Kathianne
07-19-2008, 09:14 AM
I think when all is said and done, we won't be hearing about Condi for VP or President in future. Other than the administration's inability to articulate their plans and goals, the State Department has been at the heart of it's mistakes:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/337buwmb.asp
'Stunningly Shameful'
The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran.
by Stephen F. Hayes
07/28/2008, Volume 013, Issue 43
On January 23, 2008, during her keynote speech at the glitzy World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Condoleezza Rice made a surprisingly friendly gesture to the Iranian regime. She said, in this final year of the Bush administration, Iran and the United States could move towards a "new, more normal relationship."
There was one condition.
Should Iran suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities--which is an international demand, not just an American one--then we could begin negotiations, and we could work over time to build a new, more normal relationship.
One day earlier the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council had agreed in principle to new sanctions in the face of continued Iranian intransigence on its nuclear weapons program. The Security Council had approved similar measures twice in the previous 13 months, and this third round of sanctions, Rice said, was necessary because of "Iran's unwillingness to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing of uranium."
In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD in May, she reiterated this point. "We will negotiate with them if they suspend their enrichment and reprocessing activities and start down a different road."
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-July, Undersecretary of State William Burns affirmed the Bush administration's unequivocal position.
What we've made clear, along with the P-5 plus one partners, our willingness to negotiate directly with Iran about the nuclear issue, and that's laid out now in three Security Council resolutions. It's premised on Iran's meeting its international obligation to suspend enrichment and reprocessing. So we're ready, with our partners, to engage directly with Iran on that basis.
But last week the Bush administration abruptly refined that position--as Barack Obama might put it. Without any indication that Iran was suspending its uranium enrichment program, the State Department announced that Burns would be heading to Switzerland for direct meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiators.
So what changed? Very little...
BTW, Iran is NOT changing their position, via AP:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D920T4AG1&show_article=1&catnum=0
In talks, Iran says no to suspending enrichment
Jul 19 07:34 AM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
GENEVA (AP) - Tehran on Saturday ruled out freezing its enrichment program, casting doubt over the sense of key nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers less than an hour after they began.
The talks—with the U.S. in attendance for the first time—had raised expectations of possible compromise on a formula that would have had Iran agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities. In exchange, the six powers, including the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, would hold off on passing new U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
But the comments from Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that Tehran was not prepared to budge on enrichment—at least going into the talks.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/337buwmb.asp
'Stunningly Shameful'
The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran.
by Stephen F. Hayes
07/28/2008, Volume 013, Issue 43
On January 23, 2008, during her keynote speech at the glitzy World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Condoleezza Rice made a surprisingly friendly gesture to the Iranian regime. She said, in this final year of the Bush administration, Iran and the United States could move towards a "new, more normal relationship."
There was one condition.
Should Iran suspend its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities--which is an international demand, not just an American one--then we could begin negotiations, and we could work over time to build a new, more normal relationship.
One day earlier the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council had agreed in principle to new sanctions in the face of continued Iranian intransigence on its nuclear weapons program. The Security Council had approved similar measures twice in the previous 13 months, and this third round of sanctions, Rice said, was necessary because of "Iran's unwillingness to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing of uranium."
In an interview with THE WEEKLY STANDARD in May, she reiterated this point. "We will negotiate with them if they suspend their enrichment and reprocessing activities and start down a different road."
In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-July, Undersecretary of State William Burns affirmed the Bush administration's unequivocal position.
What we've made clear, along with the P-5 plus one partners, our willingness to negotiate directly with Iran about the nuclear issue, and that's laid out now in three Security Council resolutions. It's premised on Iran's meeting its international obligation to suspend enrichment and reprocessing. So we're ready, with our partners, to engage directly with Iran on that basis.
But last week the Bush administration abruptly refined that position--as Barack Obama might put it. Without any indication that Iran was suspending its uranium enrichment program, the State Department announced that Burns would be heading to Switzerland for direct meetings with Iran's nuclear negotiators.
So what changed? Very little...
BTW, Iran is NOT changing their position, via AP:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D920T4AG1&show_article=1&catnum=0
In talks, Iran says no to suspending enrichment
Jul 19 07:34 AM US/Eastern
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
GENEVA (AP) - Tehran on Saturday ruled out freezing its enrichment program, casting doubt over the sense of key nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers less than an hour after they began.
The talks—with the U.S. in attendance for the first time—had raised expectations of possible compromise on a formula that would have had Iran agree to stop expanding its enrichment activities. In exchange, the six powers, including the five permanent United Nations Security Council members, would hold off on passing new U.N. sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
But the comments from Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation, appeared to indicate that Tehran was not prepared to budge on enrichment—at least going into the talks.