From the Chicago Sun-Times

Representatives of firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and lawmakers from Iraq’s main Shiite political bloc signed a four-day cease-fire Monday in an effort to end seven weeks of fighting in Baghdad’s Sadr City slum.

It was unclear if the agreement would be respected by all the extremists who have been fighting in Sadr City. Al-Sadr is thought to have influence over some of the militants, but not all of them. Many of those fighting Iraqi and U.S. forces are thought to have splintered away from al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

The U.S. military has repeatedly said its clashes are with rogue elements of al-Sadr’s militia and that the majority of the 60,000-strong Mahdi Army did not openly participate in the fighting, adhering to a general cease-fire ordered last August by al-Sadr.

The fighting was concentrated mostly in the southern part of the Shiite slum that is home to about 2.5 million people, and Iraqi officials have reported that hundreds of people have died in the fighting.

Clashes began in late March after militants responded to a crackdown by Iraqi troops in Sadr City by firing hundreds of mortars and rockets at the heavily fortified Green Zone housing the government and Western embassies.

Al-Attiyah said the cease-fire went into effect on Sunday and Iraqi forces will be allowed to enter the area as early as Wednesday and ‘‘take over the security there.’’

The statement said ‘‘the government will decide on the number of Iraqi forces to be deployed in Sadr City to achieve security, in order to refrain from asking help from foreign forces,’’ a reference to the U.S. military.

‘‘Any attack against residential areas, government offices and the Green Zone are prohibited from Sadr City or from another area,’’ the agreement said.

The cease-fire stipulates that Iraqi forces have the right to ‘‘impose the law and to pursue illegal situations.’’

‘‘No one and no side has the right to interfere in the work of these forces,’’ it said, adding that the government retained the right to pursue ‘‘those who carried out armed attacks against the government.’’

‘‘We have agreed on cease-fire and to end displaying arms in public,’’ al-Obeidi said. ‘‘But we did not agree on disbanding the Mahdi Army to hand over its weapons.

Popularity: 1% [?]

No wonder we’re having such trouble finding bin-Laden (assuming anyone is really looking for the guy anymore) we can’t even really figure out if we’ve killed or captured a guy, when his is or isn’t in our presence.  We’re not really sure to tell the truth.  Confused?  I know I am.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, has not been captured, a senior U.S. military official told CNN on Friday.

Iraqi authorities said Thursday that al-Masri had been captured in Mosul.

U.S. military officials were surprised about the report of Abu Ayyub al-Masri’s capture — first reported by Iraqi media and picked up by The Associated Press. And intelligence officials said they were skeptical, even though Iraqi officials said al-Masri was already in U.S. military custody.

Al-Masri (”the Egyptian”), also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, took the reins of the Iraqi al Qaeda offshoot in June 2006 after a U.S. missile strike killed his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Since then, Iraqi officials have reported his death three times, his capture twice and a mortal wounding once.

So either the guy is a zombie, a magician, a figment of our imaginations, or- all these intellegence officials are completely lacking in intellegence.  Which do you think it is?

Iraqi officials have also misreported the deaths or capture of other high-ranking insurgents, Baathists or others, including al-Zarqawi before he was killed and Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, the highest ranking former member of Saddam Hussein’s regime still at large.

Al-Duri, who was the King of Clubs (No. 6) on the U.S. military’s deck of most wanted regime officials, was most recently reported captured two weeks ago by multiple Iraqi officials. He had previously been reported killed in 2005 and captured the year before.

Wow… kinda helps you sleep at night knowing the Keystone Cops are working in conjuntion with Mr. Magoo to keep Iraq, and the rest of the world, safe and secure- doesn’t it?

Popularity: 2% [?]

Yes, so it would seem.  The Bush admin released photographic evidence of a nuclear reactor built in Syria, reportedly with the aid of N. Korea, who for most of the Bush Presidency was considered under the rule of Kim Jong-Il to be a terrorist state, dangerous to the world… while also being largely ignored and un-f**ked with, because it was known that unlike say… Iraq?… N. Korea actually had the weapons capabilities to seriously attack the U.S. at any given moment.  We’re talking nukes here people.

That stance had been softening as of last year as the Bush admin worked to secure some sort of deal with N. Korea that would see the N. Korean gov’t disclosing all nuclear activities and to an extent de-arming, and the U.S. in exchange lightening up on sanctions and possibly beginning to work with the country.

The crucial question now is how the North Koreans will react. Some officials said they hoped it would embarrass the North Koreans into admitting to nuclear proliferation activities and others said that it could prompt them to walk away from the negotiating table - and collapse the deal Bush was hoping to reach by the end of his presidency. In return for North Korea’s declaring all its nuclear activities, the United States would lift sanctions and begin to negotiate the prize for North Korea’s turning over its fuel and weapons.

It also raises the possibility of new tensions with Syria, as the White House accused the Syrian government on Thursday of a “cover-up” consistent with a government that “supports terrorism, takes action that destabilizes Lebanon” and allows militants to enter Iraq.

Only selected pictures were released by the intelligence agencies on Thursday, including a video that combined still photos and drawings and had a voice-over that gave the presentation the feel of a Cold War news reel about the Korean War. In fact, it was intended in part, officials said, to try to draw that war - in which the United States and North Korea never signed a peace treaty - to a close.

Inside the administration, the battle over whether to try to strike a deal with North Korea or keep it under sanctions in hopes of triggering its collapse continues into the last months of the Bush presidency.

At the CIA, Admiral Michael Hayden, the agency’s director, told employees Thursday that they should “take heart because our team effort on the Al Kibar reactor is a case study in rigorous analytic tradecraft, skillful human and technical collection, and close collaboration.”

But even this victory, some experts note, raises questions about the agency’s focus. The reactor was built within 100 miles, or 160 kilometers, of the Iraqi border yet never identified, even though the administration was searching for any form of such weapons programs over the border.

Moreover, even some senior officials of the Bush administration acknowledge that they are likely to leave Bush’s successor with a North Korea that has roughly 10 nuclear weapons or fuel for weapons, up from the one or two weapons that Bush inherited.

“I’d say the score is Kim Jong Il eight, and Bush zero,” said Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of “Nuclear Terrorism,” who was in Washington Thursday to testify about Iran’s nuclear program. “And if you can build a reactor in Syria without being detected for eight years, how hard can it be to sell a little plutonium to Osama bin Laden?”

So what we’re really looking at here is another case of the world becoming and EVEN MORE dangerous place during the Bush Presidency, than it had been prior.  And with so much focus and resources sunk into the war in Iraq, just like the worsening conditions along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan (which, if you’ll remember is where the terrorists who actually attacked us really hang out), N. Korea and Syria (as mentioned above- only 100 miles outside of the Iraqi border) are increasing their nuclear capabilities.  How’s that for Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Anyone else get that sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach?

Popularity: 4% [?]

Get this.

Apparently, CNN hurt China’s feelings and China’s taking it to the courts. Just like any red blooded American, they’re gonna sue:

Cafferty said the United States imported Chinese-made “junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food” and added: “They’re basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years”.

Amusingly, they’ve worked out a sum of $1.3 billion. That works out to $1 per Chinese citizen. Don’t spend it all at one place.

Popularity: 2% [?]

With the success of the troop surge in Iraq (so says Gen. Petraeus), President Bush has decided to give the troops a break. He’s ordered a deployment cut back from 15 months to 12 months.

Whoop-de-friggin’-do.

A few things to consider:

The 12 month combat tours won’t take affect until August, 2008. Too bad, so sad for all the soldiers in the desert right now who still have to complete their 15 months tours.

It’s also interesting to note that the “new” deployment tours take affect only a few months before a new president moves into the White House. That translates into troop availability not being affected until August 2009. This could potentially be a move to disable options available to the new president who may not have as much flexibility with troop increases or decreases.

And another point made by Phillip Carter at the Washington Post who argues that the 12 month long Army deployments are still too long:

This is an extremely long deployment, particularly for troops engaged in dangerous work outside the wire and away from the comforts of large U.S. bases. The combat-stress literature suggests there is a finite limit to the quantity of combat an individual can experience before he/she breaks down and becomes “combat ineffective.” For sustained major combat operations, like Guadalcanal or the Hurtgen Forest, that figure is 60 days or so. We don’t know exactly what the figure is for sustained counterinsurgency operations of the sort practiced in Baghdad or Baqubah. But there is a limit. And the most recent mental health survey statistics from the Pentagon indicate that we are rapidly pushing our soldiers and Marines toward it — and beyond — in order to sustain the force in Iraq.

It’s apparent the damage is done for the troops who have completed both 12 and 15 month tours. Not to mention multiple deployments… many have completed three or more year long tours already. And at what cost? At the cost of “staying the coarse”?

Popularity: 3% [?]