Jackson Jambalaya

Better start an open Hurricane thread. We've got trouble.

Lest we ever forget.

I know it's been almost 11 years, but it still makes me cry every time I see it.

yes indeed....and these are the very savages obama want to be friends with and bow down to?...hmmmm...I do think after 3 1/2 years of the obama destruction of America and if you still want to vote for him again you are to stupid to argue with...

Oh good, it took over 24 hours for someone to politicize this post. That's encouraging.

.. Me too, 7:08.

No doubt it would be hard, maybe next to impossible, for Anderson to defend the Kenyan's Middle East strategy of replacing one set of dictatorships with extremist Islamic dictatorships.

4:38, it must surprise you no end that Democrats don't engage in serious discussions with people who refer to the current president as "the Kenyan."

How was the D'Souza movie?

Anderson, the above aside, I do have a problem with what very much looks like failed foreign policy in the Middle East (Iran, Isreal, Syria).

OBL aside too, that was a non-partisan decision; although I 've read his advisor lady talked him out of it a couple times before he finally decided he better do something if he wanted to maintain someplace in the history books.

That is something to talk about. Oh and we are still engaged in Afganistan - and it is wrosening.

Anderson can't defend the Kenyan's record so he ducks and evades time after time. That is the bottom line.

As for D'Souza, still waiting Anderson for you to stack up your CV against his.

I dunno, Kaptain, Obama's foreign (as opposed to domestic) policy looks reasonably good -- I'd give him a B.

Iran: he's stated that the U.S. won't accept Iranian nukes. Sanctions have been stepped up (that is always difficult vis-a-vis the EU/Russians/Chinese). Pretty obviously we've been involved in some covert ops -- Stuxnet and maybe assassinations. What would you want done differently?

Israel: I'm not on board with those who think U.S. sovereignty is to be sacrificed to Israeli whims. If anything, Obama's been too deferential to 'em. Again, what would you have him do, exactly?

Syria: bound to be a clusterf--k no matter what. The area can't afford a Libya (surprised you left that out of your list). Again, I suspect there's some covert support, but god knows I don't want U.S. troops on the ground there. Letting the situation sort itself out is probably the best any president could do.

As for OBL, we can compare Obama to Clinton and Bush, both of whom pulled the plug on efforts to nail him.

As for Afghanistan ... I'd like to blame that on Bush's putting the country on hold to go invade Iraq, but frankly, the place is ungovernable in any Western sense of the word. If we pull out 100% and the Taliban takes over, FAIL. If we stay there and keep losing troops on a pointless mission, FAIL. No-win, especially with our ostensible ally Pakistan surely continuing to aid the Taliban.

One at a time.

Iran. You are kidding me right? You honestly think we were responsible for Stuxnet. Maybe the development, but not the deployment. Isreal has its hands on that one. And, given recent Isreal comments, it would appear the leadership is firmly in their hands.

And you honestly think that sanctions are working?

I'm thinking C- on Iran b/c we haven't really shown any leadership on the global stage here.

If it were me, I say we immediately engage with Isreal and formulate some semblance of a timeline that involves putting our foot down. We cannot afford a unilateral war in the ME between the two due to the impact it will have on our fragile economy (Obama's record setting achievement).

I don't understand why you think development/deployment is a useful distinction. If Israel deployed it, we gave it to them. It's precisely the kind of working together that one would hope for.

Sanctions are hurting Iran - that's what they're supposed to do. Policywise, the problem continues to be that, if you're running Iran, getting nukes makes excellent sense.

If we put our foot down, it has to be with regard to both Israel & Iran: no nukes for Iran, no attacks by Israel without U.S. clearance. I think the Israelis are bluffing, but it's intrinsic to the bluff that we can't know what's really going on.

(I rely for Israeli reporting a lot on Jeffrey Goldberg @ the Atlantic - you should follow his blog if you don't already. He does lots of reporting & interviews, not just your typical comment-on-other-people's work blogger, like Y.T.)

Development is the act of creating the weapon.

Actually using it requires greater risk.

And Anderson, you actually made the point of weakness on foreign policy by making the statement "we can't know what's really going on." A strong foreign policy targeting strong relations with Isreal wouldn't leave us in the dark.

Uh, yes, it would leave "us" in the dark, because both the U.S. and Israel have strong reasons to keep things uncertain and covert.

Open confrontation with Iran (1) heightens the public support for the regime + nukes and (2) risks provoking Russian or China into taking up the Iranian cause.

People tend to want badass fantasy exhibitionism in foreign policy. It's seldom like that.

Another blogger worth reading on matters foreign is Larison at The American Conservative. He's a tad pro-Russian, Ron-Paulish, but very realistic on foreign policy.

... As for deployment, I'm not even clear how you think you know how Stuxnet was deployed, etc.

Needless to say, just as Iran's giving a nuke to X who then dropped it on the U.S. would not get Iran off the hook, neither would we get a pass b/c we just designed Stuxnet vs. Iran and then gave it to Israel to use. That was one damn targeted virus.

Anderson, change your handle to Apologist.