The first article I read was an Associated Press article from CNN. The article, which actually came out today, talks about how 3 U.S. soldiers were killed and 31 others were wounded in a rocket attack today in Baghdad. Fighting had broken out earlier today between U.S. soldiers and members of the Mehdi Army militia, who are followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, leaving at least 20 dead in "Sadr City". Apparently all this violence stemmed from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki demanding al-Sadr disband his Mehdi Army and threatening to bar al-Sadr's followers from the political process if this was not done. Sheikh Salah al-Obeidi, a spokesman of al-Sadr, said that attempting to bar Sadrists from participation in politics would be unconstitutional and that the decision to disband the Mehdi Army could not come from the government. The story goes on to talk about how the violence today brings the U.S. death toll to 4,022.

The second article I read came from the blog "Iraq the Model" which brings new points of view on the on-going conflict in Iraq and its future. This article, which is from last Sunday, also talks about Sadr's militia. Ayatollah Fadhil Al-Maliki issued a fatwa, which is a sort of religious edict, ordering all Iraqi policemen and soldiers to abandon their posts and join the militia. According to the author, Omar, this fatwa shows an old conflict between allegience to sect and to country. The author goes on to talk about how Shia militias are worse than al-Qaeda, and that for this reason al-Sadr should be dealt with in the same manner as terrorist chiefs.

Many say CNN is very liberal thinking, so I suppose it could be said that this article had a liberal bias, but as far as I could tell, the article had no such bias. The blog clearly had an anti-al-Sadr sentiment. The CNN article contrasted from the blog in that it focused more on the effect of the war on the American soldiers, whereas the blog focused more on the happenings in Iraq and how the Iraqi people themselves are being affected.