When you have a fire do you:

a) try to extinguish it?

b) watch it burn from a safe distance?

c) pour gasoline on it?

If you’re Condoleezza Rice, you’d probably choose “c”.

On a recent trip to Baghdad’s “Green Zone”, Rice decided to ramp up the rhetoric against radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and, by extension, his militia by, more or less, calling him a coward.

Really, how does this help?

“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.”

So, you have the American Secretary of State calling out a militia leader in Iraq, basically challenging his manhood.  Also, and I apologize if this sounds sexist but, the fact that she is a woman challenging Muslim men is also not to be overlooked (this is just my observation).

Regardless of the gender aspect, it is clear that she and the Bush administration have called out al-Sadr and this can’t be good news for those who could be caught in the crossfire (both figuratively and literally).

In fact, VoteVets has expressed such a concern:

Again, we have yet another member of the Bush administration who–in a ham-handed effort to help our “allies”–is actually placing our own troops in more danger.  I don’t think there’s any question that this echoes George W. Bush’s provocative invitation for terrorists around the world to descend on Iraq when he declared, “Bring’em on” in July 2003.  And we all know how that worked out.

But it’s not just about Rice’s dismissive, provocative tone, either.  It’s also this continuing, obnoxious Bush-brand of hypocrisy that the whole world sees: If Sadr had said the same thing of Rice–that she’s a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat who sends others to fight her own battles–the Bush administration would freak out.  And that fact isn’t lost on Iraqis.

As Rice is one who will not have to stay and fight the Mahdi Army side-by-side with our troops, I suggest that she keep her mouth shut if she’s not going to say anything helpful.  Because statements like these are certainly not.

This is a group representing Iraq and Afghanistan vets expressing these concerns, not just me.  At the end of the day, people’s lives are at stake.  You would think that the country’s leading diplomat would be…well…more “diplomatic” in her use of words.

Popularity: 10% [?]

“The surge is working”…”we are succeeding in Iraq”. We continue to hear these things from President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John McCain and any Republican automaton who’ll spew it.

However, one thing is becoming more apparent — the fragile cease-fire there is starting to crumble. What is being seen now is the resurgence of a Mahdi army that had once lay dormant.

Check this out:

A cease-fire critical to the improved security situation in Iraq appeared to unravel Monday when a militia loyal to radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al Sadr began shutting down neighborhoods in west Baghdad and issuing demands of the central government.

Simultaneously, in the strategic southern port city of Basra, where Sadr’s Mahdi militia is in control, the Iraqi government launched a crackdown in the face of warnings by Sadr’s followers that they’ll fight government forces if any Sadrists are detained. By 1 a.m. Arab satellite news channels reported clashes between the Mahdi Army and police in Basra.

The freeze on offensive activity by Sadr’s Mahdi Army has been a major factor behind the recent drop in violence in Iraq, and there were fears that the confrontation that’s erupted in Baghdad and Basra could end the lull in attacks, assassinations, kidnappings and bombings.

So, let’s see what excuses will pop up, now, to allow Bush to continue to run out the clock and leave this mess to his successor.

Popularity: 9% [?]

If you’re British, that is.

That’s right, one more in the “coalition of the willing” is saying it’s time to pack it in.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the combat duties of British troops in Basra, Iraq will cease in two weeks. Brown says the troops will switch to training roles and Iraqis will take over defense.

Furthermore, Brown says the 4,500 troops in Iraq will be cut to 2,500 by early 2008. On top of that, he is saying that the remaining troops may all be out of Iraq by March 2008.

However, the most telling detail in all of this is what Brown said in regards to why he feels the troops can leave:

“Since Our Boys withdrew from Basra’s city centre and palace to the airport a few miles away back in September attacks on them have fallen by 90 per cent.”

Did you get that? After they left, the violence went down. In other words, they quit occupying a city and the citys’ residents stopped attacking them. Did you hear that President Bush?

I’m sure this detail will be conveniently ignored in the coverage of Britain’s withdrawl.

So, Britain’s basically out. When are we leaving?

Popularity: 19% [?]