This story is archived
Sadr Aides Say 6 Allies In Cabinet Will Resign »
Posted by: Beau7890 2 years, 6 months agoIn a move that could further weaken Iraq's fledgling government, six cabinet members loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr will quit their jobs Monday at his behest, officials close to Sadr said Sunday night.
Read Full Story at washingtonpost.com »
Submitted By:
Beau7890
Truth rests on the mathematical reeds of the infinite and everything moves forward by order of the eagle riding pillion, while the genius of vegetable ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 90
-
m-simon
April 16, 2007, 7:58 a.m.Good.
No time like the present to replace them.
The surge is at least making them uncomfortable.
-
Sieben
April 16, 2007, 8:09 a.m.You should have taken Sadr out when you had the opportunity "ONLY IN AMERICA"
-
Glynn1
April 16, 2007, 8:45 a.m.Talk about screwing up a war! Yes they should have taken Sadr out. The had many opportunities and passed on them. He was and is responsible for many american casualties, and Bush Rumsfeld and thier appointed commanders sat there clueless. There is an obvious pattern of mismanagement in so many areas from the administration. YET people still blindly find excuses for them.
-
saneman
April 16, 2007, 9:08 a.m.Maybe Netscape should offer an online reading comprehension class. Sadr's allies are not taking over the Iraqi government, they are getting out of the Iraqi government.
-
OnlyTheTruth
April 16, 2007, 9:42 a.m.Musical governments. Where have I seen this before ... ?
Oh yes, SAIGON!
If the people of the country do not support the US-installed regime we cannot win without exterminating the population.
-
bonaroo
April 16, 2007, 9:51 a.m.This may be an opportunity for al-Maliki to appoint some of the Bathists under Sadam Hussein's administration to assert more balance in the cabinet, although al Sadr seems to prefer "technocrats" who would be more non sectarian. Despite the continued bombings, it appears that al Sadr is showing an inclination toward political pressure rather than fighting. How quickly whoever is appointed gets up and running will be the key, as this is a significant number of cabinet members to replace. If al Sadr wants al-Maliki to support a time line for U.S. withdrawel, I think he is going in the wrong direction.
-
DEMONSLAYAR
April 16, 2007, 10:34 a.m.HOW DARE SADR NOT AGREE TO GIVE UP THE OIL IN IRAQ TO EXXON,,,WHATS WRONG WITH THIS GUY. DOSNT HE UNDERSTAND THAT EXXON IS SUFFERING? DOSENT HE UNDERSTAND THAT ITS OUR OIL UNDER HIS COUNTRY. TALK ABOUT BEING IN DENIAL. HOW DARE THE IRAQI PEOPLE WANT SELF DETERMINATION. WHY IF THEY GET TO KEEP THIER OIL THEY MIGHT SPEND THE MONEY ON SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS. HEAVEN FORBID.THE ONLY RADICAL IS BUSH AND HIS BUDDIES....AND THE PEOPLE WHO JUST FOLLOW HIM LIKE GOOD LITTLE SHEEP. THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA I GREW UP IN. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS ARE ROLLING OVER IN THIER GRAVES
-
deathray
April 16, 2007, 10:43 a.m.Here's an alternate explanation to BoBo and M. Simon's take on the matter.
The Iraqi government is a parliamentary system, the executive is not a coequal branch of the government; the prime minister serves at the pleasure of a coalition of parties, and the people who back them.
Remember, the Sadrists are giving up their cabinet positions, not their votes in the Iraqi parliament; al-Maliki could easily be defeated in a no confidence vote if Sadr wanted to pull the plug on his, since the Sadrist members of the Iraqi parliament are necesary to propping up the Iraqi government.
If Sadr doesn't like the policies of the Iraqi government, he will likely call for a no confidence vote in the parliament, and the recall of the Sadrist ministers does two things. It dissociates these people from the current government, and warns al-Mliki that he owes his power base to Sadr.
-
Ratskii
April 16, 2007, 10:50 a.m.Thanks for bringing some actual information into the debate deathray. Also (re: those that think assassinating Al Sadr would solve anything) consider, he represents not just a religious faction, but the Shi'a in Iraq who are impoverished. If he died, he'd most likely be replaced by someone even worse. His death would leave a vacuum that would certainly be filled. He is at least someone whom the U.S. has some experience. He has indicated that he is willing to negotiate with the U.S. once we commit to a date of withdrawal, and he has sgiwb he would can with the Sunni insurgents.
-
-
NelsonR
April 16, 2007, 11:23 a.m.Listening to Bush saying no strings and the old tired line of "America must win the terrorist or they will follow us". It's getting so old, same line, same excuse, its a BUSH war not Americas. An analogy,
Would anyone on this blog go blocks away from where you live to settle a nasty family dispute between families who are neighbors. Well if you use the Bush idiom, its your moral right and duty to interfere. If you don't the families will eventually come and attack you in your house.
Now conservatives will say Iraq was a belligerent with WMDs and shooting at our planes and were just plain bad. Using the neighbor analogy, one of the families screams at you and is belliegent in demeanor as you drive by his house. Hard question for conservatives, do you now go back and get armaments and attack those families blocks away?
Paul Wolfowitz, Republican hawk for the Iraq war gave his girl friend a job for $197,000.00.(Nepotism() This is conservatism.
-
Fisherman451
April 16, 2007, 12:18 p.m.Well Mr. Bush,
It appears as though those who think they have a right to own their own country are causing more difficulties once again.
I sure wish you'd straighten them out! You have a vision; a vision of peace in the Middle East. But, so far, our attempts through sacrifice of the willing and enrichment of the privileged have failed in showing "them" who's boss.
Perhaps a face-to-face "stare-down", a strategy as of yet untried, will work!
Call the Airlines. See if you can get a flight!
Sincerely,
The old Fisherman
-
kermit88
April 16, 2007, 12:23 p.m.Ok, on the one hand some say: bomb the sunni triangle. not that i disagree, but then that leaves the shiites and shia groups to fight for power. either way, the bastards will turn around and shove their koran up our hindside and say thank you very much. we are done with you now, get out.
worked pretty well for the Osama & the Taliban when they needed weapons and help vs. the Russians. memory and thankfulness are a short item over there. i will never understand how bush could have expected a rosy outcome with so little understanding of the thousand years of strife in the region coupled with the ineptitude of the wolves that led the sheep into battle.
frustrating. embarrassing actually. where's george patton when you need him??
-
coolhand
April 16, 2007, 1:04 p.m.How much deeper does this well get before this government see's there is no end to this mess. These six resigning will be the straw that breaks the Iraqi's backs. The new government is fracturing further and further every day, bombings are increasing, and cheny and doughboy believe pumping more money into a lost war and killing more of our children is the answer. When will America finally stand up to this idiot government and say no more, bring our troops home.
-
tchef
April 16, 2007, 1:31 p.m.What an absolute mess! We must make sure that we pay attention and not let ourselves be so easily lead into such a war in the future.
-
ballbuster2
April 16, 2007, 2:39 p.m.good moring all,
i agree with most post here, but as a war veteran myself, the U.S. is dealing with a part of our world which have never known peace, ever!! a hugh percentage of these people can not and will never be productive, with the exception of their continued inbreeding and murdering anyone who doesn't think like them. therefore, i think this would be a good starting point, iraq, to try our newest WMD and clean out these insane, religious, wack job, ideologists once and forever.
-
NelsonR
April 16, 2007, 3:04 p.m.My question, why the thought of the necessity for a WMD. Why not just stop meddling in other nations business's unless that nation attacked us.
I hope you can all agree that America should come first and rebuild our nation, modernize our armed forces for deterent purposes only, health care and so on.
Why would you want to nuke any nation if it hasn't attacked us, quite insane if you ask me.
-
ningyo
April 16, 2007, 4:05 p.m.good ridance to bad rubbish--deport them to iran and keep sadr from returning--replace them with people what have the interests of iraqi's in mind--not some warlord islamic zealot--
-
DEMONSLAYAR
April 16, 2007, 6:22 p.m.It has become very clear that republicans just hate america for tis freedom
-
DEMONSLAYAR
April 16, 2007, 6:25 p.m.WHY DO REPUBLICANS ALWAYS SUPORT AMERICA'S ENEMIES ????????????
-
oldracerguy
April 16, 2007, 8:47 p.m.we are just stiring the pot SO WHEN WE DO LEAVE ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE. Sad so SAD.
-
NelsonR
April 16, 2007, 9:01 p.m.Libs you are fibbing again!! You have to have a badge for policeman of the world with the insigina of the world with a dove hovering about. Now America did not get that badge yet so we are impotent to act. Do you agree???
-
hoppy
April 16, 2007, 9:51 p.m.Sadr has been on the Generals of the armed forces in iraq hit list for years now.The trouble is that they want to kill him,they just don't have any informers to tell where he is.Kill him and a lot of the current violence will stop.
-
elel
April 17, 2007, 7:35 a.m.Putting the Oil issue, name callin and possible outcomes aside. Seems like Sadr is saying that they too want a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.
The first 88 comments are shown. Show all 90 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
