The blogosphere and general media is abuzz with news of a boycott by a powerful Shiite group—led by Moqtada al-Sadr—in
Alex, over at Martini Republic, writes:
"An already weak and ineffective Iraqi government led by Nouri al Maliki loses the backing of a powerful faction of lawmakers..."
Yet he fails to mention an important aspect of the boycott, found in WaPo's coverage:
But Rubaie cautioned that their action did not mean the officials were pulling out of the government [emphasis added], which would all but guarantee the collapse of Iraq's unity government.
"The suspension does not mean our withdrawal from the political process," said Rubaie. He added the Sadr bloc would meet in coming days to discuss how long members would remain out of the government.
To hit up Bush for meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is a tad unfair. I doubt Bush pushed this meeting because he thinks such an action "imbues them [Iraqi officials] with domestic legitimacy."
In fact, I think he made the right calculation: knowing that Sadr wouldn't risk being blamed for worsening
This observation shouldn't be mistaken for a blanket endorsement of the Iraqi regime or Bush's