Last night, Bill O’Reilly called Sadr “the new Saddam,” which, given what we now know about Saddam’s threat to America, should make us wonder why we need to topple Sadr. But who’s the real new Saddam? This Washington Times headline speaks volumes: “Clashes Raise Tensions Not Seen Since Saddam.” And how about those Kurds up north? How will they fare once the occupation ends? Let’s just hope them crazy Ay-rabs aren’t watching al Jazeera:
- Unlike most other parts of Iraq – where people are actively hostile towards, or barely tolerate, the foreign invaders – Kurds do not feel the strains of occupation.
While Shia and Sunni Muslims have been fighting Americans in and around Baghdad in the past few days, Kurds on the streets of Arbil condemn anti-US attacks as “terrorism”.
A recent poll by foreign broadcasters that suggested most Iraqis were happier since the US-led invasion a year ago was heavily influenced by Kurdish respondents.
The survey found only one in three Arabs believed their country was liberated – compared to four out of five Kurds.
I’m sure no hostility will come of this, nor of the attack on that Sunni mosque. Whoa–didn’t we start out talking about Sadr’s “radical Shi’ites,” not the “Sunni savages“? Oh yeah, Amir Taheri says don’t worry about them–but, uh, reopen that freaking newspaper pronto!
But other than all that, everything’s swell.