Left Would Rather Not Report On Iran Talks
(The photo shows Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, either showing us that Iranians can't even pick their noses right ... or he's giving us a gesture that we'll soon find out is quite obscene ... we'll have to keep an eye out on MEMRI.)
Despite the near-total news blockout on the left, I did find this:
For much of the Bush administrations tenure, and especially prior to the 2004 election, direct conversations with Iran were off limits ... [All Spin Zone]Yes, as they have been for nearly 30 years, since the Iranian hostage crisis. Your boy Bill didn't talk to them, either.
It's going to be very difficult for these talks to get anywhere since the Iranians' actions don't follow their policy -- they're officially for a stable Iraq, but they're working hard to destabilize it, and to kill Americans in the process.
So if -- and that's a very little if -- the talks don't produce results, expect the left to follow up on its general ignoring of the talks with loud and unified howls of derision, blaming Bush's "lack of diplomatic skills" on the failure.
One of the controversial and much-trounced points of the Iraq Study Group that I've always agreed with is the need to open talks with Iran. I'm not hopeful that they'll go anywhere, but not talking isn't going anywhere either.
And with the Bush admin at the table instead of Kerry, we can be fairly sure the talks will proceed as they should, with a near-complete lack of trust and a near-fanatical commitment to verification.