BAGHDAD, April 7, 2008
Al Sadr's Fight Threatens Iraq Stability
Gen. Petraeus' Appearance In Washington Comes As Violence Surges In Iraq
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Tension Escalates In Iraq
Ten American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in the last two days, and the latest fighting threatens to further destabilize the country. Lara Logan reports from Baghdad.
-
-
Photo
There is no sign in Baghdad of a let-up in fighting between U.S. troops and Iranian-backed Shiite militants, most significantly the Mahdi Army, pictured here. (CBS)
-
Photo
Mahdi Army fighters in Basra, Iraq. (AP Photo)
-
-
Photo Essay
Week In Iraq Photos
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
-
Interactive
Iraq: 5 Years At War
Five years after the U.S.-led invasion, the war wears on.
There is no sign in Baghdad of a let-up in fighting between U.S. troops and Iranian-backed Shiite militants.
The militia stronghold of Sadr City, home to Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, was burning again Monday, spreading fear and threatening the stability of Iraq's capital, CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan reports.
And in the southern city of Basra, the conflict that sparked the fighting in Baghdad also continued.
But even as the wounded still poured into hospitals in Sadr City and the number of dead kept rising, it was the political fight that took center stage: Iraq's Prime Minister threatening to bar Sadr's party from local elections if the powerful cleric refuses to disband his Mahdi Army militia.
When Prime Minsier Nouri al Maliki announced he was going after the Mahdi Army and other militias in Basra, he was praised by the U.S. president.
"I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq," President Bush said. "The decision to move Iraqi troops into Basra talks about Prime Minister Maliki's leadership."
Some two weeks later, the militias are emboldened and Maliki's leadership is in question.
The Mahdi Army remains entrenched in Basra, and on the streets of Sadr City the prime minister has never been more unpopular.
"Maliki your punishment will be in hell," one sign reads.
He's widely seen as the loser in this fight against Sadr's followers, or "Sadrists" as they are called.
"Maliki came to Basra to fulfill an agenda against the Sadrists and what makes us sure about this agenda is when President Bush has announced that al Maliki is going through a very critical examination in Basra, so it was sure for us that al Maliki came to Basra in order to pass the American examination," said al-Sadr spokesman Sheikh Salah al Obeidi.
Monday night the Sadr spokesman blamed the U.S. for escalating the fighting in Sadr City and refused to condemn rocket attacks against the Green Zone.
Maliki's failure and the rise in violence come at a critical moment for U.S. policy makers.
Until two weeks ago, America's top commander in Iraq, Petraeus looked like he was heading to Washington with a success story. Now it's a very different picture.
MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Video and Galleries from CBS Evening News
-
Video
Evening News Online, 07.09.09
-
Video
Couric's Financial Notebook
-
Video
Baby Skates Sensation
- Latest in CBS Evening News
- The Story Behind the Skating Babies
- Sagging Sales, Even in a Beach Paradise
- Grief, Outrage over Grave Desecrations
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 CommentsLooks like-
A. Sadr''s movement is helping to return stability and security to the people of Iraq, and he seems to have a more effective U.S. troop withdrawal plan than our own "leaders" do.
B. Sadr is a far more skillful and honest figure than General Betrayus.
al-Sadr has called for a 1 million strong demonstration this Wednesday against the ongoing shameful and criminal invasion of Iraq.
I predict that the turnout will be at least that.
Good luck, Iraqis!
You obviously have the right to defend yourselves!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by cbscrash07 at 07:13 PM : Apr 07, 2008
+ report abuse
ROFLMAO This from a nazi supporter of the WORST in US HISTORY! A "President" who LIED to his people in order to start a war that had NOTHING to do with any attack on this nation or our security. Talk about someone lacking Honor?! Here''s a BIG Sieg Heil to the worst bootlicker on the site! SIEG HEIL BUSH!!
Re: "There is no sign in Baghdad of a let-up in fighting between U.S. troops and Iranian-backed Shiite militants."
There is also no sign that the chronic, habitual lies of Ms. Lara Logan will ever subside.
It is hard to estimate how many have been maimed, tortured and killed, as a result of the non-stop nonsense relentlessly spewed at us by corporate-owned concubines like Lara Logan.
In light of this, how could anyone feel sorry for her, of a bullet from an Iraqi resistance sniper managed to make its way into her rotten head?
I would like to take this opportunity to mark this as exhibit "Z" in the case of CBS News complicity, in the fomentation of yet another hype-based criminal war of aggression, this time against Iran.
That''s the entire alphabet, CBS, and I think that I posted a few exhibit designations more than once by accident.
This milestone definitely earns your news director a spot on the dock, if Iran is attacked.
Iran is far more closely aligned with the Party of the U.S. stooge al-Maliki, by the way, than al-Sadr. This is plain to see.
Re: "Maliki your punishment will be in hell," one sign reads."
"He''s widely seen as the loser in this fight against Sadr''s followers, or "Sadrists" as they are called."
I suspect that traitors and stooges like al-Maliki won''t fare too well when the U.S. is finally forced out of Iraq. I think that it will be then that al-Maliki will be revealed as an ultimate loser.
###
Again, we''ll note that "al-Qaeda-in-Iraq" is nowhere to be seen, which supports the idea that the Iraqi resistance has always been overwhelmingly a nationalistic one, not a religious one, and that "al-Qaeda-in-Iraq" is little more than a Made-in-USA hoax, to be defeated and to reemerge as needed by the Bush regime.
You mean the Cowardly Liar Bushit supports Obama? Amazing!
Al Sadr just called off the fight yesterday or the day before!!
Does ANYONE really know what the hell is going on over there?!?!?!?!?!
Re: "Until two weeks ago, America''s top commander in Iraq, Petraeus looked like he was heading to Washington with a success story. Now it''s a very different picture."
Only because the weight of your endless lies is more than you can continue to prop-up, Ms. Logan.
Oh well. At least Ms. Logan is slightly less painful to look at than Mark Strassmann.
I wonder what General Betrayus is going to say now?
More time needed to decide, perhaps?
More time needed to decide, perhaps?
Posted by FeelFree1 at 07:38 PM : Apr 07, 2008
Teething problems, thats the usual one.
As for any concerns of killing innocent people in the process, no one that supports the Madhi army is innocent. They are either fighters, soon to be fighters or militant makers that double as cooks and concubines.
Basically, instead of Sadr winning in Basra, the coalition of Kurds, Shias and Sunnis that Maliki seems to have cobbled together may force Sadr to disband the Mahdi Army. So, some are now "wondering" if Maliki actually won in Basra.....
It''s always nice to see craven dimwits and servile *** polishers like "yongamerica" turn up to comment.
Considering their near 200% inaccuracy record, we can be fairly confident that the exact opposite of what they claim, is very close to the truth.
No sooner do I mention servile ***-polishers, when contributor "donbl1" turns up, right on cue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040700252.html?hpid=topnews
Related analysis, from CBS commentator, Kevin Drum:
"Two comments. First: what a humiliation for Maliki. Not only did he blink first, but afterward his own people publicly undermined what little authority he had left. Yeesh."
"Second: the head of the Badr Organization sure does seem to have, um, remarkably speedy access to the head of Iran''s Qods force, doesn''t he? It''s something to ponder the next time some Bush administration or U.S. Army spokesperson casually maligns Sadr as "Iranian backed" but maintains a discreet silence when it comes to the far deeper and longer-lived Iranian ties of Maliki''s own Dawa/Badr alliance."
Yeesh is right.
Can anyone believe that someone as dumb as "donbl1" actually claims to be an engineer?
What a farce.
Interesting how he has pulled this together.
Re: "The Iraqis want (love) a strong leader..."
Posted by donbl1
Interesting how a poster who has demonstrated little knowledge on any topic, is now explaining to us the "wants and loves" of the people of Iraq- the very victims of his beloved puppet-Fuhrer.
What a dope!
Re: "Folks who make counters need to put reference posts or they are ignored......."
Posted by donbl1
Now this craven imbecile is making demand of other forum members, and attempting to speak for all.
What device might we use to plumb the depths of foolishness of silly posters like this?
Always best to be collegial to get your points across.
Re: "I also notice on here that those who personally attack are the weakest."
Posted by donbl1
That''s a funny comment, coming from a poster with a perfect record of failure to make a valid point.
Re: "We need to quit installing leaders in other countries. It never works."
Posted by rebelscout
Very good point.
%u201CWhy we stand for immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq%u201D
%u201CTHE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis.%u201D
%u201CTens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them.%u201D
%u201CIraq''s infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion.%u201D
%u201CAll of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion %u2014 to control Iraq''s oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region %u2014 now stand revealed.%u201D
%u201CThe Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road%u2026But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war.%u201D
%u201CWe call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq %u2014 not in six months, not in a year, but now.%u201D
www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow
Posted by bgwinnett at 07:36 PM : Apr 07, 2008
I totally agree. He''s the one really running the coalition of Shias in Iraq and NOT Maliki.....he''s just a puppet of Bush and has certainly not made any strong coalitions.
Posted by arlt1627 at 08:31 PM : Apr 07, 2008
Obviously we''ve been working with the wrong groups in seeking political reconciliation in Iraq. Especially since they''re having free and open elections this fall, and the Shia are expected to sweep the polls -- AGAIN.
I had no idea. It''s hard to keep track when there''s so much bad news coming out of Iraq.
The surge was a failure. The Iraqis had several months of relative peace. What did they accomplish? Nothing. We''re back to where we were a year ago. 1000 American lives and a few hundred billion dollars totally wasted in the last year.
What''s the plan now? Surge II, the sequel?
Related-
Re: "Sadr considers disbanding militia if ordered by religious leader"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/08/content_7936951.htm
Looks like the future of Iraq significantly hinges on what this dude has to say.
Seems like George still owes Ahmadinejad and Iran a debt of gratitude for bailing his boy al-Maliki out last week.
Re: "Sadr considers disbanding militia if ordered by religious leader"
Is that leader Sistani by any chance? Haven''t heard from him in a while, another clever far sighted operator too.
egon
bgwinnett,
"Is that leader Sistani by any chance? Haven''''t heard from him in a while, another clever far sighted operator too."
Yup. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, according to the article.
It''s true. We haven''t heard much out of him for quite a while.
I wonder if his "medical" visits to London helped to get his mind right.
Looks like he''ll be calling the shots.
General Betrayus is rumored to be preparing an announcement for an attack on Iran, in his upcoming report to Congress:
"Petraeus Testimony Next Week Will Signal Iran Attack"
"By next Thursday we will know from how the Petraeus-Crocker dog and pony show plays in the US Congress and media whether the Bush Regime will commit yet another war crime by attacking Iran."
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19684.htm
On the photo caption-
Re: "There is no sign in Baghdad of a let-up in fighting between U.S. troops and Iranian-backed Shiite militants, most significantly the Mahdi Army, pictured here. (CBS)"
The photo in question looks like it shows a big demonstration of peaceful Iraqis, but CBS captions the photograph with "militants", "Iranian-backed", and "Mahdi Army".
CBS seems to be making a solid effort here to justify the hype-based mass-murder and maiming of Iranians, and of more Iraqis.
Shameful yellow-journalism.
Gen. Petraus'' Appearance In Washington Comes As Violence Surges In Iraq"
Shouldn''t they call this "Bush''s fight", since al Sadr couldn''t do anything until Bush liberated him from S. Hussein?
Re: "Al Sadr''s Fight...(blah), (blah), (blah)..."
Those of us that can remember 1 week or so ago, realize full well that the current armed conflict with Sadr''s fighters was initially demanded by Cheney, rubber-stamped and implemented by the al-Maliki stooge, coordinated with U.S. military operations, and praised by the illegitimate Bush tyrant, as a "bold move" by his stooge.
CBS Tries to rewrite history here, right out of the chute.
Delivering Iraq to Iran!
And at what cost to us:
Over 4000 Dead Americans.
$3 trillion in debt.
Now Iranian puppet, al-Sadr''s King of Iraq, and there''s not a damned thing we can do about it!
Heckuva job, Bush!
The only reason it worked for a while was because we PAID the warlords and islamist hoodlums with cash, American taxpayers cash!
Don''t believe a word Gen Betrayus say tomorrow!
His only strategy so far:
"If you can''t beat them, pay them."
And we''re the ones left holding the bag!
These neocon scumbags are bankrupting the country!
Impeach them!
Posted by FeelFree1 at 10:39 PM : Apr 07, 2008
No - Maliki launched the operation and at first the Bush cabal was PO''d since Maliki didn''t clear the assault with them.
Then they quickly spun it into, "Maliki is showing tremendous leadership and confidence going after these insurgents by themselves."
Which quickly turned into, "American military called in to bail out flunky Iraqi military that was getting pounded by the rag tag insurgents."
Then al Sadr called his goons off ending the conflict outright leaving al Sadr as the one in charge, Maliki as an incompetent buffoon, and America on the outside looking in saying, "What the F*** is going on?!?!?!"
Then al Sadr called his goons off ending the conflict outright leaving al Sadr as the one in charge, Maliki as an incompetent buffoon, and America on the outside looking in saying, "What the F*** is going on?!?!?!"
Posted by hungry1968 at 10:49 PM : Apr 07, 2008
That''s kinda the way I feel too.
They should have taken Al Sadr out in 2004, now he will be President someday and half of Iraq will become Iranian.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 64 Comments