Militia Leader al-Sadr Calls For New Offensive Against US Forces

Washington Post:

The Bush administration's Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

During a visit to Jordan, Maliki said negotiations over initial U.S. proposals for bilateral political and military agreements had "reached a dead end." While he said talks would continue, his comments fueled doubts that the pacts could be reached this year, before the Dec. 31 expiration of a United Nations mandate sanctioning the U.S. role in Iraq.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[sa]

10:42 AM on 06/15/2008

bush broke iraq into a "million little pieces".
it was a best seller when it first came out,
but as time passed the lies were exposed.
bush's nonfiction was proven fiction.

james frey's publisher's offered a refund.
america's refund is called impeachment.

p.s. "president bush, pottery barn - line one."

[ftprairiedog]

09:18 AM on 06/15/2008

Watch this 5 minute UTUBE video, than ask youself if you would want these morons in your country.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20077.htm

[Rendon76]

08:39 AM on 06/15/2008

This son of a b*tch again? I'll bet the United States is scared to take him out. I'll tell you if you keep guys like that alive in Iraq its bad news and if you kill him you could make it worse. What are you gonna do about it huh? Fine mess this war is.

[OliverTwist]

03:53 PM on 06/15/2008

Low brow depravity: Nah nah nah yellow chicken is afraid to kill!

High brow depravity: To kill or not to kill? That is the question.

[Ping]

08:57 PM on 06/15/2008

Al Sadr was contained under the rule of Saddam Hussein. It was BUSH/MCCAIN that made him the man he is now. Blame the Republicans, it's their fault.

[Rounder99]

08:33 AM on 06/15/2008

I can't understand why a sniper hasn't taken out this fat little azz hole by now. We are getting soft.

[Ping]

10:33 AM on 06/15/2008

You can't understand because you are a Republican. It will take you another 100 years to figure it out.

Republican = Incompetent Fool

Ditto Head = Complete Idiot

[Redrover666]

03:15 PM on 06/15/2008

Democrat + Republican = Decent Regular Folks.

You = Left Wing Loon

[OliverTwist]

03:56 PM on 06/15/2008

Given our present leadership, moral considerations about murder cannot be a factor.

[DerAmi]

06:58 AM on 06/15/2008

Chaos in middle east... check
Oil buddies making trillions.... check
Military industrial complex buddies making millions.. check
Exit strategy to ranch outside of USA.... check

Yep, Mission Accomplished!

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

07:03 PM on 06/15/2008

You forgot:

Treasury hopelessly mortgaged to ensure there'll be no money in future for social programs and regulatory oversight... CHECK!

[BlueStateMan]

03:44 AM on 06/15/2008

Let's get something straight her, friends..... & if you look at my profile, you'll see that I'm NO "right wing automaton" by any stretch.

Al Sadr is NO "freedom fighter".

Al Sadr is a religious FANATIC who thinks Mohammad HIMSELF chose him to lead the Madi army against ALL infidels.. INCLUDING his own people who might dare think that women might have rights... that MUSIC might have a place in society.... that people who might differ from him in the interpretation of Islam might have to right to LIVE.

He's taking advantage of the chaos created by our presence there to promote his OWN agenda & his OWN meglomaniacal quest for PERSONAL POWER.

He couldn't give two sh*ts about the "Iraqi people" OR their "freedom"

The irony is that he would have lived his life in obscurity had it not been for OUR meddling into their affairs.

[rooks]

04:40 AM on 06/15/2008

Agreed. He wasn't into politics until he brother and father were killed off. Even after that he wasn't into politics and religion. He took full advantage of our occupation.

[macmac001]

02:05 AM on 06/15/2008

Al Sadr is a freedom fighter and I wish him the best.

[izAriver]

02:44 AM on 06/15/2008

From what I've read so far, the right-wing extremist automatons are out in full force so that was a very provocative thing to say. However, I would think that the some of the rebel press during 18th century might have labeled the founders of this country as such. Sad that these "patriots" are so misguided.

[Durango]

10:46 AM on 06/15/2008

Tom Paine wasn't a "fighter" either.

I don't know where al Sadr will stand. As a religious opportunist or an Iraqi patriot.Only time will tell.

But he is an Iraqi.

And we aren't.

[rooks]

04:42 AM on 06/15/2008

He is not a fighter. He took full advantage of the situtaion presented to himself. I do not wish him the best but rather I wish our troops a quick return.

[iratior]

02:02 AM on 06/15/2008

It's amazing. The Bush administration's proposed security agreement with Iraq was so repugnant that even Nouri al-Maliki, who seemed to be little more than a wind-up doll for Bush, says negotiations are at a "dead end". Though Bush tried to slide the agreement through with stealth, somehow the Iraqis got wise to it. The terms, though shrouded in secrecy, were apparently outrageous. American troops were to have the power to arrest any Iraqi they pleased. American troops and contractors were not to be subject to Iraqi laws. There were to be 58 military bases, and complete freedom to use them to attack Iran. In short, Iraq was to be a Bush fiefdom ("Operation Iraqi Fiefdom") in everything but name. It's particularly comical that some respondents are blaming the Democrats for this fiasco. No, responsibility for it is vintage Bush, steeped in the usual arrogance and incompetence.

[teacake]

12:45 AM on 06/15/2008

To those who insist on burying your heads in the sand, listen up: will you be OK with some foreign nation invade your country to juice out the oil from your back yard? If you answer is NO then why are you expecting the Iraqis to bend over for your Bush to exploit their national treasures?

[teacake]

12:39 AM on 06/15/2008

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" This is the kind of accomplishment Bush is proud of.

The problem with Bush is he has traded in brain, soul, and heart for the power of the dark side: the oil cartel. Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, and alike have already taken control of this country. Everything has been and will be done in the interests of these oil cartels and the Neo-cons.

The United States used to be a great nation. But now it's owned by corporate America, which has slaughtered democracy and liberty with the collaboration of the Bush administration.

There isn't much Obama can do to change it. What the Dems has demonstrated is they are simply too incompetent and too weak to fight against the dark side. I need to see proof of strength from the Dems before I can trust them again. Hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their crimes. Impeachment and throw them to jail. Only until then, justice is served and democracy is restored.

[mari2JJ]

01:12 AM on 06/15/2008

Hehehehehehe re Mission Accomplished. What the Dems demonstrated is that they are not able to overcome their skinny little majority in either the House or Senate. If you want action that can hold the Bush administration to account, then send more Democrats next time. Simple. and a bunch of us re-registered Republicans are here to help you. Bush is a horrible embarrassment to many Republicans.

[izAriver]

02:58 AM on 06/15/2008

Did you want to start a revolution, hombre? The way you paint it, it's the only way.

[Ping]

12:21 AM on 06/15/2008

Another BUSH/CHENEY/MCAIN failure in Iraq. This is so pathetic, we are unable to convince the people we are bribing.

BUSH= FAILURE

[teacake]

12:40 AM on 06/15/2008

BUSH + McCAIN = DISASTER

[izAriver]

03:13 AM on 06/15/2008

Or a really horrifying study of right-wing extremist, oily, dishonest, depraved, sickening and disgusting love.

[Amalek]

11:27 PM on 06/14/2008

The best way out of Iraq is for the Iraqis to kick us out.

[awcbuddy8]

10:13 PM on 06/14/2008

What are the liberals going to say now that the whole world wants to take down Iran?

[BlueStateMan]

10:16 PM on 06/14/2008

The "liberals" will say, "Show me some PROOF of your assertion".

We'd say, "Provide some links... sunstantive, exculpatory EVIDENCE of your premise".

We'd add, "NO talking points, no CONJECTURE, just real FACTS".

...& when you will have failed to do so.... we'll say, "Go back to freepers & let the grownups discuss the important things".

OK?

[treetopslim]

11:59 PM on 06/14/2008

Okay....go get the grownups BS Man

[awcbuddy8]

12:58 AM on 06/15/2008

Proof? They're flaunting their nuclear ambitions in our face.

[Ping]

12:01 AM on 06/15/2008

When is the world going to take Iran down? When is that going to happen? And who is the "world'?

[awcbuddy8]

12:56 AM on 06/15/2008

US, France, England, Germany, Italy, Israel.

[jsarets]

09:17 PM on 06/14/2008

All Iraq is asking of us is the same relationship we have with Israel: we open our markets to their products, we agree to defend them against any foreign aggression, we don't have a visible military presence, and we stay the heck out of their internal politics.

That's all that any country in the world wants from the United States. But we seem to have this odd obsession with saving the world from its social disorders, as if we don't have enough of our own.

American consumerism is premised on the idea that people can't be TOLD how to live their lives, that they have to be SOLD a way of life. Everything from our values and ideals to our rules and regulations is the result of marketing.

The outcome in Iraq is the result of marketing as well. If we assume that our goal in Iraq was to bring these poor people freedom and democracy, then our market strategy has failed spectacularly and our brand has been severely damaged.

But if we assume that the public relations strategy was effective and consider the corresponding goal, then what we seem to be after in Iraq is sustainable instability, a permanent occupation with an acceptably low level of American casualties.

[BlueStateMan]

09:44 PM on 06/14/2008

I love the Ivan Boesky approach you're taking here..... it's all about "marketing" & "brands"....."public relations" & "strategies".

Do you REALLY submit that Iraq would find it acceptable to have a COVERT military presence, rather than the "visible" presence we currently have... so long as wee "open our markets to their products"?

Our "obsession" is HARDLY "saving the world from it's social disorder" (one's that we've actively CONTRIBUTED to in the first place... our obsession is with TAKING what is theirs as if it was OURS.

OIL.

Our "brand" is in the TOILET, no matter what sterile justifications you want to apply to it..... we've killed MILLIONS worldwide for the greed of our uber-rich. MANY more will die for generations to come due to the use of Depleted Uranium...ostensibly wiping out an entire culture, the BIRTHPLACE of western civilization.

There is NO "acceptable level of casualties" for our "goals"...on EITHER SIDE.

It must be HORRIBLE to be you.... to go through life quantifying life & death as if iwere some exercise in some Chicago Economics Forum.... completely devoid of a SOUL.

[jsarets]

11:28 PM on 06/14/2008

Thanks... I believe you explained quite thoroughly the obvious basis for what I hope was clearly satire.

I do believe that, by and large, societies behave the way they do because of the media they consume, whether it be entertaining, educational, religious, or political in nature.

However, there is such a thing as an unmarketable product, and a long-term American occupation of a Muslim nation is a good example. We can't tell them what to do, and we can't sell them what we have to offer.

But it's not so bad to be me. I don't believe in irrational evil. I believe that all acts of evil are the result of some sort of rationalization that the executors believe justify their actions. I prefer to live in a world where Bush honestly believes he's doing the right thing, even though he's clearly not, and I want to understand his motivations, even if they are delusional.

[izAriver]

02:52 AM on 06/15/2008

"All Iraq is asking of us is the same relationship we have with Israel: we open our markets to their products, we agree to defend them against any foreign aggression, we don't have a visible military presence, and we stay the heck out of their internal politics."

But remember, we aren't imperialists...or are we?

[ajax2]

08:21 PM on 06/14/2008

Put Viceroy Bremer back in charge of Iraq. He knows how to pass edicts.

[TocinoHumano]

08:34 PM on 06/14/2008

I wonder how many people know that, under laws written by Bush lackeys, Iraqi farmers are not allowed to save their seeds. In other words, an Iraqi wheat farmer is forbidden by law to save seeds from this year's harvest to plant next year's crop. Instead, they are forced by laws imposed on them by an outside power to buy "Terminator" seeds from Monsanto (Terminator seeds do not produce fertile seeds in the crops they yield). The BushistasS have the nerve to impose such a regulation on the descendants of the people who invented agriculture!

As far as I'm concerned this fact puts to rest (PERMANENTLY!) any idea that the US invaded and occupied Iraq to topple a dictator, to fight terrorism, or to spread democracy. This occupation is 100% about making a handful of American corporate parasites slightly richer. Nothing else.

[masterself]

08:34 PM on 06/14/2008

If al Sadr was an american he would be considered an Hero.
since he's in Iraq defending his country he an terrorist,
u people are either sick or stupid , which one.

[TocinoHumano]

08:37 PM on 06/14/2008

"u people are either sick or stupid , which one."

Depends on which American you talk to.

[Probus]

08:48 PM on 06/14/2008

Anyone who is responsible for killing our troops can't be a hero.