One of my former instructors was a great proponent of the "stupid is more likely than malice" analysis of an apparently counterproductive course taken by some actor. The logic was that there are usually enough other signs of vile intent to confirm that as the cause of the action, and in the absence of those pure incompetence was a far more likely explanation for an action.
Yeah, I'll even ascribe to that as a general case.
So, when I find relentless counterproductive conduct by the U.S. State Department (and a certain NSC staffer) and an attempt by certain biased U.S. Senators to revise the truth about events in Honduras, I'd say its is time to make a judgement as to *WHY?* these acts of persistent idiocy are happening.
I'd like to hope that it is all because one political faction in the Obama administration, that one controlling Foreign Policy, is boundlessly incompetent... It would explain why they have misread Iran, mishandled the Bout extradition case in Thailand, stumbled publicly on negotiations with China and Russia, and generally upset most every alliance the U.S.A. is a part of...
...because *if it malice*, then some very, very bad things are happening.
So forgive me, Professor, but this time I will hope for stupid but plan as if it is malice. The cost of not assuming malice has become prohibitively high.
two more examples of the course being followed:
SecState Clinton in Pakistan, as observed by John Hannah (link via J. Hinderaker at Powerline).
An assessment of the U.S. role in the current IAEA negotiations with Iran, by Robert Kagan.
Things are *not* looking good, folks.