Yankees Trade Saddam for Sadr in $1T, Six-Year Deal
Moqtada Sadr, the radical Shia cleric (radical-crazy not radical-cool) is now calling for cooperation. That's good, right? Well, kind of. He's calling for Sunni-Shia cooperation in resisting the US occupation. After laying low for the past four months, he has now resurfaced with some bold, new posturing.After a few years of playing substitute teacher to a class of rowdy high-risk teens, would we not be grateful to any strong man that could bring some semblance of normalcy to Iraq...to lay the proverbial smack down?
As the Iraqi government flounders, would we be willing to turn a blind eye to Saddam-esc brutality from the Mehdi Army if it started to successfully curb the chaos?
In the belly of the Pentagon, might they even be kicking around this unofficial contingency plan: for the next leg of the trip, let's let scary-Sadr take the wheel of this cursed crazy train.
The sad truth is that a strong man of Sadr's stature has the best shot at pulling Iraq back from the brink of collapse and shouldering the security burden that the fledgling government simply can't begin to bear.
My prediction is that all our sacrifice will end in history's most expensive (and ineffective) tyrant trade yet.
By Robert - 5/27/2007
61 Comments:
I mean seriously...could this dude look any more evil?
this is just going from bad to worse over there. Bush succeeded in unifying Iraq on one issue-their hatred of America.
as a side note:
I have found all four of the authors' editorials on the funding bill (and recent developments in Iraq) to be well though out reasoned and empassioned. If the topic wasn't so important I would say I miss the verbal sparring you hippies usually provide me.
t-dawg,
Don't worry, there will be plenty of time for verbal sparring once we demonstrate a unified front against these milk-toast Democrats.
I've spent years labeling the right "chicken-hawks." From this point forward any Dem who can't stand up against the war is a "chicken-dove."
I think I'm going to see if I can copyright that.
We should just get out of there. The money is there to bring them home. All this crap about the troops being jeopordized is shit, since it would be Bush leaving them.
And just let this crazy, evil man run the country. He, along with Amenijad can just have it. That is what was bound to happen when Bush started this dumbass war.
I would say that Sadr is worse than Saddam. Instead of a secular madman we would have a religious madman aligned with Iran. Way to go Bush.
Well folks, just as Tim says, it all adds up to this:
We would have been better off leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
Who knows???? by now Saddam may have been kissing GW Bush's ass if left in power. Maybe they would have had much in common (psychological profiles)????
I think GW would have loved that
Come on mothers throughout the land,
G
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
D
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
G
Send your sons off before it's too late.
E7 A
You can be the first one on your block
D G
To have your boy come home in a box.
[Chorus]
The war was lost the day he called out the US and the US did nothing. But we looked so good doing nothing.
The only problem Saddam has posed in the last decade was that he did not kiss US ass.
the above is not worth a comment
you're right anon. you don't need to argue with the truth.
timfitz,
Do you know anything about the Saddam era or where you too busy studying for your final in "America is the root of all evil" 101 class in college?
Saddam was a threat to his own people - no one else. And if that is the criteria for invasion why aren't you on here everyday advocating for the invasion of Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, Kazakstan, etc.....
Oh, I see - you don't like it when Saddam invades countries like Iran. Your a fundementalist Muslim - I forgot. My bad.
timfritz:
Am I to assume that he only went to war with Iran because the US made him? Or perhaps he invaded Kuwait to liberate the people? I am sure the families of the "martrys" the the bombers killed reveled in his generosity when he paid the familes of the bombers. It goes on and on.
Look you hate Bush that is fine but at least make statements that have some validity to them. How does one go from Saddam is not bad to telling one if they dont agree with you they should be advoctaing invading whomever you dream up? Has college slipped this far?
Fred,
You need to read up what Kuwait had been up to before Saddam invaded, stuff like drilling diagonally across the border and putting out more oil then quotas allowed(lowering the price of oil - there is a pretty long list. Now do you believe a country Kuwaits size would do this w/o American backing? I don't.
I have always said that Saddam was a terrible man. You missed my point - if we are gonna invade countries that are lead by terrible men then the list needs to be longer than the countries with oil under them.
Fred - just give it up and call me anti-American like the others and bow out of real conversation.
The question shouldn't have been:
How bad is Saddam? (although it often was).
The questions should have been:
(1) How much of a threat is Saddam to our national security?
(2) Is overthrowing him the best use of our limited resources?
(3) What is the likelihood that once overthrown, his predecessor will be an improvement?
Whoops!
I meant "successor" not "predecessor."
Looking back now:
(1) He was not a threat.
(2) The cost of removing him was greatly underestimated.
(3) After all is said and done, his successor (Sadr?) may very well be WORSE for us, the Iraqis and the world.
real conversation? Are you refering to the ivy tower knows best doctrines you learn in college?
I thought the left was leading the cause to stop the genocide in Sudan. Are you against stopping it?
how do you propose doing it? If the US goes in it will be another mistake. Those people have learned in the Mosque to distrust us as best and it wouldnt take long for the people to turn.
Fred,
Just to correct one of you assumptions (even though I know you'll criticize me for this too)I haven't graduated college. I went to Kent for a year.
So show me the way to this ivory tower because my apartment is a piece of shit.
You missed my point again, though.
I was saying that if we are going to invade countries because we don't like the way they treat their people there are examples just as good as Iraq. The commenter earlier basically said that Saddam being a bad man was reason enough to take him out - thus my examples.
I don't advocate invading Korea but they are more of a threat to the US and our allies and treat their people nearly as bad or worse than Saddam did.
So why don't people who tell me Saddam was bad, I'm anti-American for not being for this war, want to invade these other places.
"Those people have learned in the Mosque to distrust us as best and it wouldnt take long for the people to turn."
Seriously, where do you get your information? Or are they just your assumptions?
Fred has two drums in his kit: Colleges are bastions of liberal ideology ( alert the media ) and
cultural diversity is ruining America. The rest of it is dial tone.
hmmmm....so to Fred educated people are liberal and un-educated people are conservative? I didn't go to college as I said, but I'll take that.
TimFitz, I had one semester of art school and Fred still hates me. I could have spent $100,000 on tuition and gotten the same result.
In Neoconworld (the next new Kentucky fried themepark), intellectuals are the new suspect class.
Terra,
It is very simple. Read about the contemporary history of The Sudan. Pay special attention to the role of Wahhabism, Bin Laden, the mullahs that have an alliance with Bin Laden and the Jihadist that populate the country.
I know we would all rather gather around the campfire and hold hands but unfortuntately sometimes facts get in the way.
Quick quiz:
Who was was the largest landholder in Sudfan in the 90's,sugardaddy to the "spirtiual leaders" and most influential undocumented worker in the 90's
Hint: the same person has transfered much of his wealth in Gold back to The Sudan after the fall of Afaganistian.
Tim,
Sorry wasnt meant as a personal attack. Because someone has a degree by itself means nothing and I am sorry if you took it that way. My Grandfather had to dropout in 9th grade and I valued his knowledge and opinion more than the clowns son this site that spew sarcasim Yes, I do question the onesided approach in colleges. The bastions of free speech have become much like some in this blog-intolerant,close minded and sanctimoniuos.
I just don't agree that looking at all side of a story is liberal. I don't agree that being taught facts instead of patriotism is liberal. I don't agree that newspapers that actually have foreign correspondents on the ground who report what the see are liberal. I don't think that saying things that go against the administration's line is liberal. (this isn't all directed at you Fred.)
It just seems to me with media outlets like FOX and the 'washinton times' that facts are now liberal, liberal is now the crazy left, and neo-conservatism is conservatism - I don't agree with any of that.
Bob, I think Al Sadr is trying for the Darth Vader look with the flowing cape.
Anyone who questions Fred is sanctimonious and closed-minded, but I think he's genuinely amazed when someone disagrees with him.
I mean, what's wrong with you liberals, Glenn Beck said it so it has to be true.
People, enough bashing/counter-bashing.
I want everyone to place their bets...will Sadr replace Saddam?
Call it.
(The Vegas spread is 2 to 1: Mehdis over Purple-fingers)
Timfitz,
I dont disagree on viewing issues on facts rather than from ones philosophical bunker. Can Fox be biased and the Wash. Times trying to sell their bias.To dismiss another point of view because of the messenger is wrong. The Wash. Post and the New York Times(which I read every Sun) has a strong liberal bent. I attempt to seperate the facts from their opinion. Hell,if I ignored what
doesnt fit into my preconceived opinion it wouldbe a waste of time.
If that was the case I might as well sit back and play god. although I think Mencken has already claimed that job and he does a fine job I might add.
Robert if he does I will put my money on a battle to the death between Sunnis and Shities
The washington post has a strong liberal bent (d).
Christ Fred, have you read Broder or Richard Cohen lately ? Did you notice that the WaPo was on bended knee regarding Bush for the last 6 years ?
Did you notice who Judith Miller worked for? Give me a fucking break . Strong liberal bias, compared to whom, Goebbels?
Robert, enough bashing, right, right, right I'm sorry..... let's take sides on genocide.
Is that it ?
Menk,
No need to get high and mighty.
That comment was my attempt to playfully shift the conversation from personal insults back to the content of the post concerning the future of Sadr/Iraq.
Okay fine, how much money does Sadr have in his war chest ?
I wonder: who needs money when you have a mob of people ready to die for imaginary virgins and the religious affiliation of the majority?
Sadr's political life-force isn't cash but discontent and religious fanaticism which is up like shares of Apple.
I haven't heard squat about the Mehdi army in many months. Has anyone heard anything about their numbers recently? Have they mock-disbanded?
Fred,
The front page of the NY Times and Washington Post have no bent. They sometimes have the bent of poor reporting(Judith Miller). The editorial pages of those two papers have a liberal bent and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal has a conservative bent.
The Washington Times is a paper that prints editorials as news on the front page - I dare you to show me an example of liberal front page bias of the Times or Post.
Well said TimFitz. Well said.
Robert, any organization needs money to make things happen. There's plenty of documentation of
true believers getting paid to take aim at US soldiers and I wouldn't be surprised if the half the paychecks doled out to Iraqi policemen go straight back to guys like Sadr. I think the religious fanaticism angle is sometimes overstated. Bush loves this because it enhances the us against them argument. Really, the chaos of Iraq provides an opportunity to settle old rivalries and neighborhood turf wars. I also think that as much as they hate each other, they hate us even more.
I'm half Arab, and I can assure you the only thing Arabs love more than fighting amongst themselves, is fighting people who try and stop them...... and money.... lots and lots of money.
Menck,
Good point about the funding aspect.
I have had this feeling lately that about a third or more of the price of gasoline goes straight to funding all this mayhem in Iraq and elsewhere. & isnt that what all wars boil down to - one group taking everything away from the other group?
Ya, I think it boils down to it being profitable, for those whose kids dont go, to wage war.
The "Evil" enemy rhetoric is so much horseshit too - hell, the Bush family is making bukku bucks from all of this.
Menken, You are a genious.
Speak of the devil (no pun intended).
Today at the BBC:
Who are Iraq's Mehdi Army?
Good article - supports the snowball cycle of this war
These religious maniacs are quite well equipped - just one more example of the profit aspect.
The longer we occupy - the greater the resistance grows
Miles and Coltrane together... that's genius. But thanks anyway Petey. There are a lot of very smart people on this blog even when we disagree.
The evil label is bullshit. Right out of the Bush lexicon. Who was al-Sadr four years ago? Who even knew who he was outside his religious circles?
This war legitimized and elevated al-Sadr to Bush poster boy status. Bush needs guys like al-Sadr like the church needs the devil. Just another scary face to fill the pews. It's not like at-Sadr had WMDS or was behind 9/11. Hell it's likely Saddam killed his father... he should be showering us with roses.
Timitz,
So we only talking the front page here? That being the case would you agree that what a paper puts on the front page can be a tool in furthering its agenda. I cant say I have any of the front pages of either but I did save the NYT week in review from May 13,2007.Do I discount the articles here because they are not on the front page? If so I have wasted years of trying to understand what the hell is going on. All I would have had to do is read the front page. Would it have been a benefit to finish those articles that ened on another page?
Cant say I have read The Wall Street Journal often but have heard on numerous ocassions that its editorial section is much more liberal than one would asssume.
On shithouse wall in Baghdad (non-secured zone)
Wanted: One secular strongman dictator buddy/buddy to American oil companies
Jimmy Hoffa- please call Manpower Inc.
"have heard on numerous ocassions that its( the WSJ) editorial section is much more liberal than one would asssume".
So who did you hear that from on numerous occasions ?
It's like Fox News' favorite phrase "sources say" ...
It sounds good, but we rarely hear who those sources are or when they said it.
Would you people stop talking about Sadr? The war is going great. We're winning. People are free. Freedom is on the march.
you know you have reached nirvana when your only role in life is to critique others comments. The feeling of omnipotence must be orgasmic.
And when you critique other folks comments Fred,
what should we call that?
Fred,
Just so you know "the front page" is slang for the news section of a news paper. It basically means the A section minus the editorial page. What you said about the WSJ is insane. The WSJ is a good paper but the editorial page is far more conservative than any national or major daily newspaper is liberal. Its unbelievably conservative. I've read stuff in there that would make Sean Hanninty flinch.
mencken... I do enjoy your witty sense of humor and writing pose.
Maybe someone who has such a high disdain for fox news should focus more on cnn and msnbc. I believe they have a "bend" to the left.
Anon. your witty ignorance is the exact problem with this country. I've never seen this bend to the left and if it did exist we might not be in this war right now.
Besides Countdown on MSNBC I'd like to know which shows are leftist. Headline News has Glen Beck for chrissake.
Come on you guys - its hardly worth arguing what newspaper is more believable and even worthy of less effort is determining if its liberal or conservative propaganda.
Whats the difference between horseshit and bullshit?
We never even hear the REAL story
I know, I know, horseshit is too strong for the flowerbeds.
Look, anyone who really cares about the truth and the news reads a wide variety of news sources. I scan the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report every day along with about six others. I take all of them with a large grain of salt.
Tim's right. You subtract Olbermann from MSNBC and Glenn Beck from CNN and you end up with two garden variety lite news sources. CNN is a huge disappointment as far as I'm concerned. Wolf Blitzer is an automatron. Glenn Beck is a tremendous asshole, and if I had a gun with one bullet, I'd probably use it on Nancy Grace.
That said, their pandering and bias is nowhere near the level as Brit Hume, Hannity, O'Reilly, Cavuto, Gibson, or whatever skank newscaster is on at any given time. TV journalism is an oxymoron by and large regardless of the slant.
My two cents says read what comes out of McClatchy's Washington Bureau and Frank Rich.
That should give anyone a running start on news and analysis each week.
Also I've heard on numerous occasions that The Buchtelite is secretly being run by illegal gay Mexican journalists bent on promoting a pro diversity agenda. My sources ? I'm too busy reading Mary Cheney's last book to tell you.
Visit a gay liberal bastion near you and you can see for yourself pilgrims.
Menck, Excellent piece of reporting ---fair & balanced
I remember my uncle telling me to read at least two different newspapers
I would have actually liked to have a liberal news source prior to the war, to reassure myself I wasn't crazy that this war was a huge mistake. It just wasn't out there. Just like the b.s. we have now. The infotainment we have now is dangerous to our country, and the world.
Shows on NPR like Dianne Rheam and Fresh Air had experts talking about all the problems that we did indeed end up having. And that is the perfect example of NPR talking to the right people, not them being liberal.
Knight Ridder nailed this story before the war aswell. They put out many articles explaining why Saddam wasn't a threat, how there was no way he had nukes, and why the defectors were partisans and not trust-worthy.
But cable news, the post and the times all blew it.
Right Tim...... McClatchy used to be better known as Knight-Ridder.
It's funny, I have no idea anymore what will piss readers off.
I thought putting the Yankees logo (team from 9-11 city) on Sadr's turban would get virtual tomatoes thrown at me.
No? Hmmmm. OK.
You've got to remember Bob, most of us are Indians fans - we hate the Yankees anyways.
Post a Comment
<< Home