[From the diaries by susanhu.] The UK Sunday Times reports that the Bush administration actually does negotiate with terrorists. According to the article, “senior military and intelligence officers, a civilian staffer from Congress and a representative of the US embassy in Baghdad” have met twice with representatives of insurgent groups in Iraq.

How many Bushco lies is that now? I’ve lost count.

After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies.

The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings. Details provided to The Sunday Times by two Iraqi sources whose groups were involved indicate that further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq.

That’s right. The coalition of the willing is losing the war and now they’re meeting with insurgents to hear their demands. (More below)
Flashback to what Karl Rove said this past week:

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

And now, let’s look at what Bushco has been doing, according to the Times article:

They asked questions about the “hierarchy and logistics of the groups, how they functioned, how orders were dispatched, how they divide their work and so on”, the Iraqi source said.

“It was a boring line of questioning that indicated an attempt to discover more about their enemy than about finding solutions,” one of the sources added. “We told the translator to inform them that if they persisted with this line we would all walk out of the meeting.”

Is it just me or does that look like an attempt to understand the terrorists?


But, you say, not all insurgents are terrorists. They just want their country back. Whatever you may feel about the opposition in Iraq, here’s who Bushco is really meeting with:

On the rebel side were representatives of insurgent groups including Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings and killed 22 people in the dining hall of an American base at Mosul last Christmas.

If that’s not a slap in the face to American troops, I don’t know what is. Not only are they negotiating with terrorists, they’re negotiating with those who committed one of the worst attacks on the US military in the history of the war.


And, what do these terrorists want? Well, what’s the one thing that Bushco representatives have said repeatedly lately they would not provide? A timetable for withdrawal. Is this why the public has been inundated with these refusals to set a timetable? Not for those in the US who are calling for one – but to get that message across to those insurgents? Make you wonder. Apparently, they also called for “US compensation for the damage caused by the American military occupation”. That sounds fair to me – since it’s what the US promised in the first place.

And, what was offered in return?

But one American official apparently asked whether the insurgents would be interested in disarming in return for a release of all Iraqi prisoners in US military camps.

The Iraqi side immediately reverted to its demand for a timetable and the only agreement of the afternoon was to meet again.

Think about that for a minute. They offered to release prisoners. An offer that would definitely include freedom for even more terrorists. Just how wise is that?

The second meeting did not go quite as well with the Iraqis complaining that the US officials were “talking with a tone of more superiority, arrogance and provocation”. Right. That’s exactly how you negotiate with people who would blow your heads off: by being obstinate and belligerent.

After a discussion about Al-Qaeda activities, the Americans bluntly advised the Iraqis to “cease all support, logistics and cover for Zarqawi’s group”. Only if links to Al-Qaeda were severed would the Americans be ready to discuss Iraqi demands.

“Our response was that we will never abandon any Muslim who has come to our country to help us defend it,” the commander said.

I guess they figured since they haven’t been doing much of anything to catch Osama bin Laden – even though Porter Goss says he knows where OBL is – they’d at least try to score a few points with the American public by going after his supporters in Iraq.

Strike two.

“The Americans want to expedite this matter of talks with the insurgents,” said Dr Sabah Kathim, the [Iraq interior] ministry’s senior spokesman.

They initially thought they could win it through military operations and now they have come to realise that the military option will not provide them with the solution, so they are going for the political option as well.”

Oh. So now they figure diplomacy might work? After how many thousands of people have been killed and wounded? Some of us thought diplomacy might work in the first place if Bushco had allowed the UN process to work and we were vilified. At least we are not responsible for the nightmare that has become the war on Iraq. You are, Bush. How does that feel?

Does Bushco suddenly believe in appeasement? Well, consider the little covered news last week that the administration has promised 50,000 tons of food aid to North Korea even though there is absolutely no assurance that the food will actually end up being delivered to the starving North Korean people. It is just as likely to go towards feeding government officials, supporters and the huge army. The news agencies were too busy covering one missing white woman in Aruba while the administration was busily selling out America’s integrity around the world.

Just what else is going on that we don’t know about?

Hypocrites. Every last one of them.

0 0 votes
Article Rating