Sistani "Outs" Mookie
By haystack Posted in Breaking News | Iraq | Maliki | Mookie fumbles | Sistani | What winning looks like — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I almost fell over when I read THIS news gem from Bill Roggio and the Long War Journal:
With the Iraqi government applying pressure to the Sadrist movement and Muqtada al Sadr to disband the Mahdi Army, Iraq’s senior Shia cleric has weighed in on the issue. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the most revered Shia cleric in Iraq, backed the government’s position that the Mahdi Army should surrender its weapons and said he never consulted with Sadr on disbanding the Mahdi Army. Instead, the decision to disband the Mahdi Army is Sadr’s to make.
Sistani spoke through Jalal el Din al Saghier, a senior leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a rival political party to the Sadrist movement. Saghier was clear that Sistani did not sanction the Mahdi Army and called for it to disarm.
"Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country," Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. "Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government."
Mookie's people just told us 4 days ago that he:
is ready to disband his militia if Shi'ite religious leaders demand it
Well, Mookster? Sistani just demanded it. Either the whole Basra thing is a stunt to garner popularity in the run-up to the provincial elections, or this uprising is..essentially...over and done with. What say you, Mookster? Ready to let Iraq be a country yet?
More below the fold...
Interesting timing here, by the way, given Petraeus and Crocker were JUST in Congress talking about the status of the surge and the progress we are beginning to see on a growing number of fronts. Interesting, as well, that the President has JUST reinforced his commitment to see this thing through (as he has promised from the beginning) until Iraq can secure herself and sustain herself.
Interesting comment from the Mookie gang here as well (again, via Roggio):
On April 6, Iraq’s Political Council for National Security moved to bar the Sadrist movement from participating in upcoming provincial elections in October if it did not disband the Mahdi Army. The plan had the full backing of Sunni, Kurdish, and Shia political parties.
The move caused panic inside the Sadrist movement as their political isolation became apparent. "We, the Sadrists, are in a predicament," Hassan al Rubaie, a Sadrist member of parliament said the day the Political Council for National Security announced the plan. "Our political isolation was very clear and real during the meeting." he said, referring to the meeting of the Political Council for National Security, where the legislation was announced. "Even the blocs that had in the past supported us are now against us and we cannot stop them from taking action against us in parliament."
Seems the Democrats got this Iraq issue wrong...again...Maliki and the Iraq Government really DO seem to be getting the hang of this "Sovereign Nation" thing after all.
« Toward an Understanding of the Obamian Language — Comments (4) | Breaking News - Senator Barack Obama is patriotic! — Comments (22) »
Sistani "Outs" Mookie 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Right on.
I love sending my money to Iraq, it makes me feel so proud that I am so liberal? so conservative? that a redneck like myself is willing to send is money to the Shia the Sunni, whoever.
They are pumping oil, selling it, putting the money in the bank, and we are borrowing money fro China to clean there streets.
....to the musical tones coming from the flute played by the Iranian Snake Charmer, only.
You can call it tucking your tail all you want, but it is asymetric warfare. Get used to it.
I'm sure Sadr will find another excuse to avoid giving up completely while tucking tail to the next defensible position.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
You want to quote Winston Churchill, its a different conflict, an a very different war. More American taxes, more money for al Sadr. Don't you just hate when Bush has to sneak into Iraq, and the boys from Iran get the red carpet treatment.
I fought over there once, I forgot, "No compromise with the main purpose"...remind me, what was the main purpose again?
now whats the problem?...you can't remember why you were fighting in Iraq?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
No remind me, it s.ure wasn't to bring a conservative agenda to the USA
proud and opinionated lad, and you can't remember why you served a noble casue.
Do you regret your service?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
demand and tries to continue in his errant ways causing chaos and destruction as usual, can we THEN say that he is controlled by Iran? And can we then say that McCain was indeed correct all along when he claimed that Iran was training and funding and arming the "insurgency" in Iraq? I swear, we'd be so much further along the road to success if we didn't have to spend so much time having to deal with the manuvering on the left in this country to keep playing politics for personal power with EVERY SINGLE ISSUE of any import whatsoever.
That being said, "Mookie, it's time to answer the question-Deal or No Deal?"
say something just recently about Iran funding and arming Shia in Iraq? For which he was portrayed as senile, if I recall correctly.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
...the media thought he was implying Iran was arming Sunnis. He didn't say that directly.
My bad.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
General Petraeus was asked about that and gave an answer that indicated that it was not out of the question, if I recall correctly. What is so difficult about believing that Iran would use any and all comers, no matter their religious beliefs, to accomplish their chief objective of driving us out of Iraq? Of course, you have to take American politics out of that equation in order be objective about it.
Iran was our enemy before we went into Iraq, they are our enemy now, I agree with your statement that Iran is likely to fund any faction that would be destabilizing to the USA. Are we in junior high school. No kidding. We have been funding anti-Iranian terrorist groups in Iraq for years. No kidding.
The issue is what are you going to do about it? Look at the cluster we have in Iraq? Lets take american politics out of the equation Can we keep reality in the equation. What are you going to do about it? Expose the fact that Iranians are involved? That will take care of it.
Iran is 95 % or more Shia, it would be politically dangerous for them to be training Sunnis to disrupt our plans. i am not saying its not possible. But when you have a 1000 Shites applying for the job in Iran, its unlikely you would hire many sunnis. I am a conservative that can say McCain is out of his touch.
Am I missing something here. No one ever said McCain was senile for funding and training Shites. Thats what they are doing. And if you think they are going to stop, you are naive. Just get used to it, did you think the rules of warfare were not going to apply to Iraq.
Are you guys surprised that Iran is trying to destabilize our "efforts" in Iraq? is that a surprise, you need to retake counterinsurrgency warfare 101. Bush's own State Department predicted the outcome of overthrowing saddam hussein was the formation of a government antithetic to the USA. What is the surprise here?
the democrats getting it wrong. Well i am a republican and I hardly agree with the statement that the democrats got it wrong again. There were 23 in the senate that said don't go into Iraq, the state department said we would end up with a government that would be antithetic to the USA, get what wrong. I am so tired of "republicans" defending this cluster in Iraq. What do you really believe we are turning the corner. Petreus said there is no "light at the end of the tunnel", I am so tired of sending money over to these people, I am so pissed about all the cred we have given the Iranians by invading Iraq. Stop with the ignorant comments about Democrats, they are Americans too. They bled along side of me.
A founding member of the Ripon Society dropped out of the reublican party this week. This blind allegence is unpatriotic and unAmerican, and actually ignorant.
Any particular reason you don't mention that you are affiliated with hilariously named Veterans for Peace or that you are listed as the "chapter contact" for your chapter?
Want to give us some special insight into why the belief a lot of us hold that the war in Iraq was a righteous act is "blind allegiance" while your willingness to consign some 25 million people to a dystopic police state is anything other than incredibly selfish and shortsighted?
Did someone die and make you Pope? If not, I don't see where you, based on what we know about you, have the right to call anyone unpatriotic or unAmerican (usually those belonging to that set side with the people working to the advantage of our enemies, in this case that would seem to be more your case than mine).
Know what, we had three Democrats, and Ruritan Club members, get so disgusted with the Democrats that they switched parties. So much for your Ripon Society.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Because I am a veteran, and I am a conservative, I am considered trolling if I comment on this site? Other veterans on this site, what is hillarous about Veterans for Peace. That is exactly why we fight. It is easy to win the war, hard to win the peace.
The blind allegiance I refer to is evident when you examine the vote on Res 114, not one single Republican voted againt this resolution. Not one. Embarrising. I call that blind allegiance. You won't find me critical of the CIA and special ops in Afghanistan. They kicked ass. But don't ask me to buy into this Iraq mess, and don't drag the conservative movement down with it.
As to who is working for the enemy, i think it would be the guys who invaded Iraq thereby juicing up the iranians.
Its not my Ripon Society, its the republican party's.
1. you are trolling. You can call yourself a conservative or the King of Spain. It doesn't make it true.
2. I'm a veteran. An infantry officer. A bunch of hippie throwbacks and 1968-radical-wannabees is hardly a credible organization. I'm sure you meld well with CodePink but this isn't their site.
3. Actually we don't fight for peace. The armed forces fight when the National Command Authority decides it is in the best interests of the US to do so.
4. Yes, it is hard to win the peace. So if you are in favor of winning the peace, other than the Neville Chamberlain version, it is hard to see how you can belong to such an organization (back to point 2).
5. Really. Voting your beliefs is "blind allegiance." I look at the number of Democrats who voted to keep Saddam Hussein in power and I think the same thing. Now we know at least three of them were virtually Saddam's employees.
6. Not asking you to buy into anything.
7. We've been at war since 1979. They were behind the destruction of the Marine Barracks and US Embassy in Beirut. We fought a maritime war with them in mid 1980s. They've been linked to PanAm 103 and Khobar Towers. So what do you mean "juiced" them. I've read your comments on this and aside from the fact that you don't even know the demographic mix of Iraq I find it do be ill-informed and nothing short of fanciful.
8. The Republican party has a lot of groups. Just because you belong to one of them doesn't mean your loss is important.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
I mean to say you don't beat these assholes by occupation. You beat them with our and international intelligence, special ops, CIA, FBI. In the night, off the record, on the dark side if you will, like Cheney said. Not on CNN. Hey listen your are an Iraq war campaigner, you know, others with a differing are wrong,you know the mix.
None of the boys I know are code pinkers and none of them are hippie wanta bees. You go ahead and rant. Some of our sons are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I will let you rant, and you can make your code pink comment... but the point of my original comment is best illustrated in item number 5. Those damn democrats supporting Saddam...and photos of Rumsfeld go unmentioned...it all ain't black or white.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
The combination of rude and indifferent to site rules is a sure path to removal: I'm impressed that you lasted this long.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
In your rant above you made a comment about my not knowing the demographic mix of Iraq. I never made mention of the demographic mix of Iraq. Or Iraq and Iran the same thing to you? I noticed you used "they" alot.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are jostling for influence within Iraq's government in an attempt to 1) lean Iraq in their direction and 2) prevent the other from doing the same. Neither are going to stop interfering as Iraq is too important to the region.
Arab Times - Saudi, Iran settling scores in Iraq
International Institute For Strategic Studies, December 10, 2007Iraq’s National Security Advisor on Sunday called on Gulf states to form a regional security pact, which would include Iran, while he reassured the area’s US allies that Baghdad is “heading West” in its foreign policies. But Mouaffak al-Rubaie also criticised Saudi Arabia and Iran for what he called settling scores on Iraqi soil and called for regional reconciliation that put sectarian differences aside.
“It is extremely important to have a regional reconciliation rather than having this heightened sectarian tension in the region,” he told delegates at a security conference held in the Bahraini capital Manama. “That is why Iraq is looking seriously to call for a regional security pact like the good old (1954 anti-Soviet alliance) Baghdad Pact or a Nato-style pact, with a set agenda: counter terrorism, counter narcotics, counter religious extremism and counter sectarianism,” he said.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Good comment I agree, and we should be working the problem from that angle.
By the way because I am a member of Veterans for Peace this comment has been deemed either by the site or someone on the site as trolling.
just male you would not let another differing view be heard....how about that poser Jesse Macbeth who you all fronted like the next John Kerry...You are no better than anyone else when you seek to destroy the men and women of the United State Military because you don't agree with this war....well guess what you are not the President and you don't get to pick your wars....this is an all volunteer military...you sign up and your President tells you where to go....it's your job.
I didn't see your group when Clinton and your fearless leader Wesley Clark decided to go to Kosovo...oh no because that was a liberal so all was fine...I did not see your group when Clinton embarrassed the military by pulling out of Somalia...well of course not because as long as it is some liberal sending you to fight all is well....YOU SIR DON'T GET TO CHOOSE!!!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003739269_fakeranger08m...
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
...me about your good friend Jesse MacBeth.
...Sistani isn't the Shi'a leader Mookie is looking to. So long as the gravy train continues rolling from the beard of Khamenei, he'll continue to keep his thug squad around.
Whether or not Iraqi Shi'a think this is a good idea, however...
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk