« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The anti-American Iraqi cleric that the surge was supposed to marginalize is back in a big way.
Moqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army twice fought the U.S. in 2004 and who has emerged as a premier power broker among Iraq's majority Shiites, went into hiding at the beginning of the surge in February. As U.S. and Iraqi forces pushed into his Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, the Bush administration pointed to Sadr's disappearance as an early victory for the escalation. But after months of behind-the-scenes rancor with the government of Nouri al-Maliki -- whose rise to power Sadr effectively sponsored -- Sadr emerged two weeks ago in the Shiite city of Kufa to again demand a U.S. withdrawal. And now, McClatchy's Leila Fadel reports, Sadr isn't shying away from his public, giving a rare interview to Iraqi state TV.
Perhaps most troublesome for the U.S. and the Maliki government, Sadr is increasingly portraying himself as a nationalist solution to the sectarian crisis in Iraq. As his interview reveals, his argument depends on a distressing conflation -- that the true enemies of both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis are the twin menaces of the U.S. and al-Qaeda. Maliki, he further argues, is powerless against the threat.
In the interview, al-Sadr said that "the layers of government and parties are turning their backs on the people." He added that the government is only half-hearted in its efforts to serve the people.He said that Sunnis and Shiites have a common enemy - Sunni extremists, known in Iraqi Arabic as takfir. In Islam, takfir is the act of declaring someone an infidel.
"The enemy of all Islam has become the takfir," al-Sadr said. "Before they were killing Shiites with their car bombs. Now they are killing Sunnis with their car bombs. They have become a common enemy."
Al-Sadr, believed to be in his early 30s, sat before an Iraqi flag and the green Mahdi Army flag for the interview.
He ticked off a laundry list of Iraq's problems - sectarianism, lack of services, lack of security, the Mahdi Army's reputation as a brutal killer of Sunnis. But the culprit was always the same - "the occupation."
If that wasn't enough, Sadr has shown success in recent weeks reaching out to the very Sunnis the U.S. relies on to fight al-Qaeda: the tribal alliance in Anbar Province known as the Anbar Salvation Front. The TV appearance suggests that despite the surge's objective of suppressing the anti-American cleric, Sadr appears to be gaining strength at the expense of the U.S. and the Maliki government.
Comments (44)
Karl Boyken wrote on June 8, 2007 9:39 AM:How is Sadr's argument a conflation? One of the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq was the war on terror, our fight against al-Qaeda. Now that al-Qaeda is actually in Iraq, we're saying we're going to stay there to fight terrorism. I'd say that Sadr is correct. Would you want two foreign groups fighting their war on your soil?
Karl
J.Goodwin wrote on June 8, 2007 9:43 AM:Interesting how he leaves out the Kurds.
sc: nation
broken bottle wrote on June 8, 2007 10:08 AM:Can someone clear something up for me? I'm unclear on what our disposition is on this guy? Are we looking for him? Is he a wanted man? Are we just fighting his people hoping to neuter him?
Jane wrote on June 8, 2007 10:29 AM:So Sadr wants to establish an Iranian style regime in Iraq -- a repressive, cleric-controlled government with certain limited democratic institutions. Not so good for the Iraqi people who deserve full democratic institutions and shouldn't be brutally repressed. But little real politik skin off our backs. We can reasonably hope this will evolve over time as did Cromwell's England.
Sadr counts us an enemy largely because we are in his country and so is extremely unlikely to pursue us if we leave his country. But al Qaeda is going to stay havng worn out their welcome by killing both Shiite and Sunni. So Sadr will continue to fight our enemy if we leave. So when to we leave and is it possible to do so without our Iraqi allies, if any, being the subject of a blood bath?
SC: with, with malice towards none.
Barry wrote on June 8, 2007 10:35 AM:Notable that in reaction to the 'surge' Sadr has done exactly what Bush said would be done in response to a timetable for withdrawal?
sc: flag, as in burning it should be illegal but disgracing it is okey dokey
Phoenix Woman wrote on June 8, 2007 10:36 AM:Things to keep in mind:
1) As Sadr notes but the US media doesn't like to emphasize, it's the Sunni extremists who are running around setting off IEDs, especially against Americans. Yet Bush wants to go after Shiites like Sadr?
2) If Bush gives in to Cheney and the rest of the PNAC Platoon and attacks Iran, the Shiites will join with the Sunni insurgents in attacking US troops, the Green Zone and the airport will be overrun, and we'll be looking at a Khartoum-on-steroids situation.
rich wrote on June 8, 2007 10:39 AM:I have been convinced for some time: Sadr will
rich wrote on June 8, 2007 10:40 AM:be the democratically-elected "prez" of Iraq
before the end of this decade.
I have been convinced for some time: Sadr will
rich wrote on June 8, 2007 10:41 AM:be the democratically-elected "prez" of Iraq
before the end of this decade.
I have been convinced for some time: Sadr will
PEI wrote on June 8, 2007 10:45 AM:be the democratically-elected "prez" of Iraq
before the end of this decade.
Oh how I miss Steve Gilliard. From the start Steve pointed out the power and political savy of Sadr. As Steve warned we are there until Sadr decides to play his cards, it looks like he has decided it is time. Recent articles have pointed to the US making headway by getting locals to help against the fight against Al-Qaeda. By linking Al-Qaeda and the US he allows these people to be nationalists and reminds them that helping the US to kill Al-Qaeda is ok but remember that the US is also our enemy. Sadr has been able to use proxies before to kill his opponents (see Green Zone and Iraqi police killing Sunnis under US protection). Also note that the US is making a big push in the Arab world to support Sunni's (see Lebanon) against Shi'ite. Whether his outreach to the Sunnis is real or just a political ploy to get their help now (and offset US gains)knowing that he can deal with them later when the US is out of the way and the Shi'ites in the majority. All in all this is not a good development for the US in Iraq.
OGLib wrote on June 8, 2007 10:46 AM:At this point, al-Sadr has too much power, clout and support for us to be able to arrest him or try to kill him. He's now a reality that we have to deal with. Yet another instance of unintended consequences - ie, an Iraqi government strongly influenced by a radical cleric and his fundamentalist backers. There are definitely more radical elements of the Sadr movement/Mahdi Army who have broken away from al-Sadr because (if you can believe it) he wasn't radical enough and was too tied into the official political process (al-Sadr wants to be a big time player, not an outlaw). It's my belief that these more radical elements are the same ones that we've been capturing and killing during the surge. And that's because they've fallen out of favor with al-Sadr - we know this and, as a result, are not concerned about retaliation (political/peaceful or otherwise) from al-Sadr as a result of our actions. And bonus to al-Sadr - we get rid of his troublemakers for him.
This administration is never going to understand or try to understand the internal politics of Iraq. Even if they did, I just don't think they have the wherewithal or inclination to work within that reality to make things better in Iraq. That's why it's best if we move the sidelines, redeploy to less centralized/populated areas of Iraq (or Kurdistan) - or get out completely - and let the Iraqis and their neighbors sort it out themselves. We're only making things worse and slowing down progress. That progress, of course, might not be to our liking. Iraq will likely only be able to find stability and relative peace under an Islamic government in which guys like al-Sadr and al-Hakim are the power behind the scenes. But at this point, isn't stability the most important thing? It's better than the death and chaos we see every day. We're not going to turn Iraq into Switzerland or Denmark. While they may still have a democratic form of government with separate branches and elections, it's not going to be a form of democracy that we fully recognize or will be comfortable with. But that's reality...it's a different world with a different culture, a different religion, and a different history located in a much more dangerous neighborhood than the United States. And this is really their first experience with democracy. Again, they won't become Canada overnight...if ever.
rich wrote on June 8, 2007 10:51 AM:I am convinced: Sadr will be the democratically-
Aaron wrote on June 8, 2007 11:03 AM:elected "president" of Iraq before the end of
the present decade.
Minor point, but members of al-Qaida et all are known in Arabic as "takfiris," i.e., 'someone who engages in takfir,' not "takfir," which is the act itself. I don't know why after six years putting the whoop-ass on the Ayrabs our press can't get the simplest things right.
cscs wrote on June 8, 2007 11:03 AM:An interesting piece in the NYT, a week or so ago:
There is also much concern in Washington and elsewhere that Mr. Sadr may be a pawn of the Iranians. This notion ignores the history of his movement and the essential nationalism underlying his project. By allying themselves with and speaking for the Shiite poor, Mr. Sadr and his father have long differentiated themselves from the traditional Shiite hierarchy in Najaf, with its great wealth and its ties to Iran.
The Sadrist movement has always been about Iraq for the Iraqis. They might accept help from Iran — and I saw Iranian supplies in their compounds in Najaf in 2004 — but the movement is not for sale. Mr. Sadr gets his strength from the street. And the Arabs of the Iraqi street have no time for Persian bosses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/opinion/03bull.html?pagewanted=print
(Wasn't sure if html works here...)
Anonymous wrote on June 8, 2007 11:04 AM:What would happen if the Iraqi people were somehow convinced that we are offering them a much better shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than they're going to get from al Sadr? Could the people find a way to accept our deal, or would they trapped?
And, oh yeah, we'd want to be sincerely offering them a better deal, and not just trying to get over.
Henry wrote on June 8, 2007 11:06 AM:Finally an Iraqi leader that we can "do business with," democratically elected or not.
freelunch wrote on June 8, 2007 11:21 AM:Most Iraqi leaders would be happy to see us to the door. Bush has failed to meet any of the objectives of his occupation of Iraq.
Michael Lafferty wrote on June 8, 2007 11:55 AM:As is so often the case when describing the complexities of Iraq, Moqtada al-Sadr represents of set of competing interests.
Somewhere between neighborhood, tribe and nation, he has found the means to deliver a message which appeals to the most basic instincts of self-interest and self-preservation. Like the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, he delivers a sense of security and an array of social services, branded with his familiar identity. He is one of 'them,' trusted to provide what they perceive that they need. He has assumed a greater leadership role in a vacuum that we created, growing in power and influence as a direct result of our misguided mission to 'install' democracy as we see it, in a nation with no substantial democratic history or institutions.
We cannot possibly achieve what Al-Sadr does, as we are the outsiders, the aggressors and the easily identified 'enemy' of all Iraqis. We long ago ceded any opportunity to substantially influence the outcome in Iraq, as we morphed almost instantaneously from the outsider come to rescue the populace from the grips of Hussein, to the bumbling, dangerous occupier of this restive nation.
With some 3504 US casualites to date as I write this, and every indication that we will surpass 3600 by mid year, and with possibly half a million or more Iraqis dead and at least four to six million displaced, isn't it long past the point to end this occupation, and to leave Iraq to determine it's own future?
TheraP wrote on June 8, 2007 12:06 PM:Looking at the bigger picture here:
In Iraq you have many parties and many people, often at loggerheads, to be sure, plotting and planning things that are quite different from what the bushies are plotting and planning.
How in the world can the bushies ever "win" anything at all - since they are up against this multitude of different adversaries? It would be like trying to play multiple chess games, all simultaneously - but without recognizing the multiplicity of games.
To me Iraq has become like "bubble gum in the hair." Maybe bush started out to blow bubbles. But now the bubblegum is stuck to the national hair. And his solution? Get another wad of gum and blow more bubbles. When the solution is "cut your hair."
This war needs to be "trimmed" and ended.
sc: blood, as in too much blood has been spilled already!
obsessed wrote on June 8, 2007 12:30 PM:The main argument for continuing the occupation given by Lieberman, Bush & McCain, (The Three Stooges) is that massive sectarian violence would break out if we leave. If Sadr is now strong enough to take control, it seems like there's an excellent chance it would DECREASE, no?
Robbie wrote on June 8, 2007 12:31 PM:My impression is that Sadr will be the major player in Iraq. His base is strong as his group have financed the poor Shai in Iraq for years as Hezbullah have done in Lebanon. Sadr want's to be an Iraqi Nasrallah Hussain and will only achieve that if he now becomes more vocal. Iran, Syria and Turkey will all support him as he is a nationalist and against a Kurdish state. Being the defender of Najaf has made him respected by many if not favoured.
Anonymous wrote on June 8, 2007 12:36 PM:"The TV appearance suggests that despite the surge's objective of suppressing the anti-American cleric, Sadr appears to be gaining strength at the expense of the U.S. and the Maliki government."
Sadr is gaining strength precisely because of the actions/opposition of the US and Malaki government (one and the same.) The enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc.
Mike Valentine wrote on June 8, 2007 12:41 PM:Gee, Bush's blunder is a mess. Who Knew?
code word: Wrong, speaks for it's self.
Mike Valentine wrote on June 8, 2007 12:42 PM:Gee, Bush's blunder is a mess. Who Knew?
code word: Wrong, speaks for it's self.
Nightfall wrote on June 8, 2007 12:53 PM:The only issue with the bubblegum analogy is that "trimming" the tangled mess is exactly analagous to the multiple chess games that Bushlet is pretending to play - TPM is but one of the players/pieces in the tangle that is Americans trying to resolve anything. Win both houses and it's still "many parties and many people, often at loggerheads, to be sure, plotting and planning" but stuck in the mess.
Rich wrote on June 8, 2007 1:05 PM:"So Sadr wants to establish an Iranian style regime in Iraq -- a repressive, cleric-controlled government with certain limited democratic institutions."
Posted by: Jane @ June 8, 2007 10:29 AM
"So"? Where do you get that from the articles? I'm sure Sadr will wield power in a way that is effective and secure within his political, military, and cultural context.
But your conclusion is completely unwarranted.
Iraq's political history is very different from Iran's, and Sadr has to operate within its confines. Who knows what deals he'll cut with the Sunnis and Kurds regarding political liberty? In fact, his willingness to negotiate with the Anbar Front certainly indicates he's opting for diplomacy over genocide.
And why would he go to war with his Iraqi Sunni brethren, when their common enemy is the occupier? I recall Paul Bremer closing Sadr's newspaper--after rejecting the elections Gen. Jay Garner had called for. So it was the U.S. that had closed off democratic avenues for political participation in Iraq--> specfically targeting Sadr.
As long as it's the IRaqis who are authoring the governance that's eventually established, you should have no problem with it. But let's not get confused about just who is establishing sovereignty and liberty--and who is not. Makes you wonder who mobilized the death squads in Iraq--after all, it was the Pentagon, not the Iraqis, that had openly contemplated going to the Salvador Option as a policy tool. Despite that method's open treason of everything America stands for.
Bill in Chicago wrote on June 8, 2007 1:20 PM:Al-Sadr is absolutely right about the "takfir." Takfir is one of the distinguishing doctrine of the Wahhabi Islam, the state religion of Saudi Arabia. For more details on the carnage the Saudis are wreaking in Iraq, check out:
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
The Iraqis know who their real enemy is - the same vicious fanatics who attacked this country on 9/11 (surprise, surprise).
Bill in Chicago wrote on June 8, 2007 1:22 PM:Al-Sadr is absolutely right about the "takfir." Takfir is one of the defining doctrines of Wahhabi Islam, the state religion of Saudi Arabia. For more details on the carnage the Saudis are wreaking in Iraq, check out:
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
The Iraqis know who their real enemy is - the same vicious fanatics who attacked this country on 9/11 (surprise, surprise).
John McCutchen wrote on June 8, 2007 1:56 PM:In public, [the Bush Administration] blathers on about democracy for Iraq, a war objective that reaches beyond maximalism into pure fantasy. In private, its real objectives, unchanged since long before the war began, are no less disconnected from reality. It seeks an Iraq that is a willing American satellite, a bottomless source of oil for America's SUVs, a permanent site for vast U.S. military bases from which Washington can dominate the region, and an ally of Israel. The skies will be darkened by winged swine long before any of these objectives are attained.
At this point, for those who want to continue the Iraq war, only one objective makes any sense: restoring a state in Iraq before we leave, or more likely as we leave. A state, any kind of state, under any government; to try to specify anything more is, in the face of our military failure, maximalism and unreality.
The likelihood, unfortunately, is that no one can restore a state in Iraq. If anyone can, it is probably Muqtada al-Sadr....
NH Dem wrote on June 8, 2007 3:01 PM:William Lind "On War 219"
So let's see:
A quasi-dictatorial Iraq, with a quasi-theocrat leading a quasi-secular government with strong representation of and cooperation with the main minority group, and forcefully opposing al-Qaeda and violent Shiite extremism. Looks like the best of all currently possible worlds.
I for one welcome our new Shia overlord.
OGLib wrote on June 8, 2007 3:16 PM:"A quasi-dictatorial Iraq, with a quasi-theocrat leading a quasi-secular government with strong representation of and cooperation with the main minority group, and forcefully opposing al-Qaeda and violent Shiite extremism. Looks like the best of all currently possible worlds."
That sounds much better than the current situation in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and they are our allies.
MedallionOfFerret wrote on June 8, 2007 4:04 PM:"Will no man rid me of this priest?" *Blackwater guy looks significantly at other Blackwater guy; they leave*
bjobotts wrote on June 8, 2007 5:24 PM:He has been protected by friends and foe alike in Iraq because he is the only "one" to stand up against the Americans and live. Like him or not the Iraqis see him as the only man of strength in Iraq and in spite of being a treacherous murderer, all listen to what he has to say.
Strangely Enough wrote on June 8, 2007 5:26 PM:Bush must get it into his head that we are the foreigners, we are the occupation, we are the ones responsible for the collapse of Iraq's infrastructure, we are the unwanted ones no matter how Cheney tries to spin it.
Bush's smart move would be to invite Sadr into the rebuilding process through diplomatic means and by supporting him bring security and stability to the region so we may withdraw from the region.
But "Bush with Rice" don't know how to use diplomacy to achieve desired goals...at least so far.
That law of unintended consequences just keeps on giving. As big of fools as the Pres., VP, all the NeoCONs, and their enablers in the press who drank the Kool Aid and took their thirty pieces of silver looked back in '02-03, they have managed to surpass even that level of benightedness.
NPE wrote on June 8, 2007 6:16 PM:Interestingly, this could work out to be better for all parties involved if the Bush administration isn't too hopelessly blind or stupid to see it. At this point, a dictatorial strongman probably stands the best chance of quashing down the civil war, much like Saddam was able to do for decades. Again, not the ideal (or even a desirable) outcome, but the real-politik side of me tends to think that a brutal dictatorship is probably preferable in the short run to full-on bloody anarchy. An end to the fighting, of course, would allow the U.S. to declare victory and withdraw, even if it's obvious to everyone not watching Fox News that it's a failure.
The big catch, of course, is that a Sadr government would likely be closely in league with Iran, which would probably not be good news for Iraq's Sunni or Kurds. More to the point, there's no way in hell that a Sadr regime would be at all cooperative with the neo-cons' long-term designs on Iraqi oil or the Middle East. Essentially, the U.S. would have absolutely nothing to show for initiating this horrible mess - no permanent bases, no US-friendly gov't, no favorable oil-exploration laws, etc. And that makes me pessimistic about the U.S. taking its opportunity to withdraw. Given that we're talking about complete sociopaths, my guess is that Bush/Cheney/et al would try to hang on and escalate against Sadr.
NPE wrote on June 8, 2007 6:24 PM:Interestingly, this could work out to be better for all parties involved if the Bush administration isn't too hopelessly blind or stupid to see it. At this point, a dictatorial strongman probably stands the best chance of quashing down the civil war, much like Saddam was able to do for decades. Again, not the ideal (or even a desirable) outcome, but the real-politik side of me tends to think that a brutal dictatorship is probably preferable in the short run to full-on bloody anarchy. An end to the fighting, of course, would allow the U.S. to declare victory and withdraw, even if it's obvious to everyone not watching Fox News that it's a failure.
The big catch, of course, is that a Sadr government would likely be closely in league with Iran, which would probably not be good news for Iraq's Sunni or Kurds. More to the point, there's no way in hell that a Sadr regime would be at all cooperative with the neo-cons' long-term designs on Iraqi oil or the Middle East. Essentially, the U.S. would have absolutely nothing to show for initiating this horrible mess - no permanent bases, no US-friendly gov't, no favorable oil-exploration laws, etc. And that makes me pessimistic about the U.S. taking its opportunity to withdraw. Given that we're talking about complete sociopaths, my guess is that Bush/Cheney/et al would try to hang on and escalate against Sadr.
dadefreese wrote on June 8, 2007 8:55 PM:The Bushies (or their proxies) have called al Sadr a terrorist...any attempt to negotiate with him will be a further confirmation of the bankrupt nature of the Bush talking points regarding 'war on terror', 'not negotiating with terrorists', etc., etc.
Remember, we lost perhaps hundreds of troops in the aborted campaigns against the Mahdi Army....including Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey. For whatever reason, President Bush had Rick Sanchez promise to 'capture or kill' al Sadr in 2003 and 2004 because he was wanted as a fugitive for murder (sounds ironic now, doesn't it?); that was the mission all the way up till Paul Bremer 'turned over power' 2 days early and skedaddled out of Baghdad before it turned any uglier. From then on, the Bushies washed their hands and said it was an Iraqi problem......
in other words, the President abandoned the troops' mission...thereby dishonoring the sacrifice of the fallen, no?
ThatDeborahGirl wrote on June 8, 2007 11:07 PM:From the article:
As his interview reveals, his argument depends on a distressing conflation -- that the true enemies of both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis are the twin menaces of the U.S. and al-Qaeda. Maliki, he further argues, is powerless against the threat.
******
Regardless of his motives, he's right. The US is battling it out with Al-Queda "abroad" so they don't have to do it in the "Homeland" according to Bush. Did we merely use Iraq as ring space like the WWE renting out a coliseum? Were the "belts" killing Saddam, his family and securing the oil fields?
Well, we sure did the killing, but we have precious little to show for it including the oil we supposedly keep spilling blood for.
And now like Justin Timberlake taking sexy back, Iraq wants to take their country back (yeah!). And they also want the two bastards who are fighting on their home turf to "please leave ever so kindly and take your fisticuffs outside."
Who the hell can blame Moqtada al-Sadr for exploiting the obvious? Sounds to me like he's setting himself up to be top dog Saddam-style with a little religious fervor thrown in. Things are going to be tough on the women (and children) over there but damn, women have to fight for their rights everywhere and you can't keep women down forever. If a bastard like Saddam can understand this, this guy will come around eventually. Painfully, but eventually. Or maybe he'll realize that the best way to get the country in line is through guaranteeing feminine liberty.
We have been lied to, we pushed on anyway despite knowing we were lied to and now we have failed. Now we're just playing tit for tat with al-Queda and whoever the hell else over there that wants to aim at us and all the while with innocent Iraqi citizens caught in the crossfire.
Give the Iraqis back their country and let them run it their own damn way. Even if it means letting this Moqtada al-Sadr guy run things. It can't be any worse than that puppet Maliki.
If the enemy of my enemy is my friend and Iraq Sunnis and Shias unite to become the enemy of al Queda and the US, does that make the US and al Queda friends?
Are we the terrorists now?
Jane wrote on June 8, 2007 11:31 PM:So if we leave, who fights for power in Iraq? The Shia, the Sunnis -- three varieties -- secular, insurgents and Al Aqaeda's local and foreign fighters, and the Kurds.
So who wins? My guess is the Shia because they are the majority and have backing from their Shia brethren in Iran. They also win if elections are held.
Sadr has power now because of his position as a cleric, because he represents the aspirations of Sadr City and because the Mahdi Army purports to be governed by him. Why would he put this at risk in a true democratic election?
Culturally appropriate does not mean just as any feminist will tell you.
Will Sadr cut a deal with the Sunni and the Kurds for political liberty? Only to save the unity of Iraq but the Kurds are more interested in autonomy than an effective central government. The Sunnis have yet to come to grips with the fact that their minority status means minority influence. I don't think it is possible for the Sunnis to kill their way into acceptance by the Shia. After a certain point the situation is irretrievable.
ewastud wrote on June 9, 2007 12:12 AM:I agree with Karl Boyken in questioning Sadr's conflation of the US and al Qaeda. Do you folks at TPM even know the hsitory and background about al Qaeda, and what it is? It is a data base of the former Mujahadeen fighters our CIA covertly supported originally in Afghanistan against the Soviets to try to create a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Soviets. Al Qaeda was also covertly used more recently by the US in the conflict in Kosovo during Clinton's term. The al Qaeda has been dismissed by Middle Eastern scholar and expert Juan Cole as playing much of any role in Iraq.
The term "al Qaeda" seems to be recklessly bandied about by many people who simply don't know what the hell they are talking about. I think it behooves them to find out first. I am by no means any expert either, but I can detect the BS I find in this TPM post when I see it.
Ignorant wrote on June 9, 2007 8:31 AM:If it's a data base it should be easy enough to erase. Heh. In any event that db is severely outdated now. How about "was," rather than "is?"
LarryE wrote on June 9, 2007 2:46 PM:As some others have already said, I don't see where the "conflating" comes in. Sadr condemned the occupation and said, the report says, Sunni extremists have become "the enemy of all Islam."
The no more conflates the two than some US politician saying we face the double dangers of terrorism and global warming would mean they're saying terrorists are responsible for climate change.
In fact, his statements refute one of the arguments for US forces staying in Iraq, the claim that withdrawal will lead to Iraq being "a terrorist base." Sadr makes it clear that the "foreign fighters" are as unwelcome in Iraq as we are.
I know that Sadr is the conventional wisdom's boogeyman, but let's keep a grip here.
Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:16 PM:MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on June 12, 2007 5:16 PM:MSN
MSN I NIIPET
MSN