Let's be clear about what "Talking to Iran and Syria" means

[underpants]

The Baker/Hamilton ISG report comes out tomorrow and, like them or not, being the adults that they are they are going to recommend that the US talks to the leaders of that region. That includes the evil Syrians and Iranians.

While this will be discussed a lot in the coming weeks you can already see how this is either being misunderstood or misrepresented-take your pick.

Most of the discussion has or will include the tone of what WE are going to tell them or what WE will say to them. As much as it pains me to say this that is not the situation, the one we are accustomed to, that my nation finds itself in.

"We" are asking for their help.

WE walked right into a trap that they didn't even set. Now WE have to ask them to help us out of it. We need them to act as the go between and to talk to the militias and the sectarian leaders not because of some policy of not negotiating with "terrorists" (that has really never been the case) but because the militia have us pretty much where they want us to be as well. The key here is as David Gergen pointed out a few weeks ago-get all of them to the table and let THEM start fighting it out and then WE can try to orchestrate the happenings.

In any case, we need their help.

[LaurenG]

1. You know I can produce the email war I had about this issue

before this clusterf**k ever started. Why didn't we "talk" to them before we ever went in? Yeah I know why but I still sit aghast at how brazenly awful this whole thing has been.

[BushOut06]

2. Bush only talks to those who kiss his ass

He don't talk to people he don't like.

[blm]

3. You nailed it - Kerry met with Syria's leader in Jan 2005 and he said they want to talk

and be part of the decisionmaking process - he called Bush to relay what was told him by Syria's president, himself, and Bush turned down the meeting. What does THAT tell you?

Kerry spoke to all the leaders in that region to get their views in 2005 how best to turn things around, and Bush won't MEET with him and isn't interested in what any of those leaders had to say?

Outrageous.

[Big Sky Boy]

4. It was absurd enough

to think that we could invade and occupy a country... that they would greet us as... you get the picture.

It was even more absurd to believe we could do it without the cooperation of every one of the countries that border that nation.

This passive aggressive attitude about who we will and will not talk to is appropriate for high school cheerleaders, but NOT real diplomats.

Just look at how not talking to Hizbullah, Hamas and Kim Jon Il have gotten us. Oh yeah. We've made a lot of progress there too.

[mzmolly]

5. HA! >

passive aggressive attitude about who we will and will not talk to is appropriate for high school cheerleaders,

:rofl:

Well, come to think of it, Bush was a cheerleader?



Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Big Sky Boy]

8. He most certainly was

And thanks for the welcome.

[mzmolly]

6. Perhaps we'll pull another "contra" deal?

[Fridays Child]

7. I agree, and could there possibly be a more ironic end to this disaster?

If Iran and Syria step in to end the violence in Iraq and restore some stable form of government, whatever ideology may dominate it, George W. Bush has absolutely no hope of leaving any legacy other than WORST PRESIDENT EVER. Of course, he's earned that legacy, already, but history will not be even remotely kind to him, if this happens. He knows it, and that's why he's got his little silver spurs dug into the ground.

I think what will happen, though, is that his handlers will find some way, however transparent, to save face for him, and for themselves, as well. And, then, they'll begin implementing the ISG recommendations. In fact, they've already said that they won't do anything for several weeks, at least, after the ISG plan is presented. And I believe that the delay is intended to give them not only distance from ISG but the opportunity to re-frame the recommendations and claim them as their own.