Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) took a swipe at President Barack Obama’s Mideast policy in Jerusalem on Thursday, telling reporters he was worried about the administration’s direction in its attempts to forge a settlement in the region.

‘We’re here to try and make things better; we are here because we are concerned,’ Cantor said. ‘We are concerned about what the White House has been signaling as of late in their desire to push through in terms of a Middle East peace plan.’

Glenn Greenwald makes a solid point about the conservative position on Iran.

Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country — actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary’s Norman Podhoretz entitled ‘The Case for Bombing Iran,’ and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he ‘hopes and prays’ that the U.S. ‘bombs the Iranians.’ John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol — with typical prescience — hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.

Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way — just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called ‘attack on Iran’ or ‘bombing Iran’ in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many — obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it’s some abstract decision in a video game.

Much of conservative foreign policy resembles a crude video game, and of course their own lives are never on the line so they feel safe in advocating the nuttiest strategies around. The problem was that during the Bush era they actually had the power to do so. Result: Thousands dead and global instability.

RELATED: Inhofe Rips Obama As ‘Un-American,’ Suggests He’s On The Side Of Terrorists

According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu’s dismay, Obama doesn’t appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.

“This is a sea change for Netanyahu,” a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House’s resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States’ as well as Israel’s interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances.”

Now, the right has been mainlining crazy more than usual these last 100+ days so I guess their argument is that we should react to this with a use of force? I mean, I guess we could follow the Bush doctrine but I don’t think South Korea should be invaded…

We’ve spent the last eight years following the tantrum like whims of a bunch of seriously scared people. All we have to show for it is a lot of dead people and a less safe and stable planet.

While Reagan was a conservative, its lucky for us that the modern brand of wingnut wasn’t in control of our foreign policy in the 80s because DC and Moscow would still be off the charts on the Geiger meter.

What do we do now? We engage in diplomacy, we try to cool down the situation and we try to keep the world safe.

What we don’t do is wet the damn bed and get a lot of people killed in order to live out some conservative’s Dungeons and Dragons scenario.

“Are you in favor of releasing the documents that Dick Cheney has been requesting be released?,” asked Rep. Rohrbacher.

“Well, it won’t surprise you, I don’t consider him a particularly reliable source of information,” responded Secretary Clinton to a smattering of laughter in the hearing room.

Congressman Rohrbacher appeared none too pleased and went at it again. “Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question,” he said sternly.

“Congressman, I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it is in the best interest of our country and that is what the president believes and that is why he has taken the actions he did,” said Clinton.

UPDATE: Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela is more popular than the GOP

President Obama dealt with Daniel Ortega’s harangue at the Summit of the Americas much in the same way he dispatched Sec. Clinton in the Democratic primaries and Sen. McCain n the general election – appealing to people’s need to move forward and not get bogged down in the ridiculous past:

“To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We’ve all heard these arguments before.”

The last administration tried to ignore the rest of the world or to act like a belligerent asshat when they were forced to work in international organizations. It didn’t work and made American interests suffer for it. We live in the 21st century now and we’ve got a finally got a president worthy of the bridge Bill Clinton began building a decade ago.

Ok, can I be a Republican now?

In remarks to be delivered Friday to representatives of 34 countries at the Summit of the Americas here, President Obama says he is seeking “a new beginning” in U.S. relations with Cuba.

“Every one of our nations has a right to follow its own path,” a transcript of his prepared remarks reads. “But we all have a responsibility to see that the people of the Americas have the ability to pursue their own dreams in democratic societies.

“Toward that end, the United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba.”

Obama also met Hugo Chavez, who while a nut, is also elected leader of Venezuela. Rest of world had to grin and bear it when Bush was our public face, so…

Do Americans back a plan to relax some of the current restrictions on that island nation?

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Friday suggests the answer is yes. Nearly two thirds think the United States should lift its ban on travel by U.S. citizens to Cuba. And seven in ten think it’s time to re-establish diplomatic relations with that country.

The continued embargo versus Cuba hasn’t done a thing to disrupt Castro’s rule. All it does is screw over Cubans and make it hard for Cubans in America to support their families. The Cold War is long over, we won, time to move on.

RELATED: 57% believe economic failure is Republican fault, fringe blames Dems.