Trading Violent Insurgents for Sectarian Violence In Iraq

Balking at peace talks: What if Bushco were secretly preparing the next Big Thing in Iraq? You remember the first Big Thing — Weapons of Mass Destruction — and how well that turned out. Took about two years for that one to be replaced by the next Big Thing — Insurgents Are Terrorists. Well, it looks like the next Big Thing is going to be We Can’t Leave Iraq Until We’ve Ended Sectarian Violence Or We’ve Trained the Iraqi Army To Quash It.

That seems to be one conclusion that can be drawn from an Inter Press News Service report that came out on May 5, citing a London-based Arab newspaper that said secret peace talks between the U.S. and Iraqi insurgents ended in late April when the U.S. representative, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, failed to respond to a peace proposal from the insurgents.

According to IPS, “Asharq Al Awsat” newspaper, reported that “resistance organisations” had just broken off the secret talks:

The Arab-language newspaper reported that the leader of a Sunni insurgent group had revealed in an interview that representatives of more than 10 prominent Iraqi insurgent organisations had met with Khalilzad seven times starting on Jan. 16.

‘The formation of the government based on a sectarian formula will lead to the partition of Iraq and weakening it.’

However, the insurgent leader said that the United States had never responded to a memorandum of understanding presented to Khalilzad around March 1, despite a promise to do so before the formation of a new government. He said the insurgents had decided to end the talks and had delivered a memo to the U.S. Embassy on April 29 informing the United States of the decision.

IPS noted that the story was picked up by the Associated Press, datelined Dubai, but has escaped the notice of major international news media. “Asharq Al Awsat” quoted an anonymous source regarding the meetings and their purpose:

“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 [cease fire] 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.”

The insurgents’ goal in participating in the talks was to reach an understanding before the new government was installed. Their proposal sought to ensure that U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq and the country remained united, without foreign countries — or the puppet Iraqi government — dictating its affairs.

That Khalilzad would meet seven times with insurgent representatives, and inside the Green Zone and in the presence, allegedly, of the assistant to Army Commander Gen. George Casey, surely would have demonstrated to the insurgents that the U.S. was negotiating in good faith. But it wasn’t, according to the source quoted by the Arab paper:

“However, we have yet to receive an answer. We were very surprised by the new Iraqi government, which was based on sectarian considerations. The U.S. side was expected to reply to our memorandum prior to the formation of the new Iraqi government 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[April 28].”

“Our agreement with the U.S. ambassador was conditioned on the non-participation of any other individuals or political group. We wanted the talks to be held between us and the U.S. ambassador directly.”

The source cautioned that, “The formation of the government based on a sectarian formula will lead to the partition of Iraq and weakening it. We do not recognize this government and will not deal with it.” He also revealed that efforts were under way to unite the Iraqi resistance and create a council and unified leadership.

And there, folks, you have the birth of the next Big Thing. The insurgents were ready to deal, and all they asked was to deal directly with the U.S. and for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But once they’d tipped their hand and Bushco found what it would take to end the insurgency (and the ongoing occupation of Iraq by the United States, which is the point of the whole exercise), the deal was off. The new puppets were installed in a way that guarantees sectarian sniping and violence, and ensures that the insurgents will continue to insurge.

Thus, the U.S. has no choice but to stay in Iraq to build up the Iraqi army to quell the insurgency, which is being fed by sectarian violence, and enforce cohesion where, according to the Sunni insurgent, we could have peace and stability — if only we’d leave. But the pull out of U.S. troops from Iraq is one Big Thing we are not likely to see anytime soon.

Quote du Jour

Let no man think that we can deny civil liberty to others and retain it for ourselves …. When zealous agents of the Government arrest suspected “radicals” without warrant, hold them without prompt trial, deny them access to counsel and admission of bail, we have shorn the Bill of Rights of its sanctity as a shield to every American citizen.

— Robert M. Lafollete (1855-1925), American political and reform leader

Fox News Bleeding Ratings

Los Angeles Times:

“[Fox News will] always have their hard-core audience that wants to hear, ‘Everything’s great! [Bush is] doing a great job.’ ” But less-partisan viewers are drifting away.”
— Keith Olbermann

Nielsen Media Research reported that Fox News’ overall prime-time lineup dropped 17 percent last month compared with a year ago (MSNBC grew 16 percent during the same period, while CNN plummeted by 38 percent).

Late last week, a reliable television industry website, TVNewser.com, reported that in April, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly had his worst month in nearly five years among viewers age 25 to 54, the most coveted audience in TV news.

Although the network still churns out ratings light-years ahead of competitors’ and O’Reilly remains cable news’ No. 1 host, Fox News’ explosive growth appears to be, like the president’s 90 percent approval rating in the days following Sept. 11, a relic from the first Bush term.

That’s the elephant in the room, of course — the broadly assumed, and occasionally documented, affinity between Fox News and the current administration (Vice President Dick Cheney’s office prepared a hotel checklist, recently posted on TheSmokingGun.com, that ordered “all televisions tuned to Fox News” during Cheney visits). Could it be mere coincidence that O’Reilly, populist scourge of both Clintons and countless left-wing causes, is seeing his still-formidable nightly audience of 2.1 million or so start to shrink in tandem with the Bush/GOP’s rapidly fading grip on the electorate?

O’Reilly’s thoroughly delighted rivals think not.

“When the stock market was through the roof in the ’90s, people used to sit around and watch CNBC and slap high fives and say, ‘I made another hundred bucks today!’ ” said MSNBC host and O’Reilly foe Keith Olbermann, adding that CNBC’s ratings quickly went south when the tech bubble burst.

“I think the same psychology applies to Fox. They’ll always have their hard-core audience that wants to hear, ‘Everything’s great! [Bush is] doing a great job.’ ” But less-partisan viewers are drifting away, Olbermann argued.

Hillary Schmillary

On Friday I happened to catch a cable newsreader interviewing a reporter for a Rhode Island newspaper in Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s district discussing the congressman’s non-arrest for erratic driving near the Capitol. Back home, the reporter said, Kennedy was “sort of like Hillary Clinton — people either love him or hate him.”

Sen. Clinton would probably make as good a president as any other politician but I don’t find her to be inspirational or exceptional leader on any level.

This reflects the conventional wisdom about Sen. Clinton. Rightwingers hate her, and we liberals love her. There’s no middle ground.

Sorry, but that just doesn’t square with reality on the ground, at least the reality here in the Los Angeles liberal enclave. I don’t know any liberals who “love” Hillary Clinton. Some of us respect her and admire her, but I just don’t see the fanatical love for the senator that the conventional wisdom says is out there.

In particular, I haven’t seen even a hint of a groundswell of support for her presidency here. I suspect she does well in the early polling simply because as a former First Lady she has extremely high name recognition and because even Republicans are now wistful for the good old days of the Clinton Era.

In an editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas explains Clinton’s lack of connection on the left as part of her husband’s political legacy of moving the Democratic Party away from the left toward the center.

Moulitsas also says that Clinton’s failure to provide leadership on national issues has hurt her with DailyKos members, and points out that in a recent presidential straw poll on the site, she only got 2 percent of the vote.

In fact, I’m ambivalent about Clinton — and not because she’s not liberal enough. (She’s more liberal than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whom I admire a lot more than Hillary.) Clinton would probably make as good a president as any other politician but I don’t find her to be inspirational or exceptional leader on any level.