Thursday, March 22, 2007

Reading thru the MSM headline BS...

Dateline... today. Glaring headline & subtitle?

Iraq, Insurgents Negotiations Deadlocked
Iraq Government, Sunni Arab Insurgents Reportedly
Deadlocked Over Withdrawal of U.S. Troops

My, my, more deliberately deceptive media control thru misleading words. After reading the headlines, the Dems will say, "See? Pelosi's right? *We're* the problem". This will be construed as proof positive that our presence there is the source of all Iraq's problems.

Shall we look a little closer? Reading beyond the sensational, biased headline and lead paragraph?

Paragraphs 4 & 5

Speaking to The Associated Press, al-Muttalibi described the talks as "very delicate" and said they were being conducted through intermediaries. He said negotiations were initiated at the request of the insurgents, who insisted on being kept anonymous as a condition for talking.

Al-Muttalibi said the two sides also have differences over issues such as federalism and Iraq's identity as outlined in the constitution adopted in a nationwide referendum in 2005.


Al-Muttalibi said the insurgent groups insist they will lay down their arms and join the political process only if a timetable is announced for the withdrawal of U.S.-led foreign forces. "This is the biggest stumbling block to an agreement," he said.

My first instinctive response to the "lay down arms" bit is YOU FIRST! What guarantee they will actually lay down arms? Zip. Nada. Ain't gonna happen.

Interesting that the insurgents initiated the talks. I thought they were winning, According to the MSM and US Congress, aren't they winning? Must be, because I'm told over and over we're losing.

But I guess bad guys' success isn't all the media says. And what better way to improve their lot but to convince the Iraqi govt to boot out the US military back up to the fledgling Iraqi security teams? What fools they'd be to leave themselves vulnerable on the promises of pond scum who blow up children, civilians and mosques.

And how 'bout those other "differences" casually mentioned? Evidently the US presence isn't their only beef. The meat of that puppy comes a few paragraphs later.

Sunni Arabs, meanwhile, remain embittered by their loss of power and are reluctant to accept political dominance by Shiites, who account for about 65 percent of Iraq's population. The Sunni-dominated insurgency also is fragmented, with dozens of groups operating independently.

They remain an "embittered" minority reluctant to accept "political dominance". Pardon me, but the US troops leaving will change their acceptance of political subservience how....?

Oh yes. It will leave the Iraqi security hanging in the breeze without a back up, and the embittered minority who probably lied about disarming can then resume their attempted coups with weakened resistance. Gotcha. Who do they think they are fooling?

BTW, the US has authorities involved in some of these negotiations "done thru intermediaries". They've been taking place for the past 3 months or so, and include 5 or 6 insurgent groups, none including AQ or Hussein loyalists they say.

Okay. Parsing, parsing... don't help. Thru intermediaries. And anonymous insurgent leaders beyond that. How the heck do they know they aren't talking to AQ or Hussein loyalists, or that any of these are not found within the insurgent ranks? sigh

Sure is a lot of things based on good faith here. And this is not a group who has earned any good faith points.

No comments: