It really bothers the American occupation authority that Ayatollah Sistani refuses to meet with American officials. Some newspapers, like the Washington Post, do not even know, or do not want to admit, that Sistani refuses to meet with Americans. In an article about Sistani today in the New York Times, the paper was clearly unhappy that Sistani does not meet with US colonial administrator Paul Bremer, so it says: "Perhaps to distance himself from the day-to-day fray of politics, and to remain on a level above the occupation forces, he has refused to meet with Mr. Bremer himself." What? What kind of explanation is that? And what is that about "distancing himself from day-to-day fray of politics? He meets with officials from the Arab League, UN, the Iraqi puppet council, etc. This will hurt the feelings of the New York Times, but let me deliver it to them: Sistani does NOT want to meet with Bremer because he believes that it may lend legitimacy to the detested occupation. Get it?