Thursday, April 05, 2007

So the Brit hostages are back home safely

The Asshole of Iran wins.

It was an act of war which should have been made known from the beginning.

Interesting point:

"If there is a glimmer of hope in this shameful denouement, it is the possibility that the sheer brazenness of the kidnappings will shatter some of the widespread naïveté — particularly in the British and American diplomatic corps — about the nature of the Iranian regime."

I disagree. I don't think naivete plays the major part of their perpetual miasma.

There are too many career bureaucrats at Foggy Bottom and Whitehall. Career bureaucrats tend to be lefties who are inherently anally retentive about what they perceive as their nation's faults.


  1. Bubba, I am particularly concerned about the press reports of a trade of Iranians held in Iraq for these British sailors. If that were the case, both sides blinked, but Iran was granted a public relations victory. If that were the case, I think Blair and Bush mishandled the situation.

  2. Joe, I've not seen any credible reports of a "swap," do you have a source? I'm not disputing what you say, but I'd like to see more on this.

  3. I have not seen any material about this either.

  4. Check out the third paragraph of the current Krauthammer article on NRO.

  5. Sorry, couldn't retrieve that article, Joe.
    I did see some articles where writers were *wondering* if there was an exchange, but no indication that this was true.
    Some reporters/pundits are victims of their own conspiratorial mentality, I think.

  6. There is now an article on NewsMax describing the quid pro quo issue. The Krauthammer article is now on National Review Online. A number of Iranians who were being held in Iraq were apparently released. This had been described in at least a couple of the wire service news articles over the last week.

    Can I verify this is true? No. But it raises concerns.

  7. So if the Brits and Americans had gone in and rescued the hostages or taken military action the liberals would scream, "Brutality!"
    If we do nothing the liberals scream, "Failure!"
    If we negotiate a settlement the liberals scream, "Coverup!"

    This whole Dem/Republican struggle is NOT about the war, don't be mislead. It's about the Dems fighting tooth and nail to regain their power/money and their ability to use power/money to get votes to get more power/money.
    If we weren't at war the Dems would be fighting just as hard about some other topic de juor.
    The sad part is that the Dems are knowingly sabotaging the war efforts and are willing to let brave Americans be killed by terrorists in order to achieve their politicial power. Sad but true.

    (I know Krauthammer is not a lib, I was just commenting on the situation in general.)

  8. Jaycee, I agree with you. If this was Bill Clinton's war, they would not be acting this way. Their behavior is, to a large extent, about partisanship,. even at a time of war.

    Having said that, I find that what happened in this instance is a bit unsettling. It is a sign of weakness.

  9. Joe, it would have been Clinton's war if he'd had the balls to confront terrorist attacks against the US instead of leaving it for the next guy.
    Instead, Clinton emboldened the terrorists with his inaction and bumbling response and I believe this led directly to the 9/11 attacks.
    I would have preferred a bolder response by the Brits to this latest hostage situation, but I'm glad they were released. But one does have to ask, at what cost?

  10. "But one does have to ask, at what cost?"

    At what cost, indeed.

    The price we will likely have to pay for our weakness may be quite stiff.

    We all know who bears the responsibility for our weakness.

    For those who are perpetually alternatively clued on this matter, we're not talking about the Bush administration and Republicans/Conservatives in the previous sentence.