US holds talks with Iraqi insurgents

[segovius]

Despite the claims of 'never negotiating with terrorists' we all knew it was going on - it was reported (and denied here) months ago - but now in a sign of obvious desperation Rumsfeld has admitted it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4624385.stm).

This is not news (or at least is old news) so my question is something different: For all those here who equate the Iraqi resistance with al-Qaeda and hence to 911/terrorism etc (you know who you are) - how do you feel about the US negotiating with the people who attacked America ?

And also, if these are being negotiated with - why are their co-terrorists still in Gitmo and places ? Which is it - torture or negotiation ? One is not working and this is an admission.

Any thoughts - not interested in a bash-fest, just really want to hear how you square it.

[Aurora]

Just more Bush B.S. nothing more nothing less. 3.5 long years to go. The guy and his clowns are lost in politics from the 60s.

[Gene Clean]

:)

Holding negotiations is equal to admitting that you can't defeat them militarily.

They were making fun of Iraqis and their fighting skills. Now, they say that they can't defeat the insurguncy for years to come.

Mission Acomplished, indeed.

[groverat]

GC:

You don't get the same impact unless you post the picture.

http://img91.echo.cx/img91/2803/1030029mj.jpg

[Moe_in_Texas]

Perhaps both sides realize the need to talk to bring an end to the circle of killing. Of course nether side will admit it because they don't want to loose face. Give both sides a pass on admitting that they are talking if the process breaks the cycle. Of course talking and negotiating are not the same thing.