The article "Khalilzad: Officials speaking with 'reconcilable insurgents'" at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-26-iraq-Khalilzad_N.htm?csp=34
states "A suicide bombing also seriously wounded Iraq's Sunni Deputy Prime
Minister Salam al-Zubaie on Friday in his heavily guarded compound in the capital."
Khalilzad was mouthing Rove's talking points about progress in Baghdad, but doesn't he understand that almost killing the Deputy Prime Minister inside the protection of the Green Zone indicates it was an inside job-which further illustrates how the "Death Squads" have penetrated the Iraq security apparatus. Doesn't he realize that the assignation of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the incident that started World War 1?
The article notes that Khalilzad acknowledged what the Democratic leaders in the US are saying as "I know that we are an impatient people, and I constantly signal to the Iraqi leaders that our patience, or the patience of the American people, is running out."
Why doesn't W berate Khalilzad for making the same remarks as the US Democratic leaders have made? Behind the scenes W is pressuring his hand-picked puppet, al-Maliki, to do what the Democrats are trying to pass as legislation, but W is accusing the Democrats of treason for their efforts to force the Iraqis to move forward on the political and diplomatic front.
The United States has denied making the threat but Khalilzad was clear Monday that al-Maliki was under heavy U.S. pressure to move rapidly on several issues, especially a law that would provide a fair distribution of Iraqi oil wealth among all ethnic and sectarian groups, a measure that is especially important to the White House."
W has always said he would not negotiate with "those who are against us", but here is W's man in Iraq doing just that as "Khalilzad declined to provide details about the contacts with insurgent groups, citing security concerns.
But he told The New York Times in an interview published Monday that he held talks last year with people believed to represent them before and after the Feb. 22, 2006, bombing of Shiite shrine in Samarra, which triggered a vicious cycle of retaliatory sectarian violence.
The meetings - some of which took place in Jordan - began in early 2006 and included self-described representatives of the Islamic Army of Iraq and the 1920 Revolution Brigades, unidentified American and Iraqi officials told The Times."
How serious is al-Maliki about reducing sectarian violence? According to Juan Cole's "Informed Comment" article the Debaathification Commission--which was headed by corrupt financier Ahmad Chalabi is undergoing revisions. al-Maliki allegedly now sees the error in his ways and he and President Jalal Talabani will put forward new legislation offering an amnesty program for Baath officials. If they come in from the cold within 3 months, they can be restored to high office.
Who make up this group that amnesty is being considered for? Aren't they mostly the people who are now heading the Sunni Arab guerrilla movements? They all have been identified as being bloodthirsty killers so an official pardon for them really isn't an option. Why come up this farce then? By doing so may it take some pressure off the Iraqi government at this week's Arab League summit, where they are working on a proposal to urge abolition of the Debaathification Commission and disbanding of Shiite militias. Also this is the platform on which former appointed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has been campaigning to form a new political bloc-- a campaign that has been met with some favor in neighboring Sunni Arab states and Egypt.
Regarding the Arab League summit the article "U.S. Iraq Role Is Called Illegal by Saudi King" at click here describes how W is losing his few allies in the region. It states "King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the
United States would continue to dictate the region's politics.
The king's speech, at the opening of the Arab League meeting here, underscored growing differences between Saudi Arabia and the Bush administration as the
Saudis take on a greater leadership role in the Middle East, partly at American urging."
W lied to a willing US that one of the primary reasons for the Iraq war was that their democracy would be something that the entire Middle East would try to emulate. Not only can't we introduce democracy to Iraq, but as a result of the horrible failures in policy regarding Iraq, W is hemorrhaging his limited number of Middle East allies.
Not only have "The Saudis seem to be emphasizing that they will not be beholden to the policies of their longtime ally.... But In addition, Abdullah invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Riyadh earlier this month, while the Americans want him shunned. And in trying to settle the tensions in Lebanon, the Saudis have been willing to negotiate with Iran and Hezbollah.
Last week the Saudi king canceled his appearance next month at a White House dinner in his honor, The Washington Post reported Wednesday. The official reason given was a scheduling conflict, the paper said."
Saudi Arabia has always viewed Iran as the non-Arabic, non-Sunni, enemy, but now they would rather deal with them, and the terrorist group Hezbollah, rather than W!
The article "Gunmen Go On Rampage In Iraqi City" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032800166.html states "A day after twin truck bombings laid waste to predominantly Shiite neighborhoods in the northern Iraqi city of Tall Afar, marauding Shiite gunmen and police executed dozens of Sunnis in retaliatory attacks that many
Iraqis feared might precipitate a resurgence of open sectarian warfare.
The killings took place in a city once cited by President Bush as a sign of the U.S. military's success in pacifying the insurgency. Bush said in a speech almost exactly a year ago that the "example of Tall Afar gives me confidence in our strategy."
Did Tall Afar encourage W enough to utter "Mission Accomplished" again? No, but if he had said his trademark comment of insanity, no one would notice, because we just expect his group to lie, or pretend that the US MSM was acting to filter out the good news coming from Iraq.