Shiites Call for U.S. to Leave Iraq

[George Gervin's Afro]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070409/D8ODBN4O0.html

By LAUREN FRAYER

Holy shiite!!

BAGHDAD (AP) - Tens of thousands of Shiites - a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags - rallied Monday to demand that U.S. forces leave their country. Some ripped apart American flags and tromped across a Stars and Stripes rug.

The protesters marched about three miles between the holy cities of Kufa and Najaf to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. In the capital, streets were silent and empty under a hastily imposed 24-hour driving ban.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered up the march as a show of strength not only to Washington but to Iraq's establishment Shiite ayatollahs as well.

Al-Sadr, who disappointed followers hoping he might appear after months in seclusion, has pounded his anti-American theme in a series of written statements. The most recent came on Sunday, when he called on his Mahdi Army militia to redouble efforts to expel American forces and for the police and army to join the struggle against "your archenemy."


(AP) A Shiite woman, a follower of radical anti-US cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in the holy city of Najaf,...
Full Image


The fiery cleric owes much of his large following to the high esteem in which Shiites hold his father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, who was assassinated in 1999 by suspected agents of Saddam Hussein. Al-Sadr dropped from view before the start of the latest Baghdad security operation on Feb. 14. U.S. officials say he is holed up in Iran. His followers insist he's returned to Najaf.

Fearing suicide attacks, car bombings or other mayhem in the capital, Iraq's generals ordered all vehicles off the streets for 24 hours starting at 5 a.m. Monday, normally a work day. The capital was eerily quiet, shops were shuttered and locked and reports of sectarian violence fell to near zero.

Police and morgue officials reported finding just seven bodies dumped in the capital, only the second time the number of sectarian assassination and torture victims had dipped that low in the course of the Baghdad security operation. A total of 25 people were killed or found dead in the country Monday, according to police and morgue reports.

A double line of police cordoned the marchers' route from Kufa to Najaf, sister cities on the west bank of the Euphrates River. The holy places, 100 miles south of Baghdad, are a prime destination for Shiite pilgrims.

Among the snapping flags and giant banners, leaflets fluttered to earth, exhorting the marchers in chants of "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Muqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."

Salah al-Obaydi, a senior official in al-Sadr's Najaf organization, called the rally a "call for liberation. We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty."

And the head of al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, Nassar al-Rubaie, blasted the U.S. presence as an affront to "the dignity of the Iraqi people. After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded."

A key Washington official saw it differently.

"Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions," Gordon Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman, said aboard Air Force One. "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."

Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman and aide to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, praised the peaceful demonstration and said Iraqis "could not have done this four years ago."


Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd of marchers which stretch for at least three miles and was led by a dozen turbaned clerics, a Sunni Muslim among them. Many marchers, especially youngsters, danced as they moved through the streets, littered with balloons.

Brig. Abdul Kerim al-Mayahi, the Najaf police chief, said there were as many as 600,000 in the march, although other estimates were significantly lower. He said 30 lawmakers made the hike and there was no American troop presence except surveillance from helicopters hovering above.

Monday's demonstration marks four years since U.S. Marines and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division swept into the Iraqi capital 20 days into the American invasion.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari noted that "mistakes were made" after Saddam was ousted, pointing to decisions made by the first U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer.

"The main mistake was a vacuum left in the fields of security and politics, and the second mistake was how liberating forces became occupation forces," Zebari told Al-Arabiyah television.

Cars were banned from Najaf for 24 hours starting from 8 p.m. Sunday, and buses idled at all city entry points to transport arriving demonstrators or other visitors.

While al-Sadr had ordered his militia to disarm and stay off the streets during the Baghdad crackdown, he has notched up his anti-American rhetoric in three brief but hostile statements demanding the departure of U.S. troops.

"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," he wrote, apparently referring to three days of clashes between his Mahdi Army militiamen and U.S.-backed Iraqi troops in Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad.

A U.S. soldier was killed there Sunday, according to Col. Michael Garrett, with the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division. He spoke to reporters in Diwaniyah as American troops continued operations.

On Monday night, police officials in Diwaniyah said the toll since the start of the operation Friday was 14 dead and 47 wounded, both figures including civilians and members of the Mahdi Army. The numbers could not be independently confirmed.




“It is not knowable how long that conflict would last, it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

“My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.” Cheney 3/16/03


“We know where (the weapons) are, they’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat.” Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

“Major combat operations have ENDED.” President George W. Bush, 5/1/03


“We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

“Iraq will not require sustained aid.” O.M.B. Director Mitch Daniels, 3/28/03


“A year from now, I’d be surprised if there’s not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.” Former Pentagon Advisor Richard Perle, 9/22/03

[Nbadan]

I wrote back in 03 that allowing Al-Sadr to keep a virtual city-state in Baghdad was a big, big mistake, but this is just another part of doing this invasion on the cheap, except in this case, the 'cheap part' of it was in the very unfortunate price of American combat troop lives it would have taken to compromise Al-Sadr in Sadr city. Now the Bush administration has no choice but to compromise politically with Sadr, and all while he calls for protest and resistence of coalition troops from a unknown safe haven.

[01Snake]

I wrote back in 03

And there it is. Like clockwork.

[Nbadan]

...but yet you would be the first to call me out on those rare occassions when I am wrong....

[exstatic]

Well, we may yet unite the Iraqis...into shooting at us together.

[Nbadan]

See, we are uniters!

[Nbadan]

Glass half-full mentality...

A huge anti-American protest swept two cities in Iraq today, but White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters this only underscores how much "progress" the U.S. is making in that country.

Four years since the fall of Baghad, Iraq "is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions, and that was something they could not do under Saddam." Johndrove said, traveling with President Bush to Arizona.

He also noted that Moktada al-Sahr had called for "massive protests-- I'm not sure that we 've seen that, those numbers materialize."

But the Associated Press reported this afternoon: "Tens of thousands of Shiites -- a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags -- marched from Kufa to Najaf on Monday, demanding U.S. forces leave their country on the fourth anniversary of fall of Baghdad. Streets in the capital were silent and empty under a hastily imposed 24-hour driving ban.

Editor and Publisher

Americans invade Iraq, kill the people, torture them, illegally detains them and steals Iraq's resources....but they can protest the American occupation...so democracy in Iraq is working, see.

[Nbadan]

Right Wing Uses Cropped Photo To Downplay Size Of Iraq Protest

After thousands of demonstrators gathered in Najaf, Iraq, yesterday to protest the U.S. occupation, the Bush administration was quick to downplay the size of the protest. State Department official David Satterfield stated today, “I think the small size of those demonstrations is an indication of the limited appeal of Muqtada al-Sadr’s rhetoric at this moment.” White House spokesperson Johndroe said yesterday, “I note today that Sadr called for massive protests. I’m not sure that we’ve seen that.”

The right-wing has quickly echoed these talking points, circulating a U.S. Army aerial photo of the protest to support the military’s low-ball estimate that only 5,000-7,000 attended the rally. Gateway Pundit claims “proof” that “Al Sadr and the mainstream media missed the mark on this one” by claiming that the “aerial shot from Najaf, Iraq yesterday shows a protest of 5,000-7,000 Al-Sadr devotees.”

Instapundit links to Gateway Pundit and calls the protest “a weak turnout for Sadr in Nadaf.” RedState uses the aerial photo to show that “the outcome was underwhelming” at “five to seven thousand.” Weekly Standard notes that “that the Coalition is closely monitoring the protest, and put the number of demonstrators between 5,000 and 7,000” as evidence that “the Coalition has regained the initiative.”

Here’s their photographic “proof“:



Wingnuts are denying reality again. Protesters were not restricted to the square seen in the military’s photo; in fact, they “choked the 7-kilometer road between Najaf and neighboring Kufa and clogged streets leading to Sadrein Square, the main rallying point.” A photo:



The low-ball estimates puts them in lonely company. The Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, AP, and Al Jazeera all note that “tens of thousands” attended the demonstration.

[whottt]

If they could Unite in the first place, all they'd have to do is ask, and we wouldn't have a leg to stand on to justify being there.

I wonder why they don't consider that...why they didn't consider that in the first place.

Fundamental Islam at work.

Still, if they can Unite to drive us out...Mission Accomplished!

[xrayzebra]

they were united under saddam

Sure they were, you bet!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Sure they were, you bet!

Yeah Ray things are so much more stable now in the middle east. Too bad it has cost us 3200 + in lives 20,000 + injured, 50,000+ innocent dead Iraqis, and all for a liberation experiemnt no one knows if it will work or not. Yeah things are so much better now..

[xrayzebra]

Yeah Ray things are so much more stable now in the middle east. Too bad it has cost us 3200 + in lives 20,000 + injured, 50,000+ innocent dead Iraqis, and all for a liberation experiemnt no one knows if it will work or not. Yeah things are so much better now..

Real reading comprehension problem. He said they were
"united" under Saddam.

And oh, never mind.......

[boutons_]

Iraq is now a violent -hole 100 times more threatening than Saddam ever was ...

... and Iraq will get much worse when dubya & head quit wasting humans for absolutely no benefit except to delay withdrawal until after Jan 2009.

[whottt]

Iraq is now a violent -hole 100 times more threatening than Saddam ever was ...

... and Iraq will get much worse when dubya & head quit wasting humans for absolutely no benefit except to delay withdrawal until after Jan 2009.

Wow...good thing boutons wasn't President in 1863...or blacks would still be slaves. Wouldn't want to create a hole....

[boutons_]

Whott, under great stress as his boy dubya and his bull war go to , makes totally irrelevant, off-the-wall comments. 1863? slavery? parallel with Iraq?

Holy , you radical right wing chicken macho fakers have become way too easy to slap all over forum.

And don't try to tell us dubya and head went into Iraq for humanintarian reasons, that's typical ex-post-factor, moving-the-goalposts, because humanitarianism was NOT in the top bull reasons WHIG/neo- s had for invading Iraq.

[smeagol]

Can somebody tell me again why the US invaded Iraq?

Was it because Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11? (no, that was the other bad guy, Osama)

WMDs? (maybe, although they were never found)

Because Saddam refused to abide by UN regulations? (good one! - even though every right winger hates the UN anyways)

Because Saddam was a merciless dictator? (plenty of those guys to go around and the US is not going to invade all the countries they (the dictators) rule)

Oil? (I hope to God this was not the reason)

So why the are Americans dying in Iraq?

[whottt]

Can somebody tell me again why the US invaded Iraq?

Was it because Saddam was the mastermind behind 9/11? (no, that was the other bad guy, Osama)

Link to where it was claimed Saddam was?

WMDs? (maybe, although they were never found)

He had them before...and used them, he also kicked out the weapons inspectors.

Because Saddam refused to abide by UN regulations? (good one! - even though every right winger hates the UN anyways)

Um...Americans hate the UN because

We pay for it, and it's useless. No, it's worse than useless...

Hey Smeagol...whose brilliant idea was it to stick a bunch of European Jews smackdab in the Middle East?

Because Saddam was a merciless dictator? (plenty of those guys to go around and the US is not going to invade all the countries they (the dictators) rule)

Ahh I give up on you smeagol...

Learn about cease fire agreements
Learn about cultures that breed extreme religious fanaticism
Learn about how Oil is traded on the world market.


Once you figure out all those things, you'll see that invading Iraq was, without a doubt the best way to start liberalizing the hardline governments in the middle east and South Asia that are the chief exporters of Militant Islam.

The message was sent to the Saudi, Syrian and Iranian Govts...with varying degrees of success...


Control your attack dogs, or we'll take your country.


Installing a Democracy and sendign that message are the top two ways to start ending the rampant spread of militant Islam.






As for Saddam, wrong place at the wrong time, but his people were suffering for his actions...it was time for him to go rather than just perpetuating a state of misery while he s on gold toilets.


Sucks to be him...he should have thought about that before HE ended the cease fire and kicked out the UN Inspectors.

[nkdlunch]

seriously. let's stop the party fighting and realize, it's time to GTF out of there. come on.....


enough is enough

[Phenomanul]

If it was militant Islam we were fighting we should have invaded I R A N... not Iraq.

[whottt]

If it was militant Islam we were fighting we should have invaded I R A N... not Iraq.

I wasn't aware IRan was in violation of their ceasefire agreement with us like Iraq was....


You are like the 1billionth anti-war i have met that hasn't got a clue what a ceasefire agreement is....and how it works in international politics.

[whottt]

I wish anti-wars had the intelligence to understand how sticking a Democracy in a country that borders Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will impact the oppressive regimes that rule those countries....not to mention the message that taking Saddam out sent to those leaders.


You guys just don't see how changing Iraq's government, can and will, and already has, impacted the neighboring governments. That are the main problems...


The main problem is not Iran, it's not Pakistan, it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Usama Bin Laden...it's not even Israel.


It's A #1, Saudi Arabia.

We can't go to war with Saudi Arabia...they have not attacked and invaded their neighbors, in fact they have been one of the more stabilizing governments in the region...they are also a religious capital. It would cripple the World economy, much more than freeing the sanctioned Oil in Iraq would...




You guys just don't understand the indirect approach...


We can't take Saudi out...for political reasons.

We can't take Pakistan out...for nuclear reasons.

We can possibly take Syria out...although with no legal grounds to do so, like we had with Iraq. And taking Syria out will not have much impact anyway.

We can take Iran out and might...again, with no legal grounds to do....but we had more justification for taking Saddam out than Iran. Plus...it was easier. And Iran had zip to do with 911 anyway as well...

[whottt]

This was what the UN tried to do 60 years ago with Israel...sort of...they figured it would either work, or the jews would get slaughtered.

The problem is that despots quickly played the jew card to obscure what ty leaders they are...and tapped into centuries of religious and ethnic hatred to distract their own populous from their failing at leadership...

They can't pull the jew card with Iraq.

[Phenomanul]

I wasn't aware IRan was in violation of their ceasefire agreement with us like Iraq was....


You are like the 1billionth anti-war i have met that hasn't got a clue what a ceasefire agreement is....and how it works in international politics.

Come on whottt, now I'm an anti-war advocate? I pretty much agreed with your whole post except for the part where you claimed that fighting militant Islam was a reason to enter Iraq. Afghanistan yes - but not Iraq.

I didn't condone or agree with Saddam's tactics (they were inhumane) - but that was the only way he managed to keep militant Shiite Islam suppressed. Due to the fundamentalist 'do or die' nature of their cause there appears to be no other viable alternative to dealing with them.... they are out-right terrorists. The difference of course being that the US, cannot allow itself to stoop to Saddam's level, 'rules of engagement' and all... but it is one of the reasons we are failing to squash this latest version of militant Islam. The one benefit Iraq does provide, is that the fight has been fought entirely 'over there' and not here at home.


The argument is not entirely absolute.

[nkdlunch]

I wish anti-wars had the intelligence to understand how sticking a Democracy in a country that borders Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia will impact the oppressive regimes that rule those countries....not to mention the message that taking Saddam out sent to those leaders.

If anything, taking Saddam out increased hate from those goverments toward USA. It made situation worse.

The main problem is not Iran, it's not Pakistan, it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Usama Bin Laden...it's not even Israel.


It's A #1, Saudi Arabia.

We can't go to war with Saudi Arabia...they have not attacked and invaded their neighbors, in fact they have been one of the more stabilizing governments in the region...they are also a religious capital. It would cripple the World economy, much more than freeing the sanctioned Oil in Iraq would...


You guys just don't understand the indirect approach...


We can't take Saudi out...for political reasons.

yes, attacking saudi would solve the worlds problems

We can't take Pakistan out...for nuclear reasons.

We can possibly take Syria out...although with no legal grounds to do so, like we had with Iraq. And taking Syria out will not have much impact anyway.

We can take Iran out and might...again, with no legal grounds to do....but we had more justification for taking Saddam out than Iran. Plus...it was easier. And Iran had zip to do with 911 anyway as well...

Iraq was attacked because they had WMDs remember? oh wait...


yes, we must lack the intelligence to understand this mumbo jumbo

[whottt]

Come on whottt, now I'm an anti-war advocate? I pretty much agreed with your whole post except for the part where you claimed that fighting militant Islam was a reason to enter Iraq. Afghanistan yes - but not Iraq.

I didn't condone or agree with Saddam's tactics (they were inhumane) - but that was the only way he managed to keep militant Shiite Islam suppressed. Due to the fundamentalist 'do or die' nature of their cause there appears to be no other viable alternative to dealing with them.... they are out-right terrorists. The difference of course being that the US, cannot allow itself to stoop to Saddam's level, 'rules of engagement' and all... but it is one of the reasons we are failing to squash this latest version of militant Islam. The one benefit Iraq does provide, is that the fight has been fought entirely 'over there' and not here at home.


The argument is not entirely absolute.

You know what, my bad, you are right....you have had a consistent position on this and I misguidedly lumped you in with those that don't.


Anyway...I guess the Admin figured there would be more support for taking out Saddam militarily than Iran...I think that was a good judgement.

The bottom line is that we had to send the message that we meant business, and taking out Afghanistant wouldn't send that message...

Taking out a sovereign mid-east leader was the only way to send that message...and Saddam had given us all the legal recourse and justification we needed...with his pursuit of WMD, with his desire to invade his neighbors, and with his total dissing of the UN resolutions and conditions that were part of his cease fire agreement.



The true error the US made in the Middle East was not taking Saddam out in 1991...by encouraging an uprising and then failing to support it.

But you know what? That was the UN method we tried...try and sanction a ty leader into becoming a good one...it doesn't work. All it punishes is the people...and the leader usually makes sure it's the people he likes the least that take the brunt of the sanctions.