Allies against a common enemy?

Al-Sadr bloc threatens to leave Iraq government
Supporters of radical cleric want al-Maliki to push for U.S. pullout timetable

Iraqi Cabinet ministers allied to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened Wednesday to quit the government to protest the prime minister’s lack of support for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

darth sadr pelosi syria reid surrendacrat

Three prominent politicians agree: There should be a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.

Sadr, Pelosi, and Reid are all hoping to use political clout to defeat the US military.

Now if only the Pelosi bloc and the Reid bloc would “quit the government” in protest…

UPDATE: “Atta girl Nance”

UPDATE 2: Murdoc’s been taken to task on this by a few folks, some of whom I respect very much.

Let me say that I am NOT comparing Pelosi and Reid to Sadr. I’m only comparing one of Sadr’s political requirements for a functioning government to one of Pelosi’s and Reid’s requirements for a functioning government spending bill. I believe that this comparison is valid and honest.

Yes, it’s over the top and demagoguery. It was intended to be. Why talk politics when you can SHOUT politics?

But while I’m not surprised that Sadr is demanding a deadline for the arbitrary withdrawal (read “capitulation” or “surrender”) of US military forces, I am surprised that the leaders of the Democratic House and Senate share this view. I just cannot accept that what the Democrats appear to be demanding is in the military’s interest or in America’s interest. Not only is it not good, it’s very, very bad. Horribly bad. Bad for today and bad for tomorrow.

I can (sort of) understand not “supporting” the campaign in Iraq, as in believing that either A) we’ve really screwed up, and/or B) we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. I cannot understand trying to legislate military defeat.

I know that this won’t placate those who think my grouping of Sadr, Pelosi, and Reid on this issue is out of line. I just wanted to explain myself a bit more.

Comments

  1. Why haven’t we killed Al-Sadr yet? I keep forgetting. After we kill him, the other two might take a hint and shut-up.

  2. Love the ‘intimidating’ look that guy always uses. I wonder how intimidating he would be if the people he is trying to intimidate were right in front of him. My money would be on them wiping that look of his face.

  3. I can (sort of) understand not ‘supporting’ the campaign in Iraq, as in believing that either A) we’ve really screwed up, and/or B) we shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. I cannot understand trying to legislate military defeat.’ They voted for the invasion. It’s too late for them to change their mind now, even if they admit they made a mistake in doing so. They helped make the bed, now they have to sleep in it too.

  4. Nicholas……………people are not consistent (though we should be LOL!). Life is full of examples of people initiating something; then not wanting to acknowledge their part in it. The cutandrun Senate & House crew will not be held to task for their war enabling role by most Americans, foreigners, or the lefty MSM (mainstreammedia). So, of course, they can ‘change their minds now’. It ain’t right, Bro………..but it is life.

  5. I just think if they changed their mind, they should be honest about it. They should say ‘Yes, we voted for the invasion, but we admit that we didn’t realize the consequences [note: then they would be justified in criticising others for the same mistake] and have changed our mind.’ Then if they still think it’s a good idea to pull out, they would have to admit that any bad consequences would be as much their fault as anyone else’s if not more. But, that’s a level of honesty we’re never going to see in politics, I’m afraid. I guess it would be political suicide. Pity that the truth is that way. Basically this is what bothers me so much about people who criticise Bush & friends – not that they don’t deserve criticism, but the rabid hypocrisy of it.