Reagan-esque

I'm sure that, when Israel stops their assault on Gaza with a unilateral cease-fire just days before Barack Obama takes office, commentators on the right will give him all kinds of credit for his presence being able to stop the war, the way they gave Reagan credit for ending the hostage situation in Iran just by his mere accession to the office. The missing link in that parallel, of course, is that Reagan's people negotiated a side deal during October to get the Iranians not to release the hostages and help Carter. But surely, they'll have the intellectual honesty to attribute the same thing to Obama that they did to Reagan.

Surely.

Tucker Carlson: I'm Mentally Ill

In reference to the end of the standoff at the Hillary Clinton campaign office in New Hampshire, Tucker Carlson just said "this guy should have done what most mentally ill people in this country do, he should have started a blog."

Which, I'm assuming, is what Tucker will do, once his lame-ass show is canceled once and for all.

Hostage Situation At Clinton Office In New Hampshire

This is pretty awful and I don't have much to say about it, and I'm sure news sites will have better information than I do. I will say that increasing polarization and demonization in political matters can lead to stuff like this, which is very regrettable.

The Right Must Be Thrilled

Turns out that the British sailors detained by Iran were indeed tortured, just like the wingnuts wanted.

ABOUT CONDITIONS IN CAPTIVITY

“…On arrival at a small Iranian naval base we were blindfolded, stripped of all our kit and led to a room where I (Lieutenant Carman) declared myself as the officer in charge and was introduced to their local commander.

…Two hours later, we were moved to a second location and throughout the night were subjected to random interrogation.

…The questions were aggressive and the handling rough, but it was no worse than that.

…The following morning, we were flown to Tehran and transported to a prison - where the atmosphere changed completely.

…We were blindfolded, our hands were bound, we were forced up against the wall. Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure.

…Later, we were stripped and dressed in pyjamas. The next few nights were spent in stone cells approximately 8ft by 6ft, sleeping on piles of blankets.”

The shame of this, outside of idiot righty bloggers welcoming torture because the sailors didn't look like they were resisting enough (which would have gotten them killed), is that we literally have no moral standing to cry foul, giving the chronicles of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. This is a point made often by Democrats over the years, never so forcefully than by Joe Biden to John Ashcroft in 2004:

"There's a reason why we sign these treaties," Senator Joseph R. Biden, Democrat of Delaware, reminded Ashcroft at the hearing. "To protect my son in the military. That's why we have these treaties, so when Americans are captured, they are not tortured."

That extends to allies, who we've also put in greater danger. Hopefully, everyone on the right that pushed this is very pleased with themselves. Since it serves to affirm their own twisted notions about how they just knew that Muslims were torturers, I'm sure they are.

UPOATE: On the heels of this announcement, today's New York Times story is particularly revolting, practically accusing these soldiers of being collaborators when they were trying to stay alive.

UPDATE II: By the way, conditions at Guantanamo are worsening. Our moral standing is shot.

Strange Bedfellows

Great read of the conservative reaction to the release of the British hostages by Iran:

Two days ago we had a situation in which America was very nearly at war with Iran and Iran was holding British soldiers captive. Today we have a situation in which America is perhaps slightly less than very nearly at war with Iran and Iran will be releasing those hostages. And this, in the conservative mind of today, is somehow a bad thing.

Yep. It's probably also seen as a bad thing by the hardliners in Iran, who are followers of Ahmadinejad. This was clearly a decision made by the mullahs, who sought to lower tensions because they proved their point and were about to damage themselves globally. The "neocons" of Iran wanted to push this as far as it would go, which is suicide. But cooler heads prevailed.

So Iranian hardliners = conservative critics of peace. Sounds about right.

UPDATE: I wonder if this release means that the Americans actually did negotiate with "the terrists". Apparently an Iranian envoy will be allowed to look in on the five Iranian detainees in Iraq, and another was released to Tehran. Add in the fact that a botched raid of some senior security officers may have caused this whole thing, and really this was an incident wholly caused by the US, and resolved without the US being involved (which is the only way you can get anything done in the world these days).

Monty Phython Liberals

Once conservatives tried to co-opt South Park for their own, I was wondering if they'd expand out to other comedy shows and claim them as part of their own conservative culture. Well, read this piece by Pythoner Terry Jones and be safe in the knowledge that there's at least one group of comics, the best in the history of the planet in my humble opinion, who will resist such dishonest labeling.

I share the outrage expressed in the British press over the treatment of our naval personnel accused by Iran of illegally entering their waters. It is a disgrace. We would never dream of treating captives like this - allowing them to smoke cigarettes, for example, even though it has been proven that smoking kills. And as for compelling poor servicewoman Faye Turney to wear a black headscarf, and then allowing the picture to be posted around the world - have the Iranians no concept of civilised behaviour? For God's sake, what's wrong with putting a bag over her head? That's what we do with the Muslims we capture: we put bags over their heads, so it's hard to breathe. Then it's perfectly acceptable to take photographs of them and circulate them to the press because the captives can't be recognised and humiliated in the way these unfortunate British service people are.

Read the whole thing, as they say. It reminded me of this classic:

Dear Sir, I am glad to hear that your studio audience disapproves of the last skit as strongly as I. As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in this area. And what do you think the Argylls ate in Aden. Arabs? Yours etc. Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.

Still the best, after all these years. And there are no Monty Python Conservatives to be found, either.

Brinksmanship in the Straits of Hormuz

The Iranians are using practiced propaganda tactics, having the prisoners make statements admitting to their error in venturing into Iranian water space, and claiming that all Britain has to do is to say they're sorry to end the whole thing. Meanwhile, Britain has simultaneously taken out the rhetorical big guns through surrogates (Bush) while personally speaking more softly and attempting to manage the situation diplomatically.

But former British foreign service officer Craig Murray gives me pause by suggesting that the Brits were lying through their teeth with that map of maritime borders:

The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.

But there are two colossal problems.

A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.

Clearly everyone's trying to make themselves as the forthright ones while dissembling up a storm. And I don't have faith that, even if nobody wants to go to war (debatable), they are skilled enough diplomatically to stop themselves from bungling their way into one, especially if the Texas cowboy gets involved (as he's itching to do, it seems). Meanwhile, to see how a complete maniac would handle this, I give you what I got in my email box from Newt Gingrich (I like to see what the other side is doing):

The Iranians are deeply dependent on imports for gasoline, not for oil. They have one refinery that produces gasoline in Iran . And I think our strategy should be very direct.

There should be a covert operation to sabotage the one refinery. And the United States navy which has overwhelming comparative power should simply stop any tanker that has gasoline.

And we should say on the Iranian dictatorship, within 30 to 45 days you will be walking. If you prefer walking with British hostages and trying to build a nuclear weapon in the dark, then we’re prepared to withhold gasoline for as long as you’re prepared to be stupid.

It doesn’t mean we have to fight a war. We have to calmly and pleasantly eliminate their capacity to get gasoline, do it in a nonviolent manner, and tell them the morning they want be reasonable, they get to drive a car again.

Yes, we just have to calmly and pleasantly pursue a covert military operation to blow up a refinery in a foreign country, expecting no payback.

Gingrich for President! The Peace candidate!