Not Even Trying to Obfuscate the Hostage Swap

For those of you playing along at home, it looks like we have a winner in the Hostage-Swap game. It turns out America released an Iranian Diplomat a mere 18 hours before the British sailors were freed:

The Iranian diplomat released Tuesday preceding the announcement that Iran would free the 15 British sailors it had taken hostage was being held in a joint Iraqi and American facility, and was released in part because of a decision at the highest levels of the American government.

The decision to release Jalal Sharafi on Tuesday was made at the White House, according to an administration official who asked to be anonymous because of the sensitivity of the information. The release took place over the objections of some commanders in the field.

And this from the reliably right-wing Sun:

On Tuesday Iraq and America freed an Iranian "diplomat" they had been holding, and the next day Iran turned around and announced it would release the 15 royal marines it had been holding hostage. Whether there was a connection was the question on everyone's mind yesterday. Ann Compton of ABC News put it directly to Vice President Cheney in an interview touching on the royal marines. "Do you think there was any quid pro quo for their release?" she asked. "I don't know," Mr. Cheney responded. It was an interesting response, given that Mr. Cheney presumably has access to a lot of information about this sort of thing and that if he had wanted to deny flatly that there had been a quid pro quo, he could have answered, "no."

"I don't know." Right. Iran played us to the hilt, forcing the release of their man from Iraq. It's quite the stunning victory for our enemies. That Iraq War still looks like a good idea to you, doesn't it, neocons?

And, since I have the opportunity, I have to take it:


What a terrible thing to have to celebrate about.

Blair Agrees with Dannatt

It sounds like Tony Blair really got himself painted into a corner here:

Britain's top soldier was vindicated as Tony Blair was forced to claim he agreed with every word of his devastating assessment of British policy in Iraq.

After a remarkable day in politics, Sir Richard Dannatt appeared safe in his job despite having made a series of unprecedented criticisms of Government policy.

(snip)

While the Ministry of Defence insisted he had wanted to expand on his remarks, some saw echoes of the department's treatment of weapons scientist Dr David Kelly, who was forced to make a televised appearance before a Commons committee and later committed suicide.

But if Labour's spin doctors had hoped Sir Richard would use his TV and radio appearances to appear contrite and backtrack on his remarks, they were disappointed.

While Sir Richard denied a "chasm" with the Government, he proceeded to make a further series of provocative statements.

He suggested troops should come home within two years, a flat contradiction of Mr Blair's insistence that they will stay "as long as it takes".

And he warned that keeping them in Iraq any longer could "break" the Army.

His remarks and were a serious blow for an already weakened Mr Blair, who is desperate not to be remembered chiefly for chaos in Iraq.

By yesterday evening, it had become apparent to Downing Street that they had been outmanoeuvred and an isolated and humbled Prime Minister broke off from talks on the future of Northern Ireland to offer the General his full support.

"What he is saying about wanting the British forces out of Iraq is precisely the same as we're all saying," Mr Blair claimed.

"Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq when the job is done."

Mr Blair insisted Sir Richard was "plainly not" saying that troops should be withdrawn from Iraq now.

Mr Blair said when Sir Richard talked about the troops' presence exacerbating problems in Iraq, he was "absolutely right".

"I've said the same myself, in circumstances where the Iraqis are ready to take over control of areas and we're still there," he claimed.

But in places like Basra, the presence of British troops was still "absolutely necessary", he insisted.

But the Prime Minister was facing growing calls from his own MPs - increasingly exasperated by his refusal to make way for Gordon Brown - to set out a clear exit strategy.

And check out the headlines from these supplemental stories about Sir Dannatt: Friends say controversial Army General is honest and has 'no political agenda'; or, An honest Army man who spoke for his men. From a political perspective, that's not how you want your opponent cast - as an honest man just trying to protect his troops from the machinations of the political class. Ouch. Here in America, we'd start hearing rumors about his possible gayitude within hours: "Did you know that he's a bachelor?" What rank amateurs those Brits are. Don't they know that you never agree with your detractors, no matter how valid their points?

Sir Richard and Tony Blair's Iraq Policy

Sir Richard Dannatt, the incoming head of the British Army, unloaded two barrels of truth on Tony Blair's Iraq policy. Here in America even retired Generals are told to keep their mouth shut. If a sitting member of the Joint Chiefs came out with this kind of statement, we'd be subjected to hours of shouting about a "military coup" usurping the power of the executive.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, dropped a political bombshell last night by saying that Britain must withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk serious consequences for Iraqi and British society.

In a blistering attack on Tony Blair's foreign policy, Gen Dannatt said the continuing military presence in Iraq was jeopardising British security and interests around the world.

"I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them," he said in comments that met with admiration from anti-war campaigners and disbelief in some parts of Westminster.

In an interview with the Daily Mail, Gen Dannatt, who became chief of the general staff in August, said we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

He added: "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.

"As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited ... by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

"Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance." He added that planning for the postwar phase was "poor" and the aim of imposing a liberal democracy in Iraq had been over-ambitious. He was more optimistic that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

That's quite the condemnation, and you'd have to be blind not to see the similarity with the Democratic Party's position.