Bush comes around to Dems’ way of thinking — again

February 28, 2007

Dana Milbank noted today that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as recently as a month ago, told senators that “those who talk about engagement with Syria and Iran” are all wet. “That’s not diplomacy — that’s extortion,” she said. It’s been the (entirely ineffectual) key to the Bush administration’s policy towards the Middle East for years.

And now the Bush gang seems to be coming around to the Dems’ way of thinking — again.

The United States agreed yesterday to join high-level talks with Iran and Syria on the future of Iraq, an abrupt shift in policy that opens the door to diplomatic dealings the White House had shunned in recent months despite mounting criticism.

The move was announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in testimony on Capitol Hill, after Iraq said it had invited neighboring states, the United States and other nations to a pair of regional conferences.

“I would note that the Iraqi government has invited all of its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to attend both of these regional meetings,” Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee. “We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.”

The first meeting, at the ambassadorial level, will be held next month. Then Rice will sit down at the table with the foreign ministers from Damascus and Tehran at a second meeting in April elsewhere in the region, possibly in Istanbul.

Many of the media reports this morning emphasize that the Iraq Study Group recommended this course of action several months ago, but it was rejected by the Bush administration until now. I’d add that it wasn’t just the ISG — John Kerry and several Democratic presidential hopefuls from 2004 were recommending the exact same thing (regional conference, U.S. talks with Iran and Syria, etc.). At the time, the White House and its GOP allies said Dems didn’t know what they were talking about.

Is it me, or has this been happening a lot lately?

* The Bush administration did a complete 180-degree turn on its policy towards North Korea this month, embracing Bill Clinton’s approach to the conflict, despite years of blasting Clinton’s policy.

* In 2004, John Kerry insisted that the size of the military needed to be increased. At the time, Bush said Kerry was completely wrong. In December, Bush embraced Kerry’s policy as his own.

* Throughout 2006, Dems said the administration’s warrantless-search program through the NSA needed to be subject to judicial oversight. The Bush gang said it would be dangerous, and practically impossible, to do so. Last month, the White House acceded to Dems’ demands.

* The White House argued that criticism of the war in Iraq from congressional Dems was pointless and counterproductive. Then the White House decided the criticism served a diplomatic purpose after all.

For years, all we’ve heard from the right is that Bush is a bold visionary when it comes to foreign policy, and Dems are both weak and clueless. And yet, here we are, watching the White House come around to Dems way of thinking on Middle East diplomacy, North Korea, the size of the military, surveillance, and the effectiveness of dissent.

Republicans everywhere will be pleased to know that apologies can be sent to: Congressional Democratic Caucus, Capitol Hill, Washington, DC 20515.

Again, each and every Dem, no matter where they are or to whom (in the media) they are talking, needs to point this out. It should be the talking point of the next two weeks.

  • For years, all we’ve heard from the right is that Bush is a bold visionary when it comes to foreign policy, and Dems are both weak and clueless

    But at the end of the day after all the past pronouncements by the DEMS have been proven to be correct, the lazy media will STILL breathlessly report that Bush is a visonary and DEMS are weak and clueless….

    Watch as the media lauds Bush for sitting down at the table with Iran and Syria, convienently forgetting that just weeks ago this proposition was greeted with dismay by his administration….

  • More than just taking “six wasted years,” as Dale notes, is that it is now much less effective than it would have been (a) right after the fall of Baghdad, when we looked strongest and (b) while Khatami was in office – who was not only more moderate, but more important, unlike the current Iranian pres, was actually sane. We need to point out that Bush doing this now only highlights the opportunity he missed.

  • This is one area where Dems are weak – if the tables were turned there would be such a hue and cry about “flip flopping” and listening to opinion polls and every other insult the Hannitys, etc., throw out there. Echoing Lib4 @2, the MSM will simply discuss the facts of this “abrupt shift in policy” rather than lambaste the administration for its poorly conceived diplomacy (if you can call it that) and decision-only-in-the-darkest-hour to change course.

    CB – thanks for my list of talking points for the day.

  • Well, is it just me or is this a prelude reminiscent of sending the weapons inspectors into Iraq? “Well we sat down at the table”, Condi will say, “we tried to reason with these people. Now all we can do it attack them there before they attack us here.” This sAdministration has never done anything reasonable for any reasonable reason.

  • “Bush comes around to Dems’ way of thinking — again”

    The mention of Bush and “thinking” in the same sentence is jarring.

  • “Elections have consequences”

    – G.W. Bush, adding [“but I just won’t admit to them”] in a whisper.

  • Nothing like an elections sweep last November to make the GOP see the light. Now if only we could get those we elected last November to realize they won.

  • For years, all we’ve heard from the right is that Bush is a bold visionary when it comes to foreign policy, and Dems are both weak and clueless. And yet, he we are, watching the White House come around to Dems way of thinking on Middle East diplomacy, North Korea, the size of the military, surveillance, and the effectiveness of dissent.

    What are the right wingnuts saying about these developments? Surely the level of cognitive dissonance must be pushing them to a breaking point: Bush good…diplomacy bad…Bush does diplomacy…aaaaa (head explodes). My corporate firewall prevents me from seeing the usual rightwing blogs (LGF, Balloon Juice, Powerline…). Can someone summarize how they are spinning this? thanks in advance.

  • So this is bipartisanship inaction. The Dems proclaim an idea, the Repubs denounce it as foolish and unpatriotic, then Republicans eventually go for the idea, call it a work of their own breathtaking and staggering genius and the media rejoices at the wisdom of the Bushies all while claiming the Dems have no ideas. What a crual and ironic world we live in.

  • I believe that this is mostly realpolitik, with Russia and China pushing back on the Bushites. That the Dems control the Congress just makes it easier to do politically.

  • Bush probably thinks he’s got the upper hand now that he’s got two carriers in easy striking range.

    Idiot.

  • It is not what Bush says that worries me, it is what he does. I simply don’t trust him. I wouldn’t put it past him to use the talks as an excuse to start another war. Once again I hope I am wrong, but I have learned not to believe anything these people say.

  • “Bush comes around to Dems’ way of thinking — again”

    The Republicans would never admit to that.

    They will spin this as being part of their plan all along and anyone who dosen’t believe that is un-american and should be shot as a trator.

    • Comments are closed.