Nouri al-Maliki ... what did we expect anyway?

What did we expect anyway? Hearing that Howard Dean "accused" Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iraq and a Shiite Muslim, of being an "anti-Semite" actually was some comedy relief in this whole matter of the Iraq-occupation-come-Lebanon-Israel-Middle-East-crisis.

We overthrew a secular Sunni dictator in a country populated largely by theocratic Shiites who had been tortured, murdered and denied revenues from the oil that was in their geographic area. Then, when they voted, the majority Shiites elected one of their own. Isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work?

And oh yes, Shiites have traditionally been more "anti-Semite" than the Sunnis from the time that Israel was created in 1948.

Howard Dean's statement was an empty accusation ... somethng like asking a cat why he chases mice after you have just given him a nice dish of warm milk.

Cats chase mice and Muslims -- especially Shiites -- hate Jews!

They also hate Sunnis, and this goes back to almost the moment after the first Prophet, Muhammad, died. The debate over his successor is what divided Islam into Shiites and Sunnis in the first place.

Maliki is being unfairly attacked by Democrats for saying and acting (seemingly favoring the Hezbollah ovre Israel) in much the same manner as these same Democrats have been asking George W. Bush to act as regard what they perceive to be Bush's unfairly favoring Israel in the growing conflict in Israel, Gaza and Lebanon.

Whereas GWB believes that the US historical/Biblical destiny began to unfold with the attacks on 9-11, Maliki believes that the Iraqi Shiites' historical/Quranic destiny began to unfold with the US invasion of Iraq.

What did we expect anyway?