Wow! Barack really warmed my heart on that one! I hope he keeps reciting those ideas until it becomes the defining message. That would be real change.

Go Barack!

Something must be wrong with my eyes. I can't believe that I just read that here. ;)

would it have defused the criticism of her Bosina lies?

Yes. It would have been funny too. If anything, the last few weeks have been too dire/dark on the democratic side. It's nice to see the dems talking about Robber Barons again, rather than anything else.

Regarding Col. Lang parsing Maliki, sort of the thing I found striking is that despite Sadr being a "militant" force, he's sure recently taken a moderate line with respect to what he's asked of his followers (first a cease-fire, later instructing them to use civil disobedience, and only permitting violence in "self-defense.") Considering Sadr has played a role in enabling a decline in violence, I'm uneasy about the Iraqi government pushing his group as hard as they are (asking them to give up their arms, which leaves them at the mercy of the Iraq government and count on it to protect them). I like that Lang has drawn attention to this issue.

I'm sort of surprised to see Norm offer praise of Obama. This isn't an April Fools' joke, is it? ;-p I guess at the end of the day, while we can draw distinctions between Obama and Clinton, they are both clearly better than McCain 2.0, and not taking those differences for granted is something that has to be remembered.

Corporate accountability, that is something we need quite badly -- even semi-rich need that, because if people can't trust that businesses (and the stock market) aren't going to scam them out of their money, people aren't going to invest in our economy. It's sad this topic actually has to qualify as a political issue...

Ack! The ClearEyes Kid again!

I'm sort of surprised to see Norm offer praise of Obama.

I'm not.

Go Barack!

It's kind of a cheer, no? Barack's showing some kahunas, for the right cause. Yeah, man, do it again!!

grrr..I did use blockquote correctly...I think.

Go Barack ?! April's Fools!

Go Barack!

Is this the cruelest of April Fools day pranks? Or the first step on the road toward an inevitable destination? Whichever it is, I nearly speckled my monitor with Diet Dr. Pepper.

And that Dick Cavett link...Oh my WORD! That guy has it -as the kids say-goin' on. Sharp as a tack and providing a most excellent reading experience.

I cast my vote as this being 1gm's feel-good post of the week.

Regarding Col. Lang parsing Maliki, sort of the thing I found striking is that despite Sadr being a "militant" force, he's sure recently taken a moderate line with respect to what he's asked of his followers (first a cease-fire, later instructing them to use civil disobedience, and only permitting violence in "self-defense.") Considering Sadr has played a role in enabling a decline in violence, I'm uneasy about the Iraqi government pushing his group as hard as they are (asking them to give up their arms, which leaves them at the mercy of the Iraq government and count on it to protect them).

It's odd that all a militant sectarian leader has to do is momentarily stop killing to earn your praise. But your conclusion concerns me more.

It is entirely necessary for the Iraqi government to disarm the militias. The entire purpose of government is to provide a central system, in which all parties participate, into which you place your trust and which in turn protects and provides for you. There is no 'keep your weapons'. There is no 'maintain your army of terrorists'.

Bear in mind that Sadr's party makes up like 30% of the government. So it seems to me that he could have quite a bit of influence on what will happen in the country.

The problem with Sadr is that he's an Islamic militant. But unless they're all as stupid and crazy as they seem, they are slowly realizing they're on a dead-end road. Each clash hurts them a lot more than it hurts us. They need to toe the line, and until they do I support every bomb dropped on them and every bullet shot at them. They're the enemy.

It is entirely necessary for the Iraqi government to disarm the militias. The entire purpose of government is to provide a central system, in which all parties participate, into which you place your trust and which in turn protects and provides for you. *There is no 'keep your weapons'.* There is no 'maintain your army of terrorists'.

I had no idea Calli was against personal gun ownership. When guns are outlawed... Calligraph is president.

"It's odd that all a militant sectarian leader has to do is momentarily stop killing to earn your praise."

It's not praise. It's merely a point that "punishing" them at this point is problematic, even if it justified.

"It is entirely necessary for the Iraqi government to disarm the militias..."

Yes, in accordance with the Iraqi constitution stating "[t]he formation of military militia outside the framework of the armed forces is prohibited." The Iraqi government has that right and perhaps that responsibility. However...

I do find it curious we are overseeing the confiscation of weapons in Iraq, yet we can't do the same in our own country.

"There is no 'maintain your army of terrorists'."

If the group's policy is to hold a cease-fire, perform peaceful demonstrations, and use firepower specifically in self-defense, that's not particularly indicative of a group of terrorists. Granted, his militia (by his authorization) had committed considerable terrorism up to a few months ago, and there are still several pockets not giving up the mantle of violence/terrorism (and those deserve the bullets to the head that await them), but the fact that the group is supposed to be moving towards nonviolence is something that shows progress by those who comply to that point... it's not to say they are good people, but that they aren't especially evil either.

"Bear in mind that Sadr's party makes up like 30% of the government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membersofthe1stIraqiCouncilof_Representatives

Of the 275 members overall, and of the 128 UIA members, Sadrists make up 29 members. That comes out to 10-11%, not 30%. It's not an insignificant percentage, but they don't necessarily have the influence to guarantee their own safety.

"But unless they're all as stupid and crazy as they seem, they are slowly realizing they're on a dead-end road. Each clash hurts them a lot more than it hurts us."

I'm pretty sure Sadr understands this point, and that's a big reason he's pushing this sort of compromise he has. If he mandates something too violent, the government will show no mercy. If he asks his followers to concede too much, then he will no longer be accepted as their leader, and they'd become violent enough that the government would show no mercy. Whether Sadr's move is out of self-preservation or a genuine interest in peace, the reality is that his current stance is really the best we could actually ask of him at this point, and I think it demonstrates that he can perhaps be reasoned with down the line, if for no other reason than because they won't be able to defy the government. I'm not sure if Sadrists necessarily deserve an "exit strategy" that allows them to save face, but the potential is there.

The best reason I can see for the government making this strong push right now is that the surge in US presence is coming to an end soon, and that the Iraqi military may be overwhelmed when dealing with this task further down the line. The consequence of this is that we're probably going to see more bloodshed than otherwise, but time is definitely working against Iraq at this point.