From CNN:
U.S. senators on Sunday called Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s national reconciliation plan a positive step but expressed concerns about its “amnesty” provision. Al-Maliki’s plan, announced earlier in the day, would extend an olive branch to some Iraqi militants and grant the phased release of 2,500 detainees from Iraqi prisons.
This could leave the door open to freeing someone who might have killed an American service member in battle…
Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday” that he thinks the plan is a “very positive step forward” by the fledgling government.
So if you’ve accidentally left your handy Congressional Values Decoder Ring at home today (purchase one at our store today!), here’s the breakdown.
Granting amnesty to the guy who’s been washing dishes at your favorite neighborhood restaurant for the past 7 years: Unthinkable.
Granting amnesty to Islamist guerillas who’ve killed American soldiers: Worth discussing.
If you find this shocking or surprising, you may want to batten down whatever unbattened hatches you still possess; it’s still four months ’til election day. There’s still plenty of time to see roadside bombs fall beneath “weed whacking” on our national threat list.
Fanny Roborat
27 comments
cooper
June 26, 2006 at 3:31 am
1As clunky and blood-letting as each step towards governance in Iraq is, I wager they grant their amnesty before we grant ours.
Sharon
June 26, 2006 at 5:09 am
2Releasing hundreds of people who have been held at Guantanamo for over three years without charges and without any hope of receiving due process–unthinkable. Unless of course they happen to be citizens of Saudi Arabia, the home of 18 of the 19 September 11 hijackers.
Jack
June 26, 2006 at 6:15 am
3I doubt the quote from Warner is accurate. I saw him on CNN stating that the decision should be left to the Iraqi’s, but he also firmly stated that he thinks it would be unfortunate if they did allow amnesty.
Jack
June 26, 2006 at 6:26 am
4http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200888,00.html
WARNER: …I’m personally strongly against any amnesty, but I do not wish the Congress last week to speak specifically to it nor I speak specifically this morning, other than to say personally that’s my view.
I want the Iraqi people to take this decision unto themselves and make it correctly. And I hope it comes out, as you say, no amnesty for anyone who committed an act of violence, of war crimes.
Dale
June 26, 2006 at 9:24 am
5I went to your store but did not find that Congressional Values Decoder Ring! Fortunately, I took the Normal Human Values Decoder Ring that comes in my granola (what else?), turned it upside down, and it works like a charm.
Adam Felber
June 26, 2006 at 10:44 am
6Jack -
Thanks for the clarification. Though the Warner quote appears to be accurate, he is definitely being taken somewhat out of context here. Though his desire to have Congress NOT speak to it is almost as upsetting.
I think the underlying point remains: It’s funny (in a grim way) to see so many Senators rushing to call this a “positive step” - if there’s even a HINT of amnesty in the plan, that’s what they should focus on. Our soldiers’ interests have to come first. Or second. Or at least maybe third or fourth. Top ten, definitely.
Sharon
June 26, 2006 at 11:04 am
7Is it just me, or are the comments not quite lining up with the name of the author?
Mary
June 26, 2006 at 11:08 am
8Especially now that Gen. Casey is saying the troops should be withdrawn. In order to declare “Mission Accomplished”, the Republicans have to support whatever the Iraqi government comes up with.
Sharon
June 26, 2006 at 11:45 am
9They already declared “Mission Accomplished.” They did that quite a while ago. So, officially, we “won” the “war.” Whatever we’re involved in now can’t be a “war,” can it? It must necessarily be an occupation.
dee
June 26, 2006 at 12:08 pm
10That’s the trouble with democracy. It can bite you in the ass (see Abbas, Mahmoud)
icengineer
June 26, 2006 at 1:43 pm
11It’s high time we reevalutated that liberal Lincoln. He allowed Lee and his troops to leave the battlefield and simply go home, without trying a single one of them for murder, treason, or even talking funny.
Amnesty my tuckuss: those Confederates killed I don’t know how many good Union soldiers, and Lincoln let them get away with it. How am I ever supposed to get closure about this whole “civil war” thing if we don’t get an eye for an eye?
cooper
June 26, 2006 at 3:59 pm
12Lincoln gave amnesty for illegal combatants, since most of the Confederacy was down to their last pair of ratty underwear and nothing resembling a proper uniform, not to mention their tendency to use unorthodox military tactics and strategies to defend the homeland. Not only amnesty but he sent them back home with their horse and rifle ! It would take a strong and intelligent president with long view of history and hope for this imperfect country of ours to do something like that. Of course, Lincoln was our finest president and Bush, our worst.
Mojo
June 26, 2006 at 6:11 pm
13A selective amnesty is a typical part of pretty much any successful counterinsurgency strategy. Unfortunately, simply releasing all the folks currently in jail isn’t related to counterinsurgency. It’s the traditional way mid-East leaders try to buy popularity. Last one to do this in Iraq? Saddam.
waterfowler
June 26, 2006 at 7:44 pm
14icengineer, we still talk funny and you can find me in East Tree Stump.
Mr. Cooper, we agree, our finest President was a Republican.
cooper
June 26, 2006 at 7:53 pm
15Mr. waterfowler, I ain’t no yaller dawg. I vote for the best candidate - always have. We talk funny in NC, too! Yee-haw!
SmokinJ
June 26, 2006 at 8:29 pm
16So where does one draw the line between enemy combatant and insurgent or terrorist? Why does one deserve amnesty and the other not? Why is the collateral damage caused by our enemies called terrorism, and that caused by us acceptable, when it likely causes the same amount of terror?
I guess I just don’t understand where our moral high ground comes from.
SmokinJ
June 26, 2006 at 8:31 pm
17Ooops… forgot the y’all…
MC P Pants
June 26, 2006 at 11:38 pm
18I have issue with the whole Civil War Lincoln Amnesty plan. I do not think it is comparable to Iraq now. Imho I think the yankees should have completely tore the South a new one in the end. Maybe we would not have had and continue to have the same issues. Remember, there is a large segment who still see it as the war of Northern aggression. Maybe the North should have been more so. No offense to my southern progressive brethren.
MC P Pants
cooper
June 27, 2006 at 3:48 am
19MC P Pants, if I’m remembering my history correctly, the Union did tear the Confederacy a new one. I guess one person’s “war of aggression” is the next person’s limp wristed, panty-wasted dust-up. Also if we recall, the Germans in WWI were trounced and humiliated by the defeat and by the highly restrictive conditions of the treaty they had to sign. Twenty-five years later, they were back with a veneance and a particularly evil twist.
We were talking about exploding burritos, though. How did we get side-tracked onto the Civil War?
waterfowler
June 27, 2006 at 5:16 am
20MC, full offense taken. I think it was a couple of new ones. And then the carpet-baggers…no wonder I know so many people named Lee.
SmokinJ, there is no “collateral” damage from these people. It’s all intentional and mainly aimed at unarmed civilians, here and there. Also, our “collateral” damage is not acceptable, it’s regrettable and avoided to the point of endangering our troops.
icengineer
June 27, 2006 at 7:03 am
21So, MC, you’re saying that if Lincoln had finished the job and truly punished the south and its soldiers, our southern president would be a better man today?
Stephen
June 27, 2006 at 9:24 am
22You know Bush is not really southern, don’t you? I think history backs up that Lincoln made the right choice and if he had lived would have done a better job in the reconstruction. waterfowler- I don’t know if you can claim Lincoln as a Republican. The two parties have changed names so many times in our history, who knows?
Cooper - Amen, vote for the best no matter what their party. I wish more people could do that.
Chuggo
June 27, 2006 at 1:18 pm
23If there had been an exploding burrito, Ben Butler would have tried it outside Petersburg.
Murray
June 27, 2006 at 4:24 pm
24WF
As a Yankee born and raised, I think that Lincoln was probably wrong to fight to keep the south in the Union. They wouldn’t have joined the union in the first place if they thought that they could never get out.
Not only that but we have been pouring money into the south ever since. What would the South be like on its own? When would they have given up slavery? With out the industry of the north, what would the South base its economy on? Cotton?
On the other hand I do like Savannah a lot.
Murray
June 27, 2006 at 4:26 pm
25Stephen,
Any one who moves to Texas for the first time after he finishes grad school is no southerner.
MC P Pants
June 28, 2006 at 12:22 am
26Ok, Waterfowler, you got me. Again, it probably should have been a couple more, however. I stand by that. What is with the kneejerk defense of the south? You don’t see me harrumphing about the midwestern flyover stereotype. Again, I said no offense to non Jefferson Davis sympathizers. I was merely agreeing with Icengineers bit of snark. But don’t give me the Carpetbaggers crap. To reiterate, if the Union had dealt with the Rebs the way wingers want to deal with the insurgents, would we have Trent Lott saying, ““If Strom Thurmond had been elected President, we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems we have today,” ? I also agree with Steven that “Our” President is no more southern than I am. But back to subject, the main article is pretty sad because it highlights the GOP thought process.
waterfowler
June 28, 2006 at 4:22 pm
27Murray, OIL, SPACE, COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY…and COTTON, BEEF, TEX-MEX FOOD…and Exploding Burritos…