The outbreak this week of fierce militia fighting in several Iraqi cities, including Basra and Baghdad, is a direct threat to the security gains of the U.S. military surge and a reminder of how shaky Iraq’s political situation remains.
After months of keeping a low profile, radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a longtime thorn in the side of the U.S. occupation, is once again rattling sabers and threatening nationwide civil unrest and uprisings.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in Basra Monday and vowed that the Iraqi government would “restore security, stability, and enforce law in this city.†Today he ordered the Shiite militias in Basra to lay down their weapons within 72 hours or face more severe consequences.
As Time magazine noted, this could be his moment of truth. If Iraqi troops can crush the Mahdi Army and the other Shiite militias holding Basra, it could restore some confidence in him and in Iraq’s ability to govern itself. But if the Iraqi troops fail, it could further undermine the government and Maliki.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- dtrabert on Too many exemptions
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
86 Comments
How are the going to crush the Mahdi when the Al-Maliki government is in bed with them?
If he ends the truce, will the surge still be working?
Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a cease fire which had expired. During that time he expected to see some progress in restoring stability in the country. As usual the Iraqi government and the Bush regime provided no results. So how can we expect Muqtada al-Sadr to sit around even longer while nothing gets done?
While he waits for progress the Sunnis are busy killing his backers.
Good points, guys.
I have to wonder: if Al-Sadr finally completely breaks with the faux government, will this finally mean the collapse of the Al-Maliki regime–even with U.S. protectors?
Ahhh, a post for duh Dems.
Some bad news so duh Dems can jump on it like dogs licking up their own vomit.
Those Dems love bad news where people die and are miserable.
It’s much easier to create night mare scenarios than it is to create solutions.
Duh Dems always take the easy way out and feed their bad karma on the gullible and the wimpy.
Regular
Posted March 26, 2008 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
Soooo, you have nothing to add to the thread then.
Well So, there are so many “if’s” in the topic header, one would begin to sound like a chronic stutterer if they proceeded past the third “if” in trying to make a point.
Conjecture on a complicated subject with compartmentalized “if’s” is like throwing gasoline on a brush fire. It will eventually burn up – sure, but it could ‘blow back’ and burn yourself as well.
Armchair Generals make for good ‘barber shop’ talk, but at the end of the day, we can all go home switch on the TV, have a dinner and pet the mammal of our choice.
It’s a futile exercise that has no end, because supposition based on a hypothetical is about as useful as teats on a boar.
I messed up in my last post … the Shiite govt. is busy killing his backers! I should of been a republican, then I could have defended the erroneous statement a couple of times before admitting to messing up!
Bush now has what he’s actually wanted all along, which is a rationale for keeping troops in Iraq. Can’t withdraw them in the midst of an “uptick” in violence, now can he?
The “surge” has been a lie from the start. The whole point was to invent some phony process that would enable Bush to keep troops in Iraq until his term expires: withdrawing them, and setting up the next President (most likely a Democrat) to be blamed for the subsequent malestrom.
Whatever else the breakdown of the cease-fire means, it certainly ought to mean that McCain is held responsible for assessing the situation in Iraq in total fantasy terms.
“The surge is working”: it’s the Wingnut equivalent of “the check is in the mail” and “don’t worry–I’ll pull out.”
Some bad news so duh Dems can jump on it like dogs licking up their own vomit
Actually, we figured that was good news for you guys. Isn’t that what y’all want?
Soooo, you have nothing to add to the thread then.
LOL, I guess I don’t either then, Solly.
8^b~~~~
NOW I get to CF’s post and find my 1st/thread is redundant
Question: has John McCain EVER voted to oppose ANY military action by the United States?
“These questions have not and will not go away. At its very best, Iraq, it is now more than apparent, is a decades-long, bankrupting, utopian liberal attempt to build a democratic culture where no such culture has ever existed; and at worst, it is a corrupting, demoralizing cancer on America’s reputation and power in the world. At home, the long term fiscal situation is at a crisis-level, with Republicans adding $32 trillion to future unfunded liabilities by the federal government in seven years, and with a commitment not to raise any more revenue for the indefinite future. Neither Obama nor Clinton has any plan to tackle this debt or to restrain entitlement spending in any serious way. Millions of private individuals have taken out idiotic mortgage loans on houses they cannot afford and should never have been reckless enough to buy. The dollar is headed into the toilet as much of the US economy is leveraged on the bona fides of a still-authoritarian regime that is currently brutally suppressing human rights in Tibet and across its territory.
For all his quirks, and for all his unseemly past associations, Ron Paul had some serious view about the gravity of the situation and a philosophy that was once called conservative and is now smeared as nuts. History will be far kinder to him that today’s chattering classes.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/why-ron-paul-st.html
Deja vu all over again. I remember the regimes in Saigon falling because they oculd not unite their factions. I wonder how the al Maliki government will hold all this together.
Wasn’t our surge suppsoed to give them the opportunity to create reconciliation among their factions? How is THAT coming along?
Mostly likely, the Joint Chiefs of Staff will recommend today that the reduction in troop levels be “suspended.”
Most likely, Bush will accept that recommendation.
Any reasonable person would have to conclude that the “Surge” did not work as advertised.
There has been little or no Iraqi political reconciliation and the levels of violence are increasing.
Our military can do the job – there is no question of that – but the Iraqis can’t seem to do theirs.
And where is that $30 million worth of oil in Iraq going each day?
Once again, the surge worked. THe Iraqui government didn;t. Time to bring the troops home.
And where is that $30 million worth of oil in Iraq going each day?
Haliburton (sp?) DUH !!!! ;-)
Ben,
You remember what?
The NVA crushed the South Vietnamese army in a rout.
Only you would “remember” Saigon falling because of anything other than a full scale invasion.
“The NVA crushed the South Vietnamese army in a rout.”
Because the South Vietnamese government was corrupt and divided and had little interest in their own defense.
Sound familiar?
WS Clark,
The South Vietnamese decision to withdrawl and make a stand later was a huge strategic blunder of historical proportions. It turned their military into a rout which was easily defeated.
Nevermind the many other factors such as the NVA keeping several divisions in the South after the peace treaty.
You have to completely ignore the military history of what took place in Vietnam to think that only because the South was “corrupt” or “divided” did they fall.
TIme to let Iraq take care of Iraq.
We can’t afford it anymore.
Ben posted March 26, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“Wasn’t our surge suppsoed to give them the opportunity to create reconciliation among their factions? How is THAT coming along?”
Our surge did give them more time to identify the sides and/or groups everyone there is associated with. That will probably help make the bloodbath, if it occurs, even worse.
Nathan – Saigon had a series of failed regimes during the war. You may not remember them but I do. This was all in the years BEFORE the final collapse of the million-man ARVN.
“You have to completely ignore the military history of what took place in Vietnam to think that only because the South was “corrupt” or “divided” did they fall.”
Oh, bullshit, the South Vietnamese government was corrupt beyond words. They had very little interest in fending off the North Vietnamese.
There is no “ignoring” of what happened in Viet Nam – it was a disaster exacerbated by the idiot Johnson and compounded by the corrupt Nixon.
We lost 58,000 for nothing.
WSC – and escalated even before then by Kennedy.
We lost 58,000 for nothing.
And the dollars are still collecting interest!
“WSC – and escalated even before then by Kennedy.”
The troops that Kennedy sent were supposed to be non-combat, as were the ones sent originally by Eisenhower. JFK did increase the “advisers” from a few hundred to about 1,600, if memory serves.
Johnson sent the first true combat forces.
WS Clark,
We lost 58,000 for “nothing” because we refused to back our threats against North Vietnam when they violated the peace treaty.
We sat back and watched the NVA run over the South and did nothing.
Millions of people were killed after that and you and Ben sit here talking about how the South didn’t care if the North invaded.
What a crock of shit.
Vietnam seems to be fine today Nathan.
“We lost 58,000 for “nothing” because we refused to back our threats against North Vietnam when they violated the peace treaty.”
We lost 58,000 that we should have never lost in the first place on a useless, non- strategic, endless war against a country that was of no threat to us.
Sound familiar?
Now THAT is a crock of shit.
War is a game played by people with too much time and too little sense trying to see how much BS they can sling and money they can rake in before ignorant populace actually gets a clue.
“Millions of people were killed after that and you and Ben sit here talking about how the South didn’t care if the North invaded.”
We all can figure out who the NVR were – that’s easy.
Who were the Viet Cong?
Answer – mostly South Vietnamese insurgents.
WS Clark,
You sit here idolizing 58,000 dead.
What about the MILLIONS killed after the NVA took the South?
WS Clark,
The Viet Cong did not take over the South, The tanks of the NVA rolling south did.
WS Clark,
I suppose you actually believe that there were no NVA troops in the South since that is what the North claimed the entire war?
“We fought a military war; our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition; our opponent aimed for psychological exhaustion.. The North Vietnamese used their main forces the way a bullfighter uses his cape- to keep us lunging into areas of marginal political importance.”
Henry Kissinger.
Sound familiar?
“I suppose you actually believe that there were no NVA troops in the South since that is what the North claimed the entire war?”
No who is it that can’t read, Price?
Show me where I said anything remotely close to that.
And………………….
“You sit here idolizing 58,000 dead.”
Yes, they were my friends, compatriots, schoolmates, relatives.
Piss off, Price.
Maybe their bodies should have been shielded from public view. Maybe we should never had erected that wall in D C.
Piss off, Price.
WS Clark,
Answer the question, what about the millions of boat people, millions killed in the South, the millions killed by Pol Pot?
Guess they didn’t mean anything either…
“Guess they didn’t mean anything either…”
America and it’s people first. We cannot be the world’s policeman – not then and not now.
I agree, Clark. It’s too late in the game to force a Pax Americana. We’ve given too much away to too many enemies, sold our souls to too many indifferent countries, and alienated too many friends.
And the truth comes out after all, from WS Clark:
Screw our ally, screw our promises, screw the treaty, just let millions die.
“And the truth comes out after all, from WS Clark:”
I have NEVER said anything differently, so this is hardly a revelation.
America first. American people first.
Perhaps you don’t get it – we can’t AFFORD to be the world’s policeman.
Nitwit.
When you wtached The Killing Fields, WS Clark, were you cheering against Dith Pran? Hoping he would be caught and killed like the others? Hoping he would never see his family again?
Screw our ally, screw our promises, screw the treaty, just let millions die.
Well, gee, isn’t that the american way? kinda like we did for the Shah before we did that to Saddam?
How many of the other examples do you need? Or are they Ok when they’re in your interests or buttress your arguments, but are insignificant when others use them?
WS Clark,
It would be a waste of my time to try to explain to you how preventing the spread of communism during the Cold War WAS protecting our interests and WAS protecting Americans.
Typical liberal. You wouldn’t lift a finger to help someone else until you realized too late at the last minute that it was actually going to help you.
Typical liberal. You wouldn’t lift a finger to help someone else until you realized too late at the last minute that it was actually going to help you.
I find it somewhat ironic that y’all bitch about how the liberals are too willing to give people a handout. Do you meet yourself coming, or going?
“It would be a waste of my time to try to explain to you how preventing the spread of communism during the Cold War WAS protecting our interests and WAS protecting Americans.”
Yes, I do recall the Viet Nam/US War of 1976 when the Vietnamese, after taking over the South, invaded the US mainland in a failed attempt to spread communism.
Damn.
Yes, I do recall the Viet Nam/US War of 1976 when the Vietnamese, after taking over the South, invaded the US mainland in a failed attempt to spread communism.
Clark, you fail to realize when Nate says ‘our interests’, he doesn’t mean America. He means American corporations in poor undeveloped countries that would lose all their revenues from sweat shops and slave labor forcing them to return to America and giving Americans jobs. The only commie country that would even have a hope of waging a home war against us would be Russia at the time (and NONE now), and even they were smart enough to learn the lessons of Rome.
Pol Pot would never have been able to take over Cambodia had the US not overthrown Sihanouk and replaced him with the dictator Lon Nol.
As for the ‘musical chairs’ governments in Saigon my step-brother was there through several of them. He went over pro-war; he came back very strongly anti-war. He and other VietNem vets taught me a lot about their war. Several friends who came back in body bags did likewise.
“Yes, I do recall the Viet Nam/US War of 1976 when the Vietnamese, after taking over the South, invaded the US mainland in a failed attempt to spread communism.”
WSC – that was the attempted invasion of Alabama that GWB bravely fought off.
While the Surge was at work, so too apparently were the inSurgents.
“Nathan” shares the deep intellectual analysis we always expect from jarheads with –
“….preventing the spread of communism during the Cold War WAS protecting our interests and WAS protecting Americans.”
Ah, yes. The “Domino Theory.”
I always astounds me that the only people who really believe in the power of communism are the anti-communists.
Hell, even the Chinese Communists aren’t all that communist anymore. And the only-est reason Cuba remains communist is that the United States embargo has isolated them from capitalism.
Any student of political science knows that communism only works until ordinary people are fed. So American CONservatives’ approach against them is “starve them to death!” Talk about a no-win philosophy.
Vietnam always was a nationalist war, long before it became communist. The Indo-Chinese rebelled against Chinese oppression, against Japanese invasion, against French colonialism, and against the United States Cold War paranoia of the 50s and 60s. All they wanted was self-determination. All the average Vietnamese wanted was for people to stop shooting at them.
In 1954 there were elections set for the unification of Vietnam. Turned out the Vietnamese George Washington — Ho Chi Mihn — was gonna be the sure winner and the Eisenhower Administration stopped those free and democratic elections.
Ho was a long-time nationalist long before he was forced to adopt communism. Ho aggressively asked the United States for help to liberate his nation from French colonialism after World War II.
France was our ally so the US supported French colonialism. So Ho went looking for other backers and found it with Stalin.
When red-baiting from Republic Party advocates (glomming on to any issue that might restore their power after the Roosevelt years) made anyboody the Soviet Union liked our automatic enemy, the die was cast.
Just as the US created Saddam Hussein and just as the US created Osama bin Laden, the US created a communist Ho Chi Mihn.
What you don’t know about Vietnam, “Nathan” could fill volumes of books. And does. Read some of them rather than basing your political philosophy merely on Marine indoctrination and an old movie.
Looks like the Malaki Shiite want to consolidate gains before we leave, so they’re seeing if they can git er done.
This is how political differences are decided in democratic Iraq, over the barrel of a gun.
MH – you forgot an interesting point: the VietNamese under Ho Chi Minh had been US allies against Japan during WW2. When Ho read their declaration of independence in Hanoi the crowd CHEERED an over-flying US aircraft. We had been allies.
Nathan,
You weren’t even born then; you’ve been listening to old soldier’s war stories. The war in Viet Nam was lost from the getgo, not because the enemy was so strong, but because the country had no leadership that deserved support. Ask your daddy about the Diem bros and Madam “Buddhist Barbeque” Nhu, and the various military dictatorships that followed. We ended up going to war on the side of thieves, whores and thugs because we thought communism was worse, and we were proven wrong.
By the way, Pol Pot was Cambodian, not Vietnamese, and it was the communist Vietnamese that went in and put an end to the killing fields. get your history straight!
Madame Nhu – made Imelda Marcos look like a saint!
Iraq will fail for the same reason that Vietnam failed: “smart people” are larding their bank accounts with our tax dollars, preparing to bail out of the country when the revolution occurs.
Eventually, they will be overthrown by “true believers” who haven’t sold out to the US, the occupier of their country. In Vietnam, it was Maoists. In Iraq, it’ll be some radical version of Islam.
Everything will go to hell in a handbasket (meaning somewhat worse than it is now) for a decade, and eventually a harsh new order will emerge from the chaos, independent of US influence.
It’s the same thing that happened in Algeria against the French, in India-Pakistan against the British, in Ireland against the English, in Mexico against the Spanish, in Cuba against the US backed Batiste, in Iran against the western-backed Shah.
In fact, if the English Crown hadn’t been so damn greedy under George III and paid off the colonists instead of taxing them for everything, we Americans might still be singing “God Save the Queen.”
And, hell, we’d have national health care!
Here is a recent article in print format focusing on Iran:
http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=U2LEXJAU16R&preview=article&linkid=481a18e6-256d-423c-93cc-c505e16143cf&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d
Best regards,
MediaMentions
You gotta love this phrase:
“If Iraqi troops can crush the Mahdi Army . . . ”
What Iraqi troops?
CapnAmerica
Posted March 26, 2008 at 4:37 pm | Permalink
Iraq will fail for the same reason that Vietnam failed: “smart people” are larding their bank accounts with our tax dollars, preparing to bail out of the country when the revolution occurs.
Eventually, they will be overthrown by “true believers” who haven’t sold out to the US, the occupier of their country. In Vietnam, it was Maoists. In Iraq, it’ll be some radical version of Islam.
Everything will go to hell in a handbasket (meaning somewhat worse than it is now) for a decade, and eventually a harsh new order will emerge from the chaos, independent of US influence.
————————————————–
Thats where your wrong CapnAmerica, we son’t leave Iraq until things are stabalized, and McCain was right when he said that if need be, he’d stay in Iraq until the job was finished if that took a hundred years. Bush said during the election before his first term he wouldn’t do any nation building, and that is exactly what Iraq is, really we need to mop up the Iraq mess, and who knows that might take another 10-15 years, which is worth it, rather than bailing out and letting another dictator ship or terrorist regime to take over. What I do know is that most soldiers want to be soldiers, maybe for different reasons, and quite a few of them don’t agree with the war, their just doing their job. Plus with this war no matter how drawn out it is, will still be in the soldiers favor, the casualties in Vietnam we’re 10 -15 times higher than this war.
“Plus with this war no matter how drawn out it is, will still be in the soldiers favor, the casualties in Vietnam we’re 10 -15 times higher than this war.”
WELL, that makes it all better…………
So, Buck, we should just suck up and take the $350 billion per year tab and not sorry about all those bodies being secreted back into the country after they are killed?
Why is it that we can spend $350 billion a year on Iraq but we “can’t AFFORD” to spend an additional $7 billion per year on SCHIP?
Tell me that………………….
WSClark, I don’t think the war was waged on stable legal grounds to begin with, I think their very reasoning to go to war was wrong, to boot they lied to us too. But bailing out on their mistake will only make the region more hostile than it was when Sadam was in power.
Sadam had his own country stabalized on immoral grounds and the people went along with it, well because most everyone wants to live, thats why I find the whole war wrong to begin with. I think theres better ways of regime change, but they chose the most direct method which has also proved to be more violent. This was a massive undertaking of overly ambitious proportions on this administrations behalf, its like a big project, except with this project if you don’t get the job done and finish it, the people over their will finish it, and it won’t be pretty.
I find it incredible Nathan can still support the communism/dictator cold war battle.
Which one is really worse? Is there any real difference? Both attempt to destroy the spirit if the people they control. Both have long histories of killing anyone not supporting them. So how can one say either is better than the other.
It’s the same damn thing that went on in Iraq when we supported Saddam against Iran, and the so-called communist threat. Iran might buy Russian weapons, but support communism? They’re Muslims; communism doesn’t equate with their religion.
There are way too many smoking guns in the Bush administrations road to war in Iraq. Anyone who has taken the time to read how screwed up the intelligence was, and how the same administration cherry-picked it to get what it wanted, knows we had no right being there.
“But bailing out on their mistake will only make the region more hostile than it was when Sadam was in power.”
How long? How many American lives? How much American borrowed treasure?
If we leave tomorrow, Iraq will descend into chaos.
If we leave ten years from now, Iraq will descend into chaos.
The only difference is how many American lives will be lost and how much American treasure will be wasted?
In VietNam we dismissed the Buddhist monks as ‘commie sympathisers’ and troublemakers toward our Catholic-dominated regimes. Today we cheer the Buddhist monks who resist the dictatorships in Myanmar and Tibet.
The same arguements ‘it will descend into chaos’ was used to perpetuate the VietNam war. All it succeeded in doing was to kill millions and make the subsequent chaos even worse and more bitter. We are following that same road in IraqNam today.
The total cost of viet nam in 2005 dollars was 600 bil., nam is going to look cheap compared to bush’s blunder.
Irony–
The US blowing up chemical weapons caches in Iraq with “Made in USA” printed on the side, illegally supplied by the Reagan-Bush administrations.
This is what sickened and killed more than half the ground troops who served in Desert Storm.
Chickens meet roost.
Fortunately, Donald Rumsfeld who was CEO of a major pharmacutical corporation did well after he went over in violation of international law.
That famous 1983 of grinning Don shaking Saddam’s hand?
Yup.
What do you think he was peddling? Jelly beans?
1983 photo of grinning Don . . .
CapnAmerica,
Been reading your secret squirrel websites again havn’t you CapnAmerica?
If you wear a big enough tin foil hat the black helicopters will not see you…
“Been reading your secret squirrel websites again havn’t you CapnAmerica?”
So I guess that you think that the photo of Saddam and Rumsfeld was PHOTOSHOPPED, right, Price?
Yeah, that’s the way it was…………..
Right, Nathan. I’m sure that wearing the blinders makes it easier to sleep at night but . . .
Are you aware that because of Executive Order 13139, you and any other military personal may be given any drug including investigational drugs without your consent?
You mean they didn’t tell you that?
I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
Nathan,
Considering your posts upthread, I’d say that you spent your entire life in a copper-shielded EMI/RF proof room.
Remember how BushCo went on and on about how terrible it was that “Saddam the Dictator gasses his own people in Halabja?” before this IraQuagmire?
Here’s what Wiki says:
The provision of chemical precursors from United States companies to Iraq was enabled by a Ronald Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department’s list State Sponsors of Terrorism. Leaked portions of Iraq’s “Full, Final and Complete” disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs shows that thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture mustard gas, was among the chemical precursors provided to Iraq from US companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips.
And after it happened in 1988, the Reagan-Bush were outraged by “Saddam the Dictator who gassed his own people!” right?
Uh, wrong. They tried to blame the whole thing on Iran.
Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the HRW between 1992-1994, conducted a two-year study, including a field investigation in northern Iraq, capturing Iraqi government documents in the process. According to his analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, it is clear that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and that the United States, fully aware of this, accused Iran, Iraq’s enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack.[14] This research concluded there were numerous other gas attacks, unquestionably perpetrated against the Kurds by the Iraqi armed forces.
The outraged Congress passed a “Prevention of Genocide Act” with bi-partisan support which the Reagan Administration fought tooth and nail and eventually killed. Leaders among the fight to let Saddam KEEP HIS CHEMICAL WEAPONS were then Foreign Security Advisor Colin Powell and later Defense Sec’ry Dick Cheney.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2005/11/15/senator_kennedy_opposed_saddam/
So I hope you don’t get sick like so many of the GI’s that fought in Iraq, Nathan.
But if you do, the people you have to blame are your heroes: Reagan, Bush, Bush, and all the rest of them . . .
No wonder Bush was so worried about “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
He was worried Saddam was going to produce a crate of mustard gas with “Made in the USA” stamped on the side of it . . .
Wow . . . it sure got quiet all of sudden from Nathan’s side.
He’s probably thinking about all the injections that he got before he went over “for his own good” in light of Executive Order 13139.
Hi Nathan…
‘Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984′
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Awww, let’s stop picking on him, cosmos.
He can’t type with his hands over his ears gasping “I can’t hear you I can’t hear you I can’t hear you” . . . between the pathetic sobs . . .
Hundreds’ of thousands take to the streets to call for the removal of the Malaki/bush/cheney Iraq president. Guess bush will laud the democracy in action, their hitting the streets.
That’s Ronnie’s legacy, arming Iraq. Now we’re paying for it.
One Trackback
[...] Lorraine@ discount magazines wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe outbreak this week of fierce militia fighting in several Iraqi cities, including Basra and Baghdad, is a direct threat to the security gains of the U.S. military surge and a reminder of how shaky Iraq’s … [...]