Something really puzzling about the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (ignores Cheney and Rice's roles)

[ProSense]

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

(emphasis added)

Very odd! The Bushie have done everything to demonize diplomatic discussions with anyone and they claim Iran is stalling? This is a sense of the Senate bill, but it certainly seems rushed, especially when no one knows or sees any evidence of a U.S. policy that makes sense for the region.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice soundly rejected any talks with Syria and Iran in an interview with The Washington Post, saying any "compensation" they demand would be too high and that they should act on their own if they want stability in Iraq.

link

Rice sees no U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq soon

Report: Cheney Rejected Iran Concessions

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Good catch

either we have had talks or not... but they are trying to have it both ways

[Minstrel Boy]

2. In 2003 Iran sought to normalize relations. Know what the US did?

The Swiss ambassador to the US carried a proposal from then President Khatami to negotiate a resolution to all outstanding issues, including Iran's nuclear program and a two-state solution to Israel and Palestine.

Washington's reaction was to censure the Swiss ambassador.

Neo-con cabal blocked 2003 nuclear talks

...

Iran's offer also raised the possibility of cutting off Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad and converting Hezbollah into a purely socio-political organization, according to Leverett. That was an explicit response to Powell's demand in late March that Iran "end its support for terrorism". In return, Leverett recalls, the Iranians wanted the US to address security questions, the lifting of economic sanctions and normalization of relations, including support for Iran's integration into the global economic order.

Leverett also recalls that the Iranian offer was drafted with the blessing of all the major political players in the Iranian regime, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khomeini.

Realists, led by Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage, were inclined to respond positively to the Iranian offer. Nevertheless, within a few days of its receipt, the State Department had rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.

Exactly how the decision was made is not known. "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints," Wilkerson told IPS. "But I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W Bush."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC30Ak01.html

[ProSense]

5. Added a reference to the OP. n/t

[beachmom]

3. For the Bush administration it's always been about the Blame Game. n/t

[Hydra]

4. Let's face it

This was congress saying, "We don't mind if you have your little war, now, Little Boots."

[formercia]

6. "they should act on their own if they want stability in Iraq"

I guess that's what they're doing.