Juan Cole & John Edwards we are not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq.

[Botany]

These are Iraqis nationals we are fighting not al Qaeda. Once again
bush lies to the American people, "We are fighting 'em (al Qaeda) over there
so we don't have to fight 'em over here." rough quote

BTW the majority of foreign suicide bombers are from Saudi Arabia (N.P.R. 5/3)

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/note-to-bush-and-edwards-on-how-there.html


<I caught John Edwards on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room Wednesday afternoon. Blitzer asked him about Bush's
remarks on al-Qaeda being enemy number one in Iraq.

Edwards replied with great good sense and admirable forthrightness, and I'll quote it in a second. But one thing
I advise candidates in both parties to do is start recognizing that what the US military calls the Iraqi insurgency
is primary Iraqi nationalists, not al-Qaeda.

snip

A recent study by Gen. Barry McCaffrey suggested that there are in fact 100,000 insurgents (I prefer the term guerrilla)
in Iraq, not the 20,000 to 25,000 usually estimated by the US military.

Iraq's previous interior minister estimated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at less than a thousand. Most of these
are Salafi Jihadis of one sort or another (revivalist Sunnis).

So 99,000 insurgents are Iraqis. And none of them is al-Qaeda in the sense of being loyal to the organization or fighting
for Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They are fighting for some vision of the Iraqi nation, whether inflected by religion
or not.>

[The Count]

1. So, Sunni & Shiites wil, reconcile,huh? Glad we have people who REALLY

understand Iraq who want to take charge!
How will you reconcile the two, John? The 2 Americas speech? :shrug:

[dave_p]

2. Why shouldn't they?

If they don't, there are two options: perpetual conflict or perpetual occupation (which has done nothing to end the conflict anyway).

One thing's certain: the US presence isn't motivating anyone to end the killing: instead it offers each the prsopect of an ally in the domestic conflict unleashed by the invasion.

Sunni and Shia fought alongside each other against the British in 1920; they can get their act together again, but it won't happen while Iraq's a neocon puppet state.

[The Count]

3. While I agree that our presence doesn't help, saying these two will reconcile

is as idiotic as the initial ignorance of the conflict by Bushco.
it's irresponsible to make such comments.

[Fermezlabush]

4. They should. And I should be Miss Universe. And the press should report facts.

And peace should reign supreme on a non-global warming Earth. Now, vote for me!

[Cameron27]

5. Hey, be careful, you're likely to get a big following !

:smoke:

[smoogatz]

6. His point is that there's zero chance of any reconciliation

as long as U.S. combat troops are there, getting the various nationalist factions all worked up. Right now, U.S. troops are propping up the Iran-friendly, Shi'a led government, which effectively disenfranchises the Sunni minority--not in terms of their right to vote, but rather their right to a share of Iraq's oil resource. It's a clusterfuck of truly Bushian proportions--American troops are dying at the rate of three per day in order to safeguard the interests of Iran, and there's no way to reverse that situation short of switching sides and supporting the Sunni insurgents against the "democratically elected" government that we installed (or invading Iran, which seems to be off the table, suddenly--at least no one's talking about it anymore). Meanwhile, the Saudis--our good friends and allies in the War on Terra--are funding the Sunni insurgents, because the last thing they want in the region is an expansion of Iranian influence. Meanwhile, the 'democratically elected" Iraqi government has amply demonstrated that it has neither the will nor the desire nor the capacity to engineer even the beginnings of a reconciliation process, which would require, first and foremost, an agreement to share oil revenues with the Sunni minority. Instead, they've cut a deal that basically hands control of Iraq's oil resource over to Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP; which kind of explains why we're there in the first place and why, if Republicans stay in power, we're never going to leave. So yes, there's a potential path to reconciliation. But no, the Iraqis ain't never going to walk it.

[The Count]

7. So glad there's always translations for "Bomb Iran" "let them reconcile"

and other ignorant statements that Edwards keeps making publicly...
It's reassuring, as we never had anyone in charge who needed PR to cover his blunders..Oh, wait! :shrug:
Let's hear for the

"what he meant was..."

team

[smoogatz]

9. MY point is that Juan Cole seems to agree with Edwards' central argument--

which is that U.S. troops aren't serving any productive purpose in Iraq. I agree with that argument, too.

[The Count]

10. Too bad that the marginal "Al Quaeda" "reconciliation" arguments demonstrate a sad

lack of knowledge and understanding of the problems.
Same lack of understanding that - might I add, led to Edwards initial sponsoring of IWR. So, just because he changed slogans now, I'm supposed to trust this guy? His future judgments?

[smoogatz]

14. Of course not.

I don't trust him worth a damn. I'm just saying that as I understand his argument, he's currently more or less on the right side of the issue--even though as you say, he still doesn't get the framework of the thing at all. Which suggests a remarkable degree of intellectual laziness on his part (or else, for whatever reason, willful obfuscation); you'd think that if you were running for president right now, you'd want to make yourself the world's leading expert on all things Iraqi. It may be that he finds himself unable to articulate the full truth about Iraq for political reasons; he doesn't want to be pilloried by the reichsmedia for suggesting that Iraqis really aren't just one big happy family after all. In either case--you're right. If he can't articulate the true extent of the problem, he can't possibly formulate a workable solution.

[jsamuel]

8. Attack attack attack!

[The Count]

11. I know, no one has ever suffered more than Edwards...those mean people with brains

that refuse to buy rhetoric whole sale from a guy who doesn't know dick of what he's talking about! Bad, bad Edwards detractors!
:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[flpoljunkie]

12. However, Cole thinks Edwards' video response to Bush's veto isn't "good political tactics."

John Edwards argues in his campaign commercials that the best response to Bush's veto of the supplemental spending bill on Iraq and the failure on Wednesday of Congress to overturn it, is to keep sending the same bill back to Bush.

It is satisfying to say so, but it probably isn't good political tactics. When Newt Gingrich played politics with the budget under Clinton and even shut down DC, it was Congress that took the hit in the polls. Just being obstreperous isn't very attractive.

Murtha is suggesting that they don't fund a whole year, maybe only two months. That sort of conditionality, whatever its mechanism, seems right to me.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/murtha-urges-limited-funding-bombing.html

[The Count]

13. Cole is right on that. Even if he wanted, W cannot back down now. Overriding

the veto is the only chance. Multiple votings - wear out the GOP reps and Senators who will think of re-election.
It's clearly not something meant to get a result. Other than cast a bad light on the opponents in the senate & a hell of a good fundraiser from the naive (Trippi tried my pockets too)