Theatrical explosions have an unfortunate tendency to evoke irrational responses. Democratic presidential contender and longtime diplomat Bill Richardson, for example, has prompted some degree of criticism for his post-Bhutto statement holding that "President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately," and that the U.S. ought to suspend all military support to Pakistan - which, mind you, has been battling Taliban forces and other Islamic militants for several years - until such time as Richardson's "broad-based coalition government" comes about.

Ed Morrisey of the prominent blog Captain's Quarters rightfully took issue with Richardson's comments this afternoon. But, suffering from the handicap of being Ed Morrisey of the prominent blog Captain's Quarters, Ed Morrisey of the prominent blog Captain's Quarters also managed to lace his otherwise sound exposition with several pieces of unsound nonsense, as one might expect from a fellow who styles himself a fatherly captain (whereas I, in my maturity, style myself a Roman emperor).

Thus spake the proprietor of the good ship loony-pop:

And after we somehow force Musharraf from power, what comes after? Even with a passive removal of support, something has to push Musharraf from power. Does Richardson have a clue what that might be? I'll give him a hint. We did the same thing in 1979 with Iran and the Shah. How did that work out for the US and the region, as well as for democracy? Not well enough to want a repeat -- especially with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at risk.

Now, let me explain to you why this paragraph is several sorts of funny.

First of all, the U.S. did not force the Shah from power in 1979, and though I'm familiar enough already with Morrisey's unfortunate ignorance of history to expect very little of him in that particular sphere, I am nonetheless very much astonished to learn that he thinks that this is actually what happened. I mean, the Iranian revolution was a pretty big deal; the Ayatollah ended up being Time's Man of the Year, for instance (and, yes, Time got angry letters from people who don't understand that to be designated Man of the Year is not meant as an edorsement, just as Time is no doubt being flooded with similar letters this very week in response to their acknowledgement that Vladimir Putin is a powerful fellow and has been up to things).

Though I myself did not have the good fortune to have yet been born in 1979, whereas Old Man Morrisey was at that time at the height of his manliness and vigor, I do have the good fortune to have access to books and other written records, whereas the good captain has been, I suppose, too busy sailing his rhetorical ship-o-the-line along the uncharted waters of the Sea of Not Knowing What the Hell You Are Talking About to have had much time available to read up on such matters as those in which he believes himself to be some sort of expert. Suffice to say that the Shah was forced out by the Iranians, not by the U.S.; that the U.S. had, in fact, supported him to the end; that the U.S. had, additionally, placed him on the throne in the first place, not once but twice; and that Morrisey is a giant idiot who should not be allowed to write things on the internet, where impressionable young children might seem them.