Is Bush kidding me or what?

Question

Since invading Iraq, Bush, Cheney and Rice have echoed the same drumbeat over and over. They have flatly refused to engage Syria and Iran into diplomatic dialogue. Cheney has repeatedly referred to them as terrorists or the “evil ones”, declaring that we will talk to them on the battlefield.

When the Hamilton-Baker Commission presented their recommendations to Bush, one of the key provisions was for the US to pursue talks with Syria and Iran. The Bush administration vehemently refused.

Yesterday, Condi Rice announced that the US is organizing a meeting between key officials from Iraq, Iran, and Syria to begin “productive talks”.

Okay, this is a dramatic shift in policy for the Bush administration, but it’s a good shift, a change long overdue. Why did it take so long for the White House to see the light? And for all the Bush supporters who got on the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” bandwagon, what’s your story now?

Answer 1

Don't get your hopes up. This is just window dressing.

While Condi is too-little-too-late talking about actually speaking with the governments of Iran and Syria, Cheney (who is really in charge of our foreign "policy") is off in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Answer 2

Your rhetoric sounds like a politicians campaign. Bush tried to talk to Iraq through the United Nations (what the Liberals want) for months, when the UN failed to act proactively, which they usually do, we did! If we had done nothing, cry baby Liberals would have complained that we should have done something about the genocide, which is similar to what is (or was) happening in Darfur.

If you were a logical person you would see the insanity of both positions. The steadfast, no compromise Conservative or the Whining all the way to the doctor Liberals. For me, my money is on staying alive. I believe in fighting fanatical islam no matter what you want to call them; Iraq, Iran, Shiites, Sunnis or anyone in the Middle East that believes the infidel should be wiped of the face of the earth should be killed. I wonder how you would feel about the whole situation if you were on the 91st floor on 9/11?

Answer 3

THIS Bush supporter says he's dead wrong to do this.

I presume the Bush opponents have a more favorable view of his policies today, if they are being intellectually honest.

I think the talks are a disguised surrender, and that the idea stinks.

Maybe Bush is just tired of it already. If the American people don't care about their own safety, why should he keep banging his head against a wall? But there ARE still some of us who see the threat, and he's just abandoned us. What good could come from these talks, unless it's a stern warning to Iran and Syria? It's like asking the KKK to "stabilize" Selma in 1965.

I'm glad I'm not a young man.

Answer 4

This happened during vietnam. We basically bombed the North into meeting us at the diplo table. Its speak softly and carry a big stick.

In all honesty though, I don't think Bush is terribly interested in the negotiations. I think it's mostly for show. I could be wrong. This is something I haven't researched very thoroughly yet.

Answer 5

I think the Bush administration took their time to evaluate any aggressive move from these countrys in regards to the invasion and change to Iraq. It's not to late, it's on time or maybe to early. Iran and Syria need to fully understand our position in reards to terrorism, so as not to confuse what america has in store for them for promoting or protecting terrorist agains or nation. Iran and Syria need to take this opportunity to let it be known there possition and stick to it, in fear they could be next in attack.

Answer 6

It took a long time to negotiate with North Korea too. They start out making demands to these countries. Think about it, how do you feel when someone at work or your boss just "demands" you do something instead of asking to do something. It shows a lack of respect. While we don't really respect these countries per se, that is how those countries want to be treated. We are showing these countries "see, we are far superior to you and don't owe you any niceties." That's not the point. The point is, even, if you have to pretend you respect them, so be it if it means making us safer. We cannot afford to go to war with another country.

Answer 7

I like the person who said Bush was responsible for the North Korea deal, Unless we recently took over China, then we were not responsible for the deal with North Korea.

Answer 8

Bush sold out to try and save his skin.

It is not a good shift, considering Syria has murdered how many government officials in Lebanon? And Iran has done what to deserve such a role? They warred with Iraq; I 'm sure they will look out for a stable Iraq!

Answer 9

Actually, we're NOT "organizing" this meeting. We're attending this meeting which is being organized by the Iraq government.

Is this distinction too nuanced for you to understand?

And Bush certainly won't follow the weakness inherent in the recommendations of the Iraq Surrender Group report.

But at the meeting, we can certainly deliver a message to Tehran's mad mullahs.

Nice try at spinning this, but please refrain from distorting facts.

Answer 10

we still wont 'negotiate' with terrorists. and if you think this exercise in diplomacy with iran and syria will result in those countries suddenly becoming good neighbors, i have a nice big bridge here in manhattan ill sell you on the cheap.