It's Not About Democracy, It's About the Money

Last night, February 3, 2020, the debacle known as the Iowa caucus,
again showed why this farce should never happen again.  Twenty-four
hours after the caucuses closed and there is still no definitive winner.
Only 61% of the precincts have reported in with totals.

In a previous article (08/13/2019) I discussed the ridiculousness of
having Iowa, a state that doesn't even remotely resemble the nation as
a whole, be the first state to hold a primary.  The rules governing how
a caucus is to be conducted make the game of  Go seem like child's play.
I don't believe many of the actual caucus goers understand them completely.

Many of the would-be caucus participants are not able to attend the caucuses.
Those who work second-shift would be eliminated. Those with physical
handicaps, trouble walking or driving, are also eliminated.  Where is the
ADA when you really need them?  The rules specify that the doors to the
caucus be open for a short, definite time, after that they are closed to any
late comer.  Rather than a secret ballot, caucus participants must state
their preference for a candidate and physically join the candidate's group.
Thus declaring oneself in front of one's friends, neighbors, and relatives.
That may make the next church pot-luck dinner a bit dicey.

Iowa has been using the caucus system to select delegates to the Democratic
and Republican conventions since the 1800's.  In 1916, they held an election
but returned to the caucus system in 1917 due to the cost.  The people of
Iowa say they have their finger on the pulse of the nation, - except for that
woman who requested her ballot back because she just found out Mayor
Pete was gay-  that they are open and forward thinking and can select a
candidate based on integrity, and ability and one who will go on to lead the
country, as long as they are not gay.   Hmmm, let's look at the results of the
past caucuses, the success rate for Iowan selections are; 55% for the
Democrats and 43% for the Republicans.  I don't know about you, but I
wouldn't bet those odds.

After all these shenanigans, and millions of dollars spent, the result of the
Iowa primary is 41 delegates, yup you read that right, 41 delegates to the
convention in Milwaukee in July.  That is less than 1% of the nationwide
total of 3979 delegates to be chosen, and less than 2% of the 1990 delegates
needed to win the Democratic nomination.  And for this pittance, twenty
hopefuls began scouring the state since last August, with the hope of
currying the favor of a handful of farmers.  Ten of them were driven out
of the race because they could no longer spend the money required.  I am
sure some of them were viable candidates whom you would have liked to
have voted for.  I know I really liked one or two.

But we didn't get that opportunity, and coming out of Iowa there may be
even fewer than the ten candidates going in.  The world loves a winner even
if the prize is nothing more than bragging rights, that is if you really wanted
to brag about garnering 10 whole delegates - that probably amounts to
 $100,000.00 apiece.  Is it really worth it?  You bet it is to Iowa, every
election cycle, the state racks-up millions of dollars in revenue, without
which Iowa would dry-up like the corn before harvest.

So what is to be done?  The Democratic Committee, the DNC, can change
the rules.  They have done so many times, most lately when they allowed
Nevada and South Carolina to join Iowa and New Hampshire in early
primaries.  All the rest of the states must wait until after the first Tuesday
in March to hold elections, which this year comes early, March 3rd.  After
that date each state may choose the date of it's primary.  California moved
it's primary up to 'Super Tuesday' to exert a greater influence on the selection
of a candidate.

If Iowa doesn't agree to cede its early primary date to another state, say
Illinois, which is much more diverse and more in line with the demographics
of the country, the DNC can strip Iowa of its delegates.  Wow, that means a
candidate could lose 10 delegates.  Not hardly the deterrent needed to keep
those running out of the state.  The DNC could front-load the primary dates
with more states.  That would be a problem for candidates of where to spend
their time and money to get the biggest bang for their buck.  It would drive
more small underfunded candidates out of the race even sooner, setting the
stage for a few wealthy individuals to buy the election.

Or, and the most desirable in my opinion, is to have a national primary.
That way we all get to vote for our favorite candidate, big or small war
chest.  Gone are the days when a candidate had no other way to reach
out to voters except by train or later by plane.  Today, the media choices
are endless, besides the televised debates, there is a myriad of social media
sites; Facebook, Twitter, text, where a candidate can reach out to millions
of voters on a daily basis.

Unfortunately, there is no control over these sites, voluntarily or regulated.
The greed that they show is unconscionable, and yes, I am calling it greed,
pure and simple.  They don't care about presenting a fair and truthful account
of a candidate, they only care about how much money they can raise in
advertising.  They will tell us that the internet is free and open and they wish
to keep it that way.  No, they wish to keep the money coming in.  Newspapers
and television must abide by certain rules of libel, slander, and truth, not
so Facebook and Twitter.

Perhaps the next president and Congress could examine that issue more closely.
Or perhaps the courts would allow libel cases to go forward against the social
media that posted the libelous statements.  Something to think about, after we
solve the problem of Iowa.  After all it's all about the money.

                                          I'm just sayin'.

It's Time to Move On

In 1998, during the impeachment hearings against then president
Bill Clinton, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, a married couple, began
a petition to have the U. S. Congress censure President Clinton
and move on to the pressing problems of the day.  The petition
garnered over a half a million signatures by word of mouth alone.
The petition, however, did not dissuade Congress and President
Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives, though
he was found not guilty in the Senate.

Twenty years later we are facing a somewhat similar situation.The
President, Donald Trump, has been impeached by the House of
Representatives and has been tried in the Senate.  The country is
awaiting closing arguments and a verdict.  The verdict is, and
always has been, a foregone conclusion.  Then, as now,
the world is watching what we are doing here.

If I may quote from an editorial from the Toronto Globe and Mail,
newspaper written by Lawrence Martin:

    What happened is another bold illustration of how Mr. Trump
    has taken the presidency by the throat and redefined it.  As
    historian Douglas Brinkley put it, "he's dynamited the 
    institution of the presidency."
    As the impeachment shows, he's turned his party into a swarm
    of lackeys.  He's ransacked the reputation of the other 
    institutions such as intelligence and security agencies.  He's
    overhauled communications with his daily barrages and
   attacks on the media.  With his staggering output of falsehoods
    and misinformation he's waged an unconscionable war
    on truth...
    His manhandling and obstruction of the justice system have
    been amply apparent in the impeachment proceedings and
    many other controversies.  He's taken a wrecking hammer 
    to Congressional oversite.

This is from our friend and neighbor to the north; it is not the first
time they have taken our President to task.  Trumps approval rating
in Canada is a dismal 22%.  But what is done is done and it is time
for the country to move on.  We must if we are to survive as a
Democracy.

Our country is as divided as I have ever seen it, and I lived through
the assassinations of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Bobby
Kennedy.  I lived in Chicago during the 1968 convention riots, the
war protests, and the civil rights marches.  I remember the Kent
State Massacre in 1970, and they all pale to the hatred I see today.
This impeachment has driven an even bigger wedge into the heart
of the country, and has caused a deeper divide than I thought possible.

The Democratic Party is in the process of choosing a candidate to run
against Trump.  The election is in nine short months.  I know, in
politics a week is forever and a year is a mere heartbeat.  If Joe
Biden isn't the candidate, the impeachment will have been forgotten.
And if the economy is still booming, Trump may be a shoe-in.

In the background, unnoticed by most, are the drone strikes at the
heart of al-Qaida.  This continuing 'poke the bear' strategy will
eventually bring a response, and an even greater response from the
U.S.  Trump knows the public will not 'change horses in the middle
of the stream' even if he is the one who is causing the stream to
overflow.  Trump's campaign is playing every card in the deck, but
this will be child's play when it comes to the attacks once a
Democratic candidate is chosen.

But we as Democrats, must not rise to the bait.  We have to select a
centrist to represent the party.  We must reach out with an open hand
not a closed fist, we have to stop the divisive rhetoric, the subtle dog-
whistle messages, the out-and-out lies.  The Democrats must lift politics
out of the gutter and bring civility back to the White House, if we ever
want the world to look at us as a beacon of hope and promise again.

We must promise to restore the faith of our allies, the determination of
purpose to our enemies, we must say what we mean and mean what we
say.  Open our doors to those who need our help and build alliances, not
walls.  Walls don't keep people out they keep people in.  We must embrace
our differences, they are what made this country great.  And most of all
we must reach across the aisle and work with those whose ideas we
feel are counter to our beliefs, and work with them to find a common ground.

The Republicans tapped into a vein of resentment in 2016, they promised
to change lives and bring prosperity to the impoverished areas of this
country.  And they failed miserably.  They promised that coal mines
would reopen, manufacturing would rebound in closed and shuttered
factories.  And they failed again.  They promised that the wall, the
beautiful wall, would keep out the immigrants who were stealing their
jobs, and Mexico would pay for it.  The wall remains a dream and Mexico,
they are keeping their pesos.  The tariffs that were supposed to be paid
by China?  They came out of all of our pockets, the money paid to the
farmers came out of our pockets, the higher prices caused by the tariffs
came out of our pockets.  Every promise that Trump made has been an
utter failure, except for his lies.

Trump says his plans are working, look at the stock market.  How many
Americans are in the stock market?  It's hard to put money into you IRA
when you have bills to pay and the paycheck hasn't gotten any bigger in
years.  The mega corporations are inflating the stock market by putting
profits that should go the workers, into buying company stock.  Thus
inflating the price and making their shareholder happy, to say nothing
of making their portfolio happy.  Are you happy?

The road to the White house will be an arduous trek, we will have to
endure name-calling at best and degradation at worse.  But we must
keep our eyes on the prize. We must lift up the election process and
refuse to be dragged into the mud of lies and intimidation.  And it
must begin with you and me.

                                                            I'm just sayin'.

It is Our Heritage We are Guarding

Back in November of 2019, I wrote a piece about the struggle
to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, if ratified it would become
the twenty-eighth amendment to our Constitution. I had the greatest
chance in many years with the Democrats Taking control of the
legislature and governor's seat in the state of Virginia.  And on
Monday, January 27, 2020 the ERA passed both houses in Virginia.

This momentous occasion was swallowed up, like everything else
of importance that has happened in the past two months, by the
impeachment trial of the president, Donald J. Trump.  And yes,
I understand this is history in the making, and it is one of the most
important events in the past twenty years.  In fact it has been almost
twenty years of the day of the last impeachment.  But it has been
one hundred years since equal rights for women was first proposed.

It is fitting that a state named for a woman is the state that was the last
one needed to ratify the amendment.  It has been a long hard struggle
to get to this place in time.  But please hold your cheers and confetti.
We are so close to the finish line and still we cannot get across it.  Why
you ask, because the U. S. Justice Department, which is headed the
ultra conservative Attorney General, William Barr.  The Justice
Department issued a legal memo concluding that; because the deadline
has expired, it is too late to ratify the ERA.  The only option is to begin
the process over again.

The National Archives, which certifies the ratification of amendments,
said it would abide by the opinion "unless otherwise directed by a
final court order".  So here we go again.

The year 2020 has special meaning for women, it is one hundred years
since the ratification of the nineteenth amendment grating women the
right to vote.  And what a way to celebrate that victory, but with another
victory for women, the ERA!   As I write this, there are three states who
are suing to have the ERA be recognized as ratified and become the
twenty-eighth amendment.  The fight for women's rights continues, and
here is one reason why we need to win this fight.

The National Archives, in order to honor the one hundredth anniversary
of women's suffrage, designated an exhibit called;  "Rightfully Hers:
Women and the Vote".  the entrance to the exhibit is flanked by two
large photos, 49x69 inches is size.  One showing a march of women
protesting for suffrage, it was taken in 1913.  The second photo was
taken in 2017, it is a photo of the Women's March on Washington.  It
shows women marching to protest the inauguration of Donald Trump
as president.  In both photos the women are carrying signs with
protest slogans, but there is one discernable difference, the signs in
the photo taken in 2017 have certain images blurred out.  A check of
the original photo shows that the images which have been blurred were
derogatory messages directed at the president.  In another instance words
describing parts of the female anatomy, both anatomical and crude, were
also blurred out, even those words were used by the president, himself.

The National Archive is a massive building on Pennsylvania Avenue,
between the Capitol Building and the White House. Surrounding its
portico are giant columns that lead to impressive doors guarded by
a statue, a female named Heritage.  She is there to protect the American
heritage that is on display within those doors.  Inside are depictions of
war, violence, racism, and misogyny, as part of our American heritage.
History is messy, but to alter the truth was an attempt to erase the
powerful message those women were trying to deliver.

In fairness, the National  Archives has apologized for scrubbing the
photos, I don't know if there are plans to restore them.  But if the National
Archives wishes to teach the history of this great nation, then it must
do it honestly, warts and all.  

                                                          I'm just sayin'.

Who Doesn't Love Santa Clause?

I have scrupulously avoided advocating for a candidate in
any of my previous posts.  I have more than implied that
people should vote for the Democratic candidate no matter
who it should be.  I have always felt that any of the candidates
running for the Democratic nomination - with the exception
of a certain off-the-wall author who shall remain nameless, but
who is no longer in the race - were infinitely more qualified to
run the country than the current administration.   But I am about
to change that, with this piece.

Three years ago, I backed Hillary Clinton for president, I felt
that she was unquestionably more qualified to be president
than anyone in the past 15 years.  She had the brains and the
cajones to stand up for this country.  She was investigated
more thoroughly than any other citizen of the United States
and was found innocent of all charges that were intimated
against her.  And there were plenty, all of them were baseless
accusations to try and destroy her character and keep her
from the White House.  That alone would have broken a lot
of people's spirit, but Hillary kept fighting on.

Her only serious opponent was Bernie Sanders, and granted
he had a big following, especially with the young liberals.
And why not?  He promised them the moon; free tuition,
free health care, student loans paid off. It was going to be
wonderful, a free ride from cradle to grave, and maybe those
would be paid for also, who knows.  And when it became
obvious Bernie was not going to win the nomination, did
he do the decent thing?  Did he concede the race and ask
his supporters  to back the winning candidate? Get serious,
he hung on until he was forced out.  And then waited until
it was too late to back Hillary.  His gigantic ego could not
accept that he was beaten by a woman.

So Bernie crept to the Senate, tail between his legs, where
he sits alone, belonging to neither party and contributing
nothing to either party.  And he began plotting his revenge,
another run at the nomination.  He would again run as a
Democrat, because he knows he knows he couldn't draw
enough votes running as an Independent candidate. Bernie
Sanders is not a Democrat, his ideas are far to the left of
most Democrats, they border on socialism.  And not the
American socialism, but the European brand of socialism.
Most Americans understand that only the government can
provide certain benefits; infrastructure, education, insurance
for the elderly and the disabled, and now quality and affordable
insurance for all.  And some people are warming up to the idea
of government health care for all.  But, by far and away, right
or wrong, Americans wish to remain independent of government
interference in their lives.

What Bernie is selling is an all-encompassing government
takeover of your life.  Why, because that is how he lived his
life.  Sanders has never held a full-time job, he has never
brought home a weekly paycheck, yet he purports to tell
Americans that he is one of them.  Only if the average
American suckled from the government teat for the last
seventy years.  Yup, Bernie Sanders only job has been
working for the government, after living off welfare until
he could get elected. He wants to change the way things are
being done in Washington DC.  He had a chance to do that
for the last thirty years, yup folks, that is how long Bernie
Sanders has been in Congress.

And in those thirty years he has accomplished three, count 'em,
three things.  He has had two Post Offices renamed and he
authored the bill to give the military a cost of living increase,
who would vote against that?  And now, Sanders says if you
elect him to the presidency, he will bring sweeping changes to
make you life better.  And he will do it in only four years.  That
is truly amazing.  After warming a seat in congress for thirty years
Bernie is going to kick it into high gear and reorganize the federal
government in four years.  And if you believe that I have a bridge...

And despite all of this Sanders is in the lead in many states even
though polls show that he cannot beat Trump in a head to head
election, to say nothing about beating him on the debate stage.
Christmas is over folks, it's time to stop believing in Santa Clause!

                                         I'm just sayin'.

The Circus is Coming to Town

Ah yes, the ultimate showman of them all is coming to a TV
station near you and he is bringing his entourage with him.
Donald Trump has consulted with his production company,
Fox News, and its crack team of reporters, and has opted to
bring in more entertainment for you amusement.  If it wasn't
so terribly, terribly sad it would be hilarious.

In 'The Donald's defense, he didn't really have much of a choice
in prestigious legal firms, as his reputation preceded him. Namely
he's a deadbeat, he doesn't pay his bills.  And this trial may or may
not rack up some biggies.  Also, most firms would like to keep
whatever shred of decorum they possess, L1s and L2s will be
watching and the best of them will shy away from this three-
ring debacle.  Ditto for clients who prefer less notoriety.

Trump the entertainer, ever on camera, needs to bask in the
bright light of notoriety, (perhaps that's where the orange hue
comes from).  The more invidious the situation, the more
Trump glories in it. And he has added to his defense team
two lawyers who also, are drawn to the camera's light like
moths to a flame.

Alan Dershowitz, a name that conjures up memories of the
most appalling, and odious clientele in the past forty or so
years; Klaus von Bulow, O. J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, and
Jefferey Epstein.  Ah but the sensationalism that followed
those trials was priceless, Dershowitz is now a TV legend,
sought after by stations looking to boost their ratings during
sweeps week.  His trial strategy has been; 'yes, my client is
a sleazy character of disrepute but did he do it? And if he did
do it, he really didn't mean to do it.'  This should work with
his latest client very well.

And then we have Ken Starr, there is a name out of the past, and
a face you would probably like to forget.  He could use a bit of
the orange makeup Trump uses to liven up that pasty whiteness
of his.  Ken Starr isn't known for his defense as much as for his
being a prosecutor, you will remember him from the Clinton
impeachment trial.  Where he demanded witness after witness
appear before the House judiciary, everyone including  the
cleaning lady who emptied the trash in the oval office.  One
would wonder how he will approach the 'no witnesses'
demand of Moscow Mitch. Do you think he will be able to
find some salacious tidbit to perk up the legal briefs to be
presented today?

It appears that sordid business seems to follow Starr, to the
point that he was dismissed as president of Baylor University,
a school that has bible verses etched into the sidewalks there,
for looking the other way after the athletic team was charged
with sexual abuses.  Maybe he just enjoyed reading about it.
We know he enjoyed writing about such things, as anyone
who read the transcripts of the Clinton trial briefs will attest.
Starr is another Fox News personality; it appears this is a
requirement for joining Trump's legal team.

The defense this crack team is going to present; it is not
whether Trump did what he did but whether it is an
impeachable offense.  Does it meet the standard of 'high
crimes and misdemeanors'?  Well let's look back to a
prominent Republican who said on April 15, 1970,
"An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of
the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at
a given moment of history."  That was Representative
and soon to be president Gerald Ford who said those
words,.  Sometimes things just come back to bite you.

The show starts tomorrow, Tuesday January 21, 2020.
Right now the Senate is voting on rules of decorum for
the ensuing trial, if that isn't an oxymoron I don't know
what is.  Last week, each of the one-hundred Senators
raised their right hand and swore an oath to be a fair and
impartial juror.  The world is watching, Senators.  What is
on trial here is not just the President of the United States,
but our Constitution, our way of government, and most
importantly the truth.  Each and everyone of you will be
judged by history, these proceedings will be looked at in
the light day, long after the heat of partisanship has cooled.
And what will future students, lawyers, and congresspersons
think of you?  That is to say if we still have a democratic form
of government by then, or if it has long become a plutarchy.

I'm just sayin'.  

It's a Beautiful Day in the neighborhood?

I'm sure everyone of you has had a neighbor at one time or
another that was not quite to your liking. You know the kind;
noisy, obnoxious, makes a mess and doesn't clean it up.  The
kind that lets his kids run rough-shod around the neighborhood
bullying the smaller kids, especially those of a different ethnicity.
and when you say something to him about it, you get bullied in
return.  Say hello to Canada.

Canada, our closest neighbor to the north, you know, the nice
people.  They feel they are being put upon by the United States,
and this administration in particular.  And they are beginning to
say so, not vociferously, by quietly, like nice polite people often
do.  There have been opinion pieces in the Globe and Mail, 
Toronto's daily newspaper, that are questioning the actions of
the President of the United States.  And the Prime Minister,
Justin Trudeau, has been speaking up also.  In an interview with
 Global News, Trudeau opined as to why the US did not give
Canada some advanced notice of the impending strike against
the Iranian leader, Soleimani. After the drone strike, Iran brought
down a Ukrainian jet liner killing over one hundred people with
ties to Canada, many who were Canadian citizens, fifty-seven to
be exact. In the interview Trudeau said, "I think if there were no
escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be, right
now, home with their families. This is something that happens when
you have conflict and war. Innocents bear the brunt of it."

Trudeau's implicit suggestion that the United States was partly
responsible for the downing of Flight 752, was in his, and his
countrymen's, opinion, a reasonable assumption. This assumption
invited the wrath of Trump's bullies, one of which, the overly
imperious blow-hard, Rush Limbaugh, castigated Canada and
belittled its Prime Minister in particular, calling him 'Blackface
Trudeau'.  Limbaugh pontificated and sneered at Canada, and
well he might.  For Donald J. Trump is hardly 'Mr. Popularity'
with our neighbors to the north.

In a poll, soon to be released by Ekos, it shows the president's
disapproval rate among Canadians to be at an astonishing 86
percent.  It is fair to say that is below most of the despicable
characters in the past, present and surely the future.  Contrast
that with President Obama's disapproval rating of 20 percent
when he left office.  This latest outburst of temper tantrum by
Trump has only added to his poor ratings. And yet, Trump's
talking heads and sycophants cannot understand why Canadians
feel that the escalation in Iran has caused collateral damage to
their country.  Yes, Iran is the obvious culprit in the downing
of the jet liner, and Mr. Trudeau understands that, he knows
Iran is the one who should bear the brunt of Canada's ire.  But
this is just one, and the latest, of Trump's actions that have
impacted our neighbors.

Canadian and Chinese relations have been strained since Canada
arrested an executive of Huawei on a US extradition request.  The
outcome of that was Canadians being detained in China, and a
significant reduction of trade between the two countries and
relations between them in tatters.  Trump washed his hands of
that deal, saying he has no direct responsibility for those actions.

Then there is the matter of the damage done by the NAFTA
negotiations, Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum and the
total destabilizing of the relationship between the two countries
for three years.  Again, Canada was the recipient of Trump's
bullying.  And then there is the matter of the administration's
calling climate change a 'hoax'.  Where the two countries should
be working together to reduce carbon emissions, the Trump
administration is looking at doing away with the regulations
affecting automotive emissions.  There is no wall to keep the
fires in the west from crossing the boarder into Canada.

But all this pales in the face of the loss of life in the current
Iranian escalation.  The CEO of Canadian Maple Leaf Foods,
Michael McCain, angry over this last Trumpian tirade, has
called out the US President as a dangerous irresponsible
narcissist saying, '...his ill-conceived plan to divert attention
from his political woes..." has brought this pain down on the
Canadian people.  He notes had there been a verifiable imminent
threat to the US, there would be far less bitterness toward America.
But that claim has been debunked.

Trump's final claim that "...it really doesn't matter" whether there
was an imminent threat or not, has the Canadians wondering whether
they should follow this president into another endless conflict, or should
they do like Prime Minister Jean Chretien did with President Bush,
and reject going to war with the bellicose Americans.

                              I'm just sayin'.
 

Weep for the Middle East...

A strange title in this time of turmoil, but most of the unrest is
not of the Middle-East's making.  For the past one hundred years,
since the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, which at one time spanned
over 877,000 square miles, the artificial countries established by the Allied
Powers, have suffered from interference from outside forces, forces
interested in only one thing; the oil that lay beneath their sands.

The defeat of the Ottoman Empire, after WWI was caused mainly
by debts incurred from it's many wars, which were taken on to
hold the untenable territories in far-flung lands.  The Crimean War
was the last straw, and the empire declared bankruptcy in 1875. But
it took until 1918 before the empire was dissolved.

The Ottoman Empire was carved into nations, for example such as Iraq  
from three provinces with completely different ideological beliefs.
Palestine was a forced division of Syria.  All this was done to insure
infighting, thus necessitating control and oversight by Western
Colonial Powers.  Lets look at one country in particular...

Once upon a time, there was a great nation called Iraq.  Iraq was
carved out of the Ottoman Empire and was know as Mesopotamia,
the 'land between the rivers'.  The rivers are the Tigris and the
Euphrates, and many biblical scholars believe the area was the
location of the garden of Eden, such was the beauty of Iraq.

This land, Iraq, was settled in 5000 BCE and was a cultural center
for centuries.  In 4000 BCE, the people were building temples and
large powerful cities.  At one point, Iraq was one of the wealthiest
and most promising countries in the developing world.  What is it
that caused this transformation?  

In the 1910s, American oil companies began looking for oil in
Iraqi territory, and by 1928 they owned one quarter of the Iraq
Petroleum Company (IPC).  And in less than ten years, a massive
oil reserve was discovered near Kirkuk, and the IPC began building
wells, pipe lines and refineries, bringing hundreds of thousands
of dollars into Iraq.

However after WWI, Iraq was under the control of Great Britain
until 1932, when it gained its independence and became the
Kingdom of Iraq.  A period of political instability followed with
no fewer than five coups.  In 1941, fearing Iraq was aligning
itself with the Nazis, the US and Great Britain restored the
monarchy.  Interference number one.  After WWII, the US was
afraid Iraq was going to become part of the communist countries
allied with the USSR.  So in the late 40s and through the 1950s
the US began supplying the Hashemite monarchy with economic
and military aid, keeping Iraq pro-western.  But in 1958, the
military overthrew the king and the new regime was anti-
western again.  Revolutions in 1958, '63, '68, and 1979 kept
Iraq in a state of persistent political strife, with clashes between
the Northern Kurds and the Arabs, just as was designed.

In 1963, a CIA-backed coup brought in forty-years of brutal
authoritarian rule, and US and Iraqi relations declined.
Interference number two.  Iraq severed diplomatic relations
with the US in 1967 due to US support of Israel, and in early
1970s, Iraq nationalized US petroleum operations and partnered
with the Soviet Union to further develop Iraq's petroleum
installations.

Then in 1979, Saddam Hussein seized power, bringing with him
internal stability in Iraq's government. Hussein was against the
Islamic fundamentalism in  Iran, and he invaded Iran in 1980.
President Reagan supported Iraq in the war, and provided Iraq
with military and economic aid, restored diplomatic relations,
and shared intelligence with Iraqi military.  In 1988 Reagan sent
US Navy warships to the Persian Gulf which hastened the end
of the war. And Iraq and Iran signed a ceasefire in July of 1988.
Interference number three.  However, in 1989, Iraq invaded
Kuwait, Forcing President G. H. W. Bush to take action
against Iraq.  Interference number four.

Between 1980 and 2003, Iraq suffered three destructive wars
and years of crippling sanctions.  Then in 2003, the US invasion
completed the physical destruction of the country and totally
eliminated Iraq's system of government, and in its stead,
set-up a patchwork of sectarian-based ruling parties that
were warring constantly.  Interference number five.  This
unrest left Iraq open to Iranian political and economic
influence that we see today.

Of late, there has emerged a movement from what is left of
Iraqi resolute, and in October of 2019, demonstrations broke
out in Tahrir Square, calling for better jobs and more services
for the workers.  Then the demands took a political turn,
advocating for the overhaul of the government itself. There
have been over 500 protesters killed and tens of thousands
wounded, and many more arrested or 'disappeared'. And still
the protests continued  The Iranian government sent in militias
and assassinations squads to bolster the Iraqi government, to
no avail.  The protests continued, the demonstrators demanding
a country that was for all Iraqis.

And in one night all of this was destroyed when a US drone missile
killed a prominent Iranian official at the Iraqi airport.  And once again
Iraq is in the center of a killing war.  People across the region are
taking sides with Iran and against the United States and the protestors
are being cut down.  And though they are condemning the United
States, Iran is demanding an end to the demonstrations.  And so,
President Trump, for purely personal reasons, has unleashed a
hornet's nest in Iran and Iraq, and the United States has once again
destroyed the most promising freedom movement Iraq has seen in
decades.  Interference number six.  When will it end?

Democratic transitions demand political stability!  Threats of war and
violence, assassinations and economic sanctions which impoverish
millions, merely embolden the most reactionary elements in a society,
while destroying pro-democracy movements.

     I'm just sayin'.