Why the Right's foreign policy sucks

I'll let DIA explain:

JOHN BOLTON is probably the only person curmudgeonly enough to frown on the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Mr Bolton is no fool in general, but in calling this a "classic case of rewarding bad behaviour", his analysis is just plain wrong. It depends on a mistaken, and dangerous, assumption made again and again during the Bush administration, and these days still by Republicans out of power. This is the idea that negotiations themselves are some kind of reward for bad regimes, and until they lay down their arms and promise America everything it wants, they should be utterly shunned.

According to my simple quick think through history, George W. Bush may be the only postwar president never to have met with an adversarial leader (unless perhaps you count Vladimir Putin, which I wouldn't). This is no Democratic weakness, appeasing baddies. Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and the first George Bush all made major diplomatic breakthroughs by dealing with unfriendly states, because they weren't afraid that a photo-op was a concession. Mr Bolton remains terrified that it is, even though neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama have conceded anything (publicly) more than a few photographs for the release of two young women.

If America had a shadow foreign secretary as Britain has, Mr Bolton would probably be it. He is ceaselessly sought out for the conservative view on the foreign policy of the day. It's a shame. The right needs to get past bluster as policy—or at least stop fetishising Ronald Reagan.

Bolton is hardly the only one, though. Krauthammer: "It was a hostage ransom. No question at all," He says he doesn't know if money or goods were promised or exchanged.