Well, When You Put It That Way

12:02 am EST February 16th, 2006 | News | 6 Comments

If President Bush had simply told us we were sending 2,273 Americans to die in Iraq so a radical Islamic cleric could become big man in town, I would have been an enthusiastic supporter of his and “Shotgun” Cheney’s splendid little war.

Late Saturday night, on the eve of a crucial vote to choose Iraq’s next prime minister, a senior Iraqi politician’s cellphone rang. A supporter of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr was on the line with a threat.

“He said that there’s going to be a civil war among the Shia” if Mr. Sadr’s preferred candidate was not confirmed, the politician said.

Less than 12 hours later, and after many similar calls to top Shiite leaders, Mr. Sadr got his wish. The widely favored candidate lost by one vote, and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, was anointed as Iraq’s next leader.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

6 Responses to “Well, When You Put It That Way”

  1. Frank_D says:
    February 16, 2006 at 7:02 am

    Good story on it here.

  2. Semanticleo says:
    February 16, 2006 at 11:02 am

    Elections are not enough to bring democracy to the Middle East
    and make us safer.

    Are we safer in light of the increase
    in Anti-American sentiments around the world (including Venezuela
    and Bolivia)? The sad fact is, our situation is more
    tenous as a result of our well meaning, but wrong headed
    restructuring of the landscape via Iraq.

    The election results in Iraq and Palestine give every indication
    that no one wants to give any quarter to the US or be seen as
    cooperating with it. We are anathema to them. Ergo; not safer.

  3. buma says:
    February 16, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    Win some, lose some. The important thing is that W took out the guy who tried to kill Daddy.

  4. Frank_D says:
    February 16, 2006 at 12:02 pm

    In tthe words of the great political philosopher, Lawrence Berra, “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

    And, cleo, I’m not buying your “ergo.” We’ve always had enemies (how many times were we attacked by terrorists during the Cold War?).

    There are certainly a few variables you’ve left out, e.g., (latin initials — cool, eh?) we haven’t been bothered by Latin or Hispanic terrorists since 1950.

  5. Semanticleo says:
    February 16, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    Yeah, I wouldn’t be concerned about Latin American until it blows up.

    It will be much better to wait. (eg Korea and iran)

    Although there seems to be a lot of talk about Iran. Should we
    leave the Iraq quagmire half finished like Afghanistan to distract
    more attention from Bush Boners? It would seem so.

  6. Frank_D says:
    February 16, 2006 at 7:02 pm

    I think we can “handle” the problems in Iran effectively, while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.