Insurgents offer to end attacks for ’08 U.S. exit?

[Maoilbheannacht]

Here is where the article comes from:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13594032/



So is this for real? Do these people really represent the insurgency? Should the coalition and Iraqi government agree to it? Can they be trusted? Is this just to buy time until the coalition leaves while having time to rebuild or improve their capabilities? Will they attempt sieze power from what they may believe is an Iraqi military and government that will not be able to defend itself once coalition forces leave?

 

[BVS]

It's a double edged sword. No matter what we won't believe it. There was evidence of 9/11 before they attacked, we didn't believe it then, we won't believe it now.

 

[U2DMfan]

If anything it could say something about the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. Whether most of these attacks are just nationalists and loyalists or actually terrorists based outside of Iraq. A deal would have to be made, or it would tell us nothing at all in this sense.

The 2008 (two more years) date sure does sound almost too coincidental. Imagine the political windfall of a troop pullout in summer/early fall 2008. Not trying to be a cynic, just can't help it...

I don't think these 11 groups represent anything substantial, that's just a guess I surely have no way of knowing. My guess is the nature of the insurgency is a multi-headed beast and even if there were good will and a deal, it would tumble like a house of cards. I don't think it will happen anyways.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

The 2008 (two more years) date sure does sound almost too coincidental. Imagine the political windfall of a troop pullout in summer/early fall 2008. Not trying to be a cynic, just can't help it...

Realize though, this is the first time that neither the sitting President or Vice President will be running for re-election in US history I believe.

 

[U2DMfan]

Realize though, this is the first time that neither the sitting President or Vice President will be running for re-election in US history I believe.

No, it's just the first time in a long time, something like 40+ years. Maybe 1960? And yes, I realize this, but also realize that the party of Bush and Cheney does not go away in 2008. The Republicans still want to control the White House and the Republicans controlling the White House will try and help further their agenda thru the next adminstration. The Dems do the same thing. Again, it might be a total coincidence, I was just bringing it up for discussion.

 

[verte76]

Both parties will want to milk this political cow for all it's worth.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

No, it's just the first time in a long time, something like 40+ years. Maybe 1960? And yes, I realize this, but also realize that the party of Bush and Cheney does not go away in 2008. The Republicans still want to control the White House and the Republicans controlling the White House will try and help further their agenda thru the next adminstration. The Dems do the same thing. Again, it might be a total coincidence, I was just bringing it up for discussion.

I'm not sure if its just a long time or ever. In 1960, Kennedy ran against Nixon who had been Vice President under IKE.

Well, I found it, in 1928, Calvin Coolidge said he would not run again for President and his Vice President Charles G. Dawes also stated he would not be running for office in 1928.

So the last time the United States had a Presidential election, where neither a sitting President or Vice President was involved in the campaign was 1928!

 

[nathan1977]

The groups represented don't represent the three major insurgent factions in Iraq, including al Quaeda. So there's no real guarantee that they represent the groups at the heart of the conflict.

 

[U2DMfan]

I'm not sure if its just a long time or ever. In 1960, Kennedy ran against Nixon who had been Vice President under IKE.

Well, I found it, in 1928, Calvin Coolidge said he would not run again for President and his Vice President Charles G. Dawes also stated he would not be running for office in 1928.

So the last time the United States had a Presidential election, where neither a sitting President or Vice President was involved in the campaign was 1928!

Well, you forced me to look it up because I know that isn't correct.

1952
Ike vs Stevenson

so I was only 8 years off

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Well, you forced me to look it up because I know that isn't correct.

1952
Ike vs Stevenson

so I was only 8 years off

Thats incorrect because Truman's Vice President, Alben W. Barkley, did run in the 1952 election, although he did not receive the Democratic nomination.

The last time that both a sitting President and Vice President did not run at all for the office was in 1928.

 

[nbcrusader]

So is this for real? Do these people really represent the insurgency? Should the coalition and Iraqi government agree to it? Can they be trusted? Is this just to buy time until the coalition leaves while having time to rebuild or improve their capabilities? Will they attempt sieze power from what they may believe is an Iraqi military and government that will not be able to defend itself once coalition forces leave?

If anyone thinks this is “real” there are some bridges you can buy as well.

As you suggest, there is no recognized body representing the insurgents or the insurgency. It is, however, a nicely played statement designed to fit the alternative Iraq policy de jure. As you accurately suggest, it is more likely a statement designed to give a group some breathing room before re-instating their attacks in Iraq.