Where in the hell...

[Donkey]

Is Muqtada al Sadr?

Is he laying low? Did he do stuff in the recent elections? Is he pulling puppet strings?

The western media has apparently forgotten about him entirely.

[andrewl]

Is Muqtada al Sadr?

Is he laying low? Did he do stuff in the recent elections? Is he pulling puppet strings?

The western media has apparently forgotten about him entirely.


Seems like he was given a pretty good incentive to lay low.

Andrew

[Michael]

Is Muqtada al Sadr?

Is he laying low? Did he do stuff in the recent elections? Is he pulling puppet strings?

The western media has apparently forgotten about him entirely.
One can only speculate that our belovedly liberal and warmongering western media doesn't like losing on issues and they lost it completely on Iraq (wrong on every account). Sadr beat them in the PR game and forced the US to withdrawl and they don't like that one little bit.

However, I did stumble upon a couple of comments over the last week or so about how Sadr's chubby little fingers are still in the pot. Apparently, he's been playing peacemaker over there, keeping a lid on the simmering civil war and trying to singlehandedly convert the country to democracy.

Sadr apparently has been pushing the notion that "voting is the most legitimate form of protest". Judging by what is being reported as a surprisingly high/record turnout for the elections, we may well infer that Sadr is as influential as ever.

Sadr voiced an expectation that his informal political faction would hold 30% of the seats after the vote.

Please note that Sadr and his movement are legally banned from Parliament and the election (which was a Malaki/US-backed initiative). Ergo, Sadr and the Sadrists are not on the ballot. But they will be in Parliament.

[Michael]

Western media hasn't entirely ignored Sadr...

Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose followers fought against the American military and Mr. Maliki’s government, urged Iraqi Shiites to vote.

Mr. Sadr allied with the Iraqi National Alliance, which appeared to have fallen behind the other largely Shiite coalition, the State of Law, led by Mr. Maliki.

On the eve of the vote from Iran, where he is said to be studying to become an ayatollah, Mr. Sadr seemed to accept Iraq’s political process. “Participation in the election,” he said, “is a sort of political resistance.”
Source: NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/world/middleeast/08iraq.html?pagewanted=2&hp)

[Michael]

And interestingly enough... the Wiki-page on Sadr reports that he is presently studying to become an ayatollah.

Muqtada al-Sadr's formal religious standing is comparatively low, at a mid-ranking Shia religious rank, perhaps reflecting his young age. However, in early 2008, Al-Sadr was reported to be studying to be an ayatollah, which would greatly improve his religious standing and strengthen his position vis-a-vis non-Sadrist Shia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

This is the first I've heard of Sadr seeking ayatollah rank. Look out Iraq, Sadr is going to own the fucking place.

[Michael]

And here is a tidbit from December 2009...

- After long silence, Muqtada Al-Sadr is back, campaigning for the election with a statement asking his “special forces” (Liwaa Al-Youm Al-Mawoud” = “Judgment Day Brigade” (formed after signing SOFA) to intensify their attacks on the American forces and avoid civilians, stressing on the ban of any negotiations with the occupation.

The interesting in his letter is that he calls the split group “Asaib Ahil Al-Haq” to return to main Sadrists movement last year Muqtada Al-Sadr forbid his followers to contact Asaib group.

Source (http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2009/12/09/al-sadrs-election-campaign-questioning-maliki-is-the-next-political-crisis/)

Alive and obviously doing fine.

[Donkey]

interesting. And encouraging from a peace-perspective, in my opinion.

I remember boldly telling one of my teachers that al Sadr would be running the show either directly or indirectly inside of ten years. I do hate to be wrong. ;)

[Non Sequitur]

You know, I actually think that this could be promising news. At least the man is saying the governmental process is legitimate in some form. It's by no means perfect, but it's not horrible either.

[Michael]

You know, I actually think that this could be promising news. At least the man is saying the governmental process is legitimate in some form. It's by no means perfect, but it's not horrible either.
Sadr has since the US invasion of Iraq been the ONLY leader that has consistently supported the idea of democracy and opposed theocracy.

As I've said all along, Sadr is the by far the most interesting fellow in Iraqi politics - and probably one of the most intelligent and successful. It is indeed quite likely that he will continue to dodge CIA assassins and outlive most of the contemporary crop of aspiring dictators.

[Michael]

interesting. And encouraging from a peace-perspective, in my opinion.

I remember boldly telling one of my teachers that al Sadr would be running the show either directly or indirectly inside of ten years. I do hate to be wrong. ;)
I think Sadr is well on track for this. He will NOT run the show directly as that is totally against his own professed rules of how the politic system should operate.

But the bottom line is that Iraq has been dancing to Sadr's tune all along, though no one will admit this. Sadr called the insurgency into creation, and he was the one that tamed it. Sadr said 'Yanqui go home" and forced the signing of the SOFA. Now Sadr says 'vote' and they go vote in record numbers.

The man is a force to be reckoned with.

[Americano]

And interestingly enough... the Wiki-page on Sadr reports that he is presently studying to become an ayatollah.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

This is the first I've heard of Sadr seeking ayatollah rank. Look out Iraq, Sadr is going to own the fucking place.

He was in Iran studying for it during a majority of the occupation when Maliki and the US wanted him dead.

[Americano]

Sadr has since the US invasion of Iraq been the ONLY leader that has consistently supported the idea of democracy and opposed theocracy.

As I've said all along, Sadr is the by far the most interesting fellow in Iraqi politics - and probably one of the most intelligent and successful. It is indeed quite likely that he will continue to dodge CIA assassins and outlive most of the contemporary crop of aspiring dictators.

Actually Sadr follows Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who has pushed democracy and elections since the US invasion. Sistani is often referred to as the most influential individual in Iraq.

[Michael]

Actually Sadr follows Grand Ayatollah Sistani, who has pushed democracy and elections since the US invasion. Sistani is often referred to as the most influential individual in Iraq.
I respectfully submit that the historical record doesn't support the time sequencing here.

Sistani was originally quite opposed to democracy and elections and favored the Iranian model (go figure, he's Iranian). It was Sadr that was credited with turning Sistani into a 'pro-democrat' and to abandon support for the Iranian-model.

Yes, Sistani is the most influential individual in Iraq, but that's like saying that the Pope is the world's most influential Catholic. It is just a tagline that the western media like to repeat. It sounds good but doesn't mean much in the long run. Besides, Sistani is on his deathbed and has been for the last couple of years.

Indeed, for all the "respect" that Sistani gets, he sure doesn't seem to have much influence. I can't think of a single event in the last eight years that was driven by Sistani. Indeed, I see him on the losing end of several disputes and having to change positions to save face. That's the sign of a symbolic leader, not a real one.

[Michael]

He was in Iran studying for it during a majority of the occupation when Maliki and the US wanted him dead.
All reports at that time specifically stated that Sadr was training/studying for a cleric rank a couple notches below that of ayatollah.

This is the first indication that Sadr is on track to become a full ayatollah.

Though, this could easily just be sloppy reporting.

[Non Sequitur]

Sadr has since the US invasion of Iraq been the ONLY leader that has consistently supported the idea of democracy and opposed theocracy.

As I've said all along, Sadr is the by far the most interesting fellow in Iraqi politics - and probably one of the most intelligent and successful. It is indeed quite likely that he will continue to dodge CIA assassins and outlive most of the contemporary crop of aspiring dictators.

As I said, a little promising. I think it's unrealistic for Iraq to sustain a form of democratic government that exactly resembles the west.

[Michael]

As I said, a little promising. I think it's unrealistic for Iraq to sustain a form of democratic government that exactly resembles the west.
Indeed. I wouldn't wish our level of institutionalized corruption and our manifold anti-democratic policies upon them. Besides, it takes decades of dedicated efforts to build our particular and peculiar system. Besides, no one needs help in learning how to let the elites rule and screw the people, with the media serving as handmaidens. Most nations can figure this out easily enough.

For the Iraqis, I'd consider any government there that was not 'installed' by the US military or the CIA to be an improvement.

[Americano]

I respectfully submit that the historical record doesn't support the time sequencing here.

Sistani was originally quite opposed to democracy and elections and favored the Iranian model (go figure, he's Iranian). It was Sadr that was credited with turning Sistani into a 'pro-democrat' and to abandon support for the Iranian-model.

Yes, Sistani is the most influential individual in Iraq, but that's like saying that the Pope is the world's most influential Catholic. It is just a tagline that the western media like to repeat. It sounds good but doesn't mean much in the long run. Besides, Sistani is on his deathbed and has been for the last couple of years.

Indeed, for all the "respect" that Sistani gets, he sure doesn't seem to have much influence. I can't think of a single event in the last eight years that was driven by Sistani. Indeed, I see him on the losing end of several disputes and having to change positions to save face. That's the sign of a symbolic leader, not a real one.

I've held a different opinion of Sistani and Sadr:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7636/

[Michael]

I've held a different opinion of Sistani and Sadr:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7636/

Yes, I believe we've touched on this previously, though we've never actually discussed it. I shall most certainly take up this point, though because it requires some research to offer some support other than my usual brilliant polemics and clever rhetorical trickery, it may perhaps take a week or three... ;)

Its not very often that I 'adopt' the 'cause' of short bearded radical Islamic clerics, but this one is rather interesting! :shrug:

[Michael]

First of all, it is to be acknowledged that Grand Ayatolloh Sistani is the most influential figure in Iraq. He is the most influential person in Iraq for the same reason, and in the same way, that the Pope is the most influential person in Italy. That is to say, he holds the most respected position of the most respected religous institution in the country. Nothing more, nothing less. And just like the Pope, everyone says they respect him, but when push comes to shove, many people can and do ignore him and his [political] commands on a regular basis.

But the point of my argument is not to attack Sistani, his position or his opinions. Rather, my point is to show that when push comes to shove, Iraq doesn't actually follow Sistani's political commands. One only has to look at Sistani's positions at any given time, and then look at events in Iraq to see the disparity.

In 2003/04, Sistani was the key 'moderate' Iraqi voice calling for calm in the face of the US occupation. Muqtada al-Sadr was the 'radical' Iraqi voice calling for violence and insurrection. The Iraqis decided to have an insurrection.

In 2004, Sistani said that the US plan for 'caucus' based election was completely unacceptable. The 2004 elections went ahead anyway, based on the US 'caucus' plan.

In 2006/07, at the height of the 'insurrection' in Iraq, Sistani formally gave up on the politics of Iraq.

Unable to protect his Shi'ite followers against Sunni attacks, and deeply frustrated by his inability to influence events, Sistani reportedly told his staff, "I will not be a political leader anymore. I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
Source (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI08Ak01.html)

A short while later, Muqtada al-Sadr called for a unilateral and self-imposed cease-fire with no pre-conditions. The insurrection settled down immediately - enough for the Bush Administration to claim credit for their 'surge'.

In 2010, when everyone was worried about election violence, Muqtada al-Sadr publicly called for peaceful elections. The Iraqis had a surprisingly peaceful election despite increasing violence in 2010.

My point here is to show that, despite the fact that everyone respects Sistani and everyone loathes the radical Sadr, it is Sadr that has been setting (defacto) the political drumbeat in Iraq since 2003.

In other words, if Sistani says the war is over and Sadr says the war is just beginning, based on both track records here, I'd be stocking up on the ammo and the flak jackets. Iraqis may respect Sistani, but Sadr clearly is closer to the political pulse of the nation.

Indeed, one has only to look at the relations between Sistani and Sadr themselves to see the distinctions. Sistani is the bigshot with all the power and authority of tradition behind him. But it is he who has 'come to an understanding' not just once, but twice (2004 and again in 2008) with Sadr. Both 'understandings' involved Sistani acknowledging/supporting Sadr's public position.

All I can say is that if Sistani was half as influential as everyone says he is, there would have been no insurrection/civl war in Iraq and there would be no SOFA requiring that the US military pull out. Those are the two most salient facts of post-invasion Iraq. Sadr called those shots.

Btw, the one area where Sadr and Sistani are on the same page is the topic of clerics and politics - both publicly oppose the Iranian-model with direct clerical authority built into the constitution. Both formally favor a secular political regime, based on Islamic principles.

And if one looks to the future, (old man) Sistani's most likely successor is a patron/ally of Sadr.

[partofme]

I saw this today.

New York Times article on Sadr followers in the recent election. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/middleeast/17sadr.html?hp)

[Michael]

I saw this today.

New York Times article on Sadr followers in the recent election. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/middleeast/17sadr.html?hp)

Wow! That article is almost flattering to my favorite pudgy little bearded cleric! :lol:

(And please note that my admiration for Sadr comes not from his anti-Americanism - for him, I'm certain that is entirely a political expression).

By the way, here's the 'money quote' from the article...


Since 2003, the Sadrists have refused any contact with the American military or diplomats.

“It would be helpful if they would change their policy,” one American official lamented on Tuesday.

But America’s loss will not necessarily be Iran’s gain. In a vivid illustration of Iranian power here, it cajoled the Sadrists to join the Supreme Council in their electoral coalition, even though the two fought in the streets a few years before. The two still air their feuds in public. But many politicians believe the Sadrists, long seen as more nationalist than other religious Shiite parties, will prove less pliable for Iran.

Mr. Sadr “is not the easiest of customers for Iran to deal with,” the diplomat said.

Indeed. I admire Sadr because he is an Iraqi nationalist, who will never be an Iranian or American toady. I believe that this is what Iraq needs more than anything else - its own political future on its own terms. Iraq's democracy is a fragile one right now - it needs a good dose of nationalist passion to make it real. Time will eventually turn those nationalist passions into institutions of real democracy. But without nationalist passion, the newborn Iraqi democratic state could be stillborn, overwhelmed by powerful interested parties in USA and Iran, seeking to use Iraq for their own political purposes.

Given Sadr's family bloodline (descent from Mohammad), high clerical tradition, powerful local family dynasty and his own charisma and wits, I believe he has what it takes to see to it that Iraq gets its best chance. In the style and tradition of his clerical convictions, Sadr seeks to lead from behind. I applaud this approach to politics in fiercely Muslim countries of particularly fragile condition. That's why I like this fellow - I like him because I think he's good for Iraq. And Iraq needs a hero - or at least a noisy conscience!

[Michael]

Well Sadr has gone from 'pariah' to 'kingmaker' awfully quick. ;)

I've just read two different analysts refer to Sadr as the 'kingmaker' for this election (including Juan Cole).

And that means Malaki will not be reappointed as Prime Minister since he is a personal enemy of the Sadrists. It is likely the PM will be a new name to westerners.

State of Law + Kurds + Sadr is a dominant ruling coalition and it looks like this is what is happening.

[Donkey]

Well Sadr has gone from 'pariah' to 'kingmaker' awfully quick. ;)

I've just read two different analysts refer to Sadr as the 'kingmaker' for this election (including Juan Cole).

And that means Malaki will not be reappointed as Prime Minister since he is a personal enemy of the Sadrists. It is likely the PM will be a new name to westerners.

State of Law + Kurds + Sadr is a dominant ruling coalition and it looks like this is what is happening.
Can you link to a couple of those? I have some "That bold assertion I made two years ago was on the mark" to do with a history teacher.

[Michael]

Can you link to a couple of those? I have some "That bold assertion I made two years ago was on the mark" to do with a history teacher.

Roger that. Here's Juan Cole.

Thursday, March 25, 2010
Sadr Emerging as Kingmaker in Iraqi Intelligence;
Will Muqtada demand Quicker US Withdrawal

The London pan-Arab daily al-Hayat [Life] reports in Arabic that that the Shiite State of Law coalition and the Shiite Iraqi National Alliance say they are prepared to make an alliance before they enter the new parliament. This move reduces the chance that current prime minister Nuri al-Maliki will get a second term.

The State of Law said it had negotiated without preconditions, considering that who fills the post of prime minister is less important that for the two parties to arrive at a common plan. The fundamentalist Iraqi National Alliance groups Muqtada al-Sadr's Free Independents with Ammar al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and other religious Shiite parties. The paper's contacts in that movement likewise affirmed that the National Iraqi Alliance is eager to form some sort of united front with the State of Law coalition, in accordance with 'countless political calculations.'

Sadiq al-Rikabi of the Islamic Mission Party, the core component of the State of Law List, told al-Hayat that it was important for his party to reach a common vision with the National Iraqi Alliance. He said that the two had a common notion of confronting challenges. He said it is not important at this point to name a prime minister, and that other details can be worked out first.

The Sadrists, the leading bloc within the National Iraqi Alliance, deeply dislike al-Maliki because he sent the army in after their paramilitary, the Mahdi Army, in both Basra and Sadr City in spring-summer of 2008. The State of Law may well have to sacrifice him to get an alliance with the more religious Shiite parties.

Abdul Hadi al-Hassani of the State of Law also announced talks toward merging the two blocs. He said that the two 'agree on most issues,' aside from the question of who should be prime minister and how to distribute cabinet posts by party, as well as how to run the executive branch. He said he expected the two to merge, given that they were most compatible in their platforms. He downplayed Sadrist dislike of al-Maliki and said what was important is that the two have a similar governing structure and could settle issues by a vote. He envisaged a further partnership, with the Kurdistan Alliance and with the Accord Front (Sunni fundamentalists).

It sounds as though the State of Law leadership is entirely prepared to throw al-Maliki under the bus to get the votes required to form a government.

The State of Law could end up with over 90 seats, and the National Iraqi Alliance may well get over 70. An alliance would take them very close to the 163 seats needed to govern Iraq. State of Law says it is also working on an partnership with the Kurdistan Alliance, which would be needed to elect a president on the first ballot.


A Shiite alliance plus the Kurds recalls the governing coalition of 2005 and after, which cannot be good news for the US. Al-Sadr may well make his joining the coalition conditional on al-Maliki stepping down and an acceleration of the timetable for US troop withdrawal.
Source (http://www.juancole.com/)
Cole also provides a link for the original in Arabic if you want it.

I'll look around for the other reference I noted (I can't remember where I read it).

[Donkey]

Don't sweat it. This teacher can always read ye olde arabique version if she would like. :)

[Michael]

And here's another one from the Times-UK...

Anti-Western militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr holds balance of power

Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric whose militants fought British troops in Basra before being driven out by Iraqi forces, has emerged as a potential kingmaker in the next government.

The Sadrist Movement, the political arm of al-Mahdi Army, is believed to have won between 30 and 40 seats in the 325-member Parliament in this month’s elections — giving it the balance of power while the two main contenders for prime minister jockey for position.

Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiya group and Nouri al-Maliki’s State of Law list appear to have won just under 90 seats each. They need 163 to form a majority and choose the next leader.

Even with the support of the Kurdish bloc and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq either grouping would fall short — hence both are courting Hojatoleslam al-Sadr. “The Sadrists look like the kingmakers in this,” a Western diplomat said. “It’s not quite clear what they would want in return for their support.”

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7071748.ece)

Btw, notice the never-ending bias in western media against Sadr. I particularly like the framing of the Sadr movement as the 'political arm' of the al-Madhi Army! Methinks someone is playing a propaganda game here and is unware of the long history of involvement of the Sadr family in Bagdhad politics - long before the al-Madhi Army appeared. But one gets used to this kind of thing when one reads western news sources!

[Michael]

Can you link to a couple of those? I have some "That bold assertion I made two years ago was on the mark" to do with a history teacher.
Indeed, I am quite enjoying the fact that my analysis of Iraq and Sadr has turned out consistently quite close to the mark - unlike most western-based mainstream/professional analysts! :)

[Donkey]

NPR is discussing al Sadr now... the Sadrist mastery of election law is impressive. And now (inside the Sadr movement), they are going to vote on a PM.

[Donkey]

This thread needs some pictures...

http://neorepublica.com/media/blogs/republica/sadr1.jpg

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/08/sadr/story.jpg

[Michael]

Gotta love that first picture! Its got a bit of that 'Darth-Sadr' look about him! :lol:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_g7KcbMxmLEU/RiNIxBSDvVI/AAAAAAAAAxY/iPmrdhyINv0/s1600/Muqtada%2Bal-Sadr.jpg
That's Mookie on the left, martyred daddy-Sadr ayatollah on the right.

Big crowds waving your picture is a sure sign of grassroots power.

And al-Sadr is impressive just by surviving. I can't imagine how many times a price has been put on his head. :shrug:

[Michael]

Here's more Mookiemania! ;)

Foreign Policy Magazine's present cover...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/Cover_Aug20_Iraq_mini.jpg?1282343094

And here's the story...

The King of Iraq

As U.S. troops leave the country, one man stands to benefit above all: Moqtada al-Sadr.

Sadr -- feared by some, reviled by others and revered by a broad swath of Iraq's urban poor -- is now a kingmaker in Iraqi politics. It's a role that Sadr, the scion of a prominent clerical family, has been building toward since 2003. Immediately after the U.S. invasion, thousands of his supporters packed the dusty streets of Baghdad's Saddam City neighborhood (later renamed Sadr City) for Friday prayers week after week. Sadr rallied their ranks around his parliamentary list in the 2005 elections, making a strong showing, and then used his political clout to help push Nouri al-Maliki into the prime minister slot in 2006. But the friendship didn't last: Sadr bitterly split from Maliki when the latter allowed American troops to attack his militia members. Depending on whom you ask, Sadr either sensed he was next to be targeted and fled to Iran or was convinced of that fact by Iranian officials, who urged Sadr to leave for his own safety. Now, as U.S. troops withdraw and negotiations are underway in Baghdad to form a new government, Sadr may be planning his return. If he does, he will no doubt face jubilant crowds once again.

Read Article (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/20/the_king_of_iraq?page=full)

Yes, that's my Mookie! :D

Still stirring up trouble and making western journalists quiver with fear and envy. Looks like he's getting ready to return to the big stage.

Btw, it amuses me the way western journalists describe Sadr. They seem try really hard not to explain what it is about Sadr that makes him so significant to Iraqi muslims. That line about "from a prominent clerical family" doesn't quite do justice to Sadr. His father was the last Iraqi-born Grand Ayatollah (assassinated by Saddam's security service) and the Sadr family traces descent from Mohammad (official Shi'ite line - or descent of Ali). That's way more than just a "prominant clerical family" and goes a long way to explain who Sadr is and why he's enormously popular in Iraq just by existing.

[The_Dot]

Unfortunately, al-Sadr isn't in the Hague, answering for the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign performed by his militia......

Thats how one could best "do justice" to him.

[Michael]

Unfortunately, al-Sadr isn't in the Hague, answering for the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign performed by his militia......

Thats how one could best "do justice" to him.

Wow. That's some good ole' Bush Admin propaganda, vintage 2005 edition. Been a while since I've encountered that one. :)

That's always the problem with propaganda - when it is no longer useful to the those who propagate it, it is hard to get people to forget what you pushed them to believe when it becomes inconvenient later on. :shrug:

As for Mookie at The Hague, I strongly doubt anyone could make that kind of case. The accusation was driven by US politics, not actual legal evidence. Strangely enough, as soon as the US domestic political need for that propaganda was no longer necessary, the accusation seems to have evaporated entirely. Amazing how that happens. :shrug:

If you want to 'bash' Mookie, please feel free, but I'd suggest you make a good case for it and not rely upon propaganda statements that have no substance or evidence.

[The_Dot]

Wow. That's some good ole' Bush Admin propaganda, vintage 2005 edition. Been a while since I've encountered that one. :)

I wouldn't know about that, since I don't take Bush's direction on what to think.

That's always the problem with propaganda - when it is no longer useful to the those who propagate it, it is hard to get people to forget what you pushed them to believe when it becomes inconvenient later on. :shrug:

This smacks of propaganda in and of itself - you're not refuting the allegations that Sadr's forces systematically purged followers of the other Muslim factions from his "city", but rather dismissing even the possibility by raising the Bush bogey-man.

That's pretty weak, IMHO.

There has been some coverage of the systematic removal of Sunnis from Washash, for example, including Time magazine's piece here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1550441,00.html or MSNBC's piece here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek

Is al-Sadr the only cleric in Iraq using his private army to conduct sectarian purges? Probably not. But to dismiss the possibility that Sadr is engaged in such behavior outright with an appeal to the Bush bogey man is intellectually weak at best, IMHO.

In fact, what manner of "holy man" needs a private army anyway? Isn't that pretty much a gigantic red flag?

As for Mookie at The Hague, I strongly doubt anyone could make that kind of case. The accusation was driven by US politics, not actual legal evidence. Strangely enough, as soon as the US domestic political need for that propaganda was no longer necessary, the accusation seems to have evaporated entirely. Amazing how that happens. :shrug:

Hmm. Lots of knee-jerk reactionary thought in evidence - the US is bad, so Sadr is good? Utter folly.

[Michael]

I wouldn't know about that, since I don't take Bush's direction on what to think.
I didn't say that you did. When the US media pushes a message (as they did this one), it is sometimes difficult to discern where the message originates.

This smacks of propaganda in and of itself - you're not refuting the allegations that Sadr's forces systematically purged followers of the other Muslim factions from his "city", but rather dismissing even the possibility by raising the Bush bogey-man.

That's pretty weak, IMHO.
No, its entirely arbitrary. First of all, singling out an instance of mass murder in Iraq is rather arbitrary. If one makes accusations of 'ethnic clensing', which ones are you referring to? There are several episodes to choose from - several of which were bought and paid for by US taxpayers. Choosing to be outraged by one instance, but not the others, is in my opinion, arbitrary.
:shrug:

Secondly, the assertion that Sadr is single-handedly responsible for the carnage in Iraq since 2003 just isn't credible. Indeed, it is laughable if one accepts all that the US government has said about him.

How can one be dismissed as a buffoon and a minor player, and claimed to be the mastermind at the same time? US Government has never been able to decide which 'spin' to put on Sadr so they use both.

There has been some coverage of the systematic removal of Sunnis from Washash, for example, including Time magazine's piece here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1550441,00.html or MSNBC's piece here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20546328/site/newsweek
I didn't issue a word of doubt that there has been quite a bit of systematic ugliness going on in Iraq since 2003. Indeed, the ugliness is piled on ten feet thick over there. No doubt about that. Enough murdering going on over there to make Johannasburg look safe by comparison (barely).

My point was all about the evidence that Muqtada al-Sadr was the mastermind or even the leader of such operations is essentially non-existent.

Is al-Sadr the only cleric in Iraq using his private army to conduct sectarian purges? Probably not. But to dismiss the possibility that Sadr is engaged in such behavior outright with an appeal to the Bush bogey man is intellectually weak at best, IMHO.

In fact, what manner of "holy man" needs a private army anyway? Isn't that pretty much a gigantic red flag?
The Madhi/Medhi Army is not Muqtada's private army and never was. It pre-exists him. The Medhi Army, like the Iraqi people, tend to follow Sadr's orders, but only in respect for who Sadr is. Muqtada does not "own" the Iraqi people any more than he "owns" the Medhi Army.

Hmm. Lots of knee-jerk reactionary thought in evidence - the US is bad, so Sadr is good? Utter folly.
Speaking of utter folly. :shrug:

My long-standing analysis of Muqtada Al-Sadr stands on its own merits. If you want to critique my views on Muqtada Al-Sadr, there are several threads in this forum where the issue is addressed, including this one. I'll be happy to defend my views against any reasoned argument or evidence. Bush Admin propaganda doesn't count.

[Americano]

Hmm. Lots of knee-jerk reactionary thought in evidence - the US is bad, so Sadr is good? Utter folly.

Considering the death, poverty and refugees created by the US invading and destroying Iraq I'd think Sadr would look good to many Iraqis.

[dilettante]

Considering the death, poverty and refugees created by the US invading and destroying Iraq I'd think Sadr would look good to many Iraqis.

I doubt many Sunnis look fondly upon a Shiite cleric with his own little army. Not that they look fondly on the US either...

[Americano]

I doubt many Sunnis look fondly upon a Shiite cleric with his own little army. Not that they look fondly on the US either...

As Sunni are in the minority there's no doubt about that. Not only did the US kick them in the ditch, that seems to be the same pattern being followed by the new Shia government.

[Michael]

I doubt many Sunnis look fondly upon a Shiite cleric with his own little army. Not that they look fondly on the US either...

Indeed, the US military took out the Sunni's patron saint Saddam and exposed the Sunnis of Iraq to suffer retribution from the Shi'ites whom they collectively abused so much for so many years with the support of Saddam's regime.

And you are quite right that the Sunnis rationally fear the Shi'ites (I would too if I had used state power to persecute them the way the Sunnis did for so long). However, this also explain why the Shi'ites don't care much about what the Sunnis think - the Shi'ites remember well the favored position of the Sunnis in Saddam's regime (the same regime that assassinated the Grand Ayatollah Sadr).

That being said, when one speaks of the danger of militia groups in Iraq, I think it is rather partisan to single out the Medhi Army and ignore all the others.

For example, there are the "Sons of Iraq" - which is a Sunni militia army created and fully financed by US taxpayers. The Kurds also have a militia army (partially financed by US taxpayers). There is also the Badr Brigade, which is the militia arm of the SRCII, which was a partner to the original US administration - it is also an exclusively Shi'ite group (and entirely financed by the Iranians). On this basis, I consider the singling out the Medhi Army as somehow unique, or unusually dangerous or even politically destablizing, is highly questionable.

And last, but certainly not least, if you read the article that I posted above, the reason that Sadr is on the cover of Foreign Policy magazine this month (King of Iraq) is because he just met with Allawi in Syria a couple weeks ago. By all accounts, Allawi was paying his respects and seeking Sadr support in the formation of a government. Allawi's political party is majority Sunni (for those of you without an Iraqi-political scorecard!).

In other words, Allawi, the political champion of the Sunnis, is seeking to make a partnership with Muqtada Sadr. That's hardly a sign of the Sunnis quaking in fear of Darth Mookie and his Shi'ite Army.

[dilettante]

Indeed, the US military took out the Sunni's patron saint Saddam and exposed the Sunnis of Iraq to suffer retribution from the Shi'ites whom they collectively abused so much for so many years with the support of Saddam's regime.

And you are quite right that the Sunnis rationally fear the Shi'ites (I would too if I had used state power to persecute them the way the Sunnis did for so long). However, this also explain why the Shi'ites don't care much about what the Sunnis think - the Shi'ites remember well the favored position of the Sunnis in Saddam's regime (the same regime that assassinated the Grand Ayatollah Sadr).

That being said, when one speaks of the danger of militia groups in Iraq, I think it is rather partisan to single out the Medhi Army and ignore all the others.

For example, there are the "Sons of Iraq" - which is a Sunni militia army created and fully financed by US taxpayers. The Kurds also have a militia army (partially financed by US taxpayers). There is also the Badr Brigade, which is the militia arm of the SRCII, which was a partner to the original US administration - it is also an exclusively Shi'ite group (and entirely financed by the Iranians). On this basis, I consider the singling out the Medhi Army as somehow unique, or unusually dangerous or even politically destablizing, is highly questionable.

I don't think anyone here is 'singling out' the Medhi Army and pretending other militia groups don't exist. They're one of many extra-legal partisan militias, The Medhi Army is just the one you'd expect people to bring up in a thread about Muqtada al Sadr.


And last, but certainly not least, if you read the article that I posted above, the reason that Sadr is on the cover of Foreign Policy magazine this month (King of Iraq) is because he just met with Allawi in Syria a couple weeks ago. By all accounts, Allawi was paying his respects and seeking Sadr support in the formation of a government. Allawi's political party is majority Sunni (for those of you without an Iraqi-political scorecard!).

In other words, Allawi, the political champion of the Sunnis, is seeking to make a partnership with Muqtada Sadr. That's hardly a sign of the Sunnis quaking in fear of Darth Mookie and his Shi'ite Army.

Well then, can we say "well down, Allawi" for reaching out across the lines for the sake of stability?

[The_Dot]

I didn't issue a word of doubt that there has been quite a bit of systematic ugliness going on in Iraq since 2003. Indeed, the ugliness is piled on ten feet thick over there. No doubt about that. Enough murdering going on over there to make Johannasburg look safe by comparison (barely).

My point was all about the evidence that Muqtada al-Sadr was the mastermind or even the leader of such operations is essentially non-existent.

Yeah, it's Probably silly to think al-Sadr has much influence in "Sadr City". What was I thinking?

My long-standing analysis of Muqtada Al-Sadr stands on its own merits. If you want to critique my views on Muqtada Al-Sadr, there are several threads in this forum where the issue is addressed, including this one. I'll be happy to defend my views against any reasoned argument or evidence. Bush Admin propaganda doesn't count.

I must profess a curiosity about what your "long-standing" analysis - upon what is it based? News articles, or first hand info?

Personally, I've not been there, and thus can only rely upon reports from those who have.

[Michael]

Yeah, it's Probably silly to think al-Sadr has much influence in "Sadr City". What was I thinking?
I don't know what you were thinking.

How much influence did Saddam have there when it was called Saddam City? Btw, the name was changed only after the overthrow of Saddam. The Sadr family doesn't own or control that section of Baghdad - it is merely influential there. Indeed, I believe the choice of name seeks to commemorate the Ayatollah Sadr who was assassinated by Saddam's security service in the early 1990's.

I must profess a curiosity about what your "long-standing" analysis - upon what is it based? News articles, or first hand info?

Personally, I've not been there, and thus can only rely upon reports from those who have.
I've never been to Iraq, nor do I speak Arabic. I do rely upon a wide variety of information sources, most of which are non-American for my news about Iraq. I do find such sources are usually several months ahead of mainstream American media reporting.

The point that I was making there is that my 'track-record' of analysis of events in Iraq, that I've been posting about since 2002, is pretty damn good at actually predicting the actual outcomes of events (even if I do say so myself). Several members at this forum can attest to the accuracy of my predictions about Iraq over the years.

Btw, I identified Muqtada al-Sadr as the most important political player in Iraq back in 2004. I also correctly predicted the intensity of the Sunni-Shia 'civil war' and the success of Sadr's call to end it. I also correctly predicted the collapse of the SCRII in the last two elections and the continued rise and influence of the Sadr-block in parliament. The point being that my analysis of events in Iraq has a proven track record that puts to shame the vast majority of professional American political and military analysts on this topic.

That being said, I'm not always right about everything and I'm always open to discussion on this topic that I have indeed invested a whole lot of time and energy into researching over the years.

As for accusations of anti-Americanism, I consider that trite and tiresome. Over the years, depending on the topic or the issue of the day, I've been repeatedly accused of being anti-American, anti-European, anti-British, anti-French, anti-Scottish and anti-Israel. I've also been accused of being too pro-American and too pro-British. I've even been accused of being pro-French as well when I defended France's position in 2002/03. I've also been accused of being pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist with equal regularity. So you'll have to forgive me if I act rather dismissive about such accusations and tend to perceive malicious intent (and/or ignorance) on the part of such accusers.

[The_Dot]

I think the claim that the forces conducting the sectarian cleansing in the areas loyal to al-Sadr were "rogue" elements is a bit too pat and convenient. It certainly seems that Sadr's "non-rogue" forces did nothing to prevent the acts.

Do you find it possible that Sadr is at least tacitly involved, or perhaps issued a Becket approval for the actions?

FWIW, when someone accuses another of posting "Bush propaganda", that often raises concerns that the person involved harbors some anti-American feelings. Some would tend to perceive malicious intent (and/or ignorance) on the part of such accusers. Just a thought, since we're sharing perceptions of people we don't really know over the internet, and all.

:)

[Americano]

Citing 'Bush Propaganda' is factual and has no malicious intent. Unless revisionist historians have started reinterpreting that administration's Iraq policies and if so they deserve a room at the creationist museum.

[Michael]

I think the claim that the forces conducting the sectarian cleansing in the areas loyal to al-Sadr were "rogue" elements is a bit too pat and convenient. It certainly seems that Sadr's "non-rogue" forces did nothing to prevent the acts.

Do you find it possible that Sadr is at least tacitly involved, or perhaps issued a Becket approval for the actions?

It is credible to accuse Sadr of not preventing it, or not stopping it. He was one of the only people who might have been able to, but I really don't think he could have stopped it even if he wanted to - the will for sectarian violence unleashed by the removal of Saddam was long predicted to be ferocious and unstoppable.

One has to keep in mind Iraqi recent history. It was Saddam's policy to move Sunnis into the old Saddam City (and clear Shi'ites out to make room for them). In this context, removal of Saddam merely presented the opportunity to reverse Saddam's policy and have Shi'ites push those Sunnis back out again and return to the way it was before.

The Sunnis do have a lot of blood on their hands from Saddam's rule. The Kurds and Shi'ites have certainly indulged in a fair bit of revenge, no doubt of that. That's why many people, including myself, were ferociously opposed to the US overthrow of Saddam - no matter how bad he was, removing was going to unleash a wave of sectarian violence that would make Saddam's bloody rule look peaceful by comparison.

FWIW, when someone accuses another of posting "Bush propaganda", that often raises concerns that the person involved harbors some anti-American feelings. Some would tend to perceive malicious intent (and/or ignorance) on the part of such accusers. Just a thought, since we're sharing perceptions of people we don't really know over the internet, and all.

:)
As Americano pointed out above, "Bush Admin Propaganda" is a fact - not some partisan talking point. The evidence for the Bush Admin perpetuating lies about Iraq is substantial. Likewise, there is ample evidence that large US media networks uncritically published these Bush-Admin planted stories without any fact-checking at all. That's propaganda by any definition.

As I said, I'll be happy to discuss any aspect of Iraqi politics. I will not take any Bush Admin propaganda at face value - I've learned the foolishness of that. Bush Admin propaganda is what put the US military into Iraq and has been used to keep it there as long as possible (apparently the goal is a permanent US military presence in Iraq).

Btw, if there was any credible evidence that Muqtada al-Sadr was in any way ordering the massacre of anyone, why did the issue immediately go silent as soon as the Bush Administration no longer needed the domestic political policy of demonizing Sadr? Fact is, the Bush Admin needed to justify their occupation for the US 2004 election and the 2006 mid-term elections. Once that 'need' passed, all US accusations about Sadr seem to have vanished into thin air. Funny how that worked out. :shrug:

Indeed, accusations about Sadr seem to have even less evidence than the infamous "WMD's" that Saddam had that supposedly justified the invasion in the first place.

Bottom line is that when it comes to US foreign policy, the US government always lies to the American people. Quite remarkable that is, but I don't make the rules, I just observe them. One only has to look at the "Gulf of Tomkin" episode to see the proof of that.

[The_Dot]

As Americano pointed out above, "Bush Admin Propaganda" is a fact - not some partisan talking point. The evidence for the Bush Admin perpetuating lies about Iraq is substantial. Likewise, there is ample evidence that large US media networks uncritically published these Bush-Admin planted stories without any fact-checking at all. That's propaganda by any definition.

I don't see Americano's posts. Shortly after I arrived here, he declared me to be a "racist" and announced I was on his "shit list", perhaps expecting me to care. As such, I improved my personal experience on this forum by placing him on ignore.

Can you in any way demonstrate that the two articles I cited were "planted" by the Bush bogey man? Absent evidence, this seems to me like a convenient way to avoid examination of accounts that conflict with a pre-determined view of al-Sadr.

[Michael]

I don't see Americano's posts. Shortly after I arrived here, he declared me to be a "racist" and announced I was on his "shit list", perhaps expecting me to care. As such, I improved my personal experience on this forum by placing him on ignore.

Can you in any way demonstrate that the two articles I cited were "planted" by the Bush bogey man? Absent evidence, this seems to me like a convenient way to avoid examination of accounts that conflict with a pre-determined view of al-Sadr.

"Planted"? That sounds like you are looking for evidence of conspiracy theory. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

In other words, I don't see any reason to address your point. If you want to assume that some unsourced and vague accusation in TIME magazine is authorative, that's your perogative. I see no profit in engaging that line of discussion.

I have no need to prove anything at all about Sadr. You are free to believe what you want to believe. If you want to discuss Sadr, I'm open to that. I consider discussions about bias and partisanship in US news media to be a circular deadend.

If you want to try to convince me that Muqtada al-Sadr is some kind of murderous monster, then I think you will need to provide some better source than those particular news articles from 2006. From what I read of the fellow, he's a quite reasonable, clever and painstakingly patient political player who is clearly working towards re-building a viable Iraqi state that is free of subservience to either the USA or Iran. Politically speaking, I think Sadr is providing the nationalist-leadership that Iraq desperately needs right now in the long process of building a viable democratic state. I'm willing to defend this view of Sadr. If you object to it, the onus is on you to supply a counter-argument and evidence to the contrary. An unsourced accusation without evidence published by TIME magazine in 2006 doesn't cut it.

[The_Dot]

"Planted"? That sounds like you are looking for evidence of conspiracy theory. I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

But, kind Sir, you opened that particular rabbit hole:

As Americano pointed out above, "Bush Admin Propaganda" is a fact - not some partisan talking point. The evidence for the Bush Admin perpetuating lies about Iraq is substantial. Likewise, there is ample evidence that large US media networks uncritically published these Bush-Admin planted stories without any fact-checking at all. That's propaganda by any definition.

Plainly, you are the one who brought the concept of "Bush-Admin planted stories" into the mix.

So, now that we have re-established the context of the "planted" allegation (to whit - you asserted it), perhaps you would now care to sustain your own allegation?

To paraphrase your last post: "An unsourced accusation without evidence doesn't cut it." If that is to be your standard for other people's posts, then it stands to reason you would apply the same standard to your own?

Cheers.

[The_Dot]

Perhaps the evidence of "planted" stories isn't as "ample" as was claimed?

[Michael]

But, kind Sir, you opened that particular rabbit hole:

As I said, I'm not interested in discussing Bush Administration lies. That topic is old and tired. This thread is about Sadr. If you want to discuss Sadr, go right ahead.

Plainly, you are the one who brought the concept of "Bush-Admin planted stories" into the mix.
No. You referenced it with your TIME article link. I rejected your source as entirely without any credibility.

So, now that we have re-established the context of the "planted" allegation (to whit - you asserted it), perhaps you would now care to sustain your own allegation?
No. As I said above, I can't be bothered to. The issue doesn't interest me.

To paraphrase your last post: "An unsourced accusation without evidence doesn't cut it." If that is to be your standard for other people's posts, then it stands to reason you would apply the same standard to your own?

Cheers.
Bush Adminstration lies regarding Iraq are well documented. I'm not going to do your research for you.

Like I said. When you come up with a relevant issue about Sadr, I'll discuss it, until then, you are just trolling.

[Michael]

Perhaps the evidence of "planted" stories isn't as "ample" as was claimed?

Perhaps I'm not interested in feeding trolls. :shrug:

Btw, your comments about Soros in another thread suggest to me that you are not here to engage in meaningful discussion. You are free to post what you like, but no one is required to take you seriously or reply to your posts.

[The_Dot]

Perhaps I'm not interested in feeding trolls. :shrug:

Seriously, how is being asked to support an assertion you made "feeding trolls"?

I was trying to have a discussion with you on the topic. I was not in any way trolling.

Is there only room for one viewpoint here, and anything else is "trolling"?

[Michael]

Seriously, how is being asked to support an assertion you made "feeding trolls"?

I was trying to have a discussion with you on the topic. I was not in any way trolling.

Is there only room for one viewpoint here, and anything else is "trolling"?
Not at all. There is room for lots of viewpoints here and we welcome people to share them.

However, the 'troll' characterization was established with your initial post in this thread and in another thread as well. Both follow the troll pattern and subsequent posts confirm it.

Unfortunately, al-Sadr isn't in the Hague, answering for the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign performed by his militia......

Thats how one could best "do justice" to him.

I wonder if you found billionaire George Soros' backing of various leftist outfits similarly concerning?

Those posts are classic trolling - they are inflammatory, unsourced and entirely designed to invoke a partisan reaction. There is no attempt being made to actually engage either topic in any meaningful way.

So if you act like a troll, I will treat you like one (as I have been doing so).

[The_Dot]

So, how does one get removed from your "troll" list?

Perhaps I was wrong about al-Sadr. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but it is hard to discuss the issue when you make a claim, and then get the hump when asked about it.

As for Soros, I was interested in seeing what WFCY thought of him in that context. Thus, I politely asked a question.

I must admit, I'm a bit confused here. You make assertions, and refuse to back them up, preferring instead to call me names. What is the point of that?

[Michael]

So, how does one get removed from your "troll" list?
Funny question that. You were on it with your very first post here. I foolishly replied to that troll post, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your subsequent posts proved my initial assessment - I shouldn't have bothered to reply to the first inflammatory troll-post. I fed the troll and several pages later, here we are. :rolleyes:

Perhaps I was wrong about al-Sadr. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but it is hard to discuss the issue when you make a claim, and then get the hump when asked about it.
If you act like a troll, you will be treated like one.

This topic here is about Sadr or Iraqi politics. I don't believe you've addressed that topic at all other than to spout some vintage 2006 Bush Admin propaganda in the most inflammatory way as possible. That's trolling.

I've dismissed that TIME article as bullshit propaganda that has no source, no evidence and no proof. Indeed, the article itself states that it has no evidence and no proof - just an unsourced allegation. I also followed that up with a rational assessment about the lack of probability of the 'truthfulness' of the allegation.

But you just keep demanding that I justify my assertion about Bush Admin lies. That's a notorious rightwing troll-topic and one I'm not going to get into - especially with one whom I consider to be trolling in the first place.

As for Soros, I was interested in seeing what WFCY thought of him in that context. Thus, I politely asked a question.

The quoted article of the OP clearly stated that the kind of funding Soros does is categorically different than that done by the Koch brothers (or Murdoch).

Your post there infers that what Soros does is identical to what the Koch brothers do. That's another very common rightwing troll-topic.

I must admit, I'm a bit confused here. You make assertions, and refuse to back them up, preferring instead to call me names. What is the point of that?
That's how I deal with trolling behaviour when I don't outright ignore it.

Bottom line is if you don't want to be treated like a troll, don't act like a troll, repeat troll arguments or go phishing with notorious troll-topics.

This forum is quite unlike most other discussion forums out there. Here you generally will find people who are quite knowledgeable about the topics they post about.

People who just want to stir up 'partisan pissing matches' because it is fun are not welcome here. People who have reasonable and rational arguments, regardless of ideology, will be engaged with meaningful discussion. It really is that simple.

The choice is yours. You can whine about my responses to you all you like, but I don't think that is going to get you anywhere or win you any friends. All you are doing is wearing out my patience. I prefer to discuss topics, not people and/or their hurt feelings.

[The_Dot]

But you just keep demanding that I justify my assertion about Bush Admin lies. That's a notorious rightwing troll-topic and one I'm not going to get into - especially with one whom I consider to be trolling in the first place.

Did the Bush administration pump out loads of BS? Of course they did.

But that's not what I've asked you about. You made a very specific claim about "planted articles".

When I asked you about that, you claimed you didn't want to open that "rabbit hole" - despite having been the one who opened it.

Bottom line - if you cannot provide any substantiation for your claim, that's fine. You could have just admitted that rather than stoop to name-calling, though.

Clearly, there is no further point in trying to engage you in any manner of discussion - you make wild claims, then get pissy when asked to back them up.

I'll leave you to your intellectually incestuous "discussions" with your sycophants.

[Michael]

Did the Bush administration pump out loads of BS? Of course they did.

But that's not what I've asked you about. You made a very specific claim about "planted articles".

When I asked you about that, you claimed you didn't want to open that "rabbit hole" - despite having been the one who opened it.

Bottom line - if you cannot provide any substantiation for your claim, that's fine. You could have just admitted that rather than stoop to name-calling, though.

Clearly, there is no further point in trying to engage you in any manner of discussion - you make wild claims, then get pissy when asked to back them up.

I'll leave you to your intellectually incestuous "discussions" with your sycophants.
This is getting tiresome. I really think it is silly when people demand that I do Google searches for them.

Bush Administration Broke Propaganda Rules, GAO Says

Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration broke anti- propaganda rules by using tax dollars to pay a columnist and create news video to promote the president's education policies, the investigative arm of Congress said.

The Government Accountability Office issued two reports yesterday examining Department of Education contracts with a public relations firm, Ketchum Inc. Ketchum prepared a video for use in television news programs, checked news stories to see how the Republican Party's view on education was reported and contracted with commentator Armstrong Williams, the report said.

The education department took these steps to promote President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which established new testing requirements for public schools, the report said. The news video does not say the federal government is the source of the material, nor did Williams reveal the government's connection to his comment, the report said.
Source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQaO48XF6TI4&refer=top_world_news)

Bush administration payment of columnists

The Bush administration payment of columnists refers to the payment of public funds to right-wing media commentators by several U.S. executive departments under Cabinet officials to promote various policies of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid to at least three commentators to promote Bush administration policies.
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_administration_payment_of_columnists)

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

Published: October 1, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01educ.html)

Bush Shows No Remorse for Fake Newscasts

NEW YORK -- Despite a rising chorus of condemnation from journalists and media critics, the George W. Bush administration shows no signs of abandoning its distribution of taxpayer-funded news to U.S. newspapers, radio and television stations.

Free press advocates are up in arms about what they say is the covert dissemination of propaganda by government agencies.
Source (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0329-12.htm)

Bush administration propaganda efforts come under increased scrutiny

The controversy over the Bush administration's use of secret government-funded propaganda to promote its policy positions raged on this week, amid new disclosures about payments to Armstrong Williams and for fake television "news reports."
Source (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/propaganda_bush_admin_efforts_come_under_fire.htm)

Bush administration defends use of covert propaganda in US

17 March 2005

The Bush administration last week instructed US government agencies to ignore a ruling by the comptroller general of the United States barring the dissemination of “covert propaganda.”

The phrase—generally associated with police-state dictatorships—was used by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, in describing the proliferation of video news releases produced by the Pentagon, State Department and at least 18 other US agencies. The GAO ordered a halt to the dissemination of such videos on the grounds that they “conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials.”

In a front-page article published Sunday, the New York Times detailed the government’s increasing use of the videos, which simulate genuine television news segments. They include the use of public relations employees posing as on-the-spot reporters and “interviews” with government officials that have been scripted and rehearsed.
Source (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/prop-m17.shtml)

50 False News Stories By Bush Propaganda Machine
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner. "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials. He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress, and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein."
Source (http://www.rense.com/general44/50.htm)

There are lots more such articles out there. These are just a few examples of "propaganda" where actual evidence is available. I think the pattern is pretty clear.

And I am not going to get into a discussion about the relative credibility of any given source listed here. These quotes are meant to be illustrative of the Bush Administration's media behavior, not an exhaustive catalog of sins.

[The_Dot]

Well and good, but none of that demonstrates that the articles I posted regarding the ethnic cleansing were "planted".

It is entirely possible al-Sadr did not direct the ethnic cleansing program. I certainly have no first hand knowledge.

But is it not all possible that there was a Beckett approval? "Will no one rid me of these troublesome Sunni?"

It seems odd, at least to me, that this could go on his his own back yard without his knowledge and perhaps tacit approval.

[dilettante]

It is entirely possible al-Sadr did not direct the ethnic cleansing program. I certainly have no first hand knowledge.

But is it not all possible that there was a Beckett approval? "Will no one rid me of these troublesome Sunni?"

It seems odd, at least to me, that this could go on his his own back yard without his knowledge and perhaps tacit approval.

Anything is possible I suppose, though what comments Sadr might nor might not have made in the presence of his own immediate followers isn't something we're like to ever be sure about. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to know whether Sadr ever condemned such violence or not, or if the culture is such that a lack of condemnation is interpreted as approval.

All things considered, I'd say that trying to judge Sadr and his motives definitively (for good or ill) is risky business and the whole thing is muddled with misinformation from various sources. Personally, I look warily on any sectarian religious political figure, especially those who are closely associated with armed militia groups.

[Americano]

Anything is possible I suppose, though what comments Sadr might nor might not have made in the presence of his own immediate followers isn't something we're like to ever be sure about. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to know whether Sadr ever condemned such violence or not, or if the culture is such that a lack of condemnation is interpreted as approval.

All things considered, I'd say that trying to judge Sadr and his motives definitively (for good or ill) is risky business and the whole thing is muddled with misinformation from various sources. Personally, I look warily on any sectarian religious political figure, especially those who are closely associated with armed militia groups.

Somewhat like recent Christian peer group bigotry at the US Air Force Academy?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/acad-a30.shtml

[The Drunk Guy]

Anything is possible I suppose, though what comments Sadr might nor might not have made in the presence of his own immediate followers isn't something we're like to ever be sure about. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to know whether Sadr ever condemned such violence or not, or if the culture is such that a lack of condemnation is interpreted as approval.

All things considered, I'd say that trying to judge Sadr and his motives definitively (for good or ill) is risky business and the whole thing is muddled with misinformation from various sources. Personally, I look warily on any sectarian religious political figure, especially those who are closely associated with armed militia groups.
I agree. With a White House that was caught spreading disinformation left and right and a CIA that thrives on destroying a persons credibility through outright lies and deception, who can really say what's going on. :shrug: