You're not going to hear any screams. One of two things will happen:

a) the issue will simply disappear and the wingers will change their minds

b) They will go on attacking Democrats for this and ignore that Repubs do it.

You're expecting intellectual consistancy and honesty, they don't have that.

There is a third response, I guess: "Bush as betrayed us and if only we'd had a REAL CONSERVATIVE in the White House, we'd be winning in Iraq!"

Why the old truism, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" escapes this administration is beyond me. We have to give these rogue regimes a reason to not act "rogueishly" beyond the tired, empty, and ultimately impossible-to-execute threats of the last 6 years. We can only do that by talking to them.

And finally, history shows that we've supported and abetted some pretty thugish, brutal right-wing regimes when we thought it suited our national interest. What's different about now? Our current strategy for peace and stability in the middle east hasn't proven to be such a big success.

It's like I said the other day over at FDL: For years, Congressional Republicans have been burning up the jet fuel going to and from Damascus because Condi wouldn't. But all it took was one little bi-partisan trip led by Speaker Nancy, and suddenly Madam Secretary's throwing the Manolos into a suitcase and heading for Syria.

yet they seem unwilling to go down the "bush isn't a real conservative" road, probably because the thirty percenters are cultlike in their devotion to him...

Those very same pundits are now re-writing those very same lines to praise the fresh and wise thinking of the strong and gleeful administration. That this will be a hard blow to the Democratic Congress, usurping their fire in the wake of the withdrawl defeat...etc...blah blah...

Anyone who listens to the winger pundits as anything but comic relief, needs to be limited in thier ability to interact with society.

So I guess Giuliani and the other GOP president wannabes are correct when they say that the country must vote GOP for president because GOP ideas and actions provide for a tougher national security and will keep Americans safe, if by 'GOP ideas and actions' they mean turning to, adopting and following Dem ideas and conduct after all GOP ideas and actions have predictably and regrettably failed.

Nancy Pelosi ought to be out there every day, congratulating Bush on finally taking the Democratic lead in developing relationships with these people. She could say: "I'm happy to see that Condoleeza Rice is finally doing her job so we Democrats are no longer forced to do it for her."

Under pressure from its Arab allies, the Bush administration has slowly edged away from its position that direct talks can be conducted only as a reward for what it considers good behavior.

Now,would the Saudis pretty please put "pressure" on Bush to sign an Iraq war funding bill with timetables for withdrawal?

Of course I meant to say "following the Democratic lead".

Cracks me up, how so many wingnuts (including the Prez hisself) in the administration are saying that "History will show" that they were right all along. I am a student of History and I'm not aware of that many instances where History has cast a new and approving light on persons in power who were considered disastrously incompetent by their contemporaries.

Four legs good! Two legs better!

When does the "...but Clinton..." start on this topic?

Could the Dems get Republican suport for a funding bill that requires talks with Iran/Syria/etc. a la the Iraq Study Group report? That is, say we'll fund the troops but in the meantime you need to start pursuing diplomatic/politica solutions?

I wish they were actually engaging Syria and Iran. This seems to be a patronizing effort geared to help them in the polls. I seriously doubt any real advancements will follow. The gooper core will only be temporarily discomforted. After they "fail"
they will claim justification for their orginal stance.

i think the insannity/rush/savage wing of the republican party is just going to say that rice meeting with them is acceptable because she's the secretary of state. i've already heard it multiple times...

yes, a two year old can pick apart the logic on that one and throw it back in their faces deconstructed.

but, whoever said you had to operate with logic if you are a republic?

I think this is my favorite:

"Should we talk to Ahmadinejad, who still denies the Holocaust? I mean, where do you begin your discussion?"

And how many deniers of evolution, global warming, Saddam had no WMDs, etc. do we have in this country? Hell we'd disqualify half the nation from any discussion of domestic or foreign policy if that were the standard.

What can we say?

Pelosi paved the way!

Pardon me, but the author of the second comment, Jim Leach -- are you Congressman Jim Leach?

"cracks me up, how so many wingnuts (including the prez hisself) in the administration are saying that "history will show" that they were right all along. i am a student of history and i'm not aware of that many instances where history has cast a new and approving light on persons in power who were considered disastrously incompetent by their contemporaries."

haven't you heard? somewhere in hell, hitler is boring his roomies to tears with his endless patting himself on the back and taking credit for the european union.

Cheney will make a phonecall and everything will go back to the way it was.

Right Wingers don't care about accuracy and the White house making them look stupid. They do it all the time.

They live in a world of constant spin, so they'll just spin this too. The most honorable thing they'll do is stay silent, but if they feel like addressing it, all they have to say is:

"Speaking with Syria is Rice's job, not Pelosi's"

"Secretary Rice didn't appease the terrorists by covering her head."

I wonder how far these talking conditions go?

Should we only talk with those we agree with? Or only those who we have a chance of agreeing with?

What about the GOP presidential candidates? Should we hold them to this condition?

I read that 3 GOP candidates believe in evolution. Should this not put them outside the discussion circle of those who do believe?

I am soooo weary of this 'all or nothing' approach.

Who says we aren`t going to hear any outrage?
This is an OUTRAGE.NOT ONLY AM I OUTRAGED AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT OUTRAGED,I AM ALSO OUTRAGED AT THOSE WHO ARE,AND THAT INCLUDES MYSELF.
I wonder if the absurdity of the above statement qualifies me for a high level government position.

Maybe "War Czar."Yeah,that`s it.I`ve been a drug counselor for too long.I want to be "war czar."If nominated I promise to declare the war won and bring our troops home within the month.I will also bring some Iraqi children that Hollywood stars could adopt along with their parents.
I`m ready to serve my country, Mr. President.Just notify me through this web site with the permission of Joshua Marshall.I`m ready.Let`s go.

They'll say Condoleeeezzzza HAD to meet with them. To repair all the damage Pelosi caused by meeting with them.

Four legs good! Two legs better!

Or, alternatively, we've ALWAYS been negotiating with Eurasia.

Let’s not forget why we need to talk with Iran and/or Syria in the first place:
1) The situation in Iraq defies a military solution due to the very policies promoted by these selfsame fulminating neoconservatives.
2) Iran’s position in the Middle East has been immeasurably strengthened by the ascendancy of the Shia majority in Iraq. This was a completely expected outcome of the illegal invasion of Iraq since Iraq possesses a 60% Shia majority. Unfortunately, the big government neoconservatives were too busy projecting their own abysmal foreign policy failures onto the opponents of the war to hear this point, when it was made innumerable times during the run-up preceding the war.
The question remains: which will occur first – the acceptance of personal responsibility by the neoconservatives for their decerebrate foreign policy blunders or the complete disappearance of the polar icecaps? Personally, I’m betting on the icecaps.

Hey, Paul. You and me. We think. That Bush.
And Company. Bear Amazing. Resemblance To. Animal Farm. If So. Isn't Hannity. Squealer?

The wingers will follow whatever policy the Administration sets. They only get angry at Democrats, even if Democrats take positions the wingers recently were spouting themselves.

Bush loses nothing with these people. They'll go down with him no matter what--they are all "loyal Bushies."

We need to clean out the Democratic Party and put people in there who aren't corporate whores themselves and who have a pair of steel ones to start nailing the wingnuts for being the real enemies of America that they are.

Hannity's "In your liberal mind" is exactly the thing Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on when he appeared on CNN's Crossfire saying they are "hurting America."

If it were me, I wouldn't appear on any of their shows to talk policy. I'd be there to call them on everything they do that makes journalism a farce and consummates the Goebbel's playbook on propaganda.

Who do they serve? What do they hope to achieve? Are they so foolish as to believe that what they are doing is actually making America safer and a better nation? Not a fucking chance.