Put Bounty on Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr Head

George Bush and the Military nitwits blew it when they had Moktada al-Sadr surrounded, trapped in a mosque and we let him go. We should have simply taken him and the mosque out and rid ourselves of the evil, as he has been a thrown in our side ever since. Now the fat lady boy is stirring turds again, threatened to attack our troops anew if we remain in Iraq...armed resistance he calls it. Why doesn't Bush do something right before he leaves office, and send a CIA tactical force into Iraq to take care of Cleric Sadr? Put a bounty on his head, issue a FATWA for the fat man...he needs to be DEAD sooner rather than later.

Cleric Calls for Armed Resistance to U. S. Presence in Iraq

BAGHDAD — As the Iraqi cabinet prepares to vote on a security agreement for American troops, the anti-American Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr called Friday for armed resistance against any agreement that allowed a continued United States presence in Iraq.

“I repeat my demand to the occupier to leave our land without keeping bases or signing agreements,” Mr. Sadr said in a statement read to thousands of supporters at Friday Prayer. “If they keep bases, then I would support honorable resistance.”

Tension is rising here over the agreement as the vote nears, even if few oppose it to the extremes of Mr. Sadr and his followers. An aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, also indicated that he would intervene in some way if the draft did not enjoy the full support of the Iraqi people. But Ayatollah Sistani, who far outranks Mr. Sadr, has consistently advocated nonviolence.

Let's Have Referendum Vote Here in America On Iraq!

In the latest news on the SOFA (Strength of Forces Agreement) that would keep American Troops in Iraq through 2011 is running into some snags as Iraq puts some unacceptable demands on the table. In the latest oddity, Iraq now wants to let the people of Iraq vote on the agreement via a Referendum Ballot Vote...I'm fine with that, but let us here in America TAKE OUR OWN REFERENDUM VOTE...let us here in America vote on Iraq, vote on the issue of bringing our troops home, or leaving them there for another three years!

Iraq seeks changes to wording not backbone of pact

BAGHDAD, Oct. 22, 2008 (Reuters) — Baghdad will demand changes to the wording of a pact allowing U.S. troops to stay in Iraq but will not seek to renegotiate the "backbone" of the agreement, Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said on Wednesday.

Troops deal seen unlikely before U.S. vote

BAGHDAD, Oct. 20, 2008 (Reuters) — A pact to allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for three more years is unlikely to win approval in Iraq's parliament before the U.S. presidential election on November 4, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said.

U.S. pact hits snag as Iraq Shi'ites seek changes

BAGHDAD, Oct. 19, 2008 (Reuters) — A landmark pact to allow U.S. troops to stay in Iraq until 2011 hit its first major political snag on Sunday, with Iraq's ruling Shi'ite parties calling for changes just days after a "final draft" was unveiled.

George W. Bush...Start Pulling American Troops Out Now

For those of you following the Security Agreement fight between Iraq and our government that would see our troops staying in Iraq through at least 2011, it is obvious that the Iraq's ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS...so, FUCK THEM, fuck their country. The time has come to bring our troops home and let Iraq stand or fall on its own...we, as I have pointed out before, could always put troops in Northern Iraq, and support the Turks push for an independent Kurdistan. First, we have Iraq demanding more control over OUR TROOPS. Secondly, they want to tie our troops hands by denying them the right to attack terrorists and other nations when they are sending troops into Iraq to attack us. This second point is huge in light of Turkey's recent aerial attacks into Iraq...we have an obligation to protect the Kurds. Lastly, they want our troops subject to Iraq law whenever they are not on duty...sorry, but that last point alone should be enough to allow our troops the right to refuse duty in Iraq. We do not deny our citizens due process, and WE MUST NOT DENY OUR TROOPS DUE PROCESS. Iraq wants to play games...fine, lets pull the plug on this social experiment gone bad, and bring our troops home.

Iraq Outlines Changes It Wants in Pact With U.S.

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

The Associated Press
Wednesday, October 29, 2008; 11:07 AM

BAGHDAD -- Iraq wants a security agreement with the U.S. to include a clear ban on U.S. troops using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, the government spokesman said Wednesday, three days after a dramatic U.S. raid on Syria.

Also Wednesday, the country's most influential Shiite cleric expressed concerned that Iraqi sovereignty be protected in the pact. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani wields vast influence among the Shiite majority and his explicit opposition could scuttle the deal.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the ban was among four proposed amendments to the draft agreement approved by the Cabinet this week and forwarded to the U.S.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said U.S. negotiators in Iraq are closely reviewing the new amendments from the Iraqis to see if they are acceptable to the administration.

Al-Dabbagh said the Iraqis want the right to declare the agreement null and void if the U.S. unilaterally attacks one of Iraq's neighbors.

U.S. troops launched a daring daylight attack Sunday a few miles into Syrian territory against what U.S. officials said was a key figure in al-Qaida's operation that moves foreign fighters and weapons into Iraq.

A senior U.S. official said the al-Qaida figure, an Iraqi known as Abu Ghadiyah, was killed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the raid was classified. Syria says eight civilians died and has demanded an apology.

For nearly two weeks, Iraqi politicians have been considering the draft security agreement, which would keep U.S. troops in Iraq through 2011 unless both sides agree that they could stay longer.

The pact would also give the Iraqis a greater role in supervising U.S. military operations and allow Iraqi courts to try U.S. soldiers and contractors accused of major crimes off duty and off base.

But critics say the current version, reached after months of tough negotiations, does not go far enough in protecting Iraqi sovereignty, and key Shiite politicians argue it stands little chance of approval in Iraq's fractious parliament in its current form.