So I Guess Ron Paul IS a Racist.....

A couple days ago I gave Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt: That he was just a extremist fringe libertarian and not a racist.

Then came this (my update to the same post):

UPDATE 12/26/07: Holy crap!! I may have just spoken too soon about Ron Paul and the questions of racism that float around him.

Yersterday, on the question of whether Ron Paul was a racist or just hyper-militantly devoted to an extreme interpretation of property rights (god I hate libertarian nut-balls...) and a moron, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and concluded he was the latter.

Seems I spoke too soon:

From Ron Pauls own political newsletters back in 1991 (and more), and in his own words: (via phenry of Dailykos who links back to supporting documentation)

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

And more:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

... [I]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

Daaaaaaaamn. I have nothing to say but...he's your candidate Ron Paul bots. Geez, and what about the African-America supporters of Ron Paul...that's just damn shameful to associate with such an ignorant racist.

Just because he manages to sound damn sensible when it comes to Iraq, Iran, and presidential power does not mean we should ignore the batshit craziness he displays on just about everything else.

Wake up Paulbots!! Wake the hell up!!

Now Ron Paul apologists are trying to spin away his past racist comments:

From Free Market News Network (sounds like a Libertarian news network...it figures):

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics.
He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Seriously!!!!???? That's his excuse?!

Lets put it together: A Newsletter he formed, that carried his name on the cover and published under his byline and he had no idea about it until afterwards?

So what if his office is 60 miles away: Lets assume it WAS written by someone else under Ron Pauls name. Lets assume he was so busy being a "libertarian politician" that he could not always come to the newsletters office.

There are faxes, UPS and more even in 1991...you mean to tell me that he didn't even bother to review (and then sign off on) a column published under his name, in his newsletter...sorry I don't buy it. He may not have had the time to manage everything but there is usually some time to sign off on something

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention.

There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.” Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows: "In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground.

He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'

He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." '

It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

Sooooo, supposedly he didn't know and was disappointed when he learned about them....right.

Sounds...not plausible. But, again, lets say for the sake of argument that he did not write them and that he did feel bad after learning about the comments.

If he really was so mad and disappointed with those comments why no retraction of the remarks? Why no apologies or explanations in subsequent editions of the newsletter? Why?

Probably because he wasn't all too offended by the words (because they were likely his), because most of his readers at the time weren't offended either, and because it wasn't such a big deal until some people started snooping around for his past statements.

This excuse is pathetic.

"The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush" (and short roundup)

I came across this piece in Vanity Fair written by renowned Nobel Laureate (and I believe former World Bank or IMF President..not sure) Joseph Stiglitz where he argues that the economic and other damage wrought by this president surpass, and his stewardship of the economy is worse even than Herbert Hoover. [Herbert Hoover being the president at the start of the Great Depression]

Please. Read. This.

Here are some excerpts:

When we look back someday at the catastrophe that was the Bush administration, we will think of many things: the tragedy of the Iraq war, the shame of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, the erosion of civil liberties. The damage done to the American economy does not make front-page headlines every day, but the repercussions will be felt beyond the lifetime of anyone reading this page.

I can hear an irritated counterthrust already. The president has not driven the United States into a recession during his almost seven years in office. Unemployment stands at a respectable 4.6 percent. Well, fine. But the other side of the ledger groans with distress: a tax code that has become hideously biased in favor of the rich; a national debt that will probably have grown 70 percent by the time this president leaves Washington; a swelling cascade of mortgage defaults; a record near-$850 billion trade deficit; oil prices that are higher than they have ever been; and a dollar so weak that for an American to buy a cup of coffee in London or Paris—or even the Yukon—becomes a venture in high finance...(snip)

Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover. The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush...(snip)

On the tax cuts...

But the Bush administration had its own ideas. The first major economic initiative pursued by the president was a massive tax cut for the rich, enacted in June of 2001. Those with incomes over a million got a tax cut of $18,000—more than 30 times larger than the cut received by the average American. The inequities were compounded by a second tax cut, in 2003, this one skewed even more heavily toward the rich. Together these tax cuts, when fully implemented and if made permanent, mean that in 2012 the average reduction for an American in the bottom 20 percent will be a scant $45, while those with incomes of more than $1 million will see their tax bills reduced by an average of $162,000.

The administration crows that the economy grew—by some 16 percent—during its first six years, but the growth helped mainly people who had no need of any help, and failed to help those who need plenty. A rising tide lifted all yachts. Inequality is now widening in America, and at a rate not seen in three-quarters of a century. A young male in his 30s today has an income, adjusted for inflation, that is 12 percent less than what his father was making 30 years ago. Some 5.3 million more Americans are living in poverty now than were living in poverty when Bush became president. America’s class structure may not have arrived there yet, but it’s heading in the direction of Brazil’s and Mexico’s.

He deals with the Bankruptcy and mortgage mess, Iraq, oil and gas prices, our image internationally, our messed up trade policies and more. It is a real good read although it really does bring home just how much the next few President's and Congresses will have to work just to fix the damage of this man's stewarship.

------

In a previous post ("Calm Before the Storm..") on tuesday, I noted that the US was in big trouble in the near future as it came to face some problems that are currently under the surface:

The US is in for a big shock when those groups that they are arming (al-Sahwa people) suddenly turn their guns on them, just as those just mentioned above (anti-US and AQI currently, but regrouping) also resume attacks on US soldiers and on the Shia government and people.

Matters will further get worse whenever Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr decides to end his ceasefire (and he will) and resume his attacks on Sunnis and on Americans.

No, this is not progress. This is not progress at all...

A triple wammy that will quickly end the relative (and it really is just relative) "quiet" in Iraq recently.

Number 3 on that list was Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia. He currently has declared a cease-fire, but it is obviously temporary and self-serving.

All we have to do is look back to 2004 when he last declared a ceasefire to see how that worked out.

Back then a ceasefire was called to allow time for the militia to regroup, recoup, rearm, and reorganize in a manner that will allow for greater control and loytalty to al-Sadr. Also a break to better train themselves into more effective fighters.

As many as 80 Iranian agents are working with an estimated 500 Sadr militiamen, known as the Mahdi Army, providing training and nine 57-mm Russian antiaircraft guns to add to stocks of mortars, antitank weapons, and other armaments, according to Iraqi and US intelligence reports.

"They are preparing for something, gathering weapons; people are coming in buses from other parts of Iraq," says Michael al-Zurufi, the Iraqi security adviser of Najaf Province. "The most important are the Iran- ians. The Iranian people are trying to reorganize Sadr's militia so they can fight again."

At the same time, heavily armed Sadr militiamen are waging fear tactics, kidnapping local Iraqi police and family members, occupying buildings, and arresting Iraqis deemed critical of Sadr or in violation of Islamic law, residents and officials say.

Signs that the Sadr militia is regrouping after heavy losses in April and May come even as Iraqi leaders are attempting to nudge the firebrand cleric into the political arena.

There is reason to be skeptical about the current ceasfire...and when that ends.

It'll be a disaster by itself, but it will be a bloodbath if the "al-Sahwa" Sunnis and the anti-US Sunnis join in...

-----

"Not us. We're not going" - Troop unity, and morale are suffering in Iraq. A disturbing story about one such "mutiny"

The Calm Before the Storm..

So, I guess I've been lagging ALOT on the blogging lately, which is bad considering the interesting developments out there (Iran NIE, CIA destruction of videotapes showing "enhanced interrogations i.e. torture)

What I'm going to do is get rid of all the things on my computer:

So first, I'll deal with Iraq matters

Next, with that done, I want to do a roundup-type piece within the next couple days devoted exclusively to the Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that undercut the Administrations case for war. So far I have like 5 or six links related to that, although it could increase by the time I write something up.

It's a little late, but it could still prove useful to people who aren't TV news, or online news junkies like me. :)

Ok, lets begin

-------

Iraq - Fear of a Growing Sunni Militia

The al-Anbar province has seen a marked decline in violence as more an more Sunni sheiks, and former insurgent groups -- temporarily -- cooperate with the US in order to rid themselves of the Sunni foreign fighters of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

This temporary state of affairs, along with the decision by powerful Shia militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr to unilaterally declare a ceasefire has accounted for most of the drop in violence seen in Iraq recently.

Ignorant types, or those who see it in their political interest to say so, point to the US Surge as the reason for the improving situation, but it really is quite ridiculous.

It completely ignores the previously mentioned factors and what's more it assigns the cause for the reduction in violence to a surge of only 30,000 extra troops -- most located within the Baghdad area. Leaving us to wonder how these extra troops could have pacified regions they are not even in...you'd think someone would think to ask.

Others also like to point to the "Al-Anbar Model" and the "Al-Anbar Awakening" -- which is a reason for the reduction in violence in the Sunni region of al-Anbar -- as a positive sign for Iraq.

That is conclusion that I seriously disagreed with, as demonstrated in these two blog posts from September19th and December 3rd.

Long story short: It sacrifices long and medium turn security, for short terms gains which not only are likely to be temporary, but have yet to foster the political progress that it was supposed to. In fact, it has actually added fire to the sectarian hatred an animosity that fuels the Iraqi civil war, and empowered a Sunni militia in Anbar that threatens the stability and power of the Shia-dominated Iraqi Central government in Baghdad, thus undercutting the goal of fostering Iraqi unity.

And the Shia's in the central government are definitely worried about the growing Sunni might that the US is helping to foster in al-Anbar as part of it "al-Anbar" model.

The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day...

But that hasn't calmed mounting concerns among aides to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who charge that some of the groups include "terrorists" who attack Shiite residents in their neighborhoods. Some of the new "concerned citizens" are occupying houses that terrified Shiite families abandoned, they said.

It also hasn't quieted criticism that the program is trading long-term Iraqi stability for short-term security gains.

"There is a danger here that we are going to have armed all three sides: the Kurds in the north, the Shiite and now the Sunni militias," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who's now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, D.C.

In my view they have a legitimate concern. Iraqi Sunnis are highly suspicious of the central government who they see dominated and controlled by Iraq's Shias. They see the Iraqi central government as under the grip of the Shias, who stubbornly refuse to deal with Iraqi Sunnis and give them more real political power and influence in the central government.

The Shia's certainly have a troubled history of subjugation by the minority Sunnis which is the root of all the mistrust of giving Sunnis power, but I see little way to resolve the situation unless the Shia's relax some of their grip on power in the central government. Jeez, I went on an unrelated tangent there...

Anyways, as I was saying, the Shia-dominated central government is fearful of the rising strenght and organization of the Sunni militias that the US is helping to foster.

But the US and the central government have addition problems:

We already know that the Sunni groups currently working with the US to rid AQI from Anbar are only doing so on a temporary basis -- vowing to resume fighting Americans when the job is done --

Further evidence of the shortsightedness of the "Anbar Model" is provided in the following news items which explains how Sunni insurgent groups have deliberately scaled back attacks on US troops in order to regroup and retrain for when the extra troops finally leave Baghdad.

Iraq's main Sunni-led resistance groups have scaled back their attacks on US forces in Baghdad and parts of Anbar province in a deliberate strategy aimed at regrouping, retraining, and waiting out George Bush's "surge", a key insurgent leader has told the Guardian.

US officials recently reported a 55% drop in attacks across Iraq. One explanation they give is the presence of 30,000 extra US troops deployed this summer. The other is the decision by dozens of Sunni tribal leaders to accept money and weapons from the Americans in return for confronting al-Qaida militants who attack civilians. They call their movement al-Sahwa (the Awakening).

The resistance groups are another factor in the complex equation in Iraq's Sunni areas. "We oppose al-Qaida as well as al-Sahwa," the director of the political department of the 1920 Revolution Brigades told the Guardian in Damascus in a rare interview with a western reporter.

The US is in for a big shock when those groups that they are arming (al-Sahawa people) suddenly turn their guns on them, just as those just mentioned above (anti-US and AQI currently, but regrouping) also resume attacks on US soldiers and on the Shia government and people.

Matters will further get worse whenever Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr decides to end his ceasefire (and he will) and resume his attacks on Sunnis and on Americans.

No, this is not progress. This is not progress at all...

------

Roundup

South America launches new bank to rival the International Monetary Fund - Interesting move by the various South American nations. Certainly the IMF and its strict loan conditions have caused problems in the borrower countries often enough...I can see where the desire for an alternative comes from. Not exactly my cup of tea...I'd sure love to hear what my old International Political Economy professor would have to say on this.

Tom Tancredo Hires Illegal Laborers to Renovate His Mansion - Rabid anti-immigrant personality Tom Tancredo has problems practicing what he preaches. Smell that hypocrisy...

That's all for tonight. I'll get on that Iran NIE post sometime in the next couple days.

Goodnight.

There are Dangers to Further Stoking Ethnic Hatred in Iraq

A November 30, 2007 post in Wired details the ongoing US efforts to reduce violence in Sunni parts of Iraq.

Psychological operations specialist Sgt. Joe Colabuno spent a year-and-a-half helping convince the Sunni residents of Fallujah to turn against local extremists by appealing to citizens' sense of civic pride, pumping up their love of the national soccer team, citing the Koran, and provoking jihadists to overreact. Colabuno also appealed to the Sunnis hatred and fear of Shi'ites, and of Shi'ite Iran.

"For 7 or 8 months," Colabuno tells me, "all we hear about is 'Iran is doing all [of the attacks], Iran is behind everything.' There was frustration from them [Fallujah's locals] because we wouldn't 'admit it.' Like maybe the U.S. was conspiring with Iran."

"We'd stress in our SITREPS [situation reports] that in order to get these people on our side, we've got to play into their fears abut Iran," he adds.

Then, in January, "the White House suddenly got involved," talking tough about how Tehran was stoking instability in Iraq. "That overnight changed the attitudes of the people towards us. They took it as almost an apology," he adds.

In local newspaper articles, in radio and loudspeaker broadcasts -- and in talks on the street -- Colabuno started playing up "operations against Shi'a militia." He played up how the U.S. troop "surge" was silencing Shi'a leader Moktada "al-Sadr's yipping and yapping."

The tactics seems to follow quite nicely from previous "successes" that the US had with its 'Al-Anbar Model.' This model sought to reduce the power of the Sunni extremist group Al-Qaeda in Iraq -- made up mainly of foreign fighters -- by working with/bribing/making deals with/etc Sunni sheiks and (formerly insurgent groups) so that they crack down on AQI.

As I remarked at the time (September): It was a dangerous move

I gave several reasons why such a strategy was potentially very dangerous:

First, that the Anbar Model was arming former enemies who promise to return to fighting us:

We are arming groups (or at the very least giving them money that they use to buy arms) that promise to turn those guns on us once they finish with al-Qaeda in Iraq.

You see, the problem with enemy-of-my-enemy marriages of conveniences is that they are good until, well...it's no longer convenient. The Sunni insurgency already has the American's number. They are well seasoned in how to attack American's. But now they want to get rid of AQI and know the US will provide them the arms and funding to do so.

But these groups have promised [in public no less] to resume attacks on US soldiers once they have finished dealing a sufficient blow on AQI.

Second, and most relevant for today's post, was that such a strategy only poured more gasoline on the already raging Iraqi civil war by increasing the ethnic hatred that's feeding it. And that this undercuts the goal of Iraqi unity and stability.

It feeds the specter of full-scale civil war by arming and funding different and competing sides in a civil and ethnic conflict.

The Sunnis in Anbar, or anywhere in Iraq, do not trust or want the Shia-dominated [and US supported] government in Baghdad. They want nothing to do with it.

By funding and arming the Sunni insurgent groups in al-Anbar Province they are effectively funding and arming a rival to the government in Baghdad. The US has propped up and helped the Government in Baghdad, and now is undercutting it by funding and empowering a rival in Anbar province. In essence fueling multiple sides in any civil war. That is counter productive towards the goal of Iraqi unity, and makes it less likely that the central government can exercise any control over all of Iraq outside Shia regions, and even that might not be true (I'll explain in the Roundup). The US is ensuring that Iraq will break into a Sunni region, a Kurdish region in the north, and Shia region in the center and south...and these groups will fight it out in full-scale bloodbath once the US leaves. We should NOT make the bloodbath any worse than its going to be.

What the US is doing in the Wired piece at the top follows along the same lines - in fact it is in fact a lot stupider because in this case the US occupation forces are specifically, directly, and knowingly trying to rally Sunnis (who are a minority in Iraq) behind the US by inciting hatred and mistrust of Iraqi Shiites and of Iran (who is mainly Shia).

Colabuno also appealed to the Sunnis hatred and fear of Shi'ites, and of Shi'ite Iran [From the Wired link at the top of this post - Oscar]

In effect, the US is trying to decrease violence and increase stability in Iraq by, yep...inciting further ethnic hatred, arming and empowering a rival to the Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.

This, along with the rest of the "Anbar Model" have the Shia's dominating the Iraqi central government very worried: (and with good reason)

The American campaign to turn Sunni Muslims against Islamic extremists is growing so quickly that Iraq's Shiite Muslim leaders fear that it's out of control and threatens to create a potent armed force that will turn against the government one day.

The United States, which credits much of the drop in violence to the campaign, is enrolling hundreds of people daily in "concerned local citizens" groups. More than 5,000 have been sworn in in the last eight days, for a total of 77,542 as of Tuesday. As many as 10 groups were created in the past week, bringing the total number to 192, according to the American military....(snip)

Despite US efforts to reassure them that they can keep those Sunnis from taking up arms against the Shia government, the Iraqi government is not too convinced (again, it has good reason to be scared)

But that hasn't calmed mounting concerns among aides to Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, who charge that some of the groups include "terrorists" who attack Shiite residents in their neighborhoods. Some of the new "concerned citizens" are occupying houses that terrified Shiite families abandoned, they said.

It also hasn't quieted criticism that the program is trading long-term Iraqi stability for short-term security gains.

"There is a danger here that we are going to have armed all three sides: the Kurds in the north, the Shiite and now the Sunni militias," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst who's now at The Brookings Institution, a center-left policy organization in Washington, D.C.

I though this was all foolish back in September...but it is no less foolish today.

-----

The United States' current strategy seeks gains in short term security (and there have been some recently if you watch the news), at the price of pouring gasoline on a raging civil and ethnic conflict and making Iraq less stable and more violent in the medium and long term.

In reference to the Anbar Model I asked in my September blog post: "But the question is: Is this policy good for Iraq? Is this progress?" to which I answered in the negative.

Noah Shactman of the Wired post asked a similar question on Sept. 30 regarding the current strategy of rallying Sunnis:

The successes of the American counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq have, so far, been hyperlocal: local watchmen, patrolling their mini-neighborhoods; local tribal and political leaders, making deals with American commanders. And in that context, playing on fears on Shi'ite boogeymen in Sunni regions makes a ton of sense.

The question, though, is what are the national consequences of this local strategy. How can the U.S. encourage country-wide reconciliation -- while riding a wave of sectarian hate?

Exactly.

It will eventually come back to haunt the US, punishing it and Iraq, for its short-sightedness.

-------

PS: I'll have a short roundup added to this post tomorrow as an Update. I'm a little tired and would rather watch TV or screw around on Myspace than keep going...yeah, I know. Laaaazy. lol.

Goodnight.