Abe Greenwald got to it before I did.

Interdependence, diplomacy, cooperative engagement, multi-national consensus, “replacing military solutions.” If these are to be the hallmarks of a new foreign policy, how strange that on the very same day that Hillary Clinton spoke to the Senate about the sensible employment of “smart power” against Iran, and John Kerry wrote about enhancing “the ability of US diplomats to play the leading role in solving” global problems, Vice President-elect Joe Biden was in Iraq reassuring leadership in Baghdad that “the new administration will stick to the timetable in the [U.S.- Iraq status of forces] agreement,” and keep American troops in Iraq for at least three more years, if not much longer.

And how un-diplomatic was Joe Biden’s message of the following day. He told Barack Obama that things in Afghanistan will get worse before they get better, as Americans are soon to see an increase in the fighting. All this hardly seems like a new direction designed to highlight the “leading role of diplomacy.”

That’s because the most distinguishing feature of the new mushy realism is that it’s shamelessly fake. Hillary Clinton couldn’t possibly believe that, “The best way to advance America’s interest in reducing global threats and seizing global opportunities is to design and implement global solutions,” because she can’t even explain what that means. Barack Obama does not believe (at least not now) that Iran can be talked out of the bomb any more than he intends to “end” the Iraq War, and John Kerry doesn’t think, “we have an opportunity to reshape the way the United States does business with the world.” These fakists have settled on a language to use in public and this is it. Global, interconnected, diplomatic, sustainable, endurable, smart, multilateral, non-ideological. You know -- Obamese. The biggest change Barack Obama has brought to American politics is linguistic. Leaders are now required to create cuddly, meaningless word salads while continuing the implementation of aggressive policies.

After promises to 'talk' to antagonistic foreign leaders, the Obama administration is acting in a way that concedes that the Bush approach was the correct one.

The administration is deploying two Patriot batteries, capable of shooting down incoming missiles, in each of the four Gulf countries. Kuwait already has an older version of the missile, deployed after Iraq's invasion. Saudi Arabia has long had the missiles, as has Israel.

An unnamed senior administration official told the New York Times: "Our first goal is to deter the Iranians. A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well."

The chief of the US central command, General David Petraeus, said in a speech 10 days ago that countries in the region are concerned about Tehran's military ambitions and the prospect of it becoming a dominant power in the Gulf: "Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front."

So sweet tea and a nice little chat didn't work? Now were posturing that the U.S. intends to get involved in a direct confrontation with Iran's regional ambitions?

The subtext is unmistakable. In terms of the regional diplomacy of the middle east, actions speak louder than words. I applaud the move, which for a reasonable person, should signal that confrontation isn't just the knee-jerk reaction of a war-mongering Republican administration seeking windfall profits from no-bid contracts. Obama's motivations have to be considered, particularly by the left, as pure as the driven snow. If his team thinks this is a good move, it strongly implies that the U.S. has vital national interests in the middle east, and that speaking softly and carrying a big stick is wisdom for the ages.

Via Peggy Noonan's column wherein she quotes President Obama's response to Sen. Blanche Lincoln, asking the President to move to the center:

While answering, Mr. Obama raised his voice slightly and quickened his cadence. "If the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression . . . the result is going to be the same. I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policy that got us in this fix in the first place." He continued: "If our response ends up being, you know . . . we don't want to stir things up here," then "I don't know why people would say, 'Boy, we really want to make sure those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us.'"

Ms. Noonan has her own insights into this, but what occurred to me was that Obama is quite rapidly adopting all sorts of George Bush policies that he previously found to be anathema.

What is the Afghanistan policy if not "Bush" policy? It seems obvious to everyone, including Obama's supporters on the left who found the troop increase to be reprehensible.

Guantanamo is not closed, more than a year after the President assured us it would be. The civilian trials? The wind seems to be blowing in a very 'Bushy' direction on that issue as well. When the administration acted to 'fight for the people' by holding a civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohamed right smack in the middle of Manhattan, the people took issue--especially the good Democrat voters of New York City who were not particular anxious for another terror attack in the Big Apple. Eric Holder may be resigning shortly to spend more time with his family.

Mr. Obama has also discovered that the Middle East is a diplomatic hell hole, where talk has no value and inhabitants bet on strong horses. Who knew? One Democrat Senator explained yesterday that the 'Iranians lied to us...'. I didn't go to Harvard or Yale, but I saw that one coming...

Congress is deliberating over a jobs bill that will provide incentives to small business people to hire employees. I'm apparently still poor enough to be a 'good guy' but I have to say that I'm not hiring nobody for the foreseeable future because I can't see past my nose economically with these bobos in charge. As they come up fast on the end of public patience with this bridge back to the 1930s, how likely is it that Congress will make the Bush tax cuts permanent and then sweeten the pot with new tax incentives?

I think its going to be pretty likely as the people who the Democrats are 'fighting' for turn around and bloody their noses. The real shame in all of this is that the people losing their seats in the upcoming election(s) are the more centrist, pragmatic elements of the party. The wackos are forever.