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