Shiite Ayatollah Ignores Letter From Bush

[phk]

Shiite Ayatollah Ignores Letter From Bush

Shiite Ayatollah Ignores Letter From Bush

POSTED: 12:34 am EST March 31, 2006
UPDATED: 12:34 am EST March 31, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A letter from President Bush to Iraq's supreme Shiite spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was hand-delivered earlier this week but sits unread and untranslated in the top religious figure's office, a key al-Sistani aide told The Associated Press on Thursday.



AP Photo/Nabil al-Jurani
Relatives carry the coffin of a lawyer who was killed by drive-by shooters as she got out of a taxi in the southern city of Basra Thursday March 30, 2006. The United States has been pushing Iraq to speed the formation of a unity government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several Iraqi cities, and to allow for the start of a U.S. troop withdrawal this summer.

The aide _ who has never allowed use of his name in news reports, citing al-Sistani's refusal to make any public statements himself _ said the ayatollah had laid the letter aside and did not ask for a translation because of increasing "unhappiness" over what senior Shiite leaders see as American meddling in Iraqi attempts to form their first, permanent post-invasion government.

The aide said the person who delivered the Bush letter _ he would not identify the messenger by name or nationality _ said it carried Bush's thanks to al-Sistani for calling for calm among his followers in preventing the outbreak of civil war after a Shiite shrine was bombed late last month.

The messenger also was said to have explained that the letter reinforced the American position that Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari should not be given a second term. Al-Sistani has not publicly taken sides in the dispute, but rather has called for Shiite unity.

The United States was known to object to al-Jaafari's second term but has never said so outright and in public.

But on Saturday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad carried a similar letter from Bush to a meeting with Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the largest Shiite political organization, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

The al-Sistani aide said Shiite displeasure with U.S. involvement was so deep that dignitaries in the holy city of Najaf refused to meet Khalilzad on Wednesday during ceremonies commemorating the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The Afghan-born Khalilzad is a Sunni Muslim.

Elizabeth Colton, the U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, said Khalilzad had not sought any meetings and simply flew over Najaf and the nearby holy city of Karbala to witness the big processions of Shiite faithful marking the day.

"The ambassador did a fly over to see people on the streets of Karabala and Najaf. The ambassador did not ask to see anyone and did not go into either city," Colton told AP.

The United States is believed to oppose al-Jaafari because of his close ties and strong backing from radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has a thousands-strong heavily armed militia that was responsible for much of the violence that hit the country after the Feb. 22 bombing of an important Shiite shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad.

At a news conference Thursday, al-Jaafari said he had met with Khalilzad a day earlier and that the U.S. ambassador denied remarks attributed to him about the prime minister's candidacy for a new term.

"I don't care much about these matters. I look at the Iraqi people and the democratic mechanisms," al-Jaafari said.

Al-Sadr, who is staunchly anti-American, met with al-Sistani in Najaf on Thursday but emerged without making a statement.

The stalemate over forming a new government for Iraq, in its sixth week after the certification of the vote in parliamentary elections Dec. 15, is focused on al-Jaafari's candidacy, opposed by minority Sunni and Kurdish politicians as well as many moderate Shiites.

He was nominated for a second and permanent four-year term by one vote and with al-Sadr's backing. The Iraqi constitution dictates that the largest parliamentary bloc is entitled to select the prime minister. The Shiite United Iraqi Alliance holds 135 seats in the 275-member legislature.

At least 27 more people died in violence, meanwhile, including a 4-year-old girl who was killed when a car bomb exploded near the Shiite Ali Basha mosque in Baghdad's eastern Kryaat neighborhood. Police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud said at least 10 other bystanders were injured.

In Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, gunmen killed eight workers from the city power plant as they left work, police Lt. Mahanad Khalid said.

Gunmen in two cars arrived at the al-Amin bakery in Baghdad's dangerous southern neighborhood of Dora and killed three workers, police Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razzaq said.

The U.S. military reported two deaths. A soldier assigned to the 9th Naval Construction Regiment died Tuesday from wounds sustained in fighting in Anbar province. An airman assigned to the 447th Air Expeditionary Group was killed Thursday near Baghdad. A fellow airman was injured when a roadside bomb exploded as they worked to disarm it, the Central Command reported.

[WalterMitty]

why do we deal with these terrorists?

the president shouldnt be dealing with any grand wizards or mullahs or jihadists.

[MODU]

Considering the messenger told him what was in the letter, maybe he didn't feel the need to read it.  hahaha

[phk]

why do we deal with these terrorists?

the president shouldnt be dealing with any grand wizards or mullahs or jihadists.

The Shi'ites must have been listening to President Bush's many speeches about the wonders of capital-D Democracy.

Because they have insisted on keeping Jaafari, Dawa, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and, what's more, have defied the Americans' preference for a decentralized political structure, much to the chagrin of the Kurds.

[WalterMitty]

why do we deal with these terrorists?

the president shouldnt be dealing with any grand wizards or mullahs or jihadists.

The Shi'ites must have been listening to President Bush's many speeches about the wonders of capital-D Democracy.

Because they have insisted on keeping Jaafari, Dawa, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and, what's more, have defied the Americans' preference for a decentralized political structure, much to the chagrin of the Kurds.

iraq needs a leader like yall have in pakistan.

a strong, secular, pro-western dictator.

[phk]

why do we deal with these terrorists?

the president shouldnt be dealing with any grand wizards or mullahs or jihadists.

The Shi'ites must have been listening to President Bush's many speeches about the wonders of capital-D Democracy.

Because they have insisted on keeping Jaafari, Dawa, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and, what's more, have defied the Americans' preference for a decentralized political structure, much to the chagrin of the Kurds.

iraq needs a leader like yall have in pakistan.

a strong, secular, pro-western dictator.

It was a miscalculation on the part of the world to assume that Iraq would vote for liberal parties as opposed to the UIA.  The ideas of Khomeini actually ran deep with Iraqi Shiites.

[ag]

why do we deal with these terrorists?

the president shouldnt be dealing with any grand wizards or mullahs or jihadists.

The Shi'ites must have been listening to President Bush's many speeches about the wonders of capital-D Democracy.

Because they have insisted on keeping Jaafari, Dawa, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and, what's more, have defied the Americans' preference for a decentralized political structure, much to the chagrin of the Kurds.

iraq needs a leader like yall have in pakistan.

a strong, secular, pro-western dictator.

Then why didn't Saddam fit the bill? He was strong and, until fairly late, more secular than his Pakistani colleague. He wasn't pro-Western, of course, but, given his venality that, probably, had a price. At most, one just would have to depose him in a coup and replace him w/ one of his close aids, sons or cousins - they'd fit the bill surely, for a price.

Disclaimer: I never proposed this, you did.

[WalterMitty]

why do we deal with these terrorists?

the president shouldnt be dealing with any grand wizards or mullahs or jihadists.

The Shi'ites must have been listening to President Bush's many speeches about the wonders of capital-D Democracy.

Because they have insisted on keeping Jaafari, Dawa, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and, what's more, have defied the Americans' preference for a decentralized political structure, much to the chagrin of the Kurds.

iraq needs a leader like yall have in pakistan.

a strong, secular, pro-western dictator.

Then why didn't Saddam fit the bill? He was strong and, until fairly late, more secular than his Pakistani colleague. He wasn't pro-Western, of course, but, given his venality that, probably, had a price. At most, one just would have to depose him in a coup and replace him w/ one of his close aids, sons or cousins - they'd fit the bill surely, for a price.

Disclaimer: I never proposed this, you did.

saddam was a terrorist...a brutal terrorist.

a secular, pro-western dictator who isnt evil would fit the bill.

[kashifsakhan]

why do we deal with these terrorists?

the president shouldnt be dealing with any grand wizards or mullahs or jihadists.

The Shi'ites must have been listening to President Bush's many speeches about the wonders of capital-D Democracy.

Because they have insisted on keeping Jaafari, Dawa, Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and, what's more, have defied the Americans' preference for a decentralized political structure, much to the chagrin of the Kurds.

iraq needs a leader like yall have in pakistan.

a strong, secular, pro-western dictator.

Then why didn't Saddam fit the bill? He was strong and, until fairly late, more secular than his Pakistani colleague. He wasn't pro-Western, of course, but, given his venality that, probably, had a price. At most, one just would have to depose him in a coup and replace him w/ one of his close aids, sons or cousins - they'd fit the bill surely, for a price.

Disclaimer: I never proposed this, you did.

saddam was a terrorist...a brutal terrorist.

a secular, pro-western dictator who isnt evil would fit the bill.

The Pakistani dictator, his name's Musharaf, he's killed thousands of his own people in the name of the war on terror. Many of these people were innocent people.

Is that not terrorism? Is that not evil?