include former Baathists who were once close to Saddam Hussein’s government and have already, in some places, fought with ISIS — are opposed to what they regard as the authoritarian rule of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government. But they are also seen as unsympathetic to the stated goal of ISIS to establish an Islamic caliphate under hard-line theocratic rule.

As for that special kind of useless outrage.

'Oh, those horrible Sunni people! Taking on Nouri's blessed government!'

Alsumaria reports that Nouri's latest round of bombing residential neighborhoods in Falluja has left 2 people dead and fourteen more injured.

This has gone on for 7 months now, every day.

And that's okay with the press and with the White House.

But let a group of Sunnis -- militants, rebels, extremists -- 'execute' Iraqi soldiers and suddenly it's clutch the pearls and wet the panties, 'Oh, my goodness! Soliders!  Iraqi soldiers were killed!'

The same group is silent as Nouri bombs Falluja's residential neighborhoods.  Those bombings are legally defined War Crimes.

But there is no outrage among the press over this.  No one really gives a damn about the Sunnis.  That is the message, it is received loud and clear.

The Iraqi Christians can suffer and the White House just doesn't give a damn.  The administration doesn't give a damn.


They only make it more clear when they open their mouths.

Here's John Kerry speaking on Monday:


And we have all seen the savagery and incredible brutality of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – the wholesale slaughter of Shia Muslims, the forced conversions of Christians in Mosul, the rape, executions, and use of women and children as human shields. All of these acts of barbarism underscore the stakes. Just the other week, ISIL declared that any remaining Christians in Mosul must convert, pay a tax, or be executed on the spot. 



And that was it for Iraq.  In a speech of over 2800 words, that's all he could come up with for Iraq.

By contrast, here he is -- in the same speech -- babbling on about the Salem witch hunts:


Freedom of religion is at the core of who we are as Americans. It’s been at the center of our very identify since the pilgrims fled religious persecution and landed in my home state of Massachusetts. And many settled in the city of Salem, which takes its name from the words “salam,” “shalom,” meaning peace.
But we’re reminded that before long, even there – even there in Salem, newly founded in order to get away from religious strife, unfortunately religious persecution arrived on the scene. Women were accused of witchcraft, and some were burned at the stake. Emerging differences between religious leaders in Massachusetts and some congregations were led, as a result of that, to break away and to found new settlements. Rhode Island was founded by people who wandered through the woods leaving Massachusetts and wandered for an entire winter until they broke out on this expanse of water, and they named it Providence, for obvious reasons.

One hundred years after the pilgrims set sail for religious freedom, a Catholic woman was executed on the Boston Common for the crime of praying her rosary. So we approach this issue – I certainly do – very mindful of our past and of how as Americans we have at times had to push and work and struggle to live up fully to the promise of our own founding.

Maybe WGN can pull from some of that to promote the second season of Salem?

That could benefit the series.

At least something would benefit from John Kerry's flapping gums.

Iraq certainly didn't.

We all grasp, right, that the State Dept is over the US mission in Iraq?

That John Kerry's supposed to be providing leadership?

Of course, he's not.

He's not and he hasn't.

As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank points out, "A fairer criticism is that he’s been a man on too many missions while serving a president more interested in domestic affairs.  His predecessor, Hillary Clinton, preserved her political prospects by showing a preference for social media over international hotspots. But Kerry has risked his standing repeatedly, personally leading negotiations over Sudan, Ukraine, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan."

Milbank's call is a solid one.

Look at that list, where John's "personally leading negotiations" and notice what country's not on the list:  Iraq.

Since the start of Fiscal Year 2012 (October 1, 2011), the State Dept's been over the US mission to Iraq and has received billions of US taxpayer dollars for Iraq.

What's been the return on the tax dollar?

Will anyone bother to ask that question?

When billions are spent -- when billions are wasted, who will be held accountable?

Sudan, Ukraine, Iran, Syria and Afghanistan.

When does John Kerry pay attention to Iraq?

Apparently never.


And we have all seen the savagery and incredible brutality of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – the wholesale slaughter of Shia Muslims, the forced conversions of Christians in Mosul, the rape, executions, and use of women and children as human shields. All of these acts of barbarism underscore the stakes. Just the other week, ISIL declared that any remaining Christians in Mosul must convert, pay a tax, or be executed on the spot. 

Again, those were John Kerry's words in full on Monday when speaking of Iraq.

When he was introducing the just released report.

Read it over and wonder if John did?

If he did, you'd think he'd have had more to offer in his speech.


After serving two terms as prime minister and currently seeking a third, Nouri seems to believe he has much to offer.  Hayder al-Khoei (Al Jazeera) becomes the latest to offer that it appears Nouri al-Maliki will not get a third term:


To make matters worse for Maliki, even his own Islamic Dawa Party issued a statement that same day echoing Sistani's demand that politicians must not cling on to power. When I asked a senior Dawa official if this statement meant that there was now a formal split within the Dawa Party, he responded by saying Dawa's leadership was united and in agreement with Sistani that the nominee of the Shia bloc in parliament had to be someone other than Maliki.
This latest development is very significant. It is no longer just the Sunni, Kurdish and rival Shia political parties - as well as Ayatollah Sistani - who believe that a third term for Maliki is untenable. Now, even the party that Maliki heads believes it is time for him to go.


National Iraqi News Agency adds, "The leading member of Ahrar parialmentary bloc within the National Allianc former MP Moshriq Naji " confirmed the veracity of the document which signed and submitted by the National Alliance’s leaders to Speaker Salim al-Jubouri that providing The National Alliance is the biggest parliamentary bloc, not the State of Law."




iraq
kirsten powers
the new york times
tim arango
the washington post
 dana milbank
alsumaria
catholic news agency
dan lamothe
al jazeera
hayder al-khoei
national iraqi news agency

Lucy

"Lucy" was the number one movie in North America over the weekend.

Should you see it?

"That's the last time you get to choose the movie," man to a woman.

And some people will hate it. 

I like the film but regretted what appears to be the chance for sequels.

This is a sci-fi movie and that will turn off some people, I'm sure.

I thought Lucy might be a little detached and I would hope that if our minds begin to expand, our sense of caring will as well.

There's a lot of action throughout the film but if you can't relate to sci-fi, you won't relate to this film. 

Best power moment?  When she sends the bad guys floating up to the roof.


But if you want some 'thinking' with your 'action,' this is the film you're looking for.


If you want more than that, I can talk about other things in the episode but otherwise that's it for now.


Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 

Tuesday, July 29, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, the State Dept seems confused over weapons, the State Dept seems confused over the law, the State Dept seems confused over its mission, Nouri keeps killing civilians, and much more.


At the US State Dept this morning, Secretary of State John Kerry pompously declared, "What is unfolding in Ukraine has already gone on for far too long. It’s well past time for the violence to stop and for the people of Ukraine to begin the process of rebuilding their country and rebuilding it in a way that can have a relationship with Russia, with the West."

What's going on in Ukraine "has already gone on for far too long"?

What about Iraq?

John Kerry does grasp that in the October 2011, the US mission in Iraq was handed off from the Defense Dept to the State Dept, right?

Of course he does.

He was the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when that happened.  As such, he and his committee provided direct oversight -- or were supposed to -- of the State Dept.

He is fully aware that the State Dept, since 2011, has received billions of US tax dollars to spend in Iraq.

So if he wants to stomp his feet on Ukraine or on Syria or whatever catches his cat's fancy for this or that 30-second period, when exactly does John plan to focus on Iraq.

Again, the US mission in Iraq is under the State Dept.  That hand off took place nearly three years ago and while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at that time, as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair, John Kerry was following what was happening.

And he should be following how the department he heads moves further and further away from a diplomatic mission in Iraq.  Dan Lamothe (Washington Post) reports on the continued decay of the US State Dept:


The State Department has approved the possible sale of 5,000 AGM-114K/N/R missiles and related parts and training, Pentagon officials said. The estimated cost of the deal would be about $700 million, and dwarf previous shipments of Hellfire missiles to Iraq.

Diplomacy is apparently dead -- as is compliance with the law and common sense.

The law prohibits the US government from supplying weapons to any government that terrorizes their own people.

How do Hellfire missiles help the Iraqi people?

They don't.

National Iraqi News Agency reports:

A source at Fallujah General Hospital said on Tuesday that the number of martyrs among civilians since the outbreak of the crisis by more than 7 months reached 672 martyrs, 17 percent of them are children and 19 percent of them women, while the total number of wounded civilians, 2174 wounded, 19 percent children and 21 percent women..

The source told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that This is not the final outcome, noting that there were martyrs were buried without going back to the hospital, and wounded were treated at health centers close to their places.


And Barack's answer is more weapons to Nouri?

So that Nouri can kill more civilians?


Falluja is just one city.  Also being bombed of late is Jurf al-Sakhar.  Ali A. Nabhan and Nour Malas (Wall St. Journal) report:

The airstrikes on Monday reflected that policy. It is not clear how many among the dead were militants, but local media reported at least one child was killed. Human rights groups have begun to criticize the Iraqi government for bombing civilian areas in its campaign against insurgents.

Human Rights Watch last week said it documented at least 75 civilians killed and hundreds wounded in government airstrikes—at times using the crude improvised explosives known as barrel bombs—on the cities of Fallujah, Beiji, Mosul, and Tikrit since June 6.

So the law -- including the Leahy Amendment -- is being violated by the White House.

Common sense?

Dropping back to the July 23rd snapshot for this from that day's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing:


US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen:  Last month, Secretary [of State John] Kerry said nobody expected ISIL to capture Mosul.  Even if  our foreign military assistance had not  quite kicked in yet, shouldn't our information and intelligence gathering efforts have been able to get a better assessment, a more accurate assessment, of Samarra and Mosul?  And it has been widely reported that while taking control of Mosul, ISIL seized rather large quantities of US supplied foreign military assistance and made off with nearly half a billion dollars from the local banks -- in addition to tanks and humvees that were taken.  US officials were quick to deny the claims of ISIL-- that they captured advance weaponry such as Black Hawk helicopters.  Did they capture any caravan aircraft with advanced weapon platforms?  And did they take any other advanced weaponry like MPADS [Man-portable air-defense systems]?  US military equipment and hundreds of millions of dollars aren't the only items that ISIL has seized. The Iraqi government confirmed that ISIL took uranium from Mosul University.  What is the status of that uranium?  What could ISIL use that for?  


Common sense dictates that when you're losing uranium, weapons, millions of dollars, you're really not the person to supply with more weapons.

But there's not much common sense in the US government.

The issue of the missiles was raised today in the Pentagon briefing by spokesperson Rear Adm John Kirby.  Excerpt.


Q: Hellfires for Iraq, the secure -- Defense Security Cooperative Agency today notified Congress of a potential sale of up to 5,000 Hellfires. It's 10 times more than you've said before. Any sense of how soon that (OFF-MIC) if Congress approves it, how soon could 5,000 Hellfires be sent to Iraq? And do they even have the capacity to absorb those weapons and effectively use them, since they only have two Cessna planes firing them off?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't have -- I can't give you an assessment now of how fast they would get there. My -- if past is prologue, the shipment would probably be done in tranches, rather than in a whole -- a whole shipment. But, again, I don't want to get ahead of a process that's just now starting on the Hill.
But I can give you a short update, if you want. I mean, as of the 28th -- so that's, what, two days ago -- was that yesterday? What's today, 29th? Sorry, yesterday. Total of 466 Hellfire missiles have been delivered in July, just this month. Since January, we've delivered 780, and there's another 366 that are going to be delivered over the course of August.

So, I mean, we're -- the process of providing these Hellfire missiles continues. Again, I -- that's what we're doing now, and that I can -- I just -- I wouldn't -- couldn't speculate about exactly how the 5,000 would get there. Does that help?

Q: That does, yeah.

Q: Just to follow up on that, is there any update on the recommendations on how to deal with Iraq? The Iraqi ambassador yesterday was saying the U.S. is dragging its feet on this, and General Dempsey seems to be suggesting that the sense of urgency has kind of dissipated. Is the sense of urgency gone on dealing with this issue?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I haven't seen General Dempsey's comments about that. I don't -- so I wouldn't speak to that. I -- as I've said before, I think everybody shares the proper sense of urgency here about the situation in Iraq. There's no question about that.
The assessments are in. They are still being reviewed. I have nothing new to announce on that. And at -- if we get to a point where these assessments allow us to make recommendations to the interagency and to the president about a way forward, then we'll do that. And from those recommendations may or may not flow decisions and then -- and then we'll go from there.

But, I mean, the assessments are still in the review process right now. But I would also remind you, Dion, I mean, this notion that we've done nothing is just false. We have 715 Americans, troops on the ground in Iraq defending our property and our people, and also providing assistance -- security  assistance and some advice through those joint operations centers, the one up in Erbil and the one in Baghdad.
And, oh, by the way, we're still flying an intensified program of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance flights, manned and unmanned, over the country, information from which is being shared with Iraqi security forces as appropriate.
So we're -- and Iraq still is the benefactor of one of the highest foreign military sales programs that we have with any country. So I -- I take deep issue with this notion that the United States and the United States military in particular is not moving fast enough or doing enough.
But ultimately -- and we've said this in the past, as well -- this is a fight the Iraqi security forces have got to make. It's their country. It's a threat to their people. And we've made it clear that we're willing to work towards helping them, but ultimately this is -- this is their fight.

Q: I just think people looking from the outside seeing the Islamic State blowing up mosques, solidifying their holds, and hearing you say we're reviewing, we're assessing, we may come up with recommendations that may lead to something suggests that the sense of urgency is gone.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, I would just -- I just absolutely disagree. I don't think that there's been any lapse of sense of urgency here.
But, again, this is -- this has got to be a problem that the Iraqi government solves with the Iraqi security forces. And what's critical to this in the long run and what has given ISIL, let's not forget, the momentum that it's gained is the lack of an inclusive, multi-confessional, political process inside Iraq, and that is not something that the United States military can fix. There's not going to be a U.S. military solution here. It's just not going to happen.

Q: Is this just a bureaucratic holdup? Because it's taking longer now to review the assessment than it did to actually produce the assessment.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, it hasn't. It has not. I mean, the assessment teams took about three weeks to come back with assessments. We've had the assessments for a little over a week.

Q: (OFF-MIC) more than two.
Q: Two weeks, I think (OFF-MIC)


REAR ADM. KIRBY: OK, thank you. That's still more than a week. Look, again, they're being reviewed. And I'm not going to get ahead of decisions that haven't been made yet or recommendations that haven't been formed yet.

Q: But, Admiral, is it fair to say that because the Sunni extremists advance has not continued on to Baghdad that this department and the government -- the U.S. government in general thinks that there is more time to make a recommendation, to wait for the Iraqi government to form a unity government, as you said? The fact that they're not marching on Baghdad, has that -- that given you more time in your perspective?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, the question would imply that -- that we're sort of -- we're dithering on the decision-making process here based on events on the ground. And we're certainly watching and monitoring events on the ground, but it's not having an impact on the work that's being done here in that regard.
So, no, I wouldn't tie the work of the review of the assessments to specifically to the situation on the ground. It's a very fluid situation. It can be radically different tomorrow than it is today.
I said it before, so I'll say it again. It's more important to get this right to offer the right recommendations forward for the interagency and the president to make than it is to do it quickly. And this is ultimately an issue that the Iraqi government has to stand up to and that the Iraqi security forces have to face.


Q: Regardless of when you start the clock, we are several weeks into this Iraq crisis. And the word from the president at the beginning was, this department would accelerate its military assistance to Iraq. Other than the Hellfires that Tony asked about, looking back, what other assistance was accelerated in terms of weapons or supplies?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: We accelerated -- I mean, there was other -- I mean, there -- two and three quarter-inch rockets, almost 20,000 of them have been delivered to the government of Iraq. We've also provided thousands of tanks, tank and small-arms ammunition, thousands of machine guns, grenades, flairs, sniper rifles, M16 and M4s. So...

Q: (OFF-MIC) or is this (OFF-MIC)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, this is just in total.

Q: (OFF-MIC) total?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: This is in total.

Q: And the word was we're going to -- the United States will step up its assistance after the fall of Mosul. What since that point has accelerated...

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, I just when through it with the Hellfires, which is -- which is the weapon most in demand by the Iraqi security forces. And then, you know, back to Dion's question, we've -- we've intensified ISR over the country. And that's -- that's still staying at a pretty high level. Roughly -- I think it's still roughly around 50 flights per day, manned and unmanned.

We put an aircraft carrier in the Arabian Gulf, where she remains, as well as escort ships. We flew in 700 -- more than 700 troops to provide both security assistance for our people and our property there, as well as to provide these assessments.
I mean, I can go through the litany all over again, but we have certainly intensified our efforts and our attention level on Iraq since ISIL took Mosul. But, again, it -- the Iraqi government had an opportunity in 2011, when -- when all U.S. forces left, and -- and I remind you what we said back then, that we -- that we believe that -- that the Iraqi security forces were competent and capable to the threat that they were facing in 2011.
There was an opportunity given to the -- to the Iraqi government in 2011 that they haven't taken full advantage of, the way they organized, manned, trained and equipped their army. And we've seen some of those units fold under pressure because of either lack of will or lack of leadership, not all of them, and we're seeing some -- we're seeing them stiffen themselves, continue to stiffen themselves around Baghdad. They're retaking some territory, and they've maintained control over others they've retaken, like the oil refinery and the Haditha Dam.
But ultimately, this is an Iraqi issue to deal with. And the -- and the -- and as we indicated in 2011, the -- and I could -- I wish I had the text for you. I quoted it from our report to Congress back then. But paraphrasing it, the best chance we said back then, the best chance to decrease violence in Iraq was through an inclusive political process, not through the largest army in the Middle East or X number of tanks or X number of F-16s, but through an inclusive political process. That was the best chance to decrease violence in Iraq, and that hasn't -- that -- that opportunity they've been -- they were given in 2011 has not been taken advantage of.


Human rights matter to the State Dept, right?

When they're not pushing for Nouri to get more Hellfire missiles, they're focusing on human rights, right?

Let's check in on today's State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki where the following exchange took place:


QUESTION: The Kurdish oil tanker?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: You were right yesterday. I was incorrect.

MS. PSAKI: That may be Lesley’s question, too. Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: So thank you for setting us straight yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: What you said was what was happening, it’s still there. Now that a judge has ruled that that oil should be seized, what happens now and whose responsibility is it in terms of the U.S. Government?

MS. PSAKI: So the Government of Iraq, we understand, has filed suit – they filed suit yesterday in a Texas court against the cargo onboard the tanker. It remains anchored outside of U.S. jurisdiction off the coast of Texas. So the current – because of the current location, the government – the preliminary measure is – the measure that was done to seize the cargo was done in case the cargo enters into U.S. jurisdiction. It has not yet entered into U.S. jurisdiction, and once – our understanding is that if the oil enters into U.S. jurisdiction, the court order against the cargo could be enforced. But at this point in time, it remains – the cargo remains on the ship, which is outside of jurisdiction.

QUESTION: Have you been in communication with the people running this ship about their intentions and what you would like to see them do?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think our policy remains the same. There’s obviously a legal case here, and given that, we certainly recommend that the parties make their own decisions with advice from their counsels. There’s a legal case. Our policy position remains the same, which is that we believe that oil should be transferred through the central government of Iraq. But again, this is a case where because it’s not in our jurisdiction, there’s little we can do at this point in time.

QUESTION: But apart from the legal case, if that was not there, would you have a problem with this oil being offloaded, being sold?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think --

QUESTION: I mean, is there some kind of a legal restriction apart from this current case? Is there – does the U.S. policy include some – a ban on Kurdish oil coming into the U.S. unless it comes through --

MS. PSAKI: I’m – I’d have to check, Matt, but our policy position you’re very familiar with.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean, but it’s not prohibited by the U.S., is it?

MS. PSAKI: Well, but it’s U.S. policy that we’d oppose the selling of outside of the central government of Iraq.

QUESTION: Well, but you can oppose a lot of things that are not illegal, right?

MS. PSAKI: I’m sure we can, but it doesn’t mean that we’d participate in it or support it.

QUESTION: No, I’m just wondering if the – if policy includes a ban on the transfer or sale of Kurdish oil outside --


MS. PSAKI: I will check and see if there’s a legal ban. I can just do about one or two more here.


Poor Jen, poor silly Jen.

She felt a little cocky because of a poor court ruling -- one that lacked jurisdiction.

Late in the day, the federal judge, Nancy K. Johnson, revisited her decision. Anna Driver, Kristen Hays and Terry Wade (Reuters) report she announced that "her court 'has no jurisdiction' over a tanker near Texas."  Driver and Hays have a longer report here.


Also in the US, there's a new Secretary of Veterans Affairs.  Iraq and American Veterans of America note:


CONTACT: Gretchen Andersen (212) 982-9699 or press@iava.org

IAVA Welcomes New VA Secretary Bob McDonald

CEO Rieckhoff: New Secretary must be tenacious in rectifying VA

Washington DC (July 29, 2014) – The Senate today confirmed Bob McDonald, former head of Procter and Gamble and West Point graduate, as the new Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing post-9/11 veterans and their families, welcomes McDonald. 

IAVA CEO and Founder Paul Rieckhoff released the following statement:

“IAVA applauds the Senate for quickly confirming Bob McDonald to head the VA. We believe this new change in leadership is the first step in restoring confidence in the VA. McDonald has a great challenge ahead of him – to rebuild faith in a health care system accused of wrongdoing and corruption nationwide. This will not be an easy task, but we stand ready to help him. We urge McDonald to meet with IAVA leadership and implement recommendations from IAVA’s eight-point “Marshall Plan” for veterans.”

Rieckhoff continued: “This is a critical time for veterans. We are losing 22 veterans a day to suicide, and in our latest Member Survey, we found that 40 percent of respondents knew another post-9/11 veteran who died by suicide. Post-9/11 veteran unemployment continues to be higher than the national average. And the VA claims backlog still stands at over 260,000 as the appeals backlog grows by the week. Combating suicide and improving access to mental health care should be one of McDonald’s first priorities upon taking command of VA. McDonald must be tenacious in addressing these issues and fixing a culture of systemic misconduct at VA offices and hospitals. Our veterans deserve better care and McDonald must rise to the occasion.”

Note to media: to arrange an interview with IAVA leadership, please email press@iava.org or call 212-982-9699.  

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (www.IAVA.org) is the nation's first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan and has more than 270,000 Member Veterans and civilian supporters nationwide. Celebrating its tenth year, IAVA recently received the highest rating - four-stars - from Charity Navigator, America's largest charity evaluator.

###

And lastly  the following community sites updated:

Mikey Likes It!

24

Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

how the mighty have fallen

Like Maria Said Paz

No, this is CNN

Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

Be careful what you wish for

Ruth's Report

Who has rights?

SICKOFITRADLZ

Detroit

Trina's Kitchen

Favorite summer dips

Ann's Mega Dub

50 shades of what?

Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

Linda Ronstadt

iraq
national iraqi news agency

Mistresses heads for Melrose Place

Monday nights on ABC this summer, "Mistresses" airs.

And Ruth covered last week's episode with "Mistresses (Where April becomes the new Dr. Kim)"  and I covered it in  "Mistresses (Oh, Karen)."

I cover Dr. Karen Kim and Joss.

This really isn't Joss' season.  Even though they've given her Justin Hartley as a boyfriend, she's still really not much more than a supporting player.

I like the character, I like the actress.  I just feel like she's a piece of bread used to sop up everyone else's stories.

Maybe things will heat up because she got Harry (her still brother-in-law) a job as a chef so he won't be moving to Australia and Justin is suspect on that assuming that she  has more than friendship feelings for Harry.

And as for Karen.

Does Dr. Karen Kim have any sort of ethical standards?

If you thought she was a mess last season, you just didn't know.

Remember she has a new client this year and she's imitating the client -- picking up men and giving them fake names.  And then she finally got with Jacob -- her former partner who turned her into the ethics board for (a) sleeping with her patient and (b) sleeping with her patient's son (who was also her patient).

No sooner are they bed buddies than Karen learns about the woman he just broke up with -- her client!!!!

Shredding every oath and standard, when the woman disappears, Karen goes to Jacob and tells her he needs to text her to give her hope so she'll contact him.

It works.  The patient returns and brags to Karen that Jacob really is into her.

Of course, Karen insists to Jacob that there can be nothing between them.  When you tell a guy that a your apartment, do you ride down in the elevator with him?

Do you also make a point to kiss him in the elevator?

Even when you know your client also lives in the building?

Guess what happens when the elevator door opens?

Yes, the patient is standing there and catches Karen and Jacob kissing.

Oh, Dr. Kim, you're headed into Crazy Kimberly territory (Melrose Place doctor Kimberly).




Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


 

Friday, July 25, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Nouri refuses to step aside, the State Dept refuses to break it off with him, and much more.




Wednesday morning, the State Dept's Brett McGurk and the Defense Dept's Elissa Slotkin appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee to talk about Iraq.  Thursday, they appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to talk again about Iraq.  We're going to spend another day on the Senate hearing and we'll kick things off with this lengthy exchange.


Senator John McCain: So if we did initiate an air to ground campaign, without including Syria, they would have a sanctuary in Syria.  Would you agree with that?

Brett McGurk: One of the reasons I defer to my colleague Elissa, we're focused on training the moderate opposition and have a face that's able to deny safe haven and deny space to the -- to the ISIL networks in Syria.

Senator John McCain:  Well probably so but the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both stated publicly that the Iraqi security forces are not capable of regaining the territory they lost to ISIS on their own, without external assistance.  Do you agree with the Secretary of the Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

Brett McGurk: The Iraqi security forces have moved, uh, a little bit out of -- We had this snowballing effect out of --

Senator John McCain: Again, asking if you agree or d with the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who both stated publicly that the Iraq security forces are not capable of regaining the territory they've lost to ISIS on their own without external assistance?  Do you agree or disagree?

Brett McGurk:  They could not conduct combined operations -- which it would take -- without some enabling support.

Senator John McCain: So, since we all rule out boots on the ground, that might mean the use of air power as a way of assisting them.  Would you agree with that?

Brett McGurk:  Uh, Senator, I just -- uh, all of these options, potential options for the president, are being looked at and, as Elissa said, we're not going to crowd the table --

Senator John McCain: And how long have we been "looking at them," Mr. McGurk?

Brett McGurk:  Uh, well --

Elissa Slotkin: Sir, the assessments came in last week and --

Senator John McCain: So the assessments came in last week.  How long have we been assessing?

Elissa Slotkin:  I think we assessed for two solid weeks.

Senator John McCain:  I think it's been longer than that since the collapse of the -- of the Iraqi military, Ms. Slotkin.

Elissa Slotkin:  I think the president made his announcement on June 19th.  And then he instructed that assessors go to Baghdad.  They flew there and began their assessments immediately.

Senator John McCain: I see.  And so far we have launched no air strikes in any part of Iraq, right?

Elissa Slotkin:  That's correct.

Senator John McCain:  And you stated before that we didn't have sufficient information to know which targets to hit.  Is that correct?

Elissa Slotkin: I think we have adequately improved our intelligence --

Senator John McCain: But at the time, did you believe that we didn't have sufficient information in order to launch airstrikes?

Elissa Slotkin:  I think that we -- given our extremely deliberate process about launching any airstrike we would --

Senator John McCain:  You know, it's interesting.  I asked: Do you think at that we didn't have sufficient information to launch airstrikes against ISIS?

Elissa Slotkin: I think given the standards the United States has for dropping ordinance, no, we did not have the intelligence we would ever want at that time.

Senator John McCain: I find that interesting because none of the military that I've talked to, that served there -- and even those who flew there -- they're absolutely convinced, as I am, that when you have convoys moving across the desert in open train, you can identify and strike them.  We know that they were operating out of bases in Syria -- out in the open, in the desert.  So with those of us who have some military experience in the advocacy of air power, we heartily disagree.  And that isn't just me, it comes from military leaders who served there.   


There are a number of reasons to note the above.  One reason we did?

Jonathan S. Landay (McClatchy Newspapers) reports one aspect of the hearing:

Like the rest of the world, the U.S. government appeared to have been taken aback last month when Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, fell to an offensive by jihadis of the Islamic State that triggered the collapse of five Iraqi army divisions and carried the extremists to the threshold of Baghdad.
A review of the record shows, however, that the Obama administration wasn’t surprised at all.

I don't like people who lie.

In the House hearing especially, there was a pretense of 'I am so shocked!'  Often with a claim of 'It turns out that late last year, Nouri al-Maliki asked the White House for air strikes.'

John McCain is no friend of the White Houses.  That is a large chunk of his exchange in the Senate hearing.

You can agree or disagree with the points he raises.  But you will notice he does not pretend he is shocked or act like he just learned of Nouri's request from last year for air strikes.

You can refer to the November 1, 2013 snapshot covering Nouri's face-to-face meet up with Barack Obama to grasp that there's no way anyone can pretend to be shocked by today's events.

Yet a number of House members pretended and played -- and lied -- during Wednesday's hearing.  And a number of reporters are eager to join them in pretending and playing.

Another topic that came up repeatedly was Nouri's failures.

For example, former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey told the Senate Committee on Thursday:

Despite the election of a moderate Sunni Arab speaker of the Iraqi parliament two weeks ago, there is no certainty that Iraqi political leaders and parliament can overcome their deep divisions to create an inclusive new government as rightly demanded by the U.S. Government. For starters, any such government must not be headed by PM Maliki. He has lost the trust of many of his citizens, including a great many Shia Arabs, yet is still trying to hold on to power. In this uncertain situation, while pushing the traditional approach, we must simultaneously prepare to deal with an Iraq semi-permanently split into three separate political entities, and to shape our approach to the Sunni Arab, Shia Arab, and Kurdish populations and to the central government on that basis.

Nouri "is still trying to hold on to power"?  Michael Gregory and Larry King (Reuters) reported Friday morning that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistanti's Friday message was that politicians must stop "clinging to their posts, in an apparent reference" to Nouri who refuses to step aside.

Jeffrey thinks the answer is "an inclusive new government" and one that "must not be headed by PM Maliki."  In the same Thursday hearing, it was wondered if the State Dept was backing Nouri and at what cost?


Senator Jeff Flake:  Is it possible at all, in the State Dept's view to move ahead with Maliki in charge?  Will there be sufficient trust -- any trust -- in the Sunni population that he'll be inclusive enough?  His government?  Or does our strategy rely on somebody else coming in?

Brett McGurk: Again, it's going to be very difficult for him to form a government.  So they're -- they're facing that question now -- now that the president's been elected to face the question of the prime minister.  Any prime minister, in order to form a government, is going to have to pull the country together.  And so who ever the leader is, it's someone who's going to have to demonstrate that just to get the votes he needs to remain -- or to, uh, uh, be sworn into office.  So that's something that's going to unfold fairly rapidly over the coming days.  Again, there's a 15 day timeline to nominate a prime minister [designate] and then whomever the nominee is then has to form a Cabinet and present it to the Parliament to form a government.

 While Nouri has lost the support of many -- including, reportedly, the support of the Iranian government, the US government continues to support him and not just as evidenced by Brett's slip-up ("he needs to remain") but also by the exchange in Friday's State Dept press briefing moderated by Marie Hark

QUESTION: Right. Yeah, I wanted to ask you if there’s any progress on the forming of the new government. Do you have any updated --

MS. HARF: Well, they selected a president and --

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: -- they have up to 15 day – excuse me, up to 15 days, I think, to name candidates for prime minister. And then after that, I think up to 30 to actually form a government. I can check on the dates. But they have now a speaker, they have a president, and then next up is a prime minister.

QUESTION: Should we read from the testimony that Mr. McGurk did on Capitol Hill that you are losing patience with Mr. Maliki, you’d like to see someone else take his place?

MS. HARF: You ask this question a different way every day. We don’t support --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. HARF: -- and I’ll give you the same answer, so let’s – for consistency, let’s do that again today. We don’t support any one candidate, any one person to be prime minister. We’ve said it needs to be someone who is interested in governing inclusively. We’ve also said we’ve had issues in the past with how Prime Minister Maliki has governed. But again, it’s not up for us to decide. It’s up for the Iraqis to decide.

QUESTION: Right. But your confidence in Maliki’s abilities to rule inclusively, as you said, is --

MS. HARF: Well, we’ve had issues in the past.

QUESTION: -- not ironclad.


MS. HARF: We’ve had issues in the past.


The State Dept has "had issues"?  With a War Criminal, they've "had issues"?

Prime Minister and chief thug of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki killed 4 civilians  and left eight more injured in his latest bombing of Mosul on Friday, NINA reports.  Thursday, NINA reported:

Head of the doctors resident at the Fallujah Educational Hospital Ahmed al-Shami said on Thursday that the outcome of the bombing on the city of Fallujah since / 7/ months reached / 2696 / martyrs and wounded, including women and children.
He told the National Iraqi News Agency / NINA / that the final outcome to this day for the victims of the bombing suffered by residential neighborhoods in the city of Fallujah was / 610 / Martyrs and / 2086 / wounded, including women and children.

Nouri's a War Criminal.

But the State Dept is happy to stand next to him, hold hands with him and, provided with enough booze, have a hot and sticky, back seat make out session with him.

While a War Criminal gets embraced, some argue an ally gets mistreated.

Dropping back to Thursday's hearing:


Senator Barbara Boxer:  I want to ask you about the Kurds.  Both of you.  I don't know which.  Either of you could answer.  The Kurds in northern Iraq have long been a strong ally of the United States and they have played an important role in countering the rapid advance of ISIS.  When I went to Iraq a very long time ago, the bullets were flying.  The Kurds?  I found them to get what this was all about.  And there's so much prejudice against the Kurds.  The Kurdish militia offered to support Iraqi security forces when ISIS began its offensive in Mosul.  Kurdish forces have kept much of northern Iraq out of terrorists hands.  Kurdistan has beome a destination for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis fleeing from ISIS controlled territory.  And, you know, I have to say as I watch Mr. Maliki, I don't think he appreciates it.  As the Iraqis work to determine their future, I'm asking you, what role can the Kurds play?  And should the United States acknowledge that the Kurds should have a significant amount of autonomy?  I think they've earned it and I wondered what the administration's position was vis a vis the Kurds and more autonomy for the Kurds?


We'll ignore all the pretty words Brett McGurk offered Boxer because Marie opened her mouth in the State Dept press briefing.

QUESTION: Okay. Reuters has reported that a tanker loaded with oil from the Kurdistan region of Iraq is near Texas and is apparently heading for a potential buyer there.

MS. HARF: Well, we are aware there’s a tanker off the coast of Florida currently. But our policy here has not changed. Iraq’s energy resources belong to all of the Iraqi people. The U.S. has made very clear that if there are cases involving legal disputes, the United States informs the parties of the dispute and recommends they make their own decisions with advice to counsel on how to proceed. So I’d obviously refer you directly to the parties in terms of any arbitration here. I know that’s what the stories have focused on.

QUESTION: Are you actively warning the – say, the U.S. firms or other foreign governments to not buy Kurdish oil specifically?

MS. HARF: Well, we have been very clear that if there are legal issues that arise, if they undertake activities where there might be arbitration, that there could potentially be legal consequences. So we certainly warn people of that.

QUESTION: Do you keep doing that now too?

MS. HARF: We are repeatedly doing that, yes.

QUESTION: So why – I mean, if you think it’s illegal or that --

MS. HARF: I didn’t say it was illegal. I said there’s a legal dispute process here, an arbitration mechanism. There will be a legal ruling on it. I’m not making that legal determination from here.

QUESTION: So you’re not sure if it’s – the sale of Kurdish oil independent from Baghdad is legal or illegal?

MS. HARF: Correct. So we know – we have said what our – the United States position is, is that the Iraqis – people own all of Iraq’s energy resources and that the Iraqi Government and the Kurdistan Regional Government need to reach an agreement on how to manage these resources. There is separately a legal arbitration procedure that can take place if there are legal questions about oil in this – such as in this case, which is a separate question from what our policy is. And there will be a legal ruling made that’s separate from us.

QUESTION: But if you don’t – if you’re not sure if it’s legal or --

MS. HARF: It’s not that we’re not sure. It’s that there’s a separate process.

QUESTION: Yeah, there’s – it’s a separate process, but it seems to me that you are taking the side of Baghdad – or Baghdad, you are, like --

MS. HARF: Taking the side of all of Iraq, a federal Iraq.

QUESTION: Because you’re saying if the federal government does not approve of it, then the – you are discouraging U.S. firms or other international buyers from --

MS. HARF: We said there could be potential legal disputes that arise from it.

QUESTION: But you’re warning them, right?

MS. HARF: We are warning them that there could be potential legal disputes. These are commercial transaction. The U.S. Government is not involved in them. Our position, from a policy standpoint, is that Iraq’s oil belongs to all Iraqis and that the federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government need to work together on an accommodation and come to an agreement here. And so that’s been our position for a very long time, and we do warn individual entities that there could be legal actions that come from some of these actions we’ve seen.

QUESTION: So you’re saying your position regarding Kurdistan, as it’s been reported by a couple of media outlets, has not been softened regarding Kurdistan’s export --

MS. HARF: I’m not sure exactly what – in terms of our oil?

QUESTION: Yeah, oil.

MS. HARF: Our oil position has not changed.

QUESTION: At all?

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: Yes, Said.

QUESTION: In fact, your position is that all oil contracts should be done through the central government, but let me ask you --

MS. HARF: Well, I meant the central government should come to an agreement --

QUESTION: Right, yeah.

MS. HARF: -- with the Kurdistan Government about how to --

QUESTION: Exactly --


MS. HARF: -- go forward, mm-hmm.

Dropping back to June 28th:


Repeatedly, the State Dept has insisted they weren't taking sides on the oil issue and more gifted speakers have been able to walk the line so that there was the possibility that State wasn't choosing sides.  Their actions made clear they were backing Nouri but their words gave the indication that maybe that wasn't the case and actions were accidental or the product of chaos and not a plan that State was following.

Then Marie Harf clomps into the room and makes clear, it is an anti-Kurd position and that it always has been.

But a hiccup, this week, a hiccup.

A legal victory for the Kurds.  The KRG notes:

On 23rd June 2014, the Court convened a special meeting to address the Minister’s request and, after examining the reasoning behind his request, the Court decided unanimously to reject the request of the Minister “for being contrary to the applicable legal contexts in Iraq.”
It is worth noting here that the Minister’s claims were based on his own interpretation of constitutional provisions to claim that the oil and gas affairs fall within the exclusive powers of the federal government. In so claiming, the Minister was relying on the centralized laws enacted prior to 2003, thus ignoring the fact that current constitutional provisions do not incorporate any oil and gas matters within Article 110, which defines the  exclusive powers of the federal government.

With this Court decision, the Kurdistan Regional Government has another important clarification of its acquired rights as stated in the Constitution.  The Court ruling was taken by a unanimous decision of all its members, and it explicitly rejected the request made by the Minister. Such a decision by the highest court in the land is binding on the Minister and cannot be challenged in any way.
This is a clear victory for justice and for upholding KRG’s rights, despite the Iraqi Federal Oil Ministry‘s interferences and unjustifiable interventions. This decision clearly demonstrates that the Federal Oil ministry and its marketing arm (SOMO) will also fail on all their reckless efforts on the international level.

  This judicial decision by the Supreme Federal Court must be respected, and now we call upon the Federal Oil Ministry, SOMO and all their helpers to abandon their illegal and unconstitutional interventions to prevent oil exports from the Kurdistan Region. They must also cease sending intimidating and threatening letters or making false claims to prospective traders and buyers of oil exported legally by the Kurdistan Regional Government for the benefit of the people of Kurdistan and Iraq.
And that decision came down before Marie's latest flapping of the gums on this issue.

Marie and State should have been aware of the verdict.

They should also be aware that their active support and embrace of Nouri -- which was never backed by the law as they tried to claim -- looks even more repugnant and ill thought.

The Kurds are not only an oppressed people, they've been the ones to attempt to work with the US government for decades -- even though the US government has repeatedly turned on them.  What a slap in the face the US government has repeatedly delivered to the Kurds over the oil issue.

Nouri's failure to pass an oil law is the US government's failure since he's repeatedly promised to pass one since 2006 and now, 8 years later, there's still no oil and gas law.

Marie and State should be pressed now, with a legal verdict being delivered, on where they stand? And why this verdict is not supposed to change anything?


No, Marie -- on Friday -- was not going to call the Kurds' actions "illegal" because, as we just noted above, a court has ruled that the Kurds can do as they're doing.

An honest spokesperson would note that.  Marie's just a joke.



Iraq was briefly noted on the second hour of The Diane Rehm Show (NPR) today.  Iraq grandstander Nancy A. Youssef and other guests were certainly defensive when -- forty-nine minutes into the hour -- caller Terry raised the issue of Iraq.

Diane Rehm:  All right. To Terry in Florence, Ky. You're on the air.

TERRY: Good morning. I wanted to bring to the attention of the panel about the different groups that are being kicked out of Mosul as ISIS takes over there. And I wanted to ask, why is the media not really interested in talking about the different groups that get pushed out and what happens to them? In America, you know, we pay special attention to the Christian communities, but even beyond that there are several different variations on Islam in there. And they're -- the stories that are coming out are very, very worrisome.

HIRSH: Well, I would not agree that the media is ignoring it. There's obviously a lot of smoke and debris coming from all these other stories we've been discussing. It's hard to focus on everything at once, which is a big problem for Obama. But just in the last day or so, the ISIS militants in Mosul blew up the Shrine of Yunus, the so-called -- supposed grave place of Jonah, the Prophet Jonah, a place revered by all three major religions. Clearly, this is a brutal group. And the scariest thing about them is that they are not just destroying things. They are also -- are governing in a very repressive fashion. I mean, they've killed, in the last several days, three Sunni clerics in Mosul who urged resistance to them. And they're a Sunni group. So this has been horrific. We, you know, the media is paying attention to it. But again, it's hard to focus on everything at once.

Nancy A. Youssef:  I know, Terry, it might seem like ignoring. But think about the issues that have come up, the countries, the crises that have come up this summer. By my list -- Nigeria, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, in addition to the issues that we've been talking about today, Ukraine and Gaza and the Israeli conflict. And so it's been such a tumultuous summer and so many places are erupting that what might seem like ignoring is really I think a world overwhelmed by the number of crises confronting it.

Let's stay with this topic for a moment and we'll circle back to the trash that is NPR to wrap the topic up.

Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports on the apparent bombing of a Sunni mosque which apparently destroyed Jonah's tomb:

The holy site is thought to be the burial place of the prophet Jonah, who was swallowed by a whale or fish in both the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions.

Militants belonging to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, planted explosives around the tomb and detonated the explosion remotely Thursday, civil defense officials there told CNN.

NINA notes:


In a statement issued today Mottahidoon said : " With hearts rupturing of pain, and eyes full of blood of the terrible scene of blowing up the shrine and mosque of the Prophet Yunus peace be upon him, the Mosalion the whole world with them farewell a memorial combining history, civilization and sacred values, that is what it means the sublime edifice of Prophet Yunus peace be upon him which is located on Talit-Tawbah / hill of repentance/ in the left side of the city of Mosul.

Mottahidoon is the political party of Osama al-Nujaifi who was the Speaker of Parliament from 2010 until this month.  Mosul, of course, is where Iraqi Christians have most recently been targeted.  Alex McClintock and Scott Spark (Religion and Ethics Report, Australia's ABC Radio -- link is text and audio) report:


‘It's a very difficult time, Mosul is empty of Christians,’ says Father Andrzej Halemba, Middle East coordinator for Aid to the Church in Need. ‘Two thousand years of beautiful history, where the Christians and Muslims for centuries had helped each other, but now it’s the end of Christianity in Mosul. It's dreadful news.’
Christians were reportedly given a choice by ISIS militants: convert to Islam, pay an undisclosed tribute to their new rulers or be ‘put to the sword’. Up to 30,000 elected to flee to safer Kurdish-controlled areas, mainly on foot and often without access to fresh water. According to Father Halemba, even more radical Sunni clerics are arriving from the Gulf states, and they are urging militants to cut off water to Christian villages. Appalling  photos of decapitated Muslims and actual crucifixions of Christians in ISIS controlled areas are emerging on social media today.
‘They lost everything,’ he says. ‘They lost houses, they lost cars, they lost property, they lost money, they lost mobiles: whatever they had.’


Vatican Radio notes that Islamic leaders outside of Iraq have not remained silent either:


The most explicit condemnation came from Iyad Ameen Madani, the Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the group representing 57 countries, and 1.4 billion Muslims.
In a statement, he officially denounced the "forced deportation under the threat of execution” of Christians, calling it a "crime that cannot be tolerated.” The Secretary General also distanced Islam from the actions of the militant group known as ISIS, saying they "have nothing to do with Islam and its principles that call for justice, kindness, fairness, freedom of faith and coexistence.”


While these events are important and are news, other events -- events ignored -- are as well.


Human Rights Watch's Letta Taylor Tweeted this week:

Letta Tayler @lettatayler · Jul 24

Than you @nprfreshair for caring about atrocities by all sides in #Iraq. #Terry_Gross interview with me on this: http://n.pr/1pMvcha 

View summar

We'll assume she means "thank you," but notice the interview and how Terry just wants to dish on IS and has no interest in exploring Nouri's War Crimes.





iraq
national iraqi news agency
reuters
michael gregory
larry king
npr
the diane rehm show

cnn

mohammed tawfeeq
abc
religion and ethics report
alex mcclintock
scott spark
asharq al-awsat
 mcclatchy newspapers

Responsibility for the crash

This is from the UK's Socialist Worker:

Imperialist rivalry is to blame for MH17 plane deaths

by Tomáš Tengely Evans

---

Part of the memorial to the dead at Amsterdam airport

---

Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine above territory held by pro-Russian separatists on Thursday of last week. 
The disaster left 289 passengers dead, the latest victims of the inter-imperialist conflict between the US and Russia. Western leaders piled on condemnation last weekend. John Kerry, US secretary of state, warned that everything “except American troops” is now on the table. 
Even German foreign minister Frank-Walter Stein said, “Moscow may have its last opportunity to show that it really is interested in a solution”. 
In reality the West isn’t concerned about the loss of life. Julie Bishop, Australia’s foreign minister, was quick to warn the separatists not to “use the bodies as pawns.”
But that’s precisely what the West has been doing in order to gain the upper hand against Russia. The tragedy came days after the US imposed tougher sanctions on Russia.
The US had already imposed sanctions targeting Russian oligarchs, but the new sanctions target strategic firms by cutting off access to US capital markets. 
They include Russia’s largest oil producer Rosneft, second largest gas producer Novatek, and its third largest bank Gazprombank. 
The European Union (EU) has up until now been against “tougher” sanctions. Its southern members, such as Italy and Bulgaria, are dependent on Russian energy imports.
Russia is also one of the EU’s main trading partners and most importantly Germany has invested heavily in Russia during the last few years.
Now many EU leaders have been pushed to “talk tough” and threaten tougher sanctions. Throughout the crisis US and EU leaders have been out to cynically protect their imperialist and business interests. This latest development could force Russia and the separatists onto the backfoot.
Powerful
The Ukrainian government’s “Anti-terrorist Operation” has taken back some separatist-held towns. This is partly because powerful oligarchs in the east, who are usually pro-Russian, came out actively in support of a united Ukraine. 
But it has exposed the fact that the separatist “Donetsk People’s Republic” does not have a mass base. There was heavy fighting in the separatist stronghold of Donetsk as Socialist Worker went to press. 
Yet Russia still maintains its occupation of the Crimea. And tougher sanctions could damage the weak European recovery. The root cause behind the Ukrainian crisis is imperialist  rivalry and competition between oligarchs. 
The oligarchs in the east are primarily tied to Russian markets, while in the west they want greater integration into Western markets. 
Russia and the US have backed different oligarchs in order to dominate Ukraine and project their influence in the region. And both sets of oligarchs and imperialist powers have fostered nationalist divisions between Ukrainian and Russian speakers and Tartars in the Crimea. 
Russia wants a weakened Ukraine that is not in the West’s orbit, but does not want a full blown invasion. That’s why it supported the separatists, but hasn’t annexed more territory. 
It’s the imperialist rivalry between the US and Russia that is responsible for the airline disaster. Talk of imposing tougher sanctions on Russia will only perpetuate and escalate the conflict. That will cause more deaths in the future.

---

Passengers are put at risk for pursuit of profit

It’s not the first time innocent passengers have been killed in a warzone—nor is it surprising. 
The Ukrainian government declared a “no fly zone” following the tragedy, shutting down its airspace to passenger airliners. 
Yet major airline companies were more than happy to fly through Ukrainian airspace before flight MH17 was shot down. Ukraine sits below the major trunk routes from Europe to Asia.
If companies were forced to divert traffic, it would have meant spending more on fuel, cutting their profits. Flights continued throughout the crisis. The Crimea was only put off limits because authorities were not sure who was responsible for air traffic control after the Russian annexation.  
This isn’t anything new. Airline bosses are more than willing to put lives on the line in order to protect profits. 
When fighting raged in Afghanistan and Iraq the world airline giants made sure that it was business as usual. 
They continued to fly over both countries. The US has its own history when it comes to civilian airliners. The US military ship Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner with two missiles killing all 290 passengers. 
This happened against the backdrop of the Iran-Iraq war that raged between 1980 and 1988 when the US was backing Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The US has never officially apologised.

Payments © Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.

Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

 

Thursday, July 24, 2014.  Chaos and violence continue, Iraq gets a 'new' president, Brett McGurk appears before Congress again and is grilled by Senator Robert Menendez, US House Rep Frank Wolf notes the plight of Iraqi Christians, and much more.



Yesterday morning, the State Dept's Brett McGurk and the Defense Dept's Elissa Slotkin appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.  Today, they appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  They were the first panel.  The second panel was former US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey, retired Lt Gen Michael D. Barbero and Brookings Institute's Kenneth Pollack.

Americans remain in Iraq, including many working out of the US Embassy in Baghdad.  After Iranians repelled the US-installed Shah of Iran in 1979, they then seized the US Embassy in Tehran. A similar event in Iraq is one of the big fears in Congress and in the White House.

Senator Barbara Boxer raised the issue in the hearing.

Senator Barbara Boxer: Last question is: Are you confident we have adequate personnel on the ground to truly protect our embassy and the Americans in Baghdad?

Brett McGurk: Uh, Senator, yes.  We have moved in substantial assets both into the airport and also into the embassy.  Uhm, I was just there as late as [last] Thursday and we're confident that our defensive parameters and everything -- that our people will be safe.  Our Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security just visited Baghdad last week to do his own assessment.  We've also had teams on the ground from Centcom and this is an ongoing assessment.  And our intelligence assets have the entire everything all around the parameter of Baghdad, the airport and our embassy, very well covered so we're 

Senator Barbara Boxer: Okay.  Can you tell us how many people we have at the embassy or is that something that you don't want to discuss in open --

Brett McGurk:  We have total in Baghdad about-about 2500 now.

As with yesterday's hearing, the administration's view/spin was noted because no one knows how safe it is or isn't for diplomatic staff in Iraq.

Senator Marco Rubio also raised the issue in the hearing.  And pointed out that Shi'ite militias could be as dangerous to the US embassy staff as IS.  McGurk rushed to disagree, insisting that "since 2011," there have been no attacks on the US Embassy or its staff by Shi'ite militias.


A State Dept friend lamented today that I never say anything "nice" about Brett.

So let's note, he managed to keep it in his pants.  Of course, the hearing was in DC, so maybe that had something to do with it?

I'll also give him credit for grasping how the process of forming a government in Iraq is supposed to work.  He knows how it is supposed to work and he can outline it very clearly.  That's not sarcasm on my part, the western press struggles to grasp these basic facts.  Brett had them down pat.

He also played with his watch far less while speaking than he did the day before when appearing in front of the House Veterans Affairs Committee.

So that's the "nice."

It's also worth noting that Brett was still spinning like crazy.  His catch phrase appeared to be:  "We have been embraced."  He said it repeatedly when asked how the Iraqis were responding to the beefed up American presence.

He delivered his catch phrase with such gusto, a few probably almost forgot that it was the book end to Donald Rumsfeld's (false) claim that US troops would "be greeted as liberators" (then-President of Vice Dick Cheney)  -- with roses strewn in their path.


Senator Robert Menendez is the Chair of the Committee and he wasn't in the mood for spin.  Nor was he in the mood for prettying up tyrant Nouri al-Maliki.  What happens, he wanted to know, if Nouri doesn't go but gets a third term as prime minister.


Chair Robert Menendez:  Now if it ends up being Prime Minister Maliki, how do you think that you keep this government together, this nation together?

Brett McGurk: Uhm, as I mentioned in my statement,  as the president has said, it is not our job to pick the leaders but our leaders do have to have a very inclusive agenda and pull the country together. 

Chair Robert Menendez:  I'm not asking you to pick.  Nor do I suggest we should.  The question is that if that is the result, by their own choice, it seems to me that it was very difficult -- based upon what has happened so far, based upon Sunni responses to ISIS at least in response to their grievances with the current national government -- that isn't the likely outcome of that to be more possible to see a divided Iraq?

Brett McGurk:  Uh, the prime minister will be chosen from the Shia political blocs.  And Grand Ayatollah [Ali al-] Sistani, interestingly, over the last  month, he has been very active and he has laid down some guideposts for how to form the next government.  First, it has to correct the mistakes of the past meaning it can't look anything like the current government.  Second, you need new leaders that reflect a national consensus.  We've had that now with the Speaker and the President, and so the prime minister will also have to reflect that emerging national consensus.  It remains to be seen whether the existing prime minister could build such a consensus but that remains very much in question.

Chair Robert Menendez:  You commented in the House hearing yesterday that options being developed for the President are more concrete and specific as a result of the US military advisors on the ground in Iraq and increased intelligence collection.  What guidance have you received in terms of timing for these decisions and how will the political insecurity conditions on the ground influence the president's decisions?


Elissa Slotkin: Well, as I said, the assessments came in last week. Uhm, they're dense, they're significant and so we're still working through those.  After we've done that, the President -- I'm sorry, the Secretary and the Chairman will make informed recommendations to the President.  Uhm --

Chair Robert Menendez:  Are you going to be able to tell us anything more than I read in the New York Times. 

Elissa Slotkin:  I would --

Chair Robert Menendez:  Which was more than I knew before you came here.

Elissa Slotkin:  I would -- I understand.  I would caution against using a leaked, half-report in the New York Times as your basis  for that --

Chair Robert Menendez:  Well the absence of having information leads me to only publicly reported resources.  So when do you intend to come to us in whatever setting to advise the Congress?  You know, this Committee has the jurisdiction over arm sales.  And my reticence to arms sales to Iraq has in some respects been proven true when in fact we've had much of our equipment abandoned and now in the hands of ISIS.  So unless you're going to give us a sense of where the security forces are at, moving forward, this Chair is not going to be willing to approve more arm sales so that they can be abandoned to go to the hands of those who we are seriously concerned about in terms of our own national security interests. 

Elissa Slotkin:  Sir, I understand and our intent is to come and brief Congress at the time when we've piled through it ourselves.  We've kept the Congress very informed.  I know I've been up at least twice a week for our Committees.  We are committed to remaining in close contact with you and there is no attempt to hide it from you.

Brett McGurk: And I would just add, Mr. Chairman, I think we're in a race against time there's no question -- 

Chair Robert Menendez: Well that's my point.

Brett McGurk: And  one thing that we have found, by surging special forces, by surging intelligence assets, as you mentioned, we do know an awful lot more than we knew, uh, uh, even six weeks ago.  Security forces in Baghdad, particularly north of Baghdad -- I describe  some of this in my written testimony -- are trying to do some things to fight back.  They have taken nearly a thousand casualties in the last month.  These units, particularly units that we have relationships with, they  are fighting, they are capable.  And those are the type of units that we're looking at to assist. But, again, this is all being discussed by the national security team as we --


That's enough of that exchange.

There were practical moments as well -- or possibly just 'practical.'

Why should the US spend almost half-a-million dollars on the military request DoD has for Iraq operations?

McGurk was given the chance to explain that.

Who had "ninety minutes in"?  In the pool for how long before an administration official mentioned oil, who had 90 minutes?

Let's note an exchange that came up almost 90 minutes into the hearing.

Senator Marco Rubio:  But here's the question that we get from people -- and that is that people are outraged about what is happening and that is especially the different reports that are coming out about what ILIS is doing.  And by no means is this a group that's popular and Americans understand that this is a terrible, radical group of individuals.  That being said, public opinion polls and just from the phone calls we get in our offices, the attitude of much of the American public is: "It's a mess but it's their problem, let them figure it out."  And I have personally said this isn't even about Iraq at this point, it's about the longterm security of the United States and the threat that ISIL poses to the United States, especially if they're able to establish a safe haven of operations -- similar to what al Qaeda did.  In fact, it was even worse than what al Qaeda was able to do in Afghanistan.  But I was hoping from the administration's point of view and from the State Dept and the Defense Dept's point of view, you could perhaps use this as an opportunity to explain to my constituents in Florida why this matters to America?  Why something happening half-way round the world in a country that people quite frankly think increasingly perhaps we shouldn't have gotten involved in, why does this matter?  Why should people care about what's happening in Iraq given the problems that are happening here at home?

Brett McGurk:  Thank you, Senator.  I'll say a couple of things.  You know, of course, I address the ISIL threat in my opening statement and that is a very serious counterterrorism threat and that is, number one.  But these are vital-vital US interests in Iraq. Number one, the counterterrorism, the al Qaeda threat.  Number two, just the supply of energy resources to the global markets.  Iraq through 2035 will-will account for 45% in all of the growth in energy exports.  If Iraq were to collapse and a major civil war -- sectarian war, the-the effects to our economy here at home would be -- would be quite serious.  


Oil -- a national security issue?  But, of course, it had nothing to do with the reasons why the US government declared war on Iraq.

Crazy.


You shouldn't call the Iraqi people 'crazy,' but you can certainly apply that term to the Kurdish officials who picked the nominee for President of Iraq.  Fouad Massoum.  76-year-old Fouad Massoum.  The president is limited to two terms.  Prior to today, the post has been held by only one person since the US invasion: Jalal Talabani.

When he began his second term, Jalal was 76-years-old.  Fouad Massoum?

76-years-old.

He should be in a retirement home, not presiding over Iraq.

How stupid are Kurdish officials?  Fouad Massoum isn't as overweight as Jalal but few people are.

The world remembers what happened the last time an unhealthy, elderly and obese man was installed as President of Iraq, right?

December 2012,  Iraqi President Jalal Talabani suffered a stroke.   The incident took place late on December 17, 2012 following Jalal's argument with Iraq's prime minister and chief thug Nouri al-Maliki (see the December 18, 2012 snapshot).  Jalal was admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital.    Thursday, December 20, 2012, he was moved to Germany.  He remained in Germany until July 19, 2014.  That's one day shy of 19 months -- 19 months, Jalal spent out of the country.  19 months, his family refused to allow the Speaker of Parliament to see him, refused to allow PUK officials to see him, refused to allow anyone to see him.

19 months Iraq suffered without a president.

The PUK is Fouad Massoum's party as well.  The PUK should have had the decency to step aside on this round having deprived the country of a president for 19 months and refused to call for the Constitution to be followed and Jalal to be replaced for failure to perform his duties due to being incapacitated.

The illegal war (and the US-imposed sanctions prior) helped ensure that Iraq is a young country -- the median age, per the CIA, is 21.3 years-old.

But they're stuck with a 76-year-old as president?

Roy Gutman (McClatchy Newspapers) notes:

While many politicians had warm words for Massoum, a respected Kurdistan analyst cautioned that the longtime opponent of ousted leader Saddam Hussein is widely viewed as weak. "He’s a compromise candidate in Irbil," said Hiwa Osman, referring to the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government. "If people want a compromise, they use him."


The new president was a topic in today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by spokesperson Marie Harf:

QUESTION: Iraq. Yeah. Today, the parliament elected –

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- Fuad Masum, a man of solid political credentials. But he’s also a communist. So do you have any comment on that?

MS. HARF: That he’s a communist?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. HARF: We congratulate the Iraqi people on the election of a new president. This is a crucial step in the formation of a new government. Obviously, we’ve said this needs to happen as soon as possible. The next slip is a prime minister designate must be named within 15 days. They will then have 30 days to form a government with parliamentary approval.

QUESTION: Okay. And the general feeling in Iraq that Maliki’s fortunes are receding, is that your assessment? Do you have anyone in mind that you might like to support, like (inaudible)?

MS. HARF: As we’ve always said, we do not support any one person or any one party. We have been very clear about that from the beginning of this process.

QUESTION: But you would like to see Maliki or the Maliki era end?

MS. HARF: I don’t think I said that, Said.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I said we don’t support any one person. And we’ve also said – and you’ve heard Brett McGurk speak about this a little bit yesterday – that we have had concerns with some of the ways the Maliki government has governed and how they have not always governed inclusively. But we are not endorsing any party or any person, period, to be the next prime minister of Iraq.

QUESTION: And lastly, the Maliki government announced that they are receiving Russian equipment or Russian military equipment. Do you have any comment on that?

MS. HARF: Well, I haven’t seen this specific announcement, but – the last few times I’ve been asked about this. If it’s done through the proper channels –

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)


MS. HARF: I haven’t seen that, but the last few times I’ve talked about this, look, there’s a way that Iraq can get weapons from other countries. There’s a proper channel to do this. And if it’s through that channel, then I don’t think we have a big problem with it. We know there’s a big threat there that they need a lot of help to fight.

Iraq may have a new president but it shows little success at shaking the prime minister who won't fade away.  Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Vivian Salama (AP) report, "Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki rejected an attempt by Iran to persuade him to step down, senior Iraqi politicians said Wednesday, underlining his determination to defy even his top ally to push for a third term in office and further exacerbating the country's political crisis."

In other news, Sinan Salaheddin and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) report an attack on a Taji prison convoy has left at least 60 people dead.  On the topic of violence in Iraq, US House Rep Frank Wolf addressed it today.  His office issued the following:

     Jul 24, 2014

Washington, D.C. – For the second time this week, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) took to the House floor to alert his colleagues – and the world – of the genocide he believes is taking place in Iraq.
“Christianity as we know it in Iraq is being wiped out,” Wolf said. 
Wolf began today’s speech by reading the first two paragraphs of a Wall Street Journal editorial from earlier in the week:  “Mr. Speaker: Imagine if a fundamentalist Christian sect captured the French city of Lyon and began a systematic purge of Muslims.  Their mosques were destroyed, their crescents defaced, the Koran burned and then all Muslims forced to flee or face execution.  Such an event would be unthinkable today, and if it did occur Pope Francis and all other Christian leaders would denounce it and support efforts by governments to stop it.
“Yet that is essentially what is happening in reverse now in Mosul, as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham drives all signs of Christianity from the ancient city.  Christians have lived in Mosul for nearly 2,000 years, but today they are reliving the Muslim religious wars of the Middle Ages.”
Wolf then read parts of an e-mail he received form someone on the ground in Iraq who painted a very dire situation:  “All Mosul churches and monasteries are seized by ISIS.  There are around 30.  The cross has been removed from all of them.  Many of them are burned, destroyed and looted.   Many others are being used as ISIS centers.  The religious Sunni, Shiite and Christian tombs are destroyed in Mosul.  This destruction is endangering very ancient sites, such as prophet Jonah’s tomb, which was broken last week, according to many reporters.” 
Wolf then asked: “Where is the West?  Where is the Obama Administration?  Where is the Congress? The silence is deafening.”
Wolf ended his remarks by quoting William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian who, in making the case against slavery in 1789, told his colleagues, “Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”
Below is the complete text of Wolf’s remarks: 
“‘Imagine if a fundamentalist Christian sect captured the French city of Lyon and began a systematic purge of Muslims.  Their mosques were destroyed, their crescents defaced, the Koran burned and then all Muslims forced to flee or face execution.  Such an event would be unthinkable today, and if it did occur Pope Francis and all other Christian leaders would denounce it and support efforts by governments to stop it.
“Yet that is essentially what is happening in reverse now in Mosul, as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham drives all signs of Christianity from the ancient city.  Christians have lived in Mosul for nearly 2,000 years, but today they are reliving the Muslim religious wars of the Middle Ages.’
“These are not my words.  They are the first two paragraphs of a Wall Street Journal editorial published earlier this week.
“Now I want to read parts of an e-mail I received yesterday from someone in the ground in Iraq: ‘All Mosul churches and monasteries are seized by ISIS.  There are around 30.  The cross has been removed from all of them.  Many of them are burned, destroyed and looted.   Many others are being  used as ISIS centers.  The religious Sunni, Shiite and Christian tombs are destroyed in Mosul.  This destruction is endangering very ancient sites, such as prophet Jonah’s tomb, which was broken last week, according to many reporters.’ 
“It has been widely reported that ISIS soldiers have painted ‘N’ on the doors of Christians to signify that they are ‘Nasara,’ the word for Christian.  Shiite homes were painted with the letter ‘R’ for “Rawafidh,’ meaning rejectors or protestants.
“Christianity as we know it in Iraq is being wiped out. 
“With the exception of Israel, the Bible contains more references to the cities, regions and nations of ancient Iraq than any other country. 
“I believe what is happening to the Christian community in Iraq is genocide.  I also believe it is a crime against humanity.
“Where is the West?  Where is the Obama Administration?  Where is the Congress? The silence is deafening.
“The West, particularly the church, needs to speak out.
“The Obama Administration needs to make protecting this ancient community a priority.  President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry need to have the same courage as President Bush and former Secretary of State Colin Powell when they said genocide was taking place in Darfur.
“The Congress needs to hold this administration accountable for its  failure to act.
“The United Nations has a role, too.  It should immediately initiate proceedings in the International Criminal Court against ISIS for crimes against humanity.
“I will close today by reading the final two paragraphs of The Wall Street Journal editorial I began my statement with:  ‘Today's religious extremism is almost entirely Islamic. While ISIS's purge may be the most brutal, Islamists in Egypt have driven thousands of Coptic Christians from homes they've occupied for centuries. The same is true across the Muslim parts of Africa. This does not mean that all Muslims are extremists, but it does mean that all Muslims have an obligation to denounce and resist the extremists who murder or subjugate in the name of Allah. Too few imams living in the tolerant West will speak up against it.
“As for the post-Christian West, most elites may now be nonbelievers. But a culture that fails to protect believers may eventually find that it lacks the self-belief to protect itself.’
“As William Wilberforce, the British parliamentarian and abolitionist, famously told his colleagues, ‘Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.’”

iraq
mcclatchy newspapers
roy gutman