Over To You, Mr Moore...

At the risk of alienating my vast right-wing readership, I am going to quote directly from Michael Moore, who has a good wrap-up of the US-talking-to-terrorist thread:

Ahead of George's Tuesday night speech there was a brief flurry of reports on American attempts to talk with Iraqi insurgents. The Washington Post had this:

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said that his forces have been working to speak with Iraqis from several ethnic and political groups, largely aiming to reach those who say they are connected to the Iraqi insurgency. Casey said there have been no discussions with foreign fighters, including those linked to insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi.

The London Times mentioned the group Ansar al-Sunna specifically:

The Iraqi sources, who have proved reliable in the past, said the American team included senior military and intelligence officers, a civilian staffer from Congress and a representative of the US embassy in Baghdad.

On the rebel side were representatives of insurgent groups including Ansar al-Sunna, which has carried out numerous suicide bombings and killed 22 people in the dining hall of an American base at Mosul last Christmas.

For its part, Ansar al-Sunnah sent out a message to its supporters promising that victory is in the near future:

The message opens with a reference to the recent speech by George W. Bush admitting to having no clear time-table for a withdrawal from Iraq. According to the author, Bush was forced to make this admission because of the operations of Ansar al-Sunnah, which in turn “caused a change in all the communiqués that the prime minister of the apostate government (Ja’afari) had prepared to deliver,” to president Bush as evidence of Western victories.

And just for a sense of intrigue, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani denied outright that the Iraqi government played any role in any such talks:

"The Iraqi government has nothing to do with the negotiations with insurgents," Talabani told a press conference marking the anniversary. "If the Americans are negotiating with them, it's up to them."
....
"The Iraqis have a sovereign government," Rumsfeld said. "They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time to time."

The Mujahideen Central Command, a resistance group, also deny negotiations:

The War Criminal Rumsfield has spoken of lies when he claimed negotiations, for he today curls in Pain.

We Rafidan, represent part of the resistance factions, confirm only to reinforce a driven nail in this war criminal's head, that there is no such word "negotiation" in our political agenda.

So is the Iraqi government lying? Is the American government lying? Are they simply trying to triangulate the insurgenterrorists, trying to sow distrust among the many anti-occupation factions?

The "fair and balanced" Washington Times looks at these events and spits out this interesting editorial in today's edition:

There are two absolutely mind-boggling aspects to this story. The first is that such meetings even took place. Aren't we the people who don't negotiate with terrorists? The ones who voted GeorgeW."You're-With-Us-Or-Against-Us" Bush back into office? Apparently not. Or, if we are, something has changed to the point where such lines in the sand don't matter anymore. Additionally mind-boggling is the fact that practically no one in the world has noticed the change, or considered its disastrous ramifications.

What do you think? Should America negotiate with insurgents and/or terrorists? What exactly would they negotiate for? Let us know.

Moore also has news on the latest poll from Zogby (no bounce for Bush from his recent speech) and a report from the intrepid Dahr Jamail on Iraq's faltering Health system.