True Hawks and Fake Hawks or why the Bush administration is not talking directly to Syria and Iran

Is it a sign of the times or a change of heart ? Neo-Con Richard Armitage, signer of the PNAC advocating regime change in Iraq and one of the leaders of the new 'War on Terrorism', former deputy secretary of state under GWB I talks to Al-Jazeera about Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel and Lebanon. He advocates direct talks with Syria and iran as a way to find a solution to the current crisis in the ME. he thinks that the refusal of the Bush adminstration to engage in talks with Syria and Iran comes from a fear that'' talking is a sign of weakness".

Well I don't agree with him on that (see my previous post). This explanation has some implications which are in contradiction with how this adminstration want to appear to the world and to be perceived:
Indeed, how can a hawkish administration fear being perceived as weak ? It seems to me when you are a real hawk, you don't fear people's perceptions because people's perceptions are based on what you do and not what you say. Some real rugged hawks even excel in polishing the perceptions people have about them. Remember Don Corleone ?

Unless, of course, the Bush administration are fake hawks, chicks and cowards and that every show of force is effectively meant to hide their real weakness !
I think, as I don't doubt their hawkishness, that this adminstration does not want to talk because they want to diabolise their ennemies (see again my previous post). Otherwise, if the weakness explanation, which I have been hearing for so long now, is true, I challenge them, if they are true hawks, to talk to Iran and Syria !

Read the Armitage interview with Al-Jazeera