Maliki: ‘Sadr is Indebted to Me’
Wednesday, April 9, 2008 at 10:15PM Moqtada al-Sadr cancelled a massive anti-US demonstration scheduled for today to mark the fifth anniversary of the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime, saying:
“I call upon the Iraqi people to postpone the march. I am afraid for them. I want to save Iraqi blood. I am afraid that an Iraqi may lay his hand on them.”
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki may have had a lot to do with that. The blockade on incoming and outgoing vehicles in Sadr City along with a city wide curfew made it nearly impossible for the march to take place. In this interview with CNN Correspondent Nic Robertson, Maliki describes how he tried to give Sadr and his followers a chance to participate in the unfolding democracy in Iraq:
CNN: This is a political confrontation with Muqtada al-Sadr now and he supported you to become prime minister?
AL-MALIKI: Actually, I was the one who supported him. It was not him who supported me. I supported him by enabling him to have more members in parliament, this is one of the facts the media gets wrong. He wasn’t very much welcomed into the United Iraqi Alliance as a partner in the elections. I made an effort to bring more of his people into the political process in an aim to get them away from the violence and to avoid problems in the elections. I insisted they be part of the elections and gave them five seats out of the share of my party, the Islamic Dawa party, to pull them away from the acts of violence and terror and into political life. So he is indebted to me, not the other way around.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1750804
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (7)
Sadr has influence in Iraq, but because he is opposed to the United States he gets pumped up as the "king maker".
So you're saying that Maliki "wanted" to give the majority ethnic/religion in Iraq "a chance?" A "chance" to participate in democracy? Gee, how nice of him. Now they're "chance" is up. Now that's what I call democracy!!!
Democracy at the point of a gun, is not democracy.
Militarily, Maliki, doesn't have a militia. Sadr does. This doesn't bode well for our troops.
Mudkitty, what Maliki did was give up 5 seats out of his party to include Sadr's sect into the political solution. It'd be like Bush giving up seats in the House or Senate to Obama's church in order to promote national unity. Sadr's group foresook political avenues, boycotted the elections and resorted to violence instead. Maliki does not get the credit he deserves. It was "nice of him" giving people who screwed themselves by not participating a second, third and fourth chance. Sadr's sect foreited participation in the process. They refused to have represenation.
Oh Maliki, poor Maliki, "gave up" seats? You don't get it. They weren't HIS to give up. We're supposed to be spreading democracy, not authoritarianism.
As the leader of his Party, then, whose seats were they to give up, mudkitty? His party was elected in a democratic election to have a certain amount of seats. In order to avoid Sadr's party from resorting to a violence-only method of affecting Iraq, Maliki gave up seats in his own party to include them into the political system.
They were indeed his seats to give up, but the point is he didn't have to. Nouri-al-Mailiki is not the President of Iraq (Talibani is), he is the Prime Minister. These are different roles.
You're last sentence doesn't make any sense so I can't address it.
Who's seats? Are you kidding? The people of Iraq. We ARE talking about democracy here, are we not? The seats don't belong to us or Maliki.
People are supposed to run for seats in a democratic government, not be appointed (or worse - given away, as you say) by Bush/Cheney lackys.
You're not saying you don't know the difference between authoritarianism and democracy, are you? Amy?
Follow the thought: Maliki is the head of Islamic Dawa party.
Nancy Pelosi makes decisions that aren't directly related to the votes of the people who put her in office. That's what leaders do. Your logic makes no sense. Maliki's party gave up seats as a good will gesture. On what basis does the party NOT have the authority to give up it's own seats, particularly since it is the majority?