Blair told Bush to zip it, and back off

It's not news that British diplomacy played a key role in resolving the tense situation with Iran over the fate of 15 British sailors taken hostage.

As it turns out, however, according to the UK newspaper The Guardian, Tony Blair and the British were firm in asking the US to keep out of the matter.

According to the article, the US asked the British what they wished done. the list remains top secret, but reportedly one of the options was for the US to provoke the Iranians by buzzing their forward positions near the Iran/Iraq border with war planes.

The British said thanks but not thanks, and even took the step of suggesting the situation could be calmed if the US scaled back offensive efforts in the region. Tony Blair also reportedly asked the US Government to be very careful in its use of rhetoric, since excessive use of it could have ignited a confrontation.

More from The Guardian:

A senior Iranian source with close ties to the Revolutionary Guard, told the Guardian: "If this had been between Iranian and American soldiers it could have been the beginning of an accidental war."

With the crisis now over, a remarkable degree of consensus is emerging among British, Iranian and Iraqi officials about what happened over 13 nervous days - namely that the decision to seize the Britons was taken locally, and was not part of a grander scheme cooked up in Tehran.

"My best guess is that this was a local incident which became an international incident," said one British source closely involved in the crisis.

Pretty amazing.

It's certainly not news that this could (and in my opinion probably would have) led to war between the U.S. and Iran had the hostages been American. I'm still thankful and relieved this situation turned out as it did.

This is just another defeat of sorts for the Bush administration and the second traditionally close ally of the US going its own way.

Naturally, British success at negotiating the release of their hostages has sent Bush apologists into overdrive, which is pretty amusing to see. For those of you keeping score, let's take a look at the Bush scorecard. Of the three nations of Bush's Axis of Evil - Iran, North Korea and Iraq - the first two are being dealt with diplomatically, while Iraq continues to be a financial, political and loss-of-life disaster for the United States, and Iraq.

Last week, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah (Above, with Bush at his Crawford "Ranch") called the US occupation of Iraq "illegal." Not that many people considered Saudi Arabia much of a friend anyway; 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Saudi-born. Were it not for the brown gold under Saudi sands, we would almost definitely not consider Saudi Arabia any kind of ally.

I wonder if the Easter Bunny will drop a copy of Diplomacy for Dummies in President Bush's Easter Basket? He could use it.

Brit soldiers not given VIP treatment in Iran

Above, Left to Right: Joe Tindall, Arthur Batchelor, Chris Air, Felix Carman, Adam Sperry and Simon Massey during a press conference.

*****

Can anyone honestly say they're surprised to hear this news? It seems as if Iran didn't exactly give the VIP treatment to the 15 British soldiers that it held captive for 13 days. I can think of five reasons why I wasn't surprised to hear the news...

It doesn't take a diplomat to figure out that the British hostages weren't going to be treated, ahem, kindly while held captive in Iran. It shouldn't take a diplomat to figure out why.

Great Britain is our closest ally - in many ways, our fates are linked when it comes to the War in Iraq. Since the UK has marched in lockstep with the US during this war, that quite naturally makes British soldiers a target, as well as American GIs.

Our enemies certainly know this, and I can guarantee that not one of our enemies will ever forget the images like the ones above that came out of Abu Ghraib. As soon as I heard the news that English soldiers were taken hostage by Iran, I shuddered at the thought of the treatment they were going to get at the hands of their captors.

Earlier today, the British soldiers confirmed what many feared would be their fate while in captivity. During a press conference, seven of the soldiers discussed some of the unpleasant aspects of their captivity, including:

• Being blindfolded and subjected to interrogation
• Being told they faced seven years in prison if they did not "confess"
• The soldiers stated that Iranians entered Iraqi waters deliberately to detain them, and that fighting back was not an option
• They were 1.7 nautical miles away from Iranian waters
• Psychological pressure and mind games
• Faye Turney (the only woman held hostage) was isolated in a cell away from the rest of the crew

This kind of puts Abu Ghraib into perspective a little bit. THIS is just one of the reasons that so many people were upset when the scandal broke, including me. First and foremost, it's immoral and a national disgrace - the U.S. cannot and should never, under any circumstances that I can think of, condone such behavior from anyone in its armed forces.

But, the other argument against using such techniques against POWs, enemy combatants, or whatever you wish to call them, is that our soldiers or soldiers of our allies may also be taken prisoner. Besides being morally wrong, this is the principle reason that it's never, ever a good idea to torture prisoners - what goes around has the potential to come around.

I'm very happy and grateful that our friends across the pond are home safe and that nothing terribly bad happened to them, but all accounts I've been reading. (Although I'm quite certain that their time in Tehran was no picnic.)

This really could have escalated into an international incident, and I'm very thankful that it didn't.

A quick footnote to this incident - Tony Blair, for all of the heat he's taken for his almost blind devotion to President Bush and the U.S. War in Iraq, handled this incident exactly as an experienced, in-control politician should.

I wonder how President Bush and Dick Cheney would have handled this if the 15 captives in Iran were American soldiers. I will go to my grave believing that if Democrats would not have taken control of Congress last November, this very well could have led to war between Iran and the United States.

One last thought (at least for this post) about Abu Ghraib - I can still remember Rush Limbaugh saying this about the prison scandal:

(From a New Republic article about his comments, which refer to Limbaugh's comments on his May 5, 2004 radio show)

This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?

(From Rush Limbaugh's Website)

I'm sorry, folks. I'm sorry. Somebody has to provide a little levity here. This is not as serious as everybody is making it out to be. My gosh, we're all wringing our hands here. We act like, 'Okay let's just die,' you know? 'Let's just give up. What can we do to make these people feel better? Let's just pull out of there, and let's just go. Let's just become a neutral country. Let's just do that.' I mean, it's ridiculous. It's outrageous what's happening here, and it's not -- and it's not because I'm out of touch; it's because I am in touch, folks, that I can understand. This is a pure, media-generated story. I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm [not] saying the pictures aren't there, but this is being given more life than the Waco invasion got. This is being given more life than almost - it's almost become an Oklahoma City-type thing.

I would love for Rush to spend a few weeks in an Iranian prison camp, or better yet, one run by Al-Qaeda, and have the exact things done to him that a few of our soldiers did to prisoners at Abu Ghraib. But, he's so stupid, I doubt it would even make a difference.

It really is proof positive that regardless of the abuses and misdeeds by our federal government, as long as Republicans are in power, there is a certain element of society that will defend their every action. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter lead the way.

British sailors heading home

I can't escape the feeling that the West got off easy today. This morning, Iran, in a diplomatic and symbolic gesture, released the 15 British sailors it took hostage 13 days go. (Above, the soldiers in Tehran, walking to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier today.) I'm very thankful that this was solved peacefully, because there were some indications that this was going to lead to a military confrontation between Iran and the UK, and be extension, the US.

Of course, I question the motives of the Iranians - it's a little difficult not to - considering the timing of the hostages' release and Ahmadinejad's comments. As reported by AP:

"On the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet (Muhammad) ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people _ with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial _ forgave those 15," he said, referring to the Muslim prophet's birthday on March 30 and the Easter holiday.

"This pardon is a gift to the British people," he said.

I have little doubt that Ahmadinejad timed the release and his comments to curry favor around the world for Iran, which has been slapped with some severe sanctions by the United Nations and the West.

Having said that, and I'm sure I won't read this opinion in many, if any media outlets in the west - Ahmadinejad deserves some credit, too. Clearly he does not want an armed confrontation with the West. If he did, these British sailors would still be in captivity, and he would still be ratcheting up the rhetoric and taking a much harder line than we are seeing now.

I've read and heard some reports that the US was seeking an armed confrontation with Iran. There are some totally unconfirmed reports out of Russia that the U.S. intends to invade Iran on April 6. I never truly believed it in the first place, but it even looks less credible now.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed his gratitude to Iran for the decision to let the soldiers go free. He reportedly said he has "no ill will" toward the people of Iran. Okay, not much, but it's a start.

I will go to my grave thinking that this could have been the incident that would have started war with Iran had the Democrats not taken control of Congress last November. God only knows the old GOP-controlled Congress did nothing but rubber-stamp whatever the president wanted. The best part about it is that we'll never know, and that's just what everyone but the heartiest of war mongers was hoping for.

APF was reporting on Monday that U.S. Air Force jets had approached and even violated Iranian airspace, in what could only be interpreted as an act of provocation, if true. If it is true, that's outrageous and stupid. I'm all for showing force when countries are trying to bully America, but what I'm not for is provoking a confrontation. That seems to be what this administration is after.

On another note, I went off half-cocked the other day about the British hostage situation. I heard some political commentary yesterday that made me rethink my outrage at Iran having shown the British soldiers on TV. Of course, the British, and Americans, were outraged at this. I'm not saying it was right, but let's take a comparative walk down prisoner lane...

The CIA, at various Black Sites, has reportedly done the following to detainees: water boarding (which Dick Cheney, prior to the 2006 election, said publicly he supports); solitary confinement of prisoners for days, weeks and even months; physical beatings, to the point that prisoners' muscles turn to pulp; humiliation in various ways, including things that violate detainees religious beliefs; excretions on prisoners; sensory deprivation; keeping prisoners up for days on end; and suspending prisoners in extraordinarily uncomfortable positions for hours and says.

The Iranians showed the prisoners on television, evidently forced to apologize and sign confessions, in one case. I acknowledge that there many have been abuses or worse that we don't yet know about, but I'm sure that detainees at Guantánamo Bay would love to get the treatment that it appears these British 15 received.

I'm for getting information out of prisoners by any reasonable means possible, but history should have taught us one thing about torture - it's routinely unreliable when trying to get information from prisoners.

But, when you think about what can happen to British soldiers and American soldiers if they are captured, even the most die-hard, chest thumping hawk should stop and think what public knowledge of these interrogation methods could mean to our soldiers in captivity, if they are captured.

Yes, the Iranians let the UK (and the US) off easy on this one, without question. Maybe Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't quite the monster he's portrayed to be. (Above, Ahmadinejad, second from right, meets with British soldier Faye Turney, 26, in Tehran earlier today.)

To repeat, clearly this is an indication that he wants dialogue with the West. We should sit down at the table and talk to him. Talking and dialogue doesn't = weakness. Someone needs to scream this into Bush's ear.

I'm not holding my breath while President Bush is in office.

Photos from AP

Tony Blair: We've 48 hrs. to save Brit sailors

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I just read on a British Website that British PM Tony Blair has stated publicly, "we [England, and presumably, the U.S.] have 48 hours" to resolve the British hostage crisis.

Forty-eight hours, and then what?

This bodes watching. Yesterday, it seemed that the two sides had softened their respective positions, at least a little. This may be nothing, but it could mean this situation is coming to a head, soon.

A few cartoons from Slate

It's never a bad thing to start out the day with some political cartoons. I got these from Slate.com - an awesome site that I urge you to visit if you have a liberal, progressive or moderate view of things. Considering all of the craziness that has enveloped Washington these past few weeks, between the War in Iraq, the Libby Trial and the Walter Reed Hospital scandal, I figured a humorous take with a few cartoons would be welcome relief. Read 'em and laugh, or at least ponder, considering the seriousness of the issues involved.

This one pretty accurately sums up the parallel world that Vice President Cheney lives in.

I have a favorite saying (that I'm borrowing from the Red Rocker, Sammy Hagar) - What is understood, needn't be discussed. Fifteen years from now, it will still amaze me how this administration wantonly plays with our soldiers' lives with its myopic, stubborn, underfunded, idiotic foreign policy.

It's breathtaking how Republicans and this administration have continued to beat the drum of "Support the Troops" for nearly the last four years, yet this is what veterans who are physically and mentally wounded have to come home to - shabby treatment and a hopeless bureaucracy. The only thing amazing about the whole Walter Reed/Veterans Administration mess is that it somehow hasn't been blamed on the Clinton administration yet. But, there's still time for that. I'll have much more on this later today as well. I'm very, very behind on my writing, but I plan on doing quite a bit later today, tonight and tomorrow.

British leaving Iraq, but no worries!

A British convoy in Southern Iraq last week. No truth to the rumor that they are driving straight to the Chunnel, across the English Channel and back to Great Britain.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is under the gun in his own country, so I certainly understand the absolute necessity for his wanting to bring some British troops home.

What's quite another matter is the spin doctoring that the White House, along with Vice President Dick Cheney, put on the British withdraw.

The White House lamely tried to couch Blair's move in a positive light, saying the British pulling their troops out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra is a sign of "some progress in Basra." The British have been responsible for policing Basra since the the invasion.

Cheney is just flat out bonkers, floating above the rest of us in some alternative reality. From halfway across the globe, Shooter intoned that the British pullback is evidence that there are some areas of Iraq where "things are going pretty well."

If they are going that well, Dick, then why are we sending more troops over there? What's more, the British draw down will certainly put added pressure on already taxed U.S. forces. Blair said that Britain will withdraw around 1,600 troops from Iraq over the "coming months" and aims to cut its 7,100-strong force to below 5,000 by late summer, if local forces can secure the southern part of the country. He also announced that British troops will remain in Iraq until at least 2008 and work to secure the Iran-Iraq border and maintain supply routes to U.S. and coalition troops in central Iraq.

However, take a look at the anti-war protests in London over the weekend...

This protest took place in central London on Saturday, February 24.

Above, another offensive picture from the central London protest, with Old Glory splattered with blood. I don't enjoy these pictures any more than the next American, but it certainly is an indication of how far our fortunes have fallen around the world. Anyone else remember The Star-Spangled Banner being played outside of Buckingham Palace on September 11? I do. If we've lost our closest ally, then the president and his advisors should be taking a close look at our participation in this war. But, Shooter Cheney and Dubya insist on our current course of action, which is to escalate the war by 21,000 more Americans, because, conceivably, we have a chance at "victory."

I didn't think I'd agree with John McCain on just about anything, but I agree with his statement that he made over the weekend about how the War in Iraq "may cost him his career." He made similar statements about Tony Blair. At this point, who can disagree? Only time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if both of McCain's remarks turn out to be true.

Another interesting development last week - Finland announced it's bringing all of its troops home, and Lithuania is also considering bring home its remaining troops. That begs the question - who's left? The answer is not many - we now comprise about 94% of the troops in Iraq. That's some coalition, Mr. President.

The only encouraging thing about the British pullout, quite frankly, was Barack Obama's comments, which were steeped in reality.

Obama, speaking at a rally in Austin, Texas, said Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is proof that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" said Obama. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," Obama said to laughter from supporters. "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."

That's a pretty good start to what I hope all of the Democratic candidates continue to do over the next 18 months or so - make Bush, Cheney & company eat their words about the War in Iraq.

You can even go back to Tom DeLay's quotation about the War in Kosovo to get an illustration about our situation in Iraq (bear with me). Here it is, from the New York Times April 29, 1999 edition:

"Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face?" asked Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority whip. Sharply criticizing the NATO bombing campaign, he said: ''What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing."

Was DeLay talking about Kosovo or Iraq? About Kosovo, he was dead wrong, but if you use this quote about Iraq, it's spot on. And I love his point about Vietnam. We proved nothing by staying there and saving face, just as we aren't now. By the way, you know I'm feeling pretty strongly about this if I'm using a DeLay quotation - a man I despise with every fiber of my being.

Sadly, it seems that our reality-show-based society has a memory span of about two weeks, so it's up to the Democrats to remind all voters of the lies, distortions and rosy predictions that were made (and continue to be made) about this war.

I can't wait for 2008.

Third photo from top from The Huffington Post
All other photos from AP