The haggling has begun over the supposed deal to ship Iranian uranium to Russia for enrichment: “U.S. officials argue that if Iran fails to follow through on a tentative agreement on this deal, then it will help strengthen the case for sanctions. But the negotiations already have highlighted splits between the United States and two of the key players — Russia and China — in the effort to restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” And then there is the split between France and the U.S. on how vigorously to pursue sanctions. Is there any doubt Iran is benefiting by this process? Perhaps those who assured us we would move promptly from engagement to sanctions to “all other options” should reconsider how this works in practice.

More Democratic angst about Creigh Deeds.

A suggestion for Ambassador Michael Oren if he goes to the J Street confab: explain why J Street is “unfriendly” to Israel.

Bill Kristol wants to know what possible rationale there is for abandoning Afghanistan on the grounds the elections were flawed: “But if there was a failure, it was a failure [in conducting a fraud-free election], in part, by Richard Holbrooke and the Obama administration. And because they have failed in that, they’re not going to send the reinforcements necessary for our military. It’s ridiculous. The best way to have a decent, strong, political government there is to go and win the war, just as in Iraq. We’ll end up with a decent government if we send the troops and if we work diplomatically to try to push the forces there to compromise and to — and to — and to be more honest.”

And almost on cue, Rahm Emanuel (distinguished by his failed regime-change-in-Israel gambit) pipes up to question whether we have a reliable partner in the Afghan government. Well, publicly dissing the government and equivocating about our support for it certainly won’t help.

John Bolton’s must-read on Obama’s dithering foreign policy: “Obama is no Harry Truman. At best, he is reprising Jimmy Carter. At worst, the real precedent may be Ethelred the Unready, the turn-of the-first-millennium Anglo-Saxon king whose reputation for indecisiveness and his unsuccessful paying of Danegeld — literally, ‘Danish tax’ — to buy off Viking raiders made him history’s paradigmatic weak leader.”

Jay Nordlinger: “[White House communications chief] Anita Dunn tried to pass off her tribute to Mao as something she once heard from Lee Atwater. Has Lee Atwater become the Democrats’ standard — the arbiter of Democratic discourse?” It’s a lame excuse, of course, but Dunn’s comments are a peek behind the curtain — a glimpse into how liberals talk among themselves. She just forgot not everyone thinks the murder of millions is worthy of praise.

David Axelrod says Fox isn’t a real news organization. Imagine if the Bush team had said the same about MSNBC.

James Carafano on the failure of “soft power”: “Both Tehran and its brother-in-missile-arms Pyongyang seem eager to talk … in order to run out the clock and get more time to advance their weapon programs. In Latin America, soft talk seems only to have managed to strengthen the hand of leftist strongmen. China has not done much for us lately. Hard to find anything positive in the last 10 months in Africa. Antarctica seems ok though. Other than take advantage of the White House it is hard to see what soft power has accomplished … other than making the US look … well, soft.”

del.icio.us

Google

Facebook

This entry was posted on Monday, October 19th, 2009 at 7:12 AM and is filed under Contentions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.