Jackson Jambalaya

Anyone curious about the weasel-worded "well-received" (by whom?) can compare what Daniel Larison wrote about that speech in The American Conservative.

"On Libya and Syria, Rubio keeps trying to pretend that earlier or more forceful U.S. intervention would have prevented the worst results of these conflicts. That is very likely wrong, but the remarkable thing about his position is that he never considers what that earlier or more forceful intervention would have cost the U.S. or whether that cost would be worth paying. He simply takes for granted that the U.S. should always be 'leading' and committing itself to these fights without regard for the consequences. That’s not a doctrine anyone should want to follow. It’s a recipe for one foreign policy failure after another."

Send ships. planes and land troops Anderson to defend Israel against attack? Yes or No?

I will see you one American conservative and raise you one Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The WSJ, master sage of foreign policy? LOL.

Larison's domestic politics would doubtless horrify me if he blogged about them, but apart from Russia, he generally has a good analytical eye for foreign policy, and is an excellent corrective to people who think the US can & should have its way all the time (i.e., the terminally naive).

... We've sent Israel how much weaponry to defend itself? They should have that taken care of by now. Regardless, yes, if there were any credible enemy threatening Israel, they're our ally and we ought to defend them. Entirely hypothetical since there's no such enemy. Syria's neutralized, Jordan's no threat, Egypt can't afford to offend Uncle Sugar.

Until the GOP absorbs what a disaster the Iraq War was, they will be worse than useless on foreign policy. They all seem eager to repeat the experience.

Also, forgot to add: love the example of someone whose FP litmus test is "defend Israel." What a bizarre fetish our FP has turned into.

You didn't know Anderson? The Iraq war was a smashing success ( according to them).

But of course we must all bow down to the whims of the war hawks and their contractors lest we be deemed unpatriotic and ' immoral'.

Don't forget about that Iranian nuke, ya hear? It's a comin fur us.

What is the basis for your foreign policy expertise Andy?

We screwed up toppling Sadam. Those people need a ruthless dictator. (That dude was the worst torturer around but he kept that shit contained.). The Islamic State will spread until they run across the wrong person/people. They're heading west to Syria because they can. They aren't going to f up and go east because those MF'ers will annihilate them. We need to let that solve itself, advise people to avoid the region and quit trying to police that region. Police it only when they step out and touch an ally.

Russia is trying to get what it lost back. Economic sanctions by us and others will have an impact. The oil countries (Saudi Arabia most notably) hate them and are killing them w oil prices.

What about Lebanon? After Syria should the world let Lebanon fall to ISIS also?

I might word 8:22 differently, but essentially, sounds right to me.

Iraq was never a nation; it was lines on a map, held together by force. In the biggest gift Iran has ever been given, we went over & toppled Iran's #1 enemy.

This piece by Mitchell Prothero apropos of Ash Carter's recent remarks helps explain today's Iraq w/r/t ISIS etc.

Sorry for the crass language. Woke up sour. Anderson is spot on. Saddam was the glue that forced those nations together. Dan Carlin gave a great historical review and current perspective on Common Sense last week, one of his 2 outstanding podcasts. Highly recommended.

Rubio gives great speeches. The camera likes him.

In person, he looks college age and doesn't engage people well one on one.

I agree with 90+% of what he says in speeches, but I don't think he has a chance at the Presidency. He'd make an excellent VP choice and I'd hope the President would listen to him. Few of those currently running seem to have the ego to let him be a participant.

But, the big edge he does have is that he doesn't wear more make-up than his wife like two of the other GOP candidates!

"But, the big edge he does have is that he doesn't wear more make-up than his wife like two of the other GOP candidates!"

Denny Hastert's running again?

LOL 12:08 pm I never noticed Denny's makeup. Pedophiles don't usually wear make up. Too many children find those with too much makeup to be clownish.

It's the one in particular who wears eyeliner and lipstick with a bit of pancake that's too heavy that looks the most like a wannabe drag queen to me.

And, then there's the one who every now and again over does the white eye shadow under the brow so it's glaringly white and whose hair highlights are sometimes over done on those pretty curls.

While I know all politicians use makeup before the camera and many dye their hair, over doing such raises some questions for me. Either they have very poor judgment in who they hire do their make up so how will their judgment being in hiring in general? Or, why do their egos require them to hide behind too much make-up? Or, do they like feeling feminine? Add any of those three to being a bit dogmatic positions and I find them a bit scary. They are tightly controlled to hide their real selves.

Of course, in general , for all candidates, I keep wondering how those who are not born wealthy and haven't married rich and never had a job either out of government or a job that earned even $200000 a year are never are questioned about how they became millionaires or live the lifestyle of millionaires once they've been in office a while.

So I guess I just notice things others either don't or don't want to notice. And, I've always thought how people present themselves and behave were far better indicators than what they say... words are cheap... unless they pay for a good speech writer and advisors to put words in their mouths.