Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well, he is distancing himself.

Posted by Leland at February 26, 2007 11:38 AM

Meanwhile, Sadr agrees with Bush about abortion, stem cell research, creationism, global warming, and, above all, the wisdom of overthrowing and executing Saddam Hussein. He thinks that that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein is the best that has happened to Iraq in the past 30 years. So what?

Posted by Jim Harris at February 26, 2007 11:46 AM

Sadr agrees with Bush about abortion, stem cell research, creationism, global warming, and, above all, the wisdom of overthrowing and executing Saddam Hussein.

I haven't heard him express his opinions on any of those topics, other than possibly the latter one. Did I miss a speech somewhere?

Or you are just being an ass?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 26, 2007 11:54 AM

What does Occam say Rand?

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 26, 2007 12:16 PM

I haven't heard him express his opinions on any of those topics, other than possibly the latter one.

Other than POSSIBLY the latter one? What weed are you smoking? Hussein executed Sadr's father and his uncle. Sadr would still be playing video games in Iran if the US hadn't overthrown Hussein. Hussein's executioners chanted Sadr's name. If you really are sober, what kind of final proof are you waiting for?

Posted by Jim Harris at February 26, 2007 12:47 PM

While it's certainly reasonable to infer that he's pleased with Saddam's removal based on that history, I haven't actually heard him say anything about it. Not saying that he hasn't, just that I haven't heard. As to the rest, perhaps you can enlighten us all. Describe his positions on those issues, and then Bush's, so we can compare them (not that it has anything to do with my post, of course).

For instance, does al Sadr believe that stem cell research should be provided with federal funding, unless it's embryonic, in which case it should be privately funded? The gentle and patient readers of my blog await this serious discussion, and insight into the great man's mind, which so far only you seem to have.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 26, 2007 01:06 PM

While it's certainly reasonable to infer that he's pleased with Saddam's removal based on that history, I haven't actually heard him say anything about it.

Just because you haven't checked Wikiquote, that doesn't make it any less than certain.

The other examples are a free source of nitpicking, because I just meant that Sadr has a generally conservative position and so does Bush, while you are asking whether they have carbon copy talking points. It's an uninteresting tangent. The overthrow and execution of Saddam Hussein is fundamental. The point is, so what if Sadr agrees or disagrees with Bush or the Democrats on any such questions?

Posted by Jim Harris at February 26, 2007 01:17 PM

Just because you haven't checked Wikiquote, that doesn't make it any less than certain.

I'm not sure why you continue to beat on it, since I've never denied it.

I just meant that Sadr has a generally conservative position and so does Bush...

Ah, I see. You simply use an almost uselessly broad and flexible word like "conservative" (the same one you mindlessly brush me with, if I'm not mistaken) and think that there's something pointful in mindlessly applying it to both the elected president of a liberal western democracy and a self-appointed fundamentalist religious nutball in the Middle East. In other words, my second postulate was the correct one--you were being an ass.

And as I suspected, you admit you don't know what his positions are on those other things. Well, we do know what his position is on the current war strategy--I linked to it. The surge is a bad idea. Who else holds that position? That the Dems agree with him on this is important because when one's proposed policies in making war on the enemy are the same ones that the enemy likes, it's not unreasonable to question their wisdom.

I will admit, though, that he differs with the Dems on the Saddam issue, since most of them seem to think that removing him was a mistake. But of course, in that regard, he wasn't our enemy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 26, 2007 01:29 PM

Rand, after you write an entry devoted to the conflation of Mookie Sadr and all Democrats, this pegs the irony meter:

You simply use an almost uselessly broad and flexible word like "conservative"

Anyway, this is a funny cartoon. It reminds me of some of your posts.

Posted by Bill White at February 26, 2007 01:39 PM

Bill, I didn't say that Mookie was a "liberal," or "progressive" or (whatever label most Dems want to mindlessly apply to themselves) so I'm not sure what you find ironic. I simply said that, on this issue, which is an important one to both him and them, he agrees with them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 26, 2007 01:55 PM

And by the way, if your objection is to my tarring Dems with too broad a brush (a fair comment), then I've updated the post to reflect it. But that's still a different thing than what Mr. Harris did.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 26, 2007 02:10 PM

Is there any good reason why Sadr hasn't been arrested and/or killed yet? Wasn't there a warrant for murder issued against Sadr that was the cause of the stand-off in Najaf?

I have a hard time taking this whole "surge" thing seriously when Sadr remains free and we apologize to the son of Hakim for giving him a hassle after he returns from meetings in Iran.

I predicted before that the "surge" will end up being more about US troops taking de facto sides in a civil war. We sweep and kill/arrest Sunni insurgents & terrorists but leave the worst Shia unscathed.

Of course, the generals in Baghdad may have a legitimate fear that the Shi'ite storm that would follow Sadr's arrest would be explosive. But if we lack sufficient military power to arrest Sadr safely, isn't the surge just a "charade" after all?

= = =

Joe Lieberman is exactly right about one thing -- without security coming from the central government, the people of Iraq will look to their clans and tribes for security.

But 20K or 30K troops just aren't enough to tip that balance. It would be easier for me to support a surge of 100,000 US troops than a 20,000 troop surge.

Posted by Bill White at February 26, 2007 03:04 PM

I agree with Bill, why isn't there a push from folks like at The Corner etc., pushing for a real surge on the order of 75,000 troops plus, and with commitment to stay in B'dad until the Shia can't take the wait and come out with their weapons. I mean why not go the whole hog and do it right? This over-rated over-quoted surge thing looks very unlikely to do much other than stimulate absurd pro and con arguments over here so we can make fake decisions on who the real patriots are and label the others as supporting terrorism.

I bet if you take a vote among the Iraqis, the large majority would want us to leave Iraq. So Sadr's position isn't unique. So basically, we are now just an occupying power, however we may justify it. The only people who want us to stay are some of the Sunnis of Iraq (the ones not blowing us up), and all the Sunni countries around Iraq who don't want a Shia state in their midst, not the majority of the Iraqi people. Anyone disagree?

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at February 26, 2007 04:02 PM

It should make Simberg happy to know Bin Laden wants
Bush to surge more troops to Iraq.

If we spend 2 years crushing the sunni baathists' great for him.

If we spend 2 years crushing Al Qaeda in Iraq, that's okay, he's got
more work in afghanistan.

If we spend 2 years fighting it out with Al Sadr, that's great for him.

So what in the surge is bad for Bin Laden?

Posted by anonymous at February 26, 2007 06:05 PM

By the way, 1/3rd of all registered republicans have issues
with the surge, are they all secret democrats?

Posted by anonymous at February 26, 2007 06:06 PM

So what in the surge is bad for Bin Laden?

If successful, it will remove a potential breeding ground for Al Qaeda, Anonymous Moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 26, 2007 06:35 PM

By the way, 1/3rd of all registered republicans have issues with the surge, are they all secret democrats?

For all I know, they are, Anonymous Moron. One of the signs of being a Moron is not realizing that I'm not a Republican, and don't care about morons' criticism of Republicans when they behave like Democrats.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 26, 2007 06:45 PM

that's right simberg, you are a neo-con

"Bush 43 still sometimes drew on his father's wide knowledge of the world. Though he refused to read newspapers, he was aware of criticism that his administration had been excessively beholden to a particular clique, and wanted to know more about them. One day during that holiday, according to friends of the family, 43 asked his father, 'What's a neocon?'

"'Do you want names, or a description?' answered 41.

"'Description.'

"'Well,' said the former president of the United States, 'I'll give it to you in one word: Israel.'"

Posted by anonymous at February 26, 2007 07:58 PM

I will admit, though, that [Sadr] differs with the Dems on the Saddam issue, since most of them seem to think that removing him was a mistake.

That's exactly correct. Removing Saddam Hussein, at the very least in the fashion that the Bush Administration did it, was and is completely against American interests. For us, it certainly was a colossal mistake. It's a mistake because it empowered far more anti-American people such as Muqtada al-Sadr. Apart from any opinions that Sadr states, the fact that this whole thing has been such a great gift to him should indeed make the White House wonder which side they are helping.

But of course, in that regard, he wasn't our enemy.

That's exactly backwards. The correct statement is that in this regard (Sadr vs Hussein), Saddam Hussein wasn't our enemy. Hussein was our enemy in some other regards, but in this particular regard, the invasion was an own-goal.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 26, 2007 08:38 PM

Is there any good reason why Sadr hasn't been arrested and/or killed yet?

You mean, other than his 80% approval among Shiites and his religious status? Those are plenty reason enough. If you killed him, the Shiites would turn completely against the US and an even worse firebrand would rise to the top.

It's not as if Sadr conjured radical Shiism all on his own. He is an expression of tremendous grassroots anger at the Sunnis and suspicion of the United States too. Assassinating Sadr would just be a way to pull the ball out of our own goal and kick it in again for more loss.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 26, 2007 08:43 PM

You admit you don't know what [Sadr's] positions are on those other things.

I admit no such thing. All that I admitted is that I was not yet prepared to make a detailed case as to how much Bush and Sadr agree on social issues. But I knew that their thinking goes in generally the same direction on the issue of abortion, for example.

Bush has said that abortion should be illegal in most circumstances: "I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born and unborn, ought to be protected in law and welcomed into life." And that is exactly what the Shiite leaders in Iraq think. I don't know if Sadr has addressed abortion explicitly in quotes translated into English, but he doesn't have to. He endorses Islamic social law as defined by people like Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and Sistani has addressed it. Sistani's position in Iraq is about the same as Bush's position in the United States.

Sistani's rulings are more situational than the abstract legal view in the United States. But when he was asked about abortion in response to rape, he said, "No, she is not permitted except for when it may cause her an insufferable problem or difficulty. For instance, in the case that she might be killed if her relatives come to know about her pregnancy, she is allowed to have an abortion." This is really about the same as Bush: Sistani is clearly weighing the life of the mother against the life of the unborn. In his example, the choice is moot, because if you kill a pregnant woman, you kill the fetus too.

Anyway, whether the issue is abortion, the surge, Saddam Hussein, or anything else, relating Sadr's sound bites to American politics is just stupid-think, when it isn't guilt by association. For all anyone knows, Sadr could be playing Brer Rabbit in crticizing the surge. Or otherwise he could have his head up his ***. It's no mystery that the surge has no chance of making the invasion of Iraq look good, whether or not it "works" in some narrower sense. Trash talk from Sadr doesn't change it.

Posted by Jim Harris at February 26, 2007 09:16 PM

> all Democrats

Name three prominent Democrats, other than Lieberman, who think that the surge is a good idea or whose non-pretextual criticism is "more".

Posted by Andy Freeman at February 26, 2007 11:26 PM

that's right simberg, you are a neo-con

No, I'm not a neocon, but you are clearly a moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 27, 2007 04:51 AM

I'm with Andy on this. I see no reason (and I note the title didn't change) to back away from the assertion. The surge idea was a Democrat mantra last fall, but as soon as the President adopted the idea, Democrats, AS A PARTY, distanced themselves from the idea. We are just now hearing from Mookie that he agrees with the Democrats. You are not saying the Democrats chose Mookies strategy, but rather Mookie accepts it.

Posted by Leland at February 27, 2007 06:51 AM

TNT says The only people who want us to stay are some of the Sunnis of Iraq (the ones not blowing us up), and all the Sunni countries around Iraq who don't want a Shia state in their midst, not the majority of the Iraqi people. Anyone disagree?

If you throw out the Kurds in the north as not being Iraqi enough, the Sunnis in the south as not being Iraqi enough, then you will get a poll that agrees with the Democrat party line.

Still, fighting wars based on polls is the most dangerous idea that liberals push on a regular basis. Indeed, it was the potential of negative polls that prevented the previous administration from acting against Al Qaeda in the 1990's after their first attack against the World Trade Centers.

Posted by Leland at February 27, 2007 07:29 AM

Post a comment