« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Depends on What You Mean by "Massive"
Once again, the Bush White House shows that it has its finger firmly on the pulse of the Iraqi people.
From the press gaggle yesterday with National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe:
QUESTION: Have you got any reaction to Muqtada al Sadr's urging his followers to rise up against the U.S. forces in Iraq?MR. JOHNDROE: You know, the reports I've seen are that Sadr has urged his various militias, who are, again I remind everyone, operating outside the rule of law in Iraq, to not fight Iraqi security forces. And I think this sort of comment is not surprising, given these Iraqi security forces are having some success against the Jaish al Mahdi militias. And so we, the United States, and you heard Prime Minister Maliki say, everyone operating outside the rule of law need to -- will be dealt with.
And I note today that Sadr called for massive protests. I'm not sure that we've seen that, those numbers materialize and the numbers that he was seeking in his call from his hangout in Iran. But Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions. And that was something they could not do under Saddam. And while we have much more progress ahead of us -- the United States, the coalition and Iraqis have much more to do -- this is a country that has come a long way from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
From today's New York Times:
Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq, burning American flags and chanting “Death to America!”
"But Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions."
If that's true, where were the counter-demonstrators that day? Surely there are people who want the US to stay. Can they "freely gather" and support the US? How much police and military protection would their free speech now require?
April 10, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"outside the rule of law". Banking on words like that and his further gobbledeegook at pure republican meaningless mumbo jumbo. Simply to confuse. Worthless!
April 10, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tens of thousands of protesters? CNN reported yesterday that it was only seven thousand, although their video clip showed a sea of protesters. Does CNN still have military psyops interns working there?
April 10, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spin Doctor A:
But Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions. And that was something they could not do under Saddam. And while we have much more progress ahead of us -- the United States, the coalition and Iraqis have much more to do -- this is a country that has come a long way from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
Event B:
Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq, burning American flags and chanting “Death to America!”
Conclusion C:
Success! We've replaced an anti-US dictator with an anti-US population!
April 10, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quick! Make up a phony "Park Police estimate" that there were only a few hundred protesters, and within an hour, the wingnuts will be reporting it as fact!
April 10, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is really no wonder that Iraq's in the tens of thousands are
protesting our presence in Iraq, labeling it an occupation. We've
acted as there were only one solution to the terrorism problem, war.
It has become increasingly clear, however, as we approach another year
of war and wasted lives, that our efforts have not eliminated
terrorists. Our military presence and lack of attention to helping
people out of poverty fuels the anti-American flames abroad and in
Iraq. If we were to address terrorism at its roots, poverty; it would
be possible to reduce the number of lives lost, save money, and live
up to the reputation of world leader.
April 10, 2007 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
By almost every measure, Iraq fulfills the definition of a failed state. Its essential failure is its inability to enforce public order and to defend its borders.
The ICRC has an interesting article that addresses the implications this has in international law, essentially concluding that UN members have an obligation to step in to address humanitarian and internal security concerns and assist the Iraqi people to form a stable, functioning government.
There are few who would disagree that the government the US installed in Iraq is not working. Most of its members have fled the country and the few that remain are in daily danger of assassination. The current Iraqi government enjoys virtually no support among its own people.
Every serious person who examines the situation in Iraq concludes the only solution possible is a political one, yet we're not one step closer to a political solution than we were four years ago. On the evidence, the US sucks badly at nation building. We, and our military forces, still remain part of the problem and not the solution.
With our petulant leader, I'm confident the situation will be at least as bad a year from now, if not worse, unless Congress can be forced somehow to throttle the President's ability to do even more damage.
April 10, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the military solution is continuing to worsen the situation in Iraq, maybe it is time to reinforce a humanitarian aid to bring peace to the world.
Instead spending $522 billion on U.S. military budget and wasting our precious lives by sending more troops, we can use the money to save so many lives by providing food, water access and sanitation.
According to The Borgen Project, it only costs $19 billion to eliminate global starvation and nutrition.
How long does is take for Bush and his to realize their "Plan B" is not working? I hope our next political leader will make a commitment to the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals to stop the global poverty.
April 13, 2007 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
G'night
January 11, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink