Historical revisionism.

Putz doesn't like diplomacy much and apparently disagrees with James A. Baker III.

MICHAEL RUBIN: "Let’s be fair: To condemn the Axis of Evil speech is to condemn Bush for prescience. He didn’t create the Axis of Evil; rather, he voiced the problem...Clinton administration attempts to engage the Taliban and the North Korean regime were folly. Any attempt to do likewise with Iran would be equally inane. Certain regimes cannot be appeased. Dialogue is no panacea."

Yes, though diplomats tend to overvalue dialogue. I listend to former (Bush I) Ambassador Gregg's Diane Sawyer interview on XM yesterday, and it made me very grateful that he no longer has a hand in formulating U.S. policy. Some excerpts from that interview can be found here.

To be fair, what is US policy and who is formulating it? If it's to make Iran the strongest player in the Middle East while they pursue their nuclear program, encourage proliferation by preemptively invading countries which haven't attacked us, and weaken us across the board militarily by completely screwing up said invasion, then it's working like a charm.

Going back to the reliably non-partisan Mr. Rubin of the National Review, this is particularly Fair and Balanced(TM).

Clinton administration attempts to engage the Taliban and the North Korean regime were folly.

OK, class. Pop quiz.

1) Who sent Colin Powell to give the Taliban's Afghanistan $43 million in foreign aid?

2) a. How many nuclear weapons did N. Korea produce under 8 years of Clinton?
b. How many nuclear weapons did N. Korea produce under 6 years of W.?