Improvisation – Iraq’s Miles Davis – Kind of Blue

“He has become a great improviser, the Miles Davis of the war.”
Edward Wong – NY Times.com

In a vacuum, power is something so many and too many with different ideas about how something should be; fight for. Moktada al-sadr is one of those people. Where he is interested in an Iraq without outside involvement, he realizes the best bet for this scenario is to wait on the American efforts in Iraq to come to a somewhat stabilizing fruition.

Like our Democrat leadership, although much less interested in an American defeat, a senior Iraqi official said of al-sadr:

“Mr. Sadr’s thinking was in constant evolution, groping for a workable strategy for the war.”

From the NY Times:

“Perhaps nothing is more surprising than the fact that Mr. Sadr’s attitude toward the Americans actually reflects a degree of ambivalence.”

“Anti-Americanism is the basis of his unflagging popularity. More than any other Iraqi politician, he is willing to recognize, validate and capitalize on the refusal of large segments of the Shiite population, especially the poor and dispossessed, to buy into any government that has the support of the Americans. It is one of the most vexing problems for the Americans, since President Bush’s whole strategy rests on the premise that formerly oppressed Shiites will work with the Americans.”

Every action or inaction has a reaction. The Democrats, al-sadr and others will play the necessary games in the hopes of keeping their heads above water. All rely on a certain anti-Americanism that has its present benefits, but has repercussions down the road.

Al-sadr would likely not care either way what happens to the U.S. down the road as long as he gains from the benefit of its efforts there.

The Democrats have somehow managed to make a U.S. loss in Iraq to their benefit; which is not a position that I would want to find myself in. With all the divergent ideas in Iraq, once the U.S. leaves the games will almost assuredly begin, but hopefully the central government will be able to keep it together.

In the U.S., the Democrats have done as much as they possibly can to break the nation down for that power at home. Where they have miscalculated is in the negative aspects they have touted for so long and what “reaction” that generates.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

NY Times, Washington Post - Seeing the Same Thing Differently

Is mass confusion a Democrat plan for retaining a majority?

According to the New York Times, Senator Mitch McConnell remarked on Democrat plans:

“Democrats in the Senate have, at latest count, had 16 versions of various proposals to interfere with the president’s ability and General Petraeus’s ability to conduct this mission successfully.”

The Dems do not appear to be united in any real sense of the word, at least as far as they were last June when:

"Democratic leaders voted against a plan supported by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts calling for a similar withdrawal."

Well one has to take this with a grain of salt as it was prior to the November elections. For added flavor the Times adds:

"Democratic strategists say that support for a timetable has steadily grown because of the conditions in Iraq, what they perceive as Mr. Bush’s resistance to change and the widespread support among the public for a clear-cut end to the war."

Might the "resistance to change" be more properly attributed to claims by Democrats regarding the president. It is after all the Democrats that have trumpeted the "surge" as the third one while excluding the fact that previous "surges" were for election purposes in Iraq with the numbers going back down afterward. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."

Beyond the reader just being confused in general by anything out of the Democratic Leaderships mouths; two major newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post display further layers to confusion with business as usual.

The Times entitled this "factual" news with, "Democrats Rally Behind a Pullout From Iraq in ’08" while the Post sees it as "Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats' Iraq Plan." Headlines alone have the power to sway, especially to those that do not take the time to actually read any with the exception of the time spent perusing them while waiting in line at the check out.

The Times didn't really see anything to indicate the lack of a "rally" behind a pullout (should be redeployment to the only possible place in the M.E., Betwixt), yet the Post said it was anything but and would require more coaxing and editing.

Where do you get your news? I think I know where these papers get theirs....

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls