Yeah, they love us over there in Iraq. We’ve done an excellent job of capturing their hearts and minds. So much so that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki just announced an amnesty plan for insurgents that at first blush appears to bar amnesty for anyone who has attacked Iraqi police or military forces, but may give it to those who have attack American forces:
Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said extending amnesty to anyone responsible for killing U.S. troops was “unconscionable.”
“For heaven’s sake, we liberated that country,” Levin said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We got rid of a horrific dictator. We’ve paid a tremendous price. More than 2,500 Americans have given up their lives. The idea that they should even consider talking about amnesty for people who have killed people who liberated their country is unconscionable.”
Surely the Republicans are soundly denouncing this plan for the grievous miscarriage of justice it so obviously is, right? Right?
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that while he opposes amnesty, the United States must respect Iraq’s sovereign right to decide its own future.
He said the U.S. government will not dictate, but will consult with Iraqi officials on all aspects of the plan.
“I want the Iraqi people to take this decision unto themselves and make it correctly,” Warner said. “And I hope it comes out … no amnesty for anyone who committed an act of violence, of war crimes.”
So remember that, kids. As far as the Republicans are concerned amnesty is out of the question for people who have snuck over the border to try and find work, but if you’re an insurgent killing U.S. troops then amnesty may very well be a viable option for you. Snuck into America to earn a few bucks? You’re a felon and should be thrown in jail. Shot a few U.S. troops that saved your miserable asses from a brutal dictator? That’s OK, we understand. Or at least the Republicans seem to think so.