American Troops vs. al-Sadr and his Democratic Allies

Well, maybe they should have done this the first time the slumrat starting mouthing off:

A day after radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr resurfaced to end nearly four months in hiding and demand U.S. troops leave Iraq, American forces raided his Sadr City stronghold and killed five suspected militia fighters in air strikes Saturday.
U.S. and Iraqi forces called in the air strikes after a raid in which they captured a "suspected terrorist cell leader," the U.S. military said in statement.

The militia fighters were killed in air strikes on nine cars that were seen positioning themselves to attack American forces after the raid, the military said.

Had this been done in 2003, the war may have been over in 2004. Better late than never, I reckon...

Note further down in the article upon whom al-Sadr is counting on to help lead his resurgence:

Al-Sadr did not address his reasons for returning, but associates say his strategy rests in part on his belief that Washington will soon start reducing troop strength, leaving a void in Iraq's security and political power structure that he can fill.

"Washington", huh? Wonder if the Washington Post did some creative editing; there is only one group in Washington that wants to start rapidly reducing troop strength, and they are called Democrats. Anyone want to point out to Hillary/Obama/Reid/Pelosi that their words of defeatism and surrender are emboldening the enemy, to a point where once-fled terror leaders are now returning, anticipating a easy mark come November?

Supporting the enemy in warfare is treason; and that's what the above four horseman of the American apocalypse are doing, willfully and knowingly. They need an American defeat to have any hope of fully regaining power, and they will use all means possible to achieve that ends, including a smile and a wink to the murderous al-Sadr.

Questioning your patriotism? You'd better flippin' believe it....