Al-Sadr Flees Iraq for Iran to Avoid Troop Surge
Bottom Line Up Front: Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled the largest slums of Baghdad for safety in Iran two weeks ago fearing Bush’s “troop surge”, proving Democrats and anti-war critics wrong about the administration’s tactical maneuver.
Two weeks ago, President Bush officially outlined plans for a troop surge in Baghdad, Iraq, in an effort to control violence in the capital city. The troop surge worked before it started and before reinforcements arrived on the scene, death squad leaders loyal to the radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran in anticipation of the increase.
Then al-Sadr succumbed to a “cooperative tone” that surprised U.S. officials. With increased U.S. and Iraqi forces securing Baghdad, al-Sadr said he would fully cooperate with the government as long as it is an “Iraqi plan by the government”.
This left some skeptics questioning a relationship between the troop surge and the exodus of the bad guys; after all, why give President Bush and military commanders credit for a successful military operation, even if the anticipation of it was enough to scare the terrorists straight? “Coincidence!”, skeptics insisted.
It is now confirmed that troublemaker Muqtada al-Sadar fled Iraq for the safety of Iran in the past 2 weeks, just after the troop surge was announced, following the example of the death squad leaders loyal to him.
Will Democrats continue to stick by their assertion that the troop surge was the wrong tactical move?
Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front
February 13th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
[...] Original post by Amy Proctor and software by Elliott Back [...]
February 13th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
I even expect JoeBobBillyDon to state he learned at an MIT global warming conference that this event is purely coincidental or it occurred because of an increase in co2 in the air in Baghdad. Science at work here.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Anti-American cleric flees Iraq for Iran
…
Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled Iraq for Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and…
February 14th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Guess he’s not in any rush to get to paradise - too bad he didn’t run into those fellows who like to post videos of people with their heads being relocated away from their shoulders. Big mouth - no guts.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:52 am
It was a strategic move.
I guess these “rebels” are not easger to become martyrs.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Or, maybe not.
Can you say “An Excuse to Bomb Iran?” I knew you could…
February 14th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
You’ve got to be kidding. Why would anyone want to bomb a country that admits it already has nukes?
If anything, I think we should sit back, do what Dems wanted us to do in Iraq (i.e, NOTHING) and let Iran bomb us along with Israel. That’ll show ‘em!
I don’t believe a military attack on Iran could be supported by U.S. policy unless we were attacked first. But really, if I were Pres. Bush, I’d take a lesson from the ingrates who voted for the war and turned it into a PR fiasco and do absolutely NOTHING about Iran. Let the next president handle it, or let America take a hit.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Amy, that’s exactly what Bush did. Nothing. Recall the warnings Sec. Albright, Nat’l Security Advisor Richard Clarke, et.al. gave the incoming Sec. Rice? What about the headline of the PDB: “bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US”… oh yeah, he was on vacation.
Again, you are a traitor: “…let America take a hit.” You would really suggest that, for political reasons, America should “take a hit?”
I laugh at your stuidity and näiveté, but I worry that people like you have a platform to scream your insane ramblings, and that there are people out there who believe the things that you espouse.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
How Ironic, zachary, it is spelt Naïveté fool. Try not to use such big words with such a small brain of yours.
“oh yeah, he was on vacation.”
Apparently you and him are in contact.