The statements by and about the Baath strike me as interesting, as they appear to be related to the negotiations that were reported in Amman, between the Islamic Army of Iraq and others, and the US gov. (I think Cole wrote about this, sources are there.)

If I understood this correctly, the Army of Muhammad, which includes a good number of former military and Baath people, was also involved in those negotiations, and it seems too much of a coincidence, that the Baath would pop its head out and call (however surreal their initial conditions) for a diplomatic solution at the same time.

Witness also the angry reaction from several resistance groups to the al-Qaida "emirate" declared in Ramadi, and the rumours about a coming American shift in strategy visavi the al-Maliki gov, and a possible turn towards Sunni groups -- and these appear as signs of a media war between some of the res groups, even if it isn't clear exactly what it is about.

Or, of course, it could simply be that these are strategic leaks to create pressure on al-Maliki to cooperate in the militia question.

Then again, what do I know. It could be related to just about anything. But something is clearly going on here.

Fernandez is on Al Jazeera almost every bloody day. I caught the show, English rendering seems to be accurate although would need to compare it to an Arabic text.

Well, I keep missing him then. Stupid work getting in the way.

Talking different things to different audiences is an old game--there are stories about it going back to the Middle Ages (and some pretty well-known ones in early 20th C. American electoral politics.). The problem with this is that, especially these days, you get caught because other people are increasingly able to listen in as well. Don't know if Mr. Fernandez spoke these words to al Jazeera on his own or if he were instructed to do so. Either way, there'd be a hell to pay, both for those involved themselves and for American foreign policy. Fascinating stuff, like a slow motion train-wreck.

One-man stand-up diplomacy, but who's the audience? US diplomats have to conduct diplomacy with the home front, to sell Bush's war. The administration will not let reality seep through the cracks of language. But will they prevail??? Follow next week's episode of...MASTERS OF UNREALITY!!!

Fernandez now says he misspoke. US official retracts Iraq remarks.

My first thought was that someone at State decided that saying one thing to domestic and another to international audiences was a normal practise in the ME anyway, so we may as well go on al Jazeera and do the same thing. Even if the domestic audience catches you out and you have to 'retract'--how exactly do you retract a statement like that once made?--the message that you want to put out is still out there.

Abu Aardvark notes: "His humility treats those [Middle East] audiences with respect . . . ."

That's the real gut cause of the outrage in a nutshell.

outrage in a nutshell?

"outrage in a nutshell"

Mixed drink made of peanuts and Everclear.

Otherwise in a nutshell is a figure of speech to mean succinct expression of a thought.

yeah...I know you're the madman of metaphors. Wonder if we could make up some new Aqoul drink names...such as a Stupid Storm, or a Subliterate Git.

Did notice though that most Western media missed that Fernandez asked the countries surrounding Iraq to live up to their responsibility, instead of trying their best to make it a new DR Congo. I can't imagine that would be in their interest. But who knows how long-term their strategic thinking is.

Hmm, the "Subliterate Git". I reckon 2 parts plymouth gin, 1 part absinthe, 1 part cointreau, dash of bitters. Lowers the intelligence, raises the blood pressure and leaves a foul taste in the mouth. Yet oddly compelling.