Saturday, June 12, 2004

"AND OH WHILE WE ARE AT IT...I'M NOT ALL THAT BRIGHT"

Al Sadr endorses the new government
Despite the violence, the government received an endorsement Friday from an unlikely source -- radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. In a sermon read to his followers by an aide, al-Sadr said he was ready for a dialogue with the new government if it works to end the U.S. military presence.

"I support the new interim government," al-Sadr said. "Starting now, I ask you that we open a new page for Iraq and for peace."
Look here, pinhead...me and my friends happen to be pretty doggone familiar with about 20,000 US Soldiers who would have already left Iraq except that YOU and your witless thugs did exactly what you had to do to keep them there (oh...and increase the number of US Soldiers in Iraq, by the way.)

Interesting that this conversion happens after your so-called army has its ass handed to them in various cities around southern Iraq.

I'm amazed that you have as many followers as you do. Me? I wouldn't follow you down the fire escape of a burning building.

1 comment:

Athena said...

Hey Tim, I posted a reply to Cori Dauber on her Rantingprofs blog about al-Sadr

He's just a political opportunist:

I went to the CPA website and read Ms. Perelli's comments on the (UN) electoral system plans for Iraq.

I noticed that there is no threshold listed, which I guess makes sense because they're not sure how many people will be voting in the first election.

So it will be important for Sadr to stifle as many opposing candidates/parties as possible while motivating his base to vote.

It's very likely that he will be elected. What is scary is that I think it's highly possible he can push for a whole slate of mini-Sadrs to be elected as well.

I don't think he could have a majority by far, but if in the case he gets a larger minority, whatever party that does win would have to forge a coalition with him in order to operate.

Can you imagine the chaos of having a coalition with Sadr? It would threaten every ounce of stability because deadlocked issues would stagnate the government. Rampant riots.

The Parliament would have to be dissolved, Sadr and his henchmen could cite "told you so" and engage in a power grab and we'd have one big Leviathan on our hands.

The US should make sure he is not in the position to be running for any office, by any means possible. Better to remove him now, then have to remove him later when we technically "don't have the authority" and have a bunch of raving mad Europeans bashing us for violating the rules of democracy.

Better to be somewhat contrary to the paradigm of democracy now than allow it to fail later because we let ideals get in the way of reason.

It's like potty training a kid. You don't just point to the bathroom and say go. Diapers are still necessary.

And man, the US is one big diaper--in many ways.