I'm tired of playing with you.

I can live with that.

But I would have thought that "being willing to talk" was a prerequisite to "foreign policy," at least, the kind that isn't conducted by bombs and landing craft.

So, there's nothing between these two stages? Gee. Seems to lack a certain ability for nuance in foriegn relations that was so much the rage when Kerry was running.

Axis of Evil.....

Yeah, tell us about it James.

"Sounds to me like we're throwing the missile shield onto the negotiation table before we even know if anyone else is going to sit at the table with us. "

Is it naive to point out that we don't actually have a functional missile shield to throw on the table?

From your Rueters cite:

Putin's successor, Medvedev, told a news conference that Moscow was willing to talk to Washington about the shield but that it saw Iran's nuclear program as a separate issue.

Sounds to me like we're throwing the missile shield onto the negotiation table before we even know if anyone else is going to sit at the table with us. Threateningly naive, that.

Now, if you have something to say that illustrates the wisdom of our young President's plate-otherwise-too-full foreign policy, I'll read it. Otherwise, I'm tired of playing with you.

If, as you said, the Russians are merely trying to take advantage of the early days of the current administration, why the pre-emptive offering of no missile shield?

Evidently you've not followed the story:

Obama seeks Russian help on Iran but denies deal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday he wanted to work with Russia to resolve a nuclear stand-off with Iran but denied reports he had offered to slow deployment of a missile defense shield in exchange for Moscow's help.

The New York Times reported that Obama had sent a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggesting he would back off deploying a system in eastern Europe to intercept and destroy missiles, a move Russia sees as a military threat, if Moscow helped stop Iran from developing long-range weapons.

"What I said in the letter is what I have said publicly, which is that the missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed toward, not Russia, but Iran," Obama said after meeting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

"And what I said ... was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for a missile defense system," he said.

Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said Washington wanted to reopen dialogue with Moscow on Iran. There were two options, he said -- to work together to persuade Iran not to go ahead with their ballistic missile program, or make Russia a "full partner" in the defense shield.

Try and keep up, OK?

The list of horribles that Krauthammer retails for us, at least as far as the Russians go, might probabaly be attributed to their capitalizing on it being early days for the administration (he was inaugurated what, five or six weeks ago?) and his plate is kinda full at the moment with other things.

Threateningly naive is any President having their plate so full of "other things" that their foreign policy consists of a waving of the arms and saying, "I'll give you a bag of my marbles if you'll palaver with me." If, as you said, the Russians are merely trying to take advantage of the early days of the current administration, why the pre-emptive offering of no missile shield?

Swapping past foreign policy for a new Hope and Change foreign policy that, so far, appears to be threateningly naive ain't necessarily a good thing.

Care to list some instances of that "threateningly naive" foreign policy given the exchange between JJ and Alex above...or did you not read that?

It's still naive but it's a different sort of naivete.

Sort of like being a different sort of stupid, no?

Undermining the demonization of the US is good policy. . .

Swapping past foreign policy for a new Hope and Change foreign policy that, so far, appears to be threateningly naive ain't necessarily a good thing.

Obama's foreign policy is constrained by a serious lack of resources and goodwill. It's a rebuilding year. Talking smack and making demands when you hold a pair of sixes just isn't smart.

Given the worldwide leadership vacuum, Obama's reaching out doesn't cost anything and starts a process that might yield something down the line. It doesn't have to be grand change to helpful to our interests and therefore worth the effort.

This effort to reach out need not garner immediate results if the underlying dynamic changes. Undermining the demonization of the US is good policy, even if macho Republican wanna-bes are lost in news cycle tactics and not comprehending a foreign policy that uses an understanding of interdependence to align common interests. Elite policy breakthroughs will not always lead foreign public opinion, and Obama's election gave the US a 5-10 point bump of global political capital. I suppose some will argue that this should be or is irrelevant. They are still fighting the Cold War. Get over it already.

sam, You are correct. The campaign did not make those claims. Many Obama supporters I know personally made those claims and I mistakenly assumed it was based upon his campaign claims.

Nice work Einstein. Why exactly should we take you seriously again?

There is no doubt however that the expectations post election were for a quick change in world attitudes toward the United States. That has not happened.

How do you know? There have been precious few polls on this at all. Obama's only been in office for six weeks, which is tight for getting polls into the field. What polling has been out showed -- in the Nov-Dec timeframe -- a great deal of optimism. In the Muslim world, at least, the whole Gaza thing clearly seemed to put a damper on that, but that data is really incomplete.

Can we maybe, maybe, just give it six months? Even that isn't much time, but really how can we make judgments about Obama's diplomacy... or his economic policies for that matter... in just a few weeks.

I know the blogosphere operates in 3hr time-cycles, but come on.

Argue all you want that you think his policies will be failures, but I think it is premature to argue that they already are.

I think the main thing wrong with US-World relations is that Bush was stupid. In Iran and Iraq we had two countries who hated us and who hated each other. For no good reason that I can see, we attacked the weaker of the two countries, thus strengthening our most dangerous enemy in the Mideast. It's as if we reacted to Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union by giving aid to Germany, or as if Nixon had encouraged the Soviet Union to attack China. As I've said earlier, Joyner ought to give some evidence that learned something during his graduate education.

I am waving my arms as everyone should while this debacle is unfolding before our eyes.