Bush rejects offer to halt attacks in Iraq

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=56895

PENTAGON (AP) - The Bush administration is rejecting an offer from eleven Sunni insurgent groups to immediately halt all attacks in Iraq if the U-S agrees to withdraw troops in two years.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says President Bush believes that a timetable "is not something that is useful." Rumsfeld says such a timetable "is a signal to the enemies that all you have to do is just wait and it's yours." The defense secretary adds, "The goal is not to trade something off for something else to make somebody happy, the goal is to succeed."

[MadMaddie]

1. Yup...this adminstration is going to get more American soldiers

killed because they refuse to negotiate and bring the UN into the mix...

[babylonsister]

2. Guess they're getting used to that blood on their hands. nt

[bdamomma]

3. this is so disgusting

this regime is so evil. We will stand down when they stand up, yea, sure, what a bunch of liars, they are so disgusting. I hope these slimeballs go to hell.

[tuvor]

I couldn't have imagined a different response.

bush would have looked more impotent than he already does.

[uppityperson]

4. You see, they have to want the USA to stay before we will go.

Until they, "the enemy" gives up and becomes no longer the enemy, we have to stay there and keep fighting them there. Until they are all dead or give up and say ok you can stay and rule us and really truly, deep in their hearts mean it. Until then, we have to keep making new enemies and so on. See?

[cal04]

5. leftcoaster had an article today about what dems should do

any thoughts about this?
(snip)
Democrats should push a resolution into Bill Frist’s lap before the recess that would prohibit permanent bases and troop deployments inside Iraq. If al-Maliki needs a 24-month timeline to peel the Sunnis away from Al Qaeda and achieve a true reconciliation, then the Democrats should align themselves with whatever al-Maliki needs. If the GOP claims that leaving within 24 months would be surrender, then Democrats must pointedly question the real GOP agenda in Iraq, and force the GOP to vote in favor of permanent bases and against what it takes for reconciliation in Iraq.


(snip)
They need to put the Republicans on the defensive by calling them out for being against progress and reconciliation in Iraq, and in favor of an ongoing and costly occupation that does nothing to make us safer from terrorism here at home.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/

[w4rma]

19. I believe a law was already passed prohibiting permanent bases there.

Bush signed it into law and then wrote a signing statement stating that he was going to ignore the permanent base restriction part of the law.

[leftchick]

20. I think the repuke congress stripped it out

before the chimp even signed it.

[w4rma]

21. Okay I found out what happened. Both the Senate and House passed a bill

removing funding from any permanent bases. The bill went to committee since the bills were different (although that part of the bill was the same) and they stripped out the funding removal for permanent bases behind closed doors. The resulting bill was passed and signed without the base funding removal language.

[leftchick]

22. yes

I recall hearing that on NPR the day it happened. I was in my car and almost crashed from my fury. :grr:

[enough]

6. Amazing story.

Thanks NNN0LHI

[shadowknows69]

7. It's theirs anyway!!!

We're the occupiers. You'd think they were trying to kick us out of Denver or something. These people want to rule their own country and they have a right to even if it takes civil war to get there but we should be no part of it.

[blonndee]

8. Yup, bring em on, again.

Worst president ever. I hate you, you fuck.

[cynatnite]

9. This does surprise me

This is the opportunity bush and his bunch have been looking for. It's their 'honorable' way out. They can use this to proclaim victory in Iraq with a resolution such as this. From a political point of view, this has the makings of helping them out and in an election year to boot.

Well, now is a good time for the dems to step up and say the bush administration was handed an opportunity to help further stabilize the government and at the very least slow down the insurgency. Having peace with these groups strengthens the Iraqi government and it'll do more to put a stop to the senseless violence against innocent civilians. Dems, I hope you use this example to show the American people that bush has no intention of leaving Iraq.

[OwnedByFerrets]

10. You forget that the bases and the embassy isn't finished yet. That

must be accomplished before "mission accomplished" is admitted.

[cynatnite]

12. No, I didn't forget

The Dems do need to throw this and the permanent bases being built in bush's face. I wish they would get out there and say what needs to be said. I'm all for playing nice, but this is a fight and the dems need to get into it over this stuff.

[madokie]

17. You are right, playing nice is for before the fight, this is a fight

a serious fight for our country

[Warren Stupidity]

11. "all you have to do is just wait and it's yours."

What exactly is Rumsfeld referring to by 'it's'? This offer is lopsidedly fair to the Iraqi government and our occupation forces, a two year cease fire while we carefully get ourselves out of Iraq and the installed government consolidates its control. But there is this puzzling 'it' that would then, even two years later, be 'theirs'. What could it be? What? Is it dark and thick? Does it lie beneath the ground (not very far beneath the ground in Iraq though)? Is it a vital fluid? What is this puzzling it?

[grytpype]

13. The insurgents LIVE THERE, we are just VISITORS and we will have to leave.

[Disturbed]

14. Is Iraq now a sovereign Nation again or not?

Can't the Iraqi Govt. decide what they wish to do now?

[ck4829]

15. As in the words of Napoleon Dynamite

"IDIOTS!"

[Disturbed]

16. This proves that the Busholini Regime does not

want peace or freedom in Iraq. The agenda is to control Iraq and control the oil flow; to keep Iraq's oil off the market enough to allow the Multi-Natl Oil Corps to maintain high profits. Also, to maintain a large Military Force in the ME.

[Roland99]

18. Diplomacy? Talks? Negotiations? HA! "Bring it on! I want more BLOOD!"

(evil maniacal laughter)

[Triana]

23. "The goal is to succeed"....at WHAT?

killing more people for oil and profit and LIES?

[smoogatz]

24. Bear in mind...

This offer comes from eleven Sunni groups operating in two of Iraq's 18 provinces--not including Baghdad. There is no monolithic Sunni leadership (yet) with whom we (or the Iraqi government) can negotiate. That said, Bushco's apparent inability to view this as an encouraging development--which it certainly seems to be--is peculiar indeed. It does sound as though their "plan for victory" involves leaving large numbers of US troops in Iraq, in spite of the expressed wishes of the Iraqi people and their "freely elected" government.

[DaveT]

25. I had the same response to this idea as Smoogatz.

The headlines have been swooshing back and forth with tales of peace offers the last few days -- from Maliki to "insurgent groups" who supposedly are on board; rejection of same by other "insurgent" groups who scoff at the small number of "insurgents" involved in the Maliki talks; this proposal to exchange a stoppage of attacks on GIs for a US withdrawal by the bizarre date of 2008 (why would they want us to stay for two more years?); and, now, this morning Bushco rejects this offer in a hail of Rumspeak.

The scarcely articulated problem with all of these stories is that there is no united opposition entity to negotiate with. You could write an early Woody Allen movie (like Don't Drink The Water or Bananas) around the plot of trying to find some putz to play the part of the insurgent "maximum leader" to sign whatever fraudulent "peace deal" that the Bush Government wants to "sign" just before election day.

I also agree with Smoogatz that the cold water tossed onto this litte story by the Bush Council of Warlords is damning evidence of their intent to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Their sponsors are making too much money off this adventure to let any dreamy talk of "peace talks" to catch on with the American polity.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "The Democrats" -- our elected leaders are more disorganized than the various insurgent militias in Iraq. I certainly agree that it would be a fabulous political strategy to jam this up Bush's ass --

The insurgents offered to stand down NOW if only we'd agree to leave in two years. Every casualty from this minute forward is this bloodthirsty incompetent's personal responsibility.

If the enemy does not live up to its end of the deal, we could reverse withdrawal plans easily, if necessary. There is no good reason for rebuffing this offer -- unless the President plans on "staying the course" for decades of occupation in a hostile country.

We call on the President now to respect the blood sacrifice of our troops in the field of battle and to take appropriate action to stop the attacks that have killed or wounded nearly 20,000 of our finest men and women in uniform.

We have absolutely nothing to lose -- and a peaceful and free Iraq to gain. Wasn't that supposed to be the goal, Mr. President? Of do you have yet another "explanation" for sacrificing American lives on the far side of the planet?


If "our" leaders would stick to a unified message like this one with GOP-style discipline, and not wuss out to the sneers of the Punditocracy, I think we'd turn this issue into a rout of the GOP.

But that ain't gonna happen -- for a lot of complicated reasons.

So WE, the rank and file, should be shouting this kind of message at every opportunity!!!!!

[Maestro]

26. I heard about the story yesterday.

I thought what a chance for everyone to come together and get this quagmire worked out, but then I thought that this arrogant admin would never do it. They didn't prove me wrong. Hell, the timetable was two years! It's not like the group said something like six months!