GWB’s foreign policy is now revealed to have been well balanced and very astute. My personal suspicion is that Obama’s extreme antagonism towards Qaddafi stems from the very fact that recent relations with Libya had proved the Bush Doctrine right. Here was one non-democratic regime that was persuaded by Bush’s non-appeasing ways to give up their WMDs and to help in the global War on Terror instead. Such proof that neo-conservative foreign policy works could not be allowed to survive, or to be replicated by the next Republican administration.

Obama’s policy for the Middle East makes sense if it is his goal to radicalize the region, to overthrow the more moderate dictators, and to empower Islamic terrorism.

Mr. Obama supported the rebels in Egypt and Libya because the represented radical Islam. Therefore, Mubarak and Qaddafi had to go.

Mr. Obama ignores the potential rebels in Syria and Iran because the radicals are already in control and a rebellion in those countries would lead to moderation.

I cannot allow mysef actually to believe that an American president would deliberately undermine our national security interests. Regardless of motive, though, this project is well underway. There is no way to explain why Obama pushed out ally Mubarak, a foe of Islamists, and wants to do the same to Gaffafi, a neutered dictator the target of Islamists, and yet has embraced Syria and Iran, both of which routinely kill Americans and either have or seek WMD. So where we see jihadis beheading innocents and seeking our extermination, Obama sees potential allies. This is kinetic liberal foreign policy on steroids.

If I were an evil little tinpot dictator in some fly-infested, Third World hellhole, I would divert all national resources to the development of nuclear weapons. Korea’s Mr. Kim is crazy as a fox, and he’s shown genocidal maniacs the world over the way to Western approval.

Syria’s Nuclear program:
“Not a lot of info, probably has some program”
shouldn’t that be:
“Future nuclear facility bombed to bits by Israel.”
?