Max Blumenthal attends the recent College Republican convention to see just how committed these youngsters are in their strong support of the War.

The responses won’t surprise you…

There is a foreign influence in Iraq's contemporary politics … we all know that. For sure most of this interference in modern day Mesopotamia is of the military sort with the United States, Britain and the rest of the “coalition” providing the greatest majority of this. And yes there are those entering Iraq with the intent of causing grief from another angle, and this group too includes supposed allies of the United States: 

(Saudi's role in Iraq insurgency outlined, LA Times, 07/15/07)

Not often noticed is another type of influence. This other is much more positive, encourages Iraqis working together, supplies basic necessities and provides evidence that a quick and total U.S. military withdrawal will not end up in bloodshed … if we do it right.

(Cleric Switches Tactics to Meet Changes in Iraq, NY Times, 07/18/07)

For sure Sadr does present a less pretty public persona, but even that is viewed as a relief by many Iraqis. Sadrs Mahdi Army has been involved in two major offensives against the U.S. backed government, and that same militia has been part of the sectarian violence currently engulfing Iraq.

On the other hand Shiites who live in neighborhoods controlled by the Mahdi Army often appreciate the semblence of physical security that militia brings with it.

I think the explanation for our government's antipathy towards Sadr, however, is best expressed thusly:

(ibid)

The fact our nation's government would turn its back on populist movements should not be a surprise. In the early 19th century Haitian slaves held an uprising that led to Haiti becoming the second nation in the western hemisphere to throw off the European yoke (the US, of course, was the first).

In World War II agreements were made between the Allied forces in the Pacific and such people as Mao ZeDong. The promise was made to Mao and the Vietnamese that should they assist the Allies in fighting the Japanese the nation's of French Indochina would be given independence and sovereignty. Well … Mao, who held George Washington in high esteem, lived up to his bargain, but we know the history of continued military domination committed by France and then the United States.

The 1960s and '70s saw the rise of Liberation Theology among the Catholic clergy in Central and South America. Our government labeled this movement, who's basic tenet was all people are equal and deserve equal treatment as a matter of a god given right, as communist and a danger to our sphere of influence.

Fidel Castro's first choie for protector nation was the United States. It was only after we refused him and threatened him and his revolution with death that he turned to the USSR.

Those are certainly not the only examples, but they do expose our history of fighting populist movements, and they do explain why Hezbollah and Hamas are on our shit list.

The Haitians, Mao, Catholic priests, Castro, Hezbollah, Hamas and Sadr all share one attribute: they want(ed) to answer to their local constituency and not to whatever interest du jour the United States wanted adhered to. As a result we've supported many, many brutal regimes … including Saudi Arabia where 15 of 19 attackers of 09/11/01 came from and now a majority of non-Iraqi anti-US fighters/terrorists come from resulting in continued violence and confusion for Iraq.

Our way out of Iraq should depend upon stability, and that stability is only going to come from the likes of Sadr with his public storefronts providing municipal service. But then again we'd have to accept someone who answers to Iraqis and the US government, wouldn't we?

 Loading ...

This is from a Blue Hampshire diary: “Policy Straw Poll: Health Care” that asked candidates about their HC positions and the “rule” was that the response must start with the phrase “I am the only candidate who”…

Of course, the campaigns stretched the rules in some cases and were a bit long-winded, but here are just the opening lines that met this rule. You can go to Blue Hampshire for the rest.

From the Edwards campaign:
I am the only candidate to propose a specific plan that guarantees true universal health care and also gives Americans the option of a public plan.

From the Obama campaign:
I am the only candidate who will sign legislation by the end of my first term that will cover every American and cut the cost of every family’s premiums by up to $2,500 — the biggest cost-savings that any presidential candidate has proposed.

From the Dodd campaign:
I am the only candidate that has over 20 years of experience getting things done.

From the Gravel campaign:
I am the only candidate that has proposed a single-payer Health Care Voucher plan.

From the Kucinich campaign:
I am the only candidate to recognize the single payer not-for-profit comprehensive solution to the problem of providing access to health care is a solution that includes everyone and excludes no one

From the Clinton campaign:
Ignored the rules, did not say what was unique about her, released her statement in third-person, pol-speak. (yes, I found it annoying)

From the Biden campaign:
I am the only candidate who knows first-hand what it is like to survive a life-threatening emergency surgery.

From the Richardson campaign:
I am the only candidate who believes that all stakeholders – government, individuals and business – must share the goal and the sacrifice of providing universal health care coverage for all Americans.

David Corn in the Washington Post rebutts neo-con hack Bill Kristol's seemingly delusional assertion that history will remember George W. Bush's presidency as a roaring success (and that, my friends, was a hard sentence to type without laughing or crying).

The whole piece is a must read, but one particular sentence just made me think for a moment:

Still, Kristol advises, stick with the “surge,” train more Iraqi troops, and all will be well. The United States has already spent $19 billion training 346,500 or so Iraqi troops and police officers, and now merely six battalions — down from 10, according to Gen. Peter Pace — can function independently. That is, only 3,000 Iraqi troops are operating on their own after all this time and money.

Now if you do the math it means that the going rate for each successful Iraqi military or police officer to “stand up so we can stand down” is a breathtaking 6.3 million dollars (in the Bush ledger, that’s one post-Katrina superdome repair).

Hey, it's only money.