Prev | List | Random | Next
I don't know who wrote the headline over that AP story in the Washington Times, but it's always interesting to note how the media is instructing the masses to feel about any given topic. Read the actual story and you'll discover that Sistani has reassured his followerss that he will "intervene if he concludes the proposed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces infringes on national sovereignty". More accurately, you'll learn that
An official close to the ayatollah said Friday that the cleric has vowed to "directly intervene" if the final version of the agreement breaches Iraq's sovereignty. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.And that's all you'll discover on the topic of the only Shiite leader who matters in Iraq.
The remainder will be dedicated to the pasty, pudgy darling of the American media, the "Iran-based cleric" Mookie Sadr. Iraqi bootprints on this guys ass might outnumber American, but according to the AP, Sadr wants all Americans out of Iraq now:
Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr renewed threats to unleash his militia fighters to attack U.S. forces unless they leave Iraq immediately...This will put him at odds with U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, who has pledged to "end the war" and withdraw "combat" troops from Iraq over time but leave thousands of "trainers", "security forces" and "al Qaeda fighters" there.
"I repeat my call on the occupier to get out from the land of our beloved Iraq, without retaining bases or signing agreements," he said. "If they do stay, I urge the honorable resistance fighters ... to direct their weapons exclusively against the occupier."
Rewrite the headline to:
"Iran's Puppet says his Puppeteers want the US out of Iraq."
JB said they were gonna test him and that they would find he (Obama) has a back bone of steel.
We can pray he does. Personally I dont' see how without US Military training in his resume...*big grin*Posted by Martha at November 15, 2008 05:52 PM
I should add that if that's an accurate account of Sistani's comments, I don't see it as problematic. "Don't worry, I'm looking out for our interests" is hardly "ripping" anything.
The real problem is the intent of the story to get readers to think of "Sistani and Sadr" as some sort of dynamic duo. If Sadr enjoyed any support whatsoever from Sistani he wouldn't have to live in Iran.Posted by Greyhawk at November 15, 2008 07:03 PM
Haven't seen any detail on this point, but if there's any allowance for local Iraqi prosecution of U.S. soldiers in this agreement, support for continuing the U.S. presence and aid for Iraq will completely dry up. Under no circumstances should this happen. A concession like that would be shamefully weak. If the Iraqis won't budge on this, they can provide for their own defense and security without U.S. support.
Just leave it up to them. No prosecutorial rights on the part of Iraq's government and fledgling, anti-American judicial system should be allowed, or Iraqis can hold up the walls against the tides of chaos without U.S. assistance come January. I can't even believe this was ever a negotiable item in the first place.Posted by jordan at November 15, 2008 09:31 PM
One thing about the SOFA, other than reports on what "leaked" versions say we have no idea what it looks like, and until it's finished and signed it can look like a stained glass duck and it won't matter. (I guess that's two things about the SOFA.)
One report on a leaked version said:
Iraq has secured the right to prosecute US soldiers and civilians for crimes committed outside their bases and when off duty, in the latest draft of a security pact that will set the terms of their deployment beyond this year.I wrote about that here. Key point:
The draft stipulates that the United States will have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over its soldiers and civilians if they commit a crime inside their facilities or when on missions, according to a copy obtained by AFP.
U.S. troops are always either
1. On their base/"facilities"
2. On a missionPosted by Greyhawk at November 15, 2008 10:55 PM
My biggest pet peeve with war coverage by ALL media outlets is their rubber-stamp publishing of AP stories and headlines... especially the headlines. AP headlines are, more often than not, inflammatory and/or totally wrong.
Too bad msm doesn't just publish stories from www.longwarjournal.org insteadPosted by Lisa in DC at November 16, 2008 05:06 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(6) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)