If this idea gets any traction, we’ll soon see what Iraqi sovereignty really means:
Iraq’s prime minister, less than a week after taking power, may offer amnesty to insurgents and could extend it to those who killed American troops in an apparent bid to lure Saddam Hussein loyalists from their campaign of violence.
A spokesman for Iyad Allawi went as far as to suggest attacks on U.S. troops over the past year were legitimate acts of resistance — a sign of the new government’s desire to distance itself from the 14-month U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.
“If he (a guerrilla) was in opposition against the Americans, that will be justified because it was an occupation force,” the spokesman, Georges Sada, said Saturday. “We will give them freedom.”
I don’t think this would go over very well with many of those who have been touting Iraqi freedom.
Can’t you just imagine Bush or Cheney on the campaign trail saying something like, “See Iraq does indeed now have its freedom; they’re offering amnesty to the terrorists who killed our sons and daughters.”
Wait a sec… on one side, liberals complain that the sovereignty isn’t real. On the other… they complain that Iraq is making decisions on its own. Guess we can’t win…
CJ:
Am I to take it then that liberals are not allowed to say anything about Iraq giving amnesty to the “insurgents” who fought us? I’m a rational pacifist, meaning justice should be served. But this decision has nothing to do with the core sovereignty issue, those who control the money (and the military) control the sovereignty. I think even you can agree to that, and thus this little outburst of ballsiness by the Iraqi Interim government will be quashed by Bush’s team, thus proving the original statement of non-sovereign sovereignty.