Well, Kevin, Sadr is isolated and will have to disband his militia. You owe Rich Lowry an apology. Clearly he was right. In fact, he's ALWAYS right.

It's a pattern, a form of electioneering which unfortunately causes the death of a thousand or so every election cycle.

It's gonna do this for three or for election cycles to come. I suggest they keep on voting, however they do it, we want them to to it efficiently.

Like I said, never ask a question you don't know the answer to.

What was the real chance that Sistani would say-"Disband"?

Same chance as winning the lottery, I would guess.

What does Juan Cole know about Iraq? I mean, "Juan" - that's Mexican, right? He just hates America. We already won the war and you libruls are just having a fit about it. George Bush is the most popular president in this century and there's nothing you can do about it.

al, was that you?

lol@George Bush is the most popular president in this century and there's nothing you can do about it.

Posted by: Conservatroll on April 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

There's further acid commentary at the link.

Well, OK, but if he starts going, "Oh wow, man, the colors!" I'm going to discount his opinion somewhat.

"But al-Sadr spokesman Salah al-Obeidi said al-Sadr has consulted with Iraq's Shiite clerical leadership "and they refused that." He did not provide details of the talks."

Apart from this statement from a al-Sadr "spokesman" is there any independent confirmation of what transpired during this meeting with the clerical leadership? Or is his word of what happened good enough for you Kevin and the rest of the reality based political community here at the Washington Monthly?

My sense about Petraeus' testimony on Capitol Hill is that it will decrease the Dems' reliance on Iraq as a campaign issue because both Hillary's and Obama's "stated" plan of immedidate pullout of troops regardless of the consequences is going to be less and less popular among the American people and McCain will pound them over the head with it any time they have to talk about it.

There is further acid solution waiting for any Shiite who opposes the New Saddam power of the US and its puppets.

There were indications during the recent flare-up in Basra that Sistani was edging toward openly siding with Sadr in the conflict with Maliki. At the least, the clerics seem to have lost confidence in the government.

Chicounsel: if Sadr misreports what Sistani says, Sistani's spokespeople would quickly correct the record.

And you're delusional if you think that McCain will be successful pounding anyone over the head with his pro-war rhetoric. McCain's numbers are high right now because of his overwhelmingly positive press, but those numbers will collapse as the public focuses more closely on the race. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran isn't going to sell, neither is the 100-year occupation.

Kevin, America needs more "acid" commentators like Juan Cole and less lickspittle lackeys in Congress who want to grovel and lick the boots of people in military uniforms.

I listened to about an hour of Petraeus' testimony before Congress on NPR this morning and I thought I was going to puke my guts out. These self-congratulatory Republican worms, between fellating Petraeus publicly, asked questions like "how close is Moqtada al-Sadr to Iran" and "how many caches of arms have you found that came from Iran"? Petraeus, naturally, was more than happy to portray Iran as doing everything but poisoning the American military's food, without offering a shred of evidence to back it up. The Democrats weren't much better.

What they should have been asking was "how close is Nouri al-Maliki to Iran and who is arming his Dawa militia"? Folks, we are well and truly screwed if these scumbags in Congress can't be more insightful and challenge paid killers like Petraeus to justify the carnage they are wreaking on a sovereign country than they do now....

Chicounsel:

My sense about Petraeus' testimony on Capitol Hill is that it will decrease the Dems' reliance on Iraq as a campaign issue because both Hillary's and Obama's "stated" plan of immedidate pullout of troops regardless of the consequences is going to be less and less popular among the American people and McCain will pound them over the head with it any time they have to talk about it.

So you think hearing testimony that American troops are trapped in Iraq for nobody knows how long, because the Iraqi goverment and army are still too "fragile," will make people want to vote for "a hundred more years" McCain? The candidate who refuses to set any limit on the blood or treasure we're supposed to sacrifice to achieve peace, democracy and stability in Iraq? The candidate who apparently is prepared to borrow another trillion to fund tilting at that windmill and to lower the standards for joining the military yet again in order to have enough soldiers to keep up the numbers? You really believe that?

Quaker, have you ever really looked at your hand, I mean really looked at it, man?

"My sense about Petraeus' testimony on Capitol Hill is that it will decrease the Dems' reliance on Iraq as a campaign issue because both Hillary's and Obama's 'stated' plan of immedidate pullout of troops regardless of the consequences is going to be less and less popular among the American people and McCain will pound them over the head with it any time they have to talk about it."

So a position that's popular with 60+% of the voters is somehow a "losing" campaign issue? How'd that work out for you in 2006? Man, I definitely need some of what you're smoking.