Of course, readers of Jihad Watch have known this since at least April 17, 2004, when I wrote [1] here that "we used to hear all the time that Sistani was a moderate. But it should be clear to everyone now that he wants Sharia in Iraq, and, in accordance with Sharia principles, will not side with infidels against a fellow Muslim."

"Mugged By Reality," by [2] Hugh Hewitt (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

John Agresto's memoir of his service in Iraq as senior advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education came out this week. He'll join me in the third hour today.

It is a very personal book, full of regret and sober observations on the mistakes made throughout the post-invasion period. There is plenty of blunt talk as well. Example:

We insisted that the Ayatollah Sistani was surely a "moderate" and a friend to civil and religious liberty despite all the hard evidence to the contrary. Let me repeat my previous observations and predictions: The Ayatollah Sistani is an Islamist bent on establishing a theocracy not far removed from that found in Iran. He is an open anti-Semite and a not-too-subtle anti-Christian. he threw his support behind democratic elections because they were the handy vehicles for imposing religious authority all over Iraq. Nor is he the only one, or even the worst, only the most prominent. Yet while I believe the evidence is as clear here as it is in the case of Chalabi, we only see what we want to see,, not what's visible. In our religious lives, Hope may well be a virtue -- but in foreign policy it is more often a sin, a temptation to willful blindness.

Yes, the willful blindness is everywhere, isn't it, Mr. Hewitt?

See also these other Jihad Watch posts:

[3] Fitzgerald: Sistani for Nobel? No thanks

[4] Sistani funnels money to Iran

[5] Sistani: "Sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible"

[6] Jaafari: Sistani wants Islamic law in Iraq

And there are more where those came from.

Also, [7] Andrew Bostom's article, "Is Paul Bremer 'Unclean'?," dates from February 20, 2004.