We have a couple of reports out today that seem to indicate otherwise. As first reported in the UK based international Arabic daily paper Asharq Alawsat and picked up by Raw Story and the Pakistani Daily Times, we have news that:
representatives from the Iraqi insurgency met with Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Iraq earlier this year in the Jordanian capital of Amman.
The report went on to indicate that there were approximately 7 meetings, and that the Iraqis broke off talks recently.
If this is true (which it appears to be), then it could be a good sign that there is some sort of dialogue about withdrawing troops and figuring out how to maneuver out of this mess that Chimpy and Rummy put the world in. However, the fact that talks broke off obviously isn't a good sign, despite the fact that (I believe I read somewhere a year or so ago) this isn't the first round of talks that were held with the Sunnis in order to come up with some sort of plan over and above the current non-plan.
According to the source:
"We took part in a series of meetings with the US ambassador, beginning on 16 January first in Amman and later in Baghdad, outside the Green Zone. In total, seven meetings were held, three before a week of enforced calm on 6 February and four afterwards."
The source admitted that the meetings were held through an intermediary "an Iraqi leader who we trust and who has good relations with the US administration."
By taking part in the talks, the insurgents had aimed at reaching an agreement to ensure US troops withdrew from Iraq and the country remained united, without foreign countries meddling in its affairs, the source said.
"The US administration had to implement a number of commitments during the period of enforced calm in order for the ceasefire to continue, until the formation of an Iraqi government. But the US administration did not carry out its commitments and the Iraqi resistance resumed its activities."
Many of these commitments were to be followed during a "period of calm", and on first glance, seem somewhat reasonable:
"We had certain primary conditions including a halt to military operations, arrest raids against innocent Iraqis, and the release of prisoners that were arrested unjustly...but they failed to implement their obligations so the Iraqi resistance continued their operations,"
I wonder what went on behind the scenes here. Could it be that there are many who are trying to act in somewhat good faith, only to have Chimpy McThinskin and his band of torturers thwart the efforts so we can build our shiny new Embassy in the heart of Baghdad, as well as all of the brand-spanking new "temporary" military bases there?
Either way, it certainly is interesting to see that there is some sort of negotiating going on, all while there is tough talk about bombing Iran. The discussions seemed to be heading in a favorable direction, at least initially:
"...we continued to meet with the US ambassador and presented a draft memorandum of understanding aimed at achieving a comprehensive solution to the Iraqi crisis. The US side was comfortable with the document despite having a few reservations on a number of points. We were ready to discuss these further with them and we met held two meetings with the US military, according to a request by ambassador Khalilzad. They were attended by a senior US Army commander, the assistant to General George Casey in Iraq."
But since there was no response, talks were broken off last week:
"However, we have yet to receive an answer. We were very surprised by the new Iraqi government, which was based on sectarian considerations. The US side was expected to reply to our memorandum prior to the formation of the new Iraqi government [before late April] and reach an agreement with us. This is why we decided to suspend the talks and we informed the Americans of this in a memorandum on Sunday."
Khalilzad did confirm that there were meetings with people who were affiliated with the "Sunni-dominated insurgency" but didn't say as to whether they were with officials, intermediaries or the insurgent leaders themselves.
Of course, we all know that negotiating with or harboring terrorists is ok if you want it to be. So why should this be any different, except for the little fact that many of the "insurgents" are defending their country from an illegal invasion ordered by a madman criminal who put our brave troops in harm's way without a plan.
At least the insurgents are willing to come to the table. Certainly it is not in the best self serving, perpetual warmongering interest of Bu$hCo and the crime cabal to do so. But what does it matter to them, they are only "supposed to" serve the will of We the People.