From my
blog :
A huge uprising is occurring across Iraq. Coalition troops are fighting pitched battles across Iraq with Sunni and Shiite backed militias. The rebellion appears to be coordinated, with previously warring religious leaders uniting against the U.S. occupation. initial reports say at least 18 U.S soldiers have been killed today, with some reports putting the figure as high as 120.
Make no doubt, this is a turning point in the occupation of Iraq. What is most interesting is how the Bush Administration is trying to spin what is occurring. Bush has labeled Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has spear headed the call for uprising, a terrorist:
---
"What you're talking about is one individual who is seeking to derail democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people. This is one individual who is seeking to undermine the transition process to sovereignty," McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One as U.S. President George W. Bush traveled to North Carolina."
---
al-Sadr has no connection to Al Qaeda. He had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or even Saddam Hussein:
---
"Sadr, whose father was killed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, represents a branch of Shiite Islam that emphasizes social action. He had faded from the scene in recent months while the spotlight focused on Sistani, who represents a traditionalist branch of Shi'ism."
---
al-Sadr is not a Ba'athist, a Al Qaeda supporter or an outsider. He is a home grown leader with significant support. Why does the Bush Administration label him a terrorist? Because he opposes the occupation of Iraq and is willingly to openly resist it. Luckily for the Bush Administration, it appears the media is all too willingly to do the work of casting al-Sadr in a different light:
---
State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said al-Sadr and his followers were not representative of a religious cause but of "political gangsterism."
The 30-year-old al-Sadr, however, does not have a large following among majority Shiites - many see him as a renegade, too young and too headstrong to lead wisely.
"They're not acting in the name of religion, they're acting in the name of arrogating for themselves political power and influence through violence, because they can't get it through peaceful persuasion," he said.
---
Notice how the middle paragraph, suggested as factual, is placed between two quotes from the State Department official. How can al-Sadr's forces being taking over key government, social and religious institutions without at least some significant support?