Obama Gets Bitter Over Wright

Barack Obama finally severed ties with his “spiritual mentor” today, after the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s display yesterday in front of the National Press Club. Obama claims he found Wright’s racial rhetoric “appauling” and “that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate….” For some reason it took the man who would be Messiah 20 years to figure out what it took the rest of us 20 seconds to figure out. Jeremiah Wright is a self-promoting, White-America-hating racist. He goes on to say:

Now, I’ve already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church, he’s built a wonderful congregation, the people of Trinity are wonderful people, and what attracted me has always been their ministry’s reach beyond the church walls. But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the United States’ wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me, they rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

 It is quite clear that Barack Obama has been taste-testing the Kool-Aid that he has been pouring down the throats of the American people for weeks now. By the middle of last March, Wright’s sermons were all over the news. On March 14, Fox News reported on the pastor’s controversial comments:

In a fiery sermon taped and available on DVD, Barack Obama’s longtime pastor and spiritual adviser can be seen and heard saying three times: “God damn America.”
.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Obama obviously heard these comments, because he made an attempt at damage control with this initial statement:

“Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy,” he said in the statement. “I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.”

But then Obama decided this wasn’t enough, and felt the need to qualify his pastor’s comments in his speech entitled “A More Perfect Union” that he delivered on March 18.

…Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
…
But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another, to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a United States Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over 30 years has led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
…
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother…. These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love.
…
The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through — a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American.

So basically, according to Barack Obama, Wright was wrong to say what he did, but he had his reasons that people in White America just can’t understand. Obama then went on to educate us throughout the rest of his speech.

What changed between March 18 and April 29? Why did Barack Obama go from explaining Wright’s rhetoric to cutting him loose? This changed:

MODERATOR: What is your motivation for characterizing Senator Obama’s response to you as, quote, “what a politician had to say”? What do you mean by that?

WRIGHT: What I mean is what several of my white friends and several of my white, Jewish friends have written me and said to me. They’ve said, “You’re a Christian. You understand forgiveness. We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.”
.
Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever’s doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they’re pastors. They have a different person to whom they’re accountable.
.
As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I’m still going to have to be answerable to God November 5th and January 21st. That’s what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do.

Jeremiah Wright gave his true opinion of Barack Obama. He essentially called him a liar who will say whatever he has to in order to get elected. 

Other than this blindsided attack on Obama, Wright sang the same old songs. All the oldies-but-goodies were played, including hits like “God Damn America,” ” US Government AIDS,” and the “USMC Roman Legion.”

Obama returned the favor and fed Wright to the wolves. But burried in his outrage, the presidential candidate gave the real reason for his split with the man he could no sooner disown than his own racist grandmother.

Q: What’s going to happen with the distraction?
.
BO: I want to use this press conference to make people absolutely clear that obviously whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don’t think that he showed much concern for me. I don’t — more importantly — I don’t think he showed much concern for what we’re trying to do in this campaign and what we’re trying to do for the American people and with the American people And obviously, he’s free to speak out on issues that are of concern to him and he can do it in any ways that he wants. But I feel very strongly that — well, I want to make absolutely clear that I do not subscribe to the views that he expressed….

So White America is just not understanding what motivates Jeremiah Wright to spew hate speech about us, but when he directs some of it towards Barack Obama, suddenly there is a problem and their relationship will never be the same.

Grandma better watch what she says.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The New Somalia

Two weeks ago Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared that Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr must disband his Mehdi Army militia. I wrote back then that this could get interesting and questioned what directions al Sadr and his militia might take. After two weeks, those directions appear to be clear.

al Sadr is intent on playing this out until the end, despite losing the support of top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Bill Roggio reports that although Sistani has not ordered the Medhi Army to disband, he does not recognize its authority.

“Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country,” Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. “Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government.“
.
Sadr did not consult with Sistani on the issue of disbanding the Mahdi Army, disputing a claim from Sadrist spokesmen who intimated Iraqi’s top cleric told Sadr to maintain his militia. “The top Shiite cleric had not been consulted in establishing the Mahdi Army, so [he] could not interfere in dissolving it,” Saghier said. “Whosoever established the al-Mahdi army has to dissolve it; Sayyed Muqtada al-Sadr established this army and it is only him who has to dissolve it.”

al Sadr is making it clear that he has no intention of breaking up his militia, as he issues his “final warning” to the Iraqi government.

BAGHDAD — Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr gave a “final warning” to the government Saturday to halt a U.S.-Iraqi crackdown against his followers or he would declare “open war until liberation.”
…
Al-Sadr, who is believed to be in Iran, said he had tried to defuse tensions last August by declaring a unilateral truce, only to see the government respond by closing his offices and “resorting to assassinations.”
.
“So I am giving my final warning … to the Iraqi government … to take the path of peace and abandon violence against its people,” al-Sadr said. “If the government does not refrain … we will declare an open war until liberation.”
.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that al-Sadr’s truce was instrumental in reducing violence last year. But the truce is in tatters after Iraqi forces launched an offensive last month against “criminal gangs and militias” in the southern city of Basra.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called out al Sadr for making threats of war while he sits safely in Iran.

BAGHDAD — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.
…
“I know he’s sitting in Iran,” Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr’s latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. “I guess it’s all-out war for anybody but him,” Rice said. “I guess that’s the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he’s in Iran.”
…
Rice praised al-Maliki for confronting al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which had a choke hold on Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city. The assault was al-Maliki’s most decisive act by far against al-Sadr, a fellow Shiite and once a political patron. Kurdish and Sunni politicians, including a chief rival, have since rallied to al-Maliki, and the Bush administration argues he could emerge stronger from what had appeared to be a military blunder.
…
“Some of the violence is a byproduct of a good decision,” to take on militias and consolidate military power, Rice told reporters following a few hours of meetings and lunch with Iraqi leaders. “That, I think, is what has given the sense to the Iraqis that they have a new opportunity, a window of opportunity,” Rice said. “I don’t think you would have seen this kind of unity,” before.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is right to be concerned, as he looks to chaos of Somalia as an example of what he does not want his country to become. al-Maliki exclaims that “Iraq cannot be the new Somalia.”

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is calling on political parties to unite against armed groups in Iraq, a spokesman said Sunday, warning that “Iraq cannot be the new Somalia.”
.
“It is a clear message,” al-Maliki spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said of the situation in Iraq. “We cannot accept the presence of armed groups.”
.
Somalia has been mired in chaos since 1991, when warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other.

And how is Somalia doing fifteen years after we left the country to fend for itself against bands of militias? It is fighting off Muslim militias in its capital city of Mogadishu.

(CNN) — Two days of fighting between government and Ethiopian troops and Islamic militants in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, left 81 civilians dead and more than 100 wounded, a local human rights group reported Sunday.
.
Sudan Ali Ahmed, the head of the Mogadishu-based Elman Human Rights Group, accused the rebels of using civilians has human shields, while the transitional government’s Ethiopian allies shelled residential neighborhoods with tanks and artillery.
.
Large numbers of civilians have been fleeing two neighborhoods in the northeastern part of the capital where the fighting has been taking place, witnesses reported, joining a population of displaced Somalis that aid groups estimate already tops 1 million.

If al-Sadr makes good on his threat to wage war on the government of Iraq, it will certainly play well into election-year politics for the Democrats. And just as Democratic President Bill Clinton left a job undone in Somalia by removing US troops weeks after the Battle of Mogadishu, Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have promised to quickly start removing troops from Iraq if elected in November.

Will we allow the flower of democracy in Iraq to whither and die just as it is beginning to blossom, or will we continue to nurture it until it can survive on its own in the harsh political climate of the Middle East? Will we stick by Iraq, or will we allow our ally to become the “New Somalia?”

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Patriot’s Day

On this day 233 years ago, militiamen from the yet-to-be-formed United States took up arms against King George of England.

Jules Crittenden has collected a wonderful assortment of source material, in the form of letters, that tells the story of that day’s historic, yet forgotten, events. Here is one of my favorites:

Capt. John Parker, Lexington Militia, alleged remarks at Lexington:

Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.

There are many, many more that are well worth the time to read them.

Obama’s 3:00 AM Phone Call

Barack Obama has shown the way would react to the “3:00 AM Phone Call.” He would get scared and hang up the telephone!

Obama was forced to address some tough questions last night and pretty much lost his shirt, by most accounts. He did nothing to address his Bittergate problem except to reiterate that people turn to religion because they are upset with Washington. He was annihilated while discussing Jeremiah Wright, to the point that he was fumbling words. And he displayed some of his foreign policy arrogance by openly suggesting that nations like Iran would be pacified by his “carrots and sticks.”

 Jab after jab, Obama was like a desperate fighter with his back to the ropes. By the end of the night—he was beaten up. And he knows it.

How did the man who would be President respond to his thrashing? 

He ran away like a coward.

Obama: Let’s campaign, not have more debates
.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama suggested Thursday that he doesn’t see any point in having another debate with Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.
.
Clinton has agreed to a debate next week, but Obama has not accepted the invitation.
.
At an appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said he has a lot of campaigning to do in a limited amount of time.
.
Obama said he had agreed to an earlier debate, but Clinton declined that one.
.
“I’ll be honest with you, we’ve now had 21,” he said. “It’s not as if we don’t know how to do these things. I could deliver Sen. Clinton’s lines; she could, I’m sure, deliver mine.”
.
Obama said he has to look at his schedule, considering the upcoming primaries.

This shows the true character of Barack Obama better than all of his other controversies combined. It shows how he reacts when he gets an unexpected beating. It shows his fear and weakness. And it shows why he has no business leading the most powerful nation on earth. 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

In My Absolut World

In my Absolut World, people take the time to gather the facts and debate intelligently, rather than spouting off with what they believe to be the truth.

There has been a lot of feedback concerning the call to boycott Absolut Vodka for its offensive Reconquista ad that ran in Mexico. As with any hot topic, the temperature of the debates it sparked have been equally heated. I’ve been called a xenophobe, a racist, and an idiot more than once. Some of the things posted were so offensive I felt compelled to delete them. However, what bothers me the most is the claim that I am ignoring history. And it bothers me because it is Absolut rubbish (Pun fully intended).

People cite the misconceptions that they believe to be actual history as proof of their claims. The most popular—and baseless—is that we stole Mexico’s land in the Mexican War. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, Mexico gave up its land north of the Rio Grande as part of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, which brought the Mexican War to a close. In return, US troops were removed from Mexico City, Mexico was paid $15 million, and the US assumed $3.25 million in Mexican debt owed to American citizens. Concidering Mexico started the Mexican War by invading American territory, I’d say the treaty wasn’t a bad deal.

Texas had already declared its independence from Mexico, which is what started the whole thing. So we certainly didn’t steal that portion.

But what really strikes me as interesting is something I have learned in my current California history class. In Kevin Starr’s “California,” Starr comments on page 65:

Historians have been wont to see the annexation of California by the United States as an act of conquest, a sideshow in the larger drama of Manifest Destiny, and the Mexican War. Any close reading of Mexican California, however, suggests that even if the United States had never invaded Mexico or siezed California by force of arms, California—as Richard Henry Dana, Jr., first put it—would in one way or another have become American. At the very time that war broke out, the Californios were negotiating with the United States regarding the possibilities of a peaceful annexation. From this perspective, Josiah Royce, writing in 1886, concidered the forcible conquest of California as the original sin of American California history. What was taken by force, Royce argued, had been on the verge of being peaceably surrendered.

Take note of the term “Californios.” That was what the Spanish and Mexican people living in California called themselves. Mainly ranchers, these people did not identify with Mexico and did not want to be called “Mexican.” Let that sink in—they did not concider themselves Mexican.

Mexico was unable to support California. Pacific currents run north to south, which made sea travel in that direction inefficient. And the Yuma Indians had cut off the main overland route from Mexico after the Yuma Massacre. It doesn’t sound like Mexico had much control over Arizona territory, either, does it?

So we didn’t steal Texas; it was already gone. And we didn’t steal California; the people there didn’t want to be Mexican anyway. Mexico had little control of, and offered little support to any of its lands north of the Rio Grande. And we got it all by a signed treaty ending a war Mexico started. Someone tell me what land we “stole” from Mexico.

If you want to flame me, or bash me, or insult me, that’s fine. But please back it up with facts not fables. Research and learn the truth about the subject. Don’t run around in the comfort zone of just thinking that you know what you are talking about. Take the time to educate yourself and know that you know what you are talking about. Or it will be you who is shown to be the idiot.

Beer in Politics

For centuries beer has been known as the drink of the common man. From workers laboring the soil of ancient Egypt to the workers of the modern age, beer has been the preferred alcoholic beverage of the working class. And though the appeal of beer to many blue-collar Americans may be lost on those who can’t appreciate the taste of a cold-one after a hard day at the grindstone, it certainly isn’t lost on our politicians who use it in an attempt to bridge the gap between themselves and the common man and woman they require to win elections.

During the 2004 presidential election George Bush beat John Kerry in a critical poll that asked Americans, “Who would you most like to have a beer with?” 57% of undecided voters polled said they would rather toss one back with George Bush than with John Kerry. Bush went on to win other “likability” polls, and eventually the election. American voters have been chastised for our beer politics ever since.

Columnist Anna Quindlen published a 2007 article in Newsweek entitled “The Brand New and Same Old,” where she drones on about what a wonderful opportunity we have to “help make history” and elect the first woman president. Coming from a known feminist, this is hardly suprising or even noteworthy. What is noteworthy is Quindlen’s complete lack of respect for the working class voter:

Recent elections suggest that Americans are often interested in something quite different in a candidate than they ultimately require in a president. That’s how the country wound up with a commander in chief chosen because he was the kind of guy people wanted to have a beer with, a Dude Prez who finds it appropriate to give the female German chancellor a surprise shoulder massage in the middle of a world summit.
.
Voters may have a hard time imagining bellying up to the bar with Senator Clinton. Her human traits are too seldom on display…. But perhaps this time around, no matter who runs and who wins, Americans will figure out that they are electing a president, not a drinking buddy.

Enter Barack Obama and—yes Anna—Hillary Clinton. In the tight presidential race that promises to come down to the wire, both candidates have turned to the power of the Golden Nectar in an attempt to connect with the common American voter.

 While campaigning in the battleground state of Pennsylvania last month, Barack Obama made it a point to talk football and have a cold-one with steel-workers and other patrons of a Johnstown bowling alley. The Politico reports:

“You know I got a beer down there,” Obama said to a male patron. “What do they call it? A Yuengling?”
.
“Yuengling,” the man confirmed. “Like you didn’t know.”
.
“Trying a Pennsylvania beer, that’s what I’m talking about,” said Obama, his sleeves rolled up, smiling. “Is it expensive, though? … Wanna make sure it’s not some designer beer or something.”

Clinton, refusing to be outdone, had beer, whiskey and pizza at an Indiana lounge over the weekend. The party started with a cold beer as Clinton initially refused a shot of some hard stuff. But the New York Senator quickly gave way to peer pressure and turned bright-eyed upon the mention of Crown Royal.

Clinton stood by the bar and took a shot of Crown Royal whiskey. She took one sip of the shot, then another small sip, then a few seconds later threw her head back and finished off the whole thing.
.
Clinton later sat down at a table and enjoyed some pizza and beer, and called over Mayor Tom McDermott of Hammond, Ind., to come join the table.
…
A fellow diner made a toast in Clinton’s honor and she raised her beer glass and touched the glasses of people sitting at her table. Clinton was looking for a staffer and her seat partner said, “Maybe he’s up at the bar.”

The real irony in all of that just last January Hillary Clinton was complaining about voter interest in “likability” and beer-drinking when discussing the common-man popularity of Barack Obama:

“I think it’s good to have a likeable president. But if I remember right, many people said they wanted to have a beer with George W. Bush. Maybe they should’ve left it at that – have a beer, don’t vote him in as our president.”

Oops…

Republican presidential candidate John McCain hasn’t been spotted downing any brews lately. Then again, he doesn’t have to. His wife is heir to Hensley & Co.—one of the largest beer distributers in the country, and the exclusive wholesaler for Anheuser-Busch.

Beer isn’t going anywhere in the eyes of the working class. And as long as we have a place in American politics, our drink of choice will be used to make a connection with those who need our support. Anna Quindlen would do well to learn that. Hillary Clinton has. 

Cheers.

What do they have to say now?

Here is the latest ad from Vets For Freedom.

“Will the enemies of victory continue to ‘willfully suspend disbelief’ about the progress in Iraq?”

Obama continues to take the low road

Despite ordering his minions to take a higher road than presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama continued his trip along the low road, today, by commenting on Clinton strategist Mark Penn’s meeting with Columbian officials concerning free trade.

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (CNN) — Barack Obama told reporters Friday that had top Clinton strategist Mark Penn been on his staff, he would have removed him for having met with the Colombian government to discuss passing a proposed free trade agreement with the nation.
…
“Let me put it this way,” the Illinois senator said. “I’m not surprised that Sen. Clinton found herself in an uncomfortable position as a consequence, and I know that if staff of mine were putting me in that kind of position I would get rid of them.”
…
Obama also added, “I think it was surprising to me that a high ranking, if not the highest ranking, member of Sen. Clinton’s team would be engaged in business activities and lobbying that was directly contrary to a position that Sen. Clinton had taken.”

Obama should worry more about his own campaign people and less about his opponent’s campaign people. (H/T: Cadillac Tight)

“Barack Obama promises a new brand of politics, but today refused to directly denounce Ed Schultz and his vicious smear attack on John McCain. John McCain is committed to a civil debate worthy of the American people and has a record of standing by that commitment,” said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. “Senator Obama must personally and publicly repudiate his campaign supporter’s attacks — rather than give tacit approval to this blatant smear — or his rhetoric of change will be exposed as nothing but words.”
…
On Friday, however, Obama thanked Schultz and called him the “voice of progressive radio.” Obama also appeared as a guest on his radio show earlier in the week.

As Joe Tobacco points out in his comments section, Obama has no intention of repudiating the statement:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) declined twice Saturday to personally repudiate a liberal radio host’s declaration that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a “warmonger.”

Joe explains why:

The explanation for this is pretty simple, really. Obama doesn’t dare repudiate statements from the likes of Jeremiah Wright or Ed Schultz, because he hasn’t sewn this primary up yet. For all his bluster, he’s perfectly aware that if Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania, then a majority of the remaining states through June, she has a persuasive argument to take to the super delegates, and to the party.

“Change?” Show me.

Bubba cries foul

Yesterday, former President Bill Clinton defended his wife’s Bosnia lie by basically saying she is just getting old.

“I got tickled the other day, a lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me, but there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y’all see all that? Oh, they blew it up,” the former president said at a campaign event in Boonville, Indiana Thursday afternoon.

Actually, she said it multiple times on multiple occassions. And “immediate” isn’t the word I would use for the speed at which she acknowledged she was caught spreading BS.

“You would have thought, you know, that she’d robbed a bank the way they carried on about this,” he added. “And some of them when they’re 60 they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11 at night, too.”

Is that supposed to comfort us? How is she going to deal with that infamous “3:00 am phone call” when she can’t even keep her mind straight at 11:00 pm? And if I were 60, I would be terribly offended by his comment, which suggests that older people just aren’t as sharp as others.

Clinton added:

“I have been in the public eye for many, many years, and this is something that I think happens to anybody,” Clinton also said if the exaggeration which served to raise questions anew about her candor.

Like it happened to you when you lied about having sex with “that woman?”

UPDATE: Hillary tells Bill to “knock it off!

“Hillary called me and said, ‘You don’t remember this. You weren’t there, let me handle it.’ I said, ‘Yes ma’am,” Clinton said, according to CNN affiliate WTHI, while touring the fire damage of a campaign office in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Evidently, she doesn’t remember much about it, either. As for Bill, he has earned a cookie for the day. Good boy.

Institute of Peace fears genocide in Iraq

(H/T: Hot Air)

The congressionally-funded United States Institute of Peace issued a report today that warned of the potential for ”massive chaos and even genocide” in Iraq without a long-term US presence in the country.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – There is no end in sight for the U.S. military occupation of Iraq and a quick exit would risk “massive chaos and even genocide,” a U.S. think tank said in a report released on Sunday.
.
“The U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago,” said the report, written by experts who advised a high-profile Iraq policy panel convened by Congress in 2006. “Lasting political development could take five to ten years of full, unconditional U.S. commitment to Iraq.”
…
The report warned that a fast exit from Iraq “risks a complete failure of the Iraqi state, massive chaos and even genocide.”

The report comes on the same day that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that Moqtada al-Sadr’s Medhi Army militia must disband.

BAGHDAD, April 6 (UPI) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Sunday that Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr must disband his Mehdi Army.
.
In an exclusive interview with CNN, the Iraqi official demanded that the radical Shiite leader immediately disband his forces, which recently clashed with the Iraqi military.
…
CNN reported Maliki has the backing of top Iraqi political leaders to bar all followers of Sadr from engaging in the Iraqi political process if the dismantling of the cleric’s militia does not begin.

This is an interesting development because al-Maliki and al-Sadr are both Shiites. Let’s see how al-Sadr—and his militia—responds. Will they disband just because he orders them to?

This is worth keeping an eye on.