Shrubco negotiations with Iraq resistance: let's not have it "both ways".

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

Personally, if true, and if this means they are looking for a way out, I would consider this a welcome development. Since I don't detect much active movement within Democratic politicians actually calling for us to withdraw from Iraq (too afraid of being labelled "quitters" etc.), the most likely source of a wholesale withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is shrubco itself, trying to salvage the Repub party.

Whatever the reason, I think this would be a good thing.

Even if shrubco did the smartest thing and pulled all troops out tomorrow, it would in no way absolve them of the heavy crime of waging this war in the first place, and the deception of America that was necessary to do it.

I've seen posts here about this talking about how they are "negotiating with the terrorists" etc. making political hay out of the situation. But one can point out the hypocrisy (shrubco says they won't negotiate with terrorists, label all resistance as terrorists, and negotiate with said resistance) without falling into the shrubco lingo.

I don't like this blanket labelling of the Iraqi resistance as "terrorists" because it's SHRUBCO's tool for instant demonization of those who would oppose them. It's certainly true that terrorist methods are at times being used by some of them, as they are often used by militarily weak resistance movements against a strong occupier.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to make political "hay" out of the situation either, we definitely should. But we should be honest about it and not fall into the shrubco definitions and traps.

Does that make any sense? :shrug: