Wingers Slowly Losing The Battle Against U.S. Diplomacy With "The Enemy"
May 4, 2007 -- 12:14 PM EST // // Post a Comment
From today's New York Times:
SHARM EL SHEIK, Egypt, May 4 — American and Iranian officials spoke briefly today at a regional conference here on the Iraq situation, in a rare direct conversation between representatives of the two antagonistic nations.Ryan Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq, said that he and David Satterfield, who is the senior adviser on Iraq to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had an impromptu 3-minute discussion with an Iranian deputy foreign minister...
On Thursday, Ms. Rice met with her Syrian counterpart, the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years.
The meetings with Syrian and Iranian officials confirm a significant, if unstated, change in approach for the Bush White House concerning relations in the Middle East, analysts throughout the region said. Washington is asking for help, even from foes it has spurned in the past. 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.
Boy, is that going to be disappointing to some of the wingers who have been arguing -- in the last month, no less -- that this sentiment (when held by Dems, at least) is tantamount to treason and appeasment....
The National Review's Rich Lowry on April 11, commenting on Nancy Pelosi's alleged plan to visit Iran (via Nexis):
LOWRY: I just can't believe she is so absurdly crazy to want to go on this magical mystery tour of every rogue state in the world. First Syria, now she's flirting with Iran, at least it's out there. You know, what's next? North Korea? Burma? And you know crazy idea that the Democrats think the only thing missing from U.S. foreign policy is we're not having enough dialogue with the most vicious and dishonest thug regimes on the planet.
Sean Hannity, condemning the idea of diplomatic contact with Iran while grilling Dem Laura Schwartz (via Nexis):
HANNITY: In your liberal mind and I really want an answer to this...if you're going to talk to a guy that supports Hamas, that has in its charter the sole goal and destruction of Israel, would it be better before you sit down with such a person that you have a pre-condition that he denounce that position?...Would you talk with Usama bin Laden? Do you think we should sit down and talk to him?
SCHWARTZ: No, we should have sent all the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan to kill the guy.
HANNITY: Should we talk to Ahmadinejad, who still denies the Holocaust? I mean, where do you begin your discussion? What would you say, please Mr. Ahmadinejad, please believe the Holocaust happened?
Victor Davis Hanson, imagining a "dream" in which Dems wouldn't want to talk to Iran:
Congressional Democrats would make clear that, while in the interests of peace they might wish to talk to Iran, they had no idea how to approach a regime that subsidizes Holocaust denial, threatens to wipe out Israel, defies the world in seeking nuclear weapons, trains terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq, engages in piracy and hostage taking, and butchers or incarcerates any of its own who question the regime.
From the San Francisco Chronicle, April 12:
One conservative nonprofit group, Move America Forward, pumped out fundraising e-mails soliciting donations because "on a day that Nancy Pelosi considers appeasement of Iran to follow up her dose of appeasement of Syria, we can think of no better time to fight back!''
Day after day, and little by little, they're losing the argument. Now even the Bush White House, as The Times puts it, is "edging away" from its hard-line opposition to diplomatic engagement with "the enemy."
So when are we gonna hear the screams of outrage...
...oh, never mind.