Buy WILLisms

XML Feed

Featured Entries

The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM

Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM

Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM

Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM

Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM

Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM

Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM

The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM

From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM

Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM

Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM

Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM

Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM

Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM



Blogroll Me!



July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004

Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008

Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008

The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006

Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008

Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007

Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006

A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006


Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori

WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):

The WILLisms.com Gift Shop: Support This Site


This Week's Carnival of Revolutions: carnivalbutton.gif

Carnival Home Base: homebase.gif


« Kos Gets Even Uglier | WILLisms.com | Whaling Nearly Becomes Legal Again »

Amnesty for Terrorists?

Officials in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government announced an amnesty plan for terrorists:
The plan, quickly and mysteriously released and rescinded by the prime minister's office last week, calls for a prisoner release and pardons for those "not proven guilty in crimes and clear terrorist activities" and a review of the process by which former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party are removed from public life.
The plan includes an organization that has shades of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission or El Salvador's Comisión de la Verdad:
The amnesty plan, which apparently includes many insurgents who have staged attacks against Americans and Iraqis, calls for the creation of a national committee and local subcommittees to welcome insurgents and begin a "truthful national dialogue in dealing with contradicting visions and stances," according to a version of the plan published in an Iraqi newspaper yesterday.
What seems oddest about this is that most domestic opposition comes from Democrats on this issue. I don't get it - they vociferously opposed Bush's de-Ba'athification plan, and much of the Democrats' leadership have been preaching cut-and-run and other linguini-spined positions - so this sudden on-cue 'tough guy' approach seems most out of character indeed. Perhaps, like a stopped clock, they occasionally lurch into the truth in spite of themselves.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 19 June 2006 02:35 PM


It's like candy to a toddler. The chance to pin a tag on someone for "amnesty to those who have killed our soldiers" is too delightful an opportunity to pass up. It has such a nice ring about it.

Never mind that it may be the most realistic idea advanced since the start of the war to bring a lot people into the democratic fold who will otherwise continue in isolated, angry, military opposition.

If you think about it, it isn't our call. Amnesty for former adversaries is an Iraqi, not American option. One way to force the pill on Washington would be to blame those ungreatful, turncoat Iraqis. How dare they advance such a radical democratic agenda after all we have sacrificed!

Posted by: Hootsbuddy at June 19, 2006 05:00 PM

Those are great points.

I think the Democrats have shown that they are about nothing except scoring political points, and certainly don't really care about winning in Iraq.

Losing, in fact, fits their agenda much better.

Posted by: Ken McCracken at June 19, 2006 08:44 PM

Tragically it's much more simple.


Because the Bush supported Iraqi government suggests it as a way to end the conflict the (D)'s must oppose it to further the cause of defeat.

It is a 'lose at all costs' strategy.

Posted by: DANEgerus at June 20, 2006 09:43 AM

You wrote a line that could easily be fill in the blank:

I don't get it - they vociferously opposed Bush's _______ plan,

If Bush was stupid enough to agree to the Dems own cut and run plan they'd immediately tell us how wrong he was to do it. Those who still vote for Dems would never even notice. BDS is that mentally debilitating.

Posted by: bullwinkle at June 20, 2006 04:28 PM

My first thought was "after all we've been through, to just let those bastards off the hook?". And then I thought, well if it was good enough for President Lincoln and General Grant........

Posted by: cryinginthewilderness at June 24, 2006 06:30 PM