Gingrich's detailed response? First, we send in a bunch of special operations personnel to blow up Iran's gasoline refinery ("they have only one" - as if Gingrich ever, ever, told the truth or knew what he was talking about). Then, we lay down a good, old-fashioned naval blockade on all incoming gasoline tankers (never mind that, under international law, such a blockade is a casus belli, which is why JFK was so trepidatious when he used one against Cuba in 1962), giving them thirty days to respond, or force them all to walk. Then, of course, we bomb the hell out of them anyway.
You know, such genius from someone who holds a Ph. D. in history is astounding. Let us ignore the fact that Iran has a porous border with Iraq. Let us ignore the fact that the Russians would, in all likelihood send in tanker truck after tanker truck through their long border. Let us ignore the fact that we would potentially be intercepting tankers from allies, causing all sorts of diplomatic problems (I doubt whether Gingrich would care about such niceties as diplomatic problems with our allies). Indeed, let us ignore reality completely, because, after all, this is Newt.
In the 19th century, when Britannia ruled the waves, they could station a man-o-war off the coast of a country and force it into submission. Today, even with a carrier task force, all we can do is fly our planes around and look tough unless we are willing to go whole-hog and start firing off missiles, because naval blockades don't work, especially with a country with long land borders like Iran.
Newt, I am told, taught history. Via Joan Didion's book Political Fictions (a collection of essays from The New York Review of Books), I learned that Gingrich is a disciple of that deeply historically challenged "futurist" Alvin Toffler. Is it any wonder he ran for Congress? How could he possibly teach history when he thinks Toffler is a serious person? That is like using Star Trek to teach physics - one is science fiction, the other is science. Why anyone would give a scrap of credence to this deeply flawed individual is far beyond my capacity to understand. But, of course, I am a "loonbat" according to Goat, so what do I know? Do I have a Ph. D. in history?
That Gingrich does is just proof for me that doctoral diplomas aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
UPDATE: You know, sometimes it is difficult to find the words to express one's disgust with the inane silliness of people on the right. The blathering on the right over what it considers British cowardice in the face of the Iranians taking fifteen sailors and marines captive for violating their sovereignty is really incredible, especially since none of those so carrying on have a fucking clue what they are talking about. I shall leave it, again, to St. Digby to sum it all up:
The rightwing is filled with these flatulent armchair warriors, ready to condemn everyone from intrepid reporters to the professional military for cowardice when they are captured by the enemy and fail to behave in what they consider a properly Rambo-esque manner. They seem to think these people should die rather than be taken alive or some other such puerile nonsense. (I guess it explains their hostility to John McCain --- better to be a rich, coke sniffing draft dodger than survive five years in a POW camp.)
These are empty, cruel little boys and girls with serious deficiencies in their characters. They are lost souls, walking this earth without ever learning the meaning of decency, empathy or morality. I suppose this is understandable on some level. The only "lives" they truly value exist only in a womb or a petrie dish. And apparently that's because these wingnuts relate to them --- they are just about as fully human as frozen blastocysts themselves.
UPDATE II: For any further commentary, I leave it to Tool. I really like Maynard's gas mask. . .
