A Sully post dedicated to my comment about the UK/Iraq boondoggle... Am I a total blog-geek (bleek??) for smiling widely about this? My office colleagues were impressed, so maybe not. Still... to have my observations played out on such a large stage ( a follow-up appears here ) is enormously gratifying. Even moreso, by someone for whom I have much respect. Now if I could only find Bill Maher's phone number...

I've been much to busy reading and debating other's posts to keep up this blog, but the UK/Iran drama has inspired me. During the the hostage/POW (depends on the context) ordeal, British confessions of trespassing into Iranian waters were released. These tapes and statements offered contrite prisoners, apparently well-treated and healthy. After a relatively brief period, they were returned home where they immediately repudiated the "confessions" as coerced. The conventional wisdom response... "OF COURSE they were coerced." Honestly, did anyone believe for a second that the British Navy had equipment so sketchy that they couldn't settle their location? No, the sailors said what they needed to in order to get home. Meanwhile, the U.S. position is that torture (or torture-like) techniques garner valuable information as opposed to false statements engineered to end discomfort. Anybody else see a disconnect here? Also, a brilliant poem by Suheir Hammad ...