Recall how history records that dealings have occurred with adversarial, even violent leaders, stiving for successful peaceful understandings.  Its unrealistic to be critical of those early, important first steps.  Here's some examples among the various agreements and treaties which have been achieved: 

• the Paris treaty promoted by Clinton which resolved the Balkan wars, 
• Madeleine Albright and NATO helped to end those Balkan wars,
• Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan, (although loaded with mistakes)
• WW-2 meetings of the European allies, included handshakes between Stalin and Churchill,
• and there's the Japanese treaty signing by Hirohito, aboard the ship USS Missouri.  

More current dealings striving towards peace would include talks and/or meetings with North Korea's Kim Jung Un,  Putin,  Xi Jinping.   

Plus, add to that list Syria's al-Sharaa who Trump recently met with and lifted the US sanctions against Syria. 

Those adversarial nations were certainly not choir boys. Plenty of blood spilled in their various wars.  The Dems attitude against al-Sharaa appears contrary to the goal for promoting  Middle East peace.   An unwise kneejerk reaction.

PS  Two of your cited URL's produced this message:  "Subscribe to Reuters to continue reading  $1 /per week"   Often the details are omitted from the first few sentences of reports, resulting in an irritating barrier, indeed.