John at
AmericaBlog posted this:
In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.
"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.
The Iraqi leaders made it clear that while they oppose terrorism, killing US soldiers isn't terrorism. The document had a decidedly anti-US tenor to it. So, what's the US reaction? Your Secretary of State said don't believe what they wrote. She applied the Bush/Rove lens to that document. In other words, just because they said it, doesn't mean you should believe it.
Now, couple this with
this post and what do you get?
"I suspect that American forces are not going to be needed in the numbers that they're there for all that much longer, because Iraqis are continuing to make progress in function, not just in numbers, but in their capabilities to do certain functions," Rice told CNN on Tuesday.
You get a failed US policy and a war of choice that has long outlasted its welcome.
Posts
