Two articles in the same newspaper reporting some very bad news for rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. First, Riyadh al-Nouri, al-Sadr's brother-in-law and a key lieutenant was captured by American troops in Najaf during clashes that cost many militiamen their lives.
Second, a framing attempt is backfiring. US troops have earlier been blamed for small damage to the Imam Ali mosque, but it's been clear who is benefiting from bullet holes in this sacred place. Now a leading Shiite cleric is openly accusing al-Sadr's militia for firing on the mosque in an attempt "to agitate world opinion against the coalition":
Ayatollah Mohammed Baqr al-Mehri, the Kuwaiti representative of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, said the Sadr militia fired a mortar shell at the dome of the shrine but missed it and hit a wall instead.
Ayatollah Mehri called the attack "a cowardly act" and said Sadr loyalists should not use the shrine for storing their weapons and as a sanctuary.
"We want to tell the world, and America, that Muqtada al-Sadr is not one of us, and this is a conspiracy against Shiites so that we don’t get any [political] rights," Ayatollah Mehri said, referring to Shiite demands for greater political representation in the new Iraq.
Any attack on the holy site would be seen as deeply provocative by Shiite Muslims.
Ayatollah Mehri represents Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the pre-eminent Shiite religious leader in Iraq.
The New York Times admits being conned by Ahmad Chalabi (and others) in its pre-war coverage of the Iraq war, especially when it came to defectors' claims about Saddam's WMD programmes.
The FBI is warning that al-Qaeda or associated terrorists are already in the US and are planning a major attack during the summer.
Officials said the attacks might take place before the November presidential election in an attempt to affect the outcome, similar to the way the Madrid train bombings influenced Spanish elections.
That could go both ways, couldn't it? If a major attack happens shortly before the election, it can make Americans flock to the Commander in Chief, or it can make them abandon him thinking it proves Bush is on the wrong track in the war on terror. I'd not predict the psychology of that one, especially since many Americans would suspect the terrorists desired a specific outcome, and therefor go the other way!
Neither is it obvious that either result will benefit the terrorists. Sure, Bush is their great Satan and they may think defeating him in the election will help them (like some Japanese thought Roosevelt's death in 1945 meant anything). But John Kerry, if he should win, will be expected to prove he is not soft on terrorism, especially if he won after another horrible terrorist attack. Kerry will have the added benefit of a less hostile press (initially at least) and he will also be far better received abroad (for whatever that is worth).
Kerry is really untested; he may prove all the hawkish skeptics wrong and be a brilliant leader in the war on terror. He may, of course, also end up a waffling, disastrous Carter. Somehow I think the answer will lay somewhere in the middle. Much like Bush.
A positive article about Iraq in the Washington Post! I had to pinch myself twice, but it is real. It is also a very touching article about seven Iraqis whose right hands were amputated at Abu Ghraib from "crimes" against Saddam Hussein and his regime, and who now receive "bionic" hands in Texas thanks to genereous contributors.
As resentment of Americans in Iraq seems to swell each day, these seven Iraqis are unabashed in their gratitude, not just for their new hands, but for the U.S. role in ending what they call the "reign of horror" that claimed the lives of as many as 2.5 million of their countrymen.
"Tell the American people what all Iraqis want to tell to them," Salah Zinad said. "Tell them: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you."
The other six Iraqis were equally effusive, their appreciation undimmed by the current prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, outside Baghdad, and other occupation worries back home.
Their views are maybe not representative, but certainly heartfelt.
"The average Iraqi is positive to our presence, and glad for the job we do"
Don't miss Bjørn Stærk's discussion of a net interview with some of the Norwegian soldiers in Iraq. Our troops say they do a good and necessary job, they rebut quite a bit of the nonsense from back home, and they have a hell of a lot more backbone than our politicians and pundits.
Yeah, I meant to provide a translation of that interview a long time ago. Unfortunately, I find translation work very boring. Good thing Bjørn is less lazy than me.
