President Barack Obama has come under increasing criticism from conservatives for what they see as his insufficient rhetorical support for the Iranians demonstrating for reform. As usual, playing a lead role in conservative arguments is the mighty Communist-killer Ronald Reagan.
The Bush administration and its supporters hailed the recently signed security pact between the U.S. and Iraqi governments as a major milestone. But the agreement revealed who the most powerful forces in the new Iraq really are.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki speaks to the media after meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, Friday, Oct. 10, 2008. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)
In the never-ending battle to define and redefine the terms of the Iraq debate, President Bush and conservative supporters of the war have rallied to portray the recent signing of the security agreement between the U.S. and Iraqi governments as a milestone for freedom.
Patrick Cockburn's new book, Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq, confronts neocon myths about the political situation in Iraq.
On March 20, Bush administration Iraq hands Dan Senor and Roman Martinez published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Whatever Happened to Muqtada?" The item -- which was accompanied by a cartoon drawing of the Iraqi cleric that seemed inspired by racist propaganda of the 1930s -- declared Sadr a spent force in Iraqi politics.
As part of an apparent effort to reinvigorate political journalism's most tired cliches, James Kirchick declares that "the Left lacks a sense of humor." He offers as proof my Think Progress post from Tuesday, in which I noted what a sad commentary on conservatism it was that Christopher Buckley felt that John McCain needed to be forgiven for opposing torture. Quoth Peretz's ward:
I'm with Cernig on the Clinton campaign's "plagiarism" charge against Obama: I think they take at least as big a hit on this as he does. TPM has more, and points us to this from Jake Tapper:
