An Admiral who defuses a tense situation in volatile territory should be commended by his superiors. Assuming that his superiors are grown-ups.
NB: No, this is not an endorsement of the republicans.
Update: Except that is not quite everything! I failed to remember the lesson Arthur has taught me before:
At this point, if you are at all honest, you must give up the pathetic grasping for explanations, excuses and justifications: that the Democrats act as they do because they are weak, or cowardly, or being blackmailed. (Honestly, will you grow the fuck up?)
This is what they want. When an individual or a government repeats the same actions over and over and over again, even when those actions appear to lead to disaster, you must conclude that they pursue those actions because they want to.
Repeat after me: this is what they want!
This kind of talk is not good news:
In an interview with BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Gen Petraeus said violence in Iraq was being perpetuated by Iran’s Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards.
“The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example… were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets,” he said, adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.
“All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts.”
Hmm, he must have some pretty interesting evidence. You know, like captured perps, etc. Without that kind of evidence this just continues to be the same ol’, same ol’ BS reflecting the ongoing bush administration desire to kill.
Via TPM Cafe.
Scott Lemieux gets this mostly right:
It’s very simple. When it comes to Iran, “liberal hawks” need to either 1)explain in concrete terms what the threat to American interests is and — this is important! — what kind of military action can advance American interests and why, or 2)enjoy a delicious frosty mug of shut the fuck up. (And given their recent record of assessing American security interests and the efficacy of military force, perhaps some slinking away in shame would also be in order.)
Sorry, a threat to American interests, or anyone’s interests, is quite a stretch as a legitimate casus belli and reeks of pre-Iraq bushism.
If there is not a blatant act of violence or at least a force headed your way that is going to wreak destruction take option 2 above.
Apparently Iran has been trying for some time to initiate talks with the bush administration and the bushies won’t talk.
Kevin Drum has some backgound material and the question:
If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you’re trying to leave no alternative to war?
Which, given this administrations history, is probably an accurate assessment.