Howard Dean: Comedian

I had just about given up on posting for tonight after a long day of finalizing my Christmas shopping, but I read this little gem off the AP wire and couldn't stay silent:

Howard Dean appealed to fellow Democratic presidential candidates Saturday to stop the bitter attack politics that have come to dominate the race for the party's nomination. The race needs "a little character transplant," he said.

"It's not necessary to tear down the other opponents," said Dean, whose front-running campaign has come increasingly under fire from Democratic rivals.

Dean's entire campaign has been one attack after another, not only on President Bush but also on Democratic candidates like John Edwards, who he accused at one debate of waffling on Iraq numerous times when in fact Edwards has been consistent -- wrong, but consistent. It's Governor Dean whose notoriety springs from his red-faced harangues on the campaign trail.

"This campaign needs a little character transplant," Dean said. "You shouldn't believe what other people say."

Dean's problem is that people can't believe what he says; he spends so much time trying to deny his policy flip-flops that one wonders when he's got his character transplant scheduled. Either he's trying to get ahead of the curve on demanding a higher tone, trying to eliminate the 'anger' issue, or he's just showing a Jesse Ventura-like ultrathin skin. Both are laughable.

Power Line Editorial in Star Tribune

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune puts its paper "to bed" in the late evening prior to publication, so if one is inclined to be surfing the Internet (read: addicted to it) at that time, getting a sneak peak at the next day's edition is easy. While I was doing that today, I noticed a familiar name in the Op-Ed section -- Scott W. Johnson, the Big Trunk at Power Line. Big Trunk's post on Walter Mondale will be published in tomorrow's edition:

Those of us who lived as adults through the four years of the Carter administration in which Walter Mondale last served as an important public official may find Mondale's statements especially strange. We recall how President Jimmy Carter proudly announced that the United States had overcome its "inordinate fear of communism," famously planted a kiss on the cheek of Leonid Brezhnev, and then reacted with shock when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

His original post was spot-on and this column is as well. (I noted the earlier post here.) Read the whole thing; it's the most intelligent writing they'll have all week.

Inclusiveness

Hindrocket at Power Line has a good post on the type of faux-inclusiveness that will plague the entire election cycle; for the moment, it's limited to the Dean campaign, but it will spread like the common cold and in the end be just about as dangerous. For those who know a bit about the history and ideals of Kwanzaa, seeing the Dean campaign making fools out of themselves by associating their candidate with this Marxist-inspired celebration provides ironic amusement, if nothing else. Kwanzaa itself is harmless enough, although contrived.

It does remind me of our first Christmas season in Minnesota six years ago. My son went to a local middle school, along with the kids of my best friend, who had moved out here a few years before. The two families attended the holiday musical celebration at the school, where the student bands and choirs performed for their families and fellow students. Even under the best of circumstances, these tend to be exercises in humor but are part of the holiday fun.

At this particular celebration, however, it became apparent that school administration was determined to be as inclusive as possible. The presentation included a few traditional Chanukkah songs, accompanied by two separate explanations of the Jewish holiday. We were treated to no fewer than five explanations of Kwanzaa, none of which included the criminal history of its founder, and a number of Kwanzaa songs to go along with the lessons. However, during the entire performance, not one explanation of Christmas was presented, and not one religious Christmas carol was sung by the choirs. Instead, the children performed songs like "Frosty the Snowman" and "Winter Wonderland".

It gets worse.

Towards the end of this display of inclusiveness, a parody of tunes were sung by the 8th-grade choir, of the theme of "Holidays Around The World". Children sang satires of popular Christmas songs in comic accents of Russians, Italians, Germans, et al. One of the final stanzas focused on Asia, and the choir sung it in an embarrassing pidgin English with squinted eyes, bowing frantically during the entire verse. It was enough to make Mickey Rooney's shameful performance in Breakfast at Tiffany's look like Toshiro Mifune. I looked around the gymnasium and saw people of Asian ancestry staring slack-jawed at this spectacle, and people's eyes darting back and forth with shocked looks on their faces. The only one enjoying it was the school principal, who had a big smile on her face, sitting in the front row a few seats away from us.

Being the quiet and retiring person I am, I turned to my best friend and said, "So the lesson is that we welcome everyone to our PC celebration except you Chinks over there?" I got more laughs from the audience around us than the choir did with its song and earned a huge, disapproving scowl from the principal. (I also got one from my wife, but at that point I was so fed up I didn't care.) It was a display I would have expected in my native California but was stunned to see in Minnesota.

The true lesson is that people who try that hard to demonstrate "inclusiveness" usually have something to hide, and while appeasing the electorate with meaningless paeans to meaningless holidays is harmless, it does tell you something about the person doing it. They'd rather try to be all things to all people rather than just be themselves and let others alone, because eventually they will demand that you honor their traditions as well as your own. That's what I learned from my Night of the Living Kwanzaa, and I'm not likely to forget it.

Addendum: My wife would like you to know that her scowl indicated her disapproval of my [loud] vocal disgust with the program, and not an indication that she disagreed with me. Just so you know.

Recognition Comes Slowly but Surely

Media recognition of the stunning diplomatic victory of Bush and Blair -- and even Gadhafi -- in Libya's trilateral disarmament agreement yesterday comes slow. Most of the major newspapers covered it as a news story, although both local Twin Cities newspapers buried it. Editorial boards mostly ignored it, with a couple of major exceptions. For instance, the Daily Telegraph in the UK had no problem proclaiming it as a major vindication of the Bush/Blair global strategy in the War on Terror:

The stick has been applied, now a carrot must be offered as an incentive to other rogue nations, like Iraq. As for Mr Bush and Mr Blair, with Saddam captured and Libya tamed, it cannot be denied they have had brilliant end to a difficult year. The world is gradually becoming a safer place. Both their approval ratings should reflect that.

The title of this piece is "A Safer World," which is no doubt intended as a retort to the Dean campaign and its apologists like the Star-Tribune editorial board. Even the New York Times admits that its previous editorials were in error, although they mean the editorials encouraging Bush to drop the sanctions against Libya earlier this year:

Over the past five years, by turning over two suspects for trial, acknowledging its complicity in the Lockerbie bombing and paying compensation to victims' families, Libya finally managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to lift the international sanctions that had shadowed its economy and its international reputation for more than a decade. Those sanctions were lifted in September. This page recommended lifting American sanctions as well, but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya's decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended.

Other editorial boards appear to be AWOL on the Libya announcement. Small wonder.

Blogs for Bush has a number of good posts on this subject; be sure to read them all. And Power Line is as stunned as I am about the New York Times editorial. And SWLIP is seeing odd flying animals.

Former Saddam Officials Targeted by Vigilantes

It was just a matter of time before this started happening:

Iraqi sources with contacts among former and current security officials estimate that about 50 senior figures in Hussein's intelligence, military intelligence and internal security organizations have been gunned down in recent months. There has been an even larger toll among neighborhood party officials, such as Taee, who are blamed for having informed on the local community during Hussein's rule, these sources said.

Neither the morgue nor officers in Iraq's new police force -- who concede they have little interest in probing these deaths -- have tallied the figures. But the phenomenon is citywide, according to a survey of police stations, with numbers varying widely from one district to another.

It is difficult to blame the victims of Saddam's regime for taking matters into their own hands after 35 years of brutal oppression. After all, one way to make sure that people like Taee don't get a chance to squeal on you again is to kill him; perhaps one could think of it as a form of pre-emptive self-defense, if not just retribution.

However, there are three problems with this phenomenon. First, it encourages Iraqis to bypass the newly-evolving government and judicial process, and in order for those to succeed, the government needs buy-in from all of the Iraqi people. Also, when the trials start, these people may make good witnesses to the atrocities of Saddam and his main henchman; their loss may be significant. Lastly, of course, it's murder, no matter who the victims are, and indiscriminate murder degrades any society if left unchecked.

The CPA and Iraqi Governing Council should be making offers for protection for lower-level Ba'athist functionaries in exchange for testimony and documentary evidence in order to protect the witnesses and to capture the bigger fish that may be still unaccounted for.

Ambulance Chaser To The Genocidal Stars

Looks like Saddam Hussein's found himself an American mouthpiece:

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark said Friday that he would be willing to provide legal counsel to Saddam Hussein if the ousted Iraqi leader requested Clark's assistance.

"I would seek to help him protect his rights if he needed my help and I felt that there was no one who's willing who could do it better,'' Clark said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I would have no hesitation. That's my work. That's my chosen pursuit - to protect rights. His rights need protecting.''

His rights need protecting, and of course Ramsey Clark needs the publicity. Clark, who has made a career out of associating with such organizations as International ANSWER -- a Stalinist group that organized rabidly anti-American protests over the past year -- manages to get himself interviewed on a regular basis despite his connections to lunatic-fringe groups. This is no exception. I understand the need under the Consititution for everyone to have legal counsel, and of course I believe that Saddam, if he is tried, should be represented by such, although I'd love to see him represent himself instead. But for Ramsey Clark, it goes way beyond his "calling" as an attorney, as the interview explains:

Clark also lashed out at the Bush administration for the military's handling of the ex-Iraqi president since he was discovered last weekend hiding underground near his hometown of Tikrit.

'My two main concerns would be about the way he's being treated from the standpoint of human rights, and my belief that the humiliation that he has suffered causes hatred and will be harmful to the interests of the United States,'' Clark said.

Clark is most concerned about Saddam's civil rights, not his guilt or innocence? Is that how defense attorneys approach cases? What he wants is an international platform with which to bash the Bush administration for going to war in the first place, not for giving Saddam a physical in front of a video camera. Fortunately, Clark goes completely off the rails later on:

The 76-year-old Clark, who was attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson, is a staunch anti-war advocate who has met with Saddam on several occasions in the past decade. He most recently sat down with the former Iraqi leader in February, in the days leading up to the U.S. invasion.

Clark described Saddam as dignified, reasonable and an interesting person. ``He is a human being,'' Clark said.

Clark has assisted other despised leaders before. He has consulted several times with one-time Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who is on trial in The Hague for alleged war crimes committed in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Saddam Hussein: "dignified, reasonable, and an interesting person." Perhaps. But so were many of the 400,000 people or so he had murdered and buried in mass graves, quite a few of the women and children he had gassed to death at Halabja, and the hundreds of thousands he had tortured in his prisons. It is not terribly surprising that Clark finds him interesting, as Clark seems to take an interest in plenty of genocidal tyrants like Hussein and Milosevic.

I, on the other hand, do not find Ramsey Clark interesting; I find him pathetic. I wonder why the media keeps finding him interesting.

UPDATE: Power Line is all over this as well, and Big Trunk notes that Clark's heart belongs to Saddam.

Confidential to Mr. Cranky

Because I have no life, that's why.

If you haven't seen Mr. Cranky's blog, take a long look! Or he gets ... well, cranky.

This Is Why Saddam's Capture Makes Us Safer

Despite the blatherings of our local broadsheet, the Iraq war and the capture of Saddam Hussein paid off in a spectacular way today:

Libya has tried to develop weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles in the past, but has agreed to dismantle the programs, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday in simultaneous televised speeches.

Bush said Libya's leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, had "agreed to immediately and unconditionally allow inspectors from international organizations to enter Libya. "These inspectors will render an accounting of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and will help oversee their elimination," Bush said.

Gadhafi approached US and British officials in March to discuss the disarmament of Libya. Does anyone remember what was going on in March? And does anyone want to hazard a guess as to why Libya approached Bush and Blair, rather than the UN? It's because with the Anglo-American display of will against Saddam, Gadhafi must have realized that the era of UN dithering had come to a de facto close, if not de jure.

The lesson that this episode should provide to the perpetually benighted Star-Tribune editorial board -- and to Howard Dean and those followers who bought the idea that the Iraq war was a "distraction" -- is that failure to rise to challenges from tinhorn dictators does not encourage others to cooperate with you; it encourages them to defy you. Tyrants do not respond to sweetness and light. They are only interested in gathering and retaining power. And tyranny is the true mother of terrorism.

Spending twelve years chasing meaningless resolutions around the UNSC only demonstrated the lack of will on the part of the global community to confront tyrants and terrorists. Appeasement has never worked as a permanent solution; it only makes the eventual day of reckoning exponentially more expensive in lives and materiel. In the past year, Bush and Blair have demonstrated that they understand the role that a strong projection of Anglo-American power plays in keeping the peace. The fact that Dean and the Star-Tribune still do not understand this reveals their complete lack of credibility in foreign policy.

Hindrocket at Power Line wonders if he will read approving comments from Democratic leadership in tomorrow's papers. I suspect a few will acknowledge this stunning diplomatic victory from a man they keep claiming is bungling American foreign policy. I suspect that more of them will try to spin this, perhaps by whining that not every rogue nation has done this yet.

Just wait. It's going to be a long year coming up to the presidential election, and I suspect that the new, tough foreign policy of Bush and Blair will reap more dividends such as the disarmament of Libya. They have momentum and do not appear to be men who will simply coast to the finish line.

Also covering this development are Blogs for Bush; Hugh Hewitt; Jon at QandO; Strange Women Lying in Ponds; Demosophia; Citizen Smash.

Headline That Defies Explanation

I won't have to explain to most of you why this caused me to do a spit-take when I read:

Paris Hilton Beats Bush in TV Ratings

It must have been one hell of a show ... can they do that on TV?

Saddam's Capture Didn't Make US Safer?

In yet another breakthrough based on materials found with Saddam Hussein, ABC News reports that Coalition intelligence services have identified moles working for Saddam within the Coalition Provisional Authority:

Among the documents found in Saddam's briefcase when he was captured last weekend was a list of names of Iraqis who have been working with the United States — either in the Iraqi security forces or the Coalition Provisional Authority — and are feeding information to the insurgents, a U.S. official told ABCNEWS.

"We were badly infiltrated," said the official, adding that finding the list of names is a "gold mine."

Would someone at the Minneapolis Star-Tribune like to send a reporter to cover this and inform their editorial board of this development? (via Politburo Diktat)

We? We??

Strange women lying in ponds may be no basis for a system of government, but Strange Women Lying In Ponds is a great basis for blogging. Brant takes on the inimitable (we hope) Robert Fisk, in his strangest column on the war to date:

We have captured Saddam. We have destroyed the beast. The nightmare years are over. If only we could have got rid of this man 15 years ago -- 20 years ago -- how warm would be our welcome in Iraq today. But we didn't.

In large part, Fisk can thank himself for that. 15 years ago, would Fisk have supported American military action against Saddam? If you have read his dispatches on this war, writing constantly about the supposed military setbacks the Coalition kept suffering in that three-week sacking of Iraq, how the bombs kept killing children in the streets of Baghdad (without even considering the probability that the explosions were caused by the unfortunate tendency of anti-aircraft artillery to go down after being shot upwards and missing), then you should be laughing yourself silly over the very idea. 13 years ago we wanted him removed, but because we operated under a UN mandate, all we could do was push him out of Kuwait.

Brant has even more to add to this ludicrous column:

Perhaps Fisk's problem is that he is a man without courage. Only a coward could relate all of the horrors that he obviously "knew" about when he was glad-handing with Saddam, yet at the same time so shamelessly shirk his responsibilities as a member of Western liberal (in the more traditional sense of the word) civilization.

Robert Fisk belonged in that hole with Saddam.

To which I add: what good is a reporter who "knows" about genocide but instead chooses to report the failings of those who opposed it? If we ever get around to awarding a Walter Duranty Prize for Most Lethal Dupe, Robert Fisk should be a charter member of the organization.

Read all of Brant's excellent post.

Hugh Hewitt on Dean's Retreat: Too Little, Too Late

Hugh Hewitt notes that Howard Dean has modified his stance on Saddam's capture a few increments:

Yesterday Dean responds with this:"The capture of one very bad man does not mean this president and the Washington Democrats can declare victory in the war on terror."

But of course, that is not what the President claimed, at any time. In fact, Bush made it very clear on several occasions that Saddam's capture was only one good step towards our mission to eliminate the international reach of terrorism, and the tyrannies that spawn it:

I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq [emphasis mine]. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

It's good to see that Dean accepts the Bush position on Saddam's capture, although it would be nice for him to acknowledge that that is what he did. Hewitt offers Dean some anger management and damage control counseling:

Dean's only exit is to admit error --quickly and candidly: "I was wrong to state that the capture of Saddam doesn't make America safer. Obviously it does. In my eagerness to underscore that the war was ill-conceived and the reconstruction of Iraq badly managed, I allowed myself to deny the obvious: It does help us that Saddam is in prison. It does make the U.S. safer. But I continue to believe he could have been brought to heel by other means."

It's good advice, but Dean's political tin ear still seems to be guiding his decisions. I suspect that Dean will eventually contend that he meant the above all along, and right-wing critics are being unfair by judging him on what he actually says.

And anyway, isn't it a bit presumptuous for a candidate who has been claiming loudly for the past year that we shouldn't be in Iraq at all to suddenly decide how to define victory there?

Howard Dean's Hypocrisy on Corporate Tax Breaks

As part of a continuing series on Howard Dean's association with the offshore "captives" tax shelter he set up in Vermont, the Boston Globe reports today that under his leadership, Vermont actively and aggressively set up tax shelter front companies for offshore corporations to enable them to avoid paying tax penalties for not being headquartered in the United States:

As part of Howard Dean's effort to attract companies to set up so-called "captive" insurance businesses in Vermont, he signed legislation that enabled a Bermuda-based company to establish a Vermont branch, which industry analysts said at the time could provide a tax break for the parent firm. ...

In May 1999, Dean signed a bill designed to help self-owned, or "captive," insurance companies that intended to remain offshore. The legislation, for example, allowed an offshore-based captive insurance company to set up a "branch" in Vermont as a way of complying with US labor laws. This occurred when the captive wanted to cover employee benefits, a new form of business for the captives. The branch was not in an actual building, but was an operation run by Vermont-based specialists in the insurance business.

The impact of the legislation was described this way in a 1999 publication called Best's Review -- Property/Casualty Edition: "Although a company has a property/casualty captive established offshore, it would take a tax hit under the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act for lumping the employee benefits in with the captive's business. By creating a branch captive in the United States -- in this case, in Vermont -- the company would be spared the tax penalty."

Was this illegal? No. But it points out the hypocrisy of Governor Dean, who handed out corporate welfare on one hand for twelve years, and uses his other hand to waggle his index finger at the Bush administration for allowing corporations to headquarter themselves in Bermuda for tax purposes:

Dean has criticized corporations that incorporate in Bermuda for tax reasons. Yesterday, in a speech prepared for delivery in New Hampshire, Dean said, "It's time to look behind the fiction that allows corporations to become citizens of places like Bermuda and avoid paying income taxes on their foreign income."

There may be fair criticism of federal incorporation law, but for one thing, it certainly didn't start with the Bush administration; the corporations that Dean uses as examples started migrating off-shore years ago, as Dean's efforts show, going back to 1993. And, to put it bluntly, Governor Dean stuffed the Vermont pocketbook with money that should have gone to whatever tax penalty existed to prevent it. At the very least, Howard Dean was an off-shore enabler for almost a decade, and his angry facade appears to be more of a defense mechanism than previously thought. (via Question Dean Blog)

UPDATE: Dean's hypocrisy extends past corporate taxes, too:

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean often blames President Bush's tax-cut policy for rising property taxes, but when Dean was governor of Vermont, his budget frequently came up short, forcing towns to make up the difference with property tax increases. ... "Take a look at your property taxes. They probably went up," Dean said during a speech Thursday in Manchester, N.H. "That's part of the Bush Tax."

Yet, in the nearly 12 years Dean was governor, property taxes that support local schools in Vermont nearly doubled. Those that pay for municipal government went up by nearly half to make up for less money from the state.

Blogs For Bush is also covering the story.

Strib Catches Dean Madness

Today's editorial in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune asserts that, as Dean says, America is no safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein:

We don't have a dog in the Democratic presidential fight, but we do know that front-runner Howard Dean, like him or not, is getting beaten up unfairly for telling an unpleasant truth: The capture of Saddam Hussein hasn't made America safer. It was an excellent piece of work, it may make Iraqis safer, and it may help protect American forces in Iraq. But the capture does nothing directly to secure the United States from the danger posed by terrorism.

That's because the war on terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam was an ogre who can legitimately be charged with crimes against humanity, genocide and assorted other nasty behaviors. But there's no evidence he was an international terrorist, and that's not likely to change no matter how many times the Bush administration says it knows he was.

It's hard to know where to start when talking someone down from a rhetorical ledge when they're so determined to jump, and in the case of the Strib, one wonders if we're not better off when they do.

First, America is safer because Americans are safer, American and British soldiers in particular. The editorial tries to create the false dichotomy that the Dean campaign made in its support for Dean's statement, but the American military represents the US wherever it goes. This is precisely why we cannot allow attacks on our military to go without a military response; it shows that we will tolerate attacks on America. You can draw a direct line between attacks on American military and diplomatic assets starting in 1979 by Islamofascists straight through to 9/11.

Second, the notion that there is no connection between the Saddam Hussein regime and terrorism is absolute nonsense. Iraq maintained a terrorist training facility in Salam Pak that included a passenger-jet fuselage to train for hijackings, for one thing, and until just before the war was hosting one of the world's most notorious terrorists, Abu Nidal. Abu Nidal committed suicide in August 2002 using the curious method of firing multiple bullets into his head. Prior to his creative exit, Abu Nidal headed a terrorist organization that was international in reach and as deadly as they come, as outlined by the Council of Foreign Relations.

Nor was that the only tie to terrorism, as the Strib should know. The release of the Feith memo demonstrated numerous links between Saddam and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, from multiple intelligence sources. James Woolsey, former head of the CIA, declared that after reading the Feith memo he was convinced of Saddam's involvement in terrorism; in fact, he claimed it was a "slam dunk," as I posted earlier. The Feith memo clearly states the body of intelligence from which both the Clinton and Bush administrations operated, and it was clear to both that Saddam's Iraq promoted and supported terrorism.

Furthermore, Saddam's continued presence in power demonstrated to the Arab world not American patience or American justice, but American weakness in the face of Arab defiance. Strictly on the terms of the cease-fire he had signed with the American-led 1991 coalition, Saddam had provided a casus belli many times over. Not only that, but his continued defiance of numerous UN resolutions demonstrated global impotence in the Middle East, an impression ably amplified by the Axis of Weasels, who were busy undermining the economic and military sanctions that Madeline Albright and others claim were keeping Saddam in his box.

The Strib should know all of these things, even if they didn't deign to cover the Feith memo, apparently of the opinion that Minneapolis readers aren't terribly interested in having all of the facts in front of them. In 1998, however, the Strib certainly felt differently, as James Lileks pointed out last September:

Let’s go back to the editorial page the day after the 1998 bombing. Lead edit. Title: “BOMBING SADDAM. Reason is clear; let attack be sustained.” The writer lays out the case: Saddam has not complied with his obligations; he threw away the last chance that President Clinton gave him in November; Tony Blair agrees. Said the editorial: “Neither will the attack be credible if it is limited to a few cruise missiles lobbed at Iraq. This must be the sustained, punishing effort that Clinton has promised.”

The end result of which was five more years of Saddam’s rule. Interesting choice of words, that: “Punishing.” Saddam must be punished, then left in power. He must be hit with a credible attack, then left in power. The punishing, credible attack that leaves him in power must be sustained. And so forth.

I’ve read enough editorials from various papers from this period to reinforce something I’ve long suspected: the reason many editorialists hate this war is because they don’t feel it’s theirs.

In 1998, Saddam was enough of a danger to the US to bomb him, but what changed in the intervening five years? Nothing except more defiance, and the fact that Saddam got richer off of his oil-for-food program and used the money to rearm his forces. But to this newspaper, in 1998 Saddam was a danger; in 2003, suddenly he's a pussycat. The Strib has been remarkably consistent in only one aspect: its opposition to George W. Bush in everything he does, even when it agrees with its previously stated editorial positions. The Strib will even try to recast reality to fit its irrational dislike of the current administration and attempt to undermine American war efforts.

UPDATE: Big Trunk at Power Line posts a quick thought on The Triumph of the Real Over the Unreal, and the excerpt from Henninger's column in today's Opinionjournal.com article aptly describes the intellectual bankruptcy of the Strib's editorial board. The play's the thing; the script is written; let no facts or events deter them from their goal.

Kofi Annan Wants More Substantial Role for MIA UN

Kofi Annan today demanded a larger and more specifically delineated role in the reconstruction of Iraq, and requested a meeting with both the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition:

Annan, clearly frustrated that Iraqi Governing Council or the U.S.-led coalition running the country have not given him specific answers, said it was time to sit down with representatives from both bodies. "It has to be a three-way conversation," the secretary-general said. "Once we have that, I will make a judgment."

Make a judgment on what? Annan won't even allow a UN presence in Iraq because he claims that the Baghdad area is too dangerous for UN personnel. Before anyone takes the UN seriously, they will have to demonstrate some backbone in dealing with security issues in Iraq. The last thing the Iraqis and the Coalition needs is to hand over authority to the UN and then watch them bug out like they did in October, or ignore violence and attempted genocide like they did in Bosnia. To put it more bluntly, the UN and Annan have to pay some dues and build some credibility.

Another issue certain to be on the Jan. 15 agenda is the return of the U.N.'s international staff. ... The United States is pressing to get U.N. staff back in Iraq quickly, but U.N. officials indicate that Annan will likely stick to his current plan for the United Nations to operate out of Cyprus and Jordan.

Annan and senior U.N. officials have argued that the United Nations can do a lot from outside Iraq, with possible trips into the country. But Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Tuesday U.N. staff need to be on the ground to play an effective role in the complex political process.

So they want to be in charge of Iraq but want to run it ... from an island in the Mediterranean that currently is hotly contested between the Greeks and Turks on one hand, and from the territory of one of Saddam's enablers on the other hand. While Annan is at it, why not just open a third office in Damascus, between the Ba'ath party headquarters and a Hamas outreach center? That ought to make the Iraqis feel really good about the neutrality of the UN. Can anyone come up with a better plan for absolute failure?

What Annan is really saying is that he wants to be in charge of Iraq but with American and British forces at his command, instead of Bush and Blair. Supposedly this will "internationalize" the occupation, but what it really means is that American and British soldiers will still be attacked and killed without American/British command and control to operate freely to prevent it. On January 15, I certainly hope that tthe message Annan receives from the Anglo-American coalition is to either get his ass back into Baghdad and start putting up, or to get the hell out of the way and start shutting up. The Iraqis may not even be willing to give him the choice of the former.

No Joke: Fraters Libertas Sponsoring Worthy Charity

The Northern Alliance likes to have a lot of fun, teasing each other and writing really bad and insulting poetry -- oh, wait, that's just me -- but the Elder has a serious project for us this Christmas:

Last year a coworker and I organized a drive at work to collect toys and winter clothes (Chihuahua is in the Sierra Madres) for an orphanage just outside the city. We were able to collect four very large boxes of goods which were eventually shipped to the orphanage. But it was a logistical nightmare.

This year we contacted the orphanage and asked what their most pressing needs were. Basic medical supplies were among the items high on the list. In order to make the process easier, more efficient, and most importantly get the supplies to the orphanage in the shortest amount of time, we decided to raise money here at our two plants in the Twin Cities. In mid-February my coworker and I will travel to Chihuahua, meet with someone from the orphanage, and then go with them to buy the vital supplies that they need (mostly common over the counter type medications, band aids, etc.). This way the money that is raised goes right to the source of the need. No overhead. No expenses.

Read the whole post. The Elder has set up a PayPal account for readers to send donations. Let's try to help the kids have a better Christmas in Chihuahua this year. Click early and click often. But try not to see the dark side of this endeavor:

Yes, we are creating a legion of young Vikings fans in Mexico.

Noooo ... Elder, Christmas is supposed to be a hopeful season!

Does a Presidential Candidate Require Foreign Policy "Experience"?

Howard Dean’s odd contention that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer has generated a lot of heated discussion about foreign policy experience and its status as a prerequisite for the Presidency. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Gephardt have all made statements this week asserting that Dean is unqualified for the Presidency because of his complete lack of experience in this arena. But is it really a prerequisite at all, and will this argument really help derail Dean?

The Constitution sets few legal prerequisites to the Presidency. Any candidate must be 35 years of age or older and a native-born US citizen. It wisely leaves all other qualifications to the individual voter to decide and judge. Historically, looking at the pattern of not only Presidents, but mainstream presidential candidates, there are a few other “prerequisites” as well:

* Male
* White
* Between 50 and 65
* Anglo-Saxon origin
* Protestant Catholic
* Married, never divorced

Not every single Presidential candidate fits all of these, but the vast majority do. For instance, Reagan was the only President to have been divorced and the oldest ever to be elected (73 for his second term), and the oldest to serve. Kennedy was Catholic, and both Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt were in their early 40s when elected. Nor have all Presidents came to office with formal foreign-policy experience. Ronald Reagan, of course, had no foreign-policy experience prior to his election, and his administration is greatly credited with achieving victory in the Cold War. Harry Truman, considered now to be a prototypically plain-speaking, tough President, was a haberdasher prior to his election to Congress and had a relatively undistinguished political career prior to having the Presidency thrust upon him. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter had no foreign policy experience and his Presidency was an almost complete failure in every category, including foreign policy, except for the Camp David accords. Bill Clinton had a mixed foreign-policy record but certainly performed reasonably.

In my mind, what is important is not the personal experience of the candidate in foreign affairs; what is important is the candidate’s philosophy about the role of America in the world, the role of international organizations in America’s security, and the consistency of the candidate’s positions in regards to foreign policy. After all, any new President will pick a Secretary of State to directly deal with issues, but what’s important is what orders that person will be given. Arguing that a lack of foreign-policy experience means failure is a losing position, especially with the center-right electorate, who will think of Reagan and decide otherwise.

Dean’s problem is not that he has no foreign-policy experience per se, but that his positions have been all over the map, and even when consistent sound bizarre. His stance on Iraq has changed several times, as has his opinion on the necessity of UN approval and on coordinating security policy with France; he said in 1998 that agreement with France was impossible and therefore not worth the effort, but in 2003 he has campaigned vociferously on the argument that our failure to convince France to agree with us should have stopped us from pursuing the liberation of Iraq. As I posted earlier, this constant flip-flopping on foreign policy is a hallmark of Dean, who seems to have trouble being consistent on almost any issue.

To me, this is an indication that Dean has no real vision of his own, and that he is following the Clintonian method of campaigning by poll numbers but with an anger level that precludes any Clintonian charm. That is the disqualifying issue that Democrats would do well to ponder. Otherwise, if they nominate a candidate that operates not from a central vision or philosophy but on the whims of the moment, they will find themselves shut out – again – by an incumbent whose vision and consistency far, far outweighs any amount of inarticulation that he may suffer.

Addendum: The Washington Post lead editorial today discusses Howard Dean's foreign-policy flip-flops in detail:

A year ago Mr. Dean told a television audience that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," but last weekend he declared that "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States." Mr. Dean has at times argued that the United States must remain engaged to bring democracy to Iraq, yet the word is conspicuously omitted from the formula of "stable self-government" he now proposes. The former Vermont governor has compiled a disturbing record of misstatements and contradictions on foreign policy...

The title of the editorial is "Beyond the Mainstream," and their conclusion: "His speech suggests a significant retreat by the United States from the promotion of its interests and values in the world." Read the whole thing.

Minnesota Legislature Finally Addresses Sex-Offender Sentencing

Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature next year will address the woeful sex-offender sentencing failures that led to Dru Sjodin's disappearance last month. Democrats offered an intial willingness to consider the proposal:

Minnesota House Republicans on Tuesday proposed legislation to ensure the worst sex offenders would never get out of jail. Under the plan, "convicted violent sexual predators and sex offenders who target children and vulnerable adults" would be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release. Currently, that's a sentence reserved for the worst murders. ...

Senate Majority Leader John Hottinger and House Minority Leader Matt Entenza, both DFLers, said they could support something similar to the GOP proposal. Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, chairman of the Senate's Judiciary Committee, said new sex offender sentences would have be put in the perspective of all criminal sentences.

Life sentences without parole will protect society from these violent sexual predators, who rarely if ever rehabilitate and instead use parole or release as a hunting license against our children and women. This will eventually eliminate the need for the civil commitment process, but not until after all current detainees have been paroled or released and their cases reviewed for the necessity of lifetime commitment.

Of course, some people will argue about the cost of LWOP sentences, but the Republicans are not allowing that to stop them:

They said they did not know how much the legislation would cost but said they were willing to spend the money to pay for any increased cost the plan would entail.

Not to quibble, people, but while a life sentence can burden the state with costs, so does releasing sex offenders. First, parole is not cheap, and even when there is no parole, the state has to follow up on their location for community notification. But apart from that, who wants to put a cost on their almost certain re-offense? The cost of the trial and reincarceration? How about the cost of losing someone like Dru Sjodin to someone who the state knew was extremely likely to commit more violent sexual offenses? What's the cost of that, and when do we start figuring that into the equation?

Minnesota legislators are belatedly beginning to calculate the entire equation. Make no mistake about it -- this represents a major perspective change towards public safety and away from the philosophy of rehabilitation, a shift that is long overdue. It's probably too late to save Dru Sjodin, but it's not too late to save other children and young women.

South Park Rules!

Oh. My. Lord.

If you saw tonight's new season-ending episode, then you know what I mean. Matt and Trey rock. That's all there is to it. I haven't laughed this hard at a sitcom in ... well, ever.

If you missed it, catch it on repeats during the weekend. Suffice it to say that Parker and Stone keep up with current events.

Good night!

Chirac: Let's Blame the Victims

France's Jacques Chirac, under pressure to respond to exploding religious violence, has come up with the novel approach of blaming the victims for the assaults:

Despite protests from Muslim leaders, France must outlaw Islamic head coverings, Jewish skullcaps and other obvious religious signs in schools and regulate them in the workplace, President Jacques Chirac announced Wednesday. Such action (news - web sites), the French president said in a televised national address, is needed to reaffirm France's secular foundations. "It is not negotiable," he asserted.

Islamic head scarves, Jewish yarmulkes or outsized Christian crosses "have no place" in public schools, Chirac said, and called on parliament, where his conservative government has a majority, to pass a law banning them ahead of the school year that starts in September 2004.

So rather than doing something to stop the thugs that beat, rob, and rape people based on their religion, Chirac and France have decided to surrender to them instead and make criminals out of their victims. This, according to Chirac, represents a "core value" of France, which explains a hell of a lot about June 1940 and Iraq.

Chirac said a law also is needed to stop patients from refusing treatment by doctors of the opposite sex. Doctors say there have been cases of Muslim women or their husbands rebuffing male doctors.

Understand what Chirac is saying -- the state should force you to see a doctor you don't want to touch you. And if you select another doctor because of their gender, you're a criminal.

It's incredible, and it's the logical end result of political correctness. First, you start by defining personal choices and expression as somehow dangerous, evil, or discriminatory, and over time, you build enough momentum that people begin to ask government to protect citizens from their own choices. Government passes laws that bars these choices or expressions in the name of public safety. Society becomes less free, government eats up more resources in order to enforce the new laws, and entire new classes of criminals are created.

So much for Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

Addendum: How can we trust France as an ally in the war against Islamofascist terrorism when France can't stand up to Muslim extremists in their own country? Is this the kind of leadership from which Howard Dean feels we need permission to pursue national security goals?

Review: The Return of the King

For those who have not read the books, this review may contain spoilers; read at your caution.

After taking the day off from work, and from blogging for the most part, I went to the first showing (in daylight hours) of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Peter Jackson's final installment of the trilogy. And all I can say is ...

Brilliant. Brilliant. And brilliant.

Jackson moves at three speeds interchangeably throughout the movie: slow and pensive, normal and tense, and breackneck action. Tolkien's books are full of action -- enormous battles, hand-to-hand combat, desperate rides at great speed ... and you could probably make a two-hour movie of the last book if you just concentrated on that, and never would have to worry about pacing at all. But LotR is more than just a book about war; it's about philosophy, about fear, about love, about friendship, and about finding courage and hope amongst the least of us. Instead of a great action movie, Jackson gives us a true epic by staying as true as possible to the source material.

He blends these different paces in such a way that they seem natural, building through each of the stages in order and back the same way, or so it appeared to me. Even at 3 hours, 20 minutes, the film maintained an incredible sense of tension. Towards the end, I shook in my seat from the constant thrill of it, even though I have read the books a number of times and knew the results. The humor did not go over the top as it did once or twice in the second movie; it was a more natural tension-breaker.

The sheer spectacle of the battle scenes stole my breath, and in these Jackson stayed truest to the sequences in the novels. The marriage of CGI and traditional filmmaking has never been better, and Jackson's imagination of places like Minas Tirith and Osgiliath (as well as Mordor) demonstrates his unique vision and suitability for bringing Tolkien to the screen. Shelob was as menacing and true-to-life as Gollum, who was eerily well crafted and portrayed by Andy Serkis. And the army of the dead stunned me, absolutely floored me.

As far as the actors go, there wasn't a single bad performance. Most compelling were the hobbits, of course, as they are the characters with whom we most identify. Denethor (John Noble) was probably least like my conception of the book; I had thought him as haughty and imperious, not grubby and calculating as Noble portrayed him. Theoden and Eowyn resonated best, after the hobbits. I waited throughout the movie for Eowyn's battle with the Witch King of Angmar, and Miranda Otto did a splendid job of it.

If I have any quibbles, they are minor. Denethor's madness is not well explained, and his death was minus the Palantir. No mention is made of Denethor's mental jousting with Sauron. Saruman never appears in this film, which I realized would happen near the beginning when Gandalf went to Orthanc and declared that Saruman's power had been completely destroyed. The scouring of the Shire was completely left out, but I was fairly sure that would be the case before I ever went to the movie.

But don't let the minor quibbles keep you from appreciating the vast accomplishment of Peter Jackson in bringing this story to the screen at all, let alone in such a masterful way. This installment exceeds all expectations -- find out when the next screening near you is scheduled, and go there now.

UPDATE: Welcome to all Hugh Hewitt and Instapundit readers! Have a look around, and I hope you make Captain's Quarters a regular read in the blogosphere.

Haddayr's New Column: Tantrums and Politics

My friend Haddayr Copley-Woods has a new column out at the Minnesota Women's Press, and while I strongly disagree with her politically this time, she is a brilliant writer and her column will instantly resonate with anyone who has a child ... or grandchild ... who has reached the tantrum stage:

“Look,” I said. “No more mittens. See?” I hung the mittens around my own neck. This gesture undid Arie completely. He arched his back and began banging his head on the sidewalk.

I scooped up Arie, receiving bruise #1 in the shins; I headed homeward at a brisk pace. Arie flung himself backwards, shrieking. He then began, somehow, to cartwheel through the air while remaining in my arms. How he did this is difficult to describe, but it was definitely painful and caused bruises 2-5.

Read the whole thing, and she's right about both parties throwing tantrums, as I posted earlier. So if you're nice, I'll make her read this, mm-kay?

20 Good Ways to Get Beat Up Today

Spacekickers has a list of 20 things you can do to amuse yourself and embarrass your friends when you see The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King today when it opens. Go read the whole thing, but these are the two that made me laugh my tucchus off:

15. In TTT when the Ents decide to march to war, stand up and shout "RUN FOREST, RUN!"

20. Come to the premiere dressed as Frankenfurter and wander around looking terribly confused.

See you at the early show! (via Hugh Hewitt)

Light Blogging Today

I'm taking today off to spend a little bit of time with my granddaughter, the Little Admiral, before I go off to see The Return of the King with a couple of other goldbricking friends of mine. I may not get too much opportunity to blog today, especially during the day. In the meantime, may I suggest the following excellent sites for debate and entertainment?

Power Line - Big Trunk writes about a shameful event in recent American history, and Hindrocket writes an addendum to the post with which I absolutely agree.

Strange Women Lying in Ponds - Brant writes about the twin religions of environmentalism and internationalism and how both have been removed from rational thought.

QandO - You can pick almost anything Jon writes, but take a look at today's post on Howard Dean.

Fraters Libertas - I meant to link to this yesterday and write some of my observations, but the Elder really says it all about entitlements. People tend to take that word very, very literally. Don't forget about the Swingin' Saddam contest, either.

Brainstorming - DC has a nice roundup of Iraqi blog reaction to Saddam's capture, and she is also asking for help with a tagline for her blog.

Politburo Diktat - Just because you must, or face the Glorious Revolutionary Truth Squads. Big Brother is watching, comrades.

Hugh Hewitt - This is just ... wrong. And oddly disturbing.

Demosophia - He adjusts his review of Angels in America upwards a notch or two but reflects on the almost-quaint nature of the miniseries' view of the Left.

The road goes ever on ...

Saddam Tied to Multiple Insurgency Networks

Documents found on Saddam Hussein, and further intelligence gathered from them, links Saddam to at least fourteen clandestine terrorist cells within Iraq, senior military officials are reporting today:

"I think this network that sits over the cells was clearly responsible for financing of the cells, and we think we're into that network," said Army Brig. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division.

Acting quickly after realizing the significance of the document, which Dempsey likened to minutes of a meeting, troops of the 1st Armored Division conducted raids Sunday and Monday that netted three former Iraqi generals suspected of financing and guiding insurgent operations in the Baghdad area.

But Howard Dean says the capture of Saddam has not made America safer. Never mind that the soldiers in Iraq are now facing fewer insurgents, and those that are there are operating under a damaged leadership structure. Dean says that he "very much" hopes that Saddam's capture makes our soldiers safer. Perhaps Dean doesn't believe that our soldiers are American.

Since the announcement Sunday of Hussein's capture, U.S. military authorities have been bracing for a possible surge in attacks. But Sanchez reported Tuesday that the level of violence against U.S. and allied forces has remained about the same as immediately before the capture, averaging fewer than 20 attacks a day. Dempsey said that the number of attacks in the Baghdad area has actually declined, possibly reflecting a decision on the part of some insurgents "to go to ground" and hide, and see what new intelligence U.S. authorities have been able to glean.

But Howard Dean says the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

At his news conference, Myers predicted that Hussein's capture would hurt the insurgency by undercutting its ability to recruit new members. "When you take this leader who at one time was a popular leader in the region and find him in a hole in the ground, that is a powerful signal that you may be on the wrong team and maybe should be thinking about some other line of work," the general said.

In the Los Angeles Times, their coverage of the story begins with this:

The small coterie of advisors and friends who assisted Saddam Hussein during his time as a fugitive represents a vital cog in the larger network of former regime loyalists funding and organizing the armed insurgency in Iraq, U.S. military officials said.

These Hussein confidants have relied on funds that may have been looted from the national treasury and stashed around the country to finance anti-coalition attacks, the officials said. The money has been used to hire legions of insurgents, including trigger-pullers, mortar men, bomb makers and others willing to wreak havoc, they said.

Three captured generals, disruption of large-scale financing of terrorism and insurgency, and a homicidal and genocidal anti-American tyrant, that had medium-range missile technology and was buying more of it from North Korea, meekly in American custody being interrogated by American intelligence ... but Howard Dean says the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Some People Have a Lot of Nerve

The story of how MoveOn.org attempted to infuse its operation with foreign cash has gotten a lot of press the last couple of days [second item]. For Americans to knowingly sell out our electoral process to people from other countries is hardly an act of patriotism, and such an underhanded and even traitorous action -- we are at war -- should reflect on its preferred candidates, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, just as badly as it does on the organization itself.

That aspect of this scandal has already been covered by other bloggers. What irks me is the unmitigated gall that these Swedes have in attempting to interfere with our political process. These same people would be screaming bloody murder if so much as an editorial about Swedish politics were published in the New York Times, screeching about cultural imperialism and other varieties of crap that the Europeans are oh so good at spouting. For instance, this passage reveals their contempt for Americans and their ability to act on their own interests:

Soon there will be another election, and the campaigning has already started. An estimated 100 million Americans (half of those who are eligible) will cast their vote. As always, there is a vast amount of money involved. However, in our view the greatest scandal is not that American Presidents can be bought -- but rather that they are so cheap. One dollar per EU-citizen would suffice to raise more money than the entire Bush campaign budget for the elections in 2000.

Yes, I can see why that would work out well. Europeans have done so well in electing leaders. Why, it just seems like yesterday they elected people like Adolf Hitler. Now, of course, they just elect leaders who get rich doing business with homicidal tyrants -- leaders like Jacques Chirac, who has been a supplier of Saddam for over 30 years, including the period when France was supposed to be honoring military and economic sanctions.

In fact, let's take a look at Sweden's history with genocidal madmen, shall we? They managed to stay "neutral" during World War II by allowing the Germans to occupy them and transport troops across their country in order to invade and brutally oppress their Norwegian neighbors, who had the courage and gallantry to resist. From William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (p. 937fn):

On June 19 [1940], fearing a direct attack by Germany, Sweden gave in to Hitler's pressure and agreed to permit the transport over Swedish railways of Nazi troops and war material to Norway on condition that the number of troops moving in each direction should balance so that the German garrisons in Norway would not be strengthened by the arrangement.

This was of immense help to Germany. By transporting fresh troops and war material by land through Sweden, Hitler avoided the risk of having them sunk at sea by the British. In the first six months of the accord, some 140,000 German troops in Norway were exchanged and the German forces there greatly strengthened by supplies. Later, just before the German onslaught on Russia, Sweden permitted the Nazi High Command to transport an entire army division, fully armed, from Norway across Sweden to Finland to be used to attack the Soviet Union [which it had refused to do for the Allies in 1939 when they had wanted to rescue the Finns from the Russians]. What it had refused the Allies the year before it accorded to Nazi Germany.

After the debacle of France, the King of Sweden personally appealed to Churchill to surrender to Adolf Hitler to preserve the peace (sound familiar?), which Churchill curtly replied that when Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and France were freed of the Germans, he'd consider it.

So with this outstanding record of courage and gallant government, these Swedes have the nerve -- again -- to lecture us on how to operate a democracy. What's more, they feel like they have the right to corrupt American elections by bribing organizations to support their favorite internationalists. And they have the chutzpah to post this:

Should the rest of the world interfere with the choice of the US President? We claim that support for such action can be found in current theories of democracy. What the world needs is an American President who favours multilateral solutions, and who actively supports the UN's Millennium goals.

The rest of the world can participate in American democracy when they voluntarily give up their sovereignty and become a part of the United States. Just fill in the application and we'll have Congress vote on your annexation as soon as possible. I suspect that Sweden won't have much problem with this, as their sovereignty hasn't seemed too terribly precious to them in the past anyway.

I Am Not This Bad

On the final evening of the countdown to the release of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, I looked around the Internet for a good tie-in to wind it all up. I found out that the producers of the film are into scientific research, specifically regarding bladder capacity:

For would-be Hobbits, Elves and wizards, it was a can't-miss opportunity. Die-hard "Lord of the Rings" fans enjoyed "Trilogy Tuesday," a back-to-back-to-back marathon of all three films, including the first public screenings of the third and final movie, "The Return of the King." ...

Ordinary moviegoers, though, may feel daunted by the New Line Cinema trilogy, directed by Peter Jackson and starring Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellen and Sean Astin. It began with the "extended edition" of "The Fellowship of the Ring" from noon to 3:30 p.m. "The Two Towers," also in extended form, was to follow at 4:30 p.m., leaving time for a break of an hour, and 45 minutes before the 10 p.m. start of "The Return of the King."

But for fans, the more "Rings" footage they get to see, the better. Demand for trilogy tickets has been huge, with tickets selling on the auction site eBay and online ticket brokers for up to $250 apiece.

I can't wait to see the third and final installment, but making people sit through movies one and two ... the only one I know that could survive that is Saddam Hussein, who isn't peeing these days anyway since his people are in bondage. Sheesh. I have enough trouble hanging on through one movie, let alone all three. But if I were to give it a try, I sure as hell wouldn't be using this strategy:

At a Tampa, Fla., theater Tony Straquadine, a 29-year-old engineer who happened to have Tuesday off, said he planned to up his intake of sugar and coffee to get through the marathon. "A lot of chocolate," he said.

But if you think that strategy's a loser, then just try this one on for size:

"I love the books, I love to get away on the fantasy side of things," he said, noting that he belongs to a medieval re-enactment group and often wears period costume for those events. And he suggested that the marathon also might be a good way to meet women.

The Captain remembers when he was younger and some of his friends went to the Rocky Horror Picture Show and to Star Trek conventions in full costume. Perhaps some of them also felt that this would be a successful mating ritual.

Not a chance in hell.

Tomorrow: the big day, and my spectacular review.

Howard Dean: Iraq-Proof?

Hugh Hewitt and Power Line have written interesting posts regarding Howard Dean's tin-eared declaration yesterday that Saddam's capture didn't make America any safer. Despite the objective falsity of the comment -- we have lived with the possibility of Saddam's retaliation for so long, it seemed inevitable until Sunday morning -- it's unlikely to dislodge the vast majority of Dean supporters, nor is it likely to dissuade Democrats from supporting Dean in a general election, if he makes it that far. It's not that Dean himself is Iraq-proof as much as it is that Bush will always be a bigger bogeyman than Saddam or anyone else, in the eyes of the passionate left.

Why should this be? It is a symptom of a polarized electorate; quite simply, more and more people associate with political movements on a tribal basis rather than a rational basis, and this is true on the right as well. We can argue until death when this started and who's at fault, but it's been going on since the 60s, at least. Each side castigates the other as evil incarnate, and while this started out with fringe groups, it has grown into a mainstream phenomenon. Large swaths of the electorate will be unreachable for both Bush and the the eventual Democratic nominee. Only ten to fifteen percent of the vote will actually be in play come November, and maybe less than that. The rest can be safely counted as the true believers.

Nor is this a strictly left-wing issue, and for the best example, let's consider the curious case of Bill Clinton. Clinton generated more heat and outrage than can rationally be explained for a president who governed primarily from the center. True, he had dodged the draft, albeit legally, and true, he hardly behaved in an honorable manner with women both before and after his election. He was spectacularly stupid in handling the Paula Jones lawsuit, which caused him most of his legal problems during his presidency. But legislatively, he toed a centrist line, signing onto welfare reform and balancing the federal budget, two major policy objectives of the right. He dropped the ball on terrorism, but the American public would not have supported a war in the Middle East without 9/11, and as Clinton's adventures in the Balkans proved, the right would not have supported him at all. His performance as President could not explain the irrational conspiracies and crimes associated with him by the right, like Vince Foster's suicide, for example.

You could take this picture and reverse it, and Clinton would come out as George W. Bush. Bush has expanded federal government and pumped billions of dollars into the pet causes of the left (education, AIDS), and they still hate him as much as ever, and as irrationally as the right hates the Clintons. Bush launched a war with more international support (and more American interests involved) than Clinton ever had for Kosovo or Bosnia, but the left is screaming for his blood.

In the end, who does the left hate? Bush, because he is the standard-bearer for the right. Who do they love? Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, and Colin Powell, who are seen as standing up to Bush (or trying to do so). Who does the right hate? The Clintons, Gore, and Dean, because they are the standard-bearers for the left. Who does the right love? Lieberman and John Breaux to a degree, but Zell Miller certainly, because they stand up to the left. The Saddams of the world quite frankly take a back seat to this calculation.

This is oversimplified, you might say; there are policy differences that play into this. I would agree, but my point is that to a large part of the electorate, the policy differences no longer matter. It's no longer about rational thought -- it's become tribalism. My tribe, right or left, right or wrong.

So Dean will, I have no doubt, weather the Saddam capture (in the equally tin-eared declaration of his staff) because for Dean supporters, Saddam does not represent the clearest form of evil in the world. That will be enough to get him the nomination. The ten percent sandwiched between the tribes will decide the general election, and in an economy that's growing, where jobs are being created, and tyrannies are falling overseas, George Bush will win that vote in a landslide.

But after that, Americans need to confront the demons in the body politic and determine whether we can continue to operate on the basis of mutual hate, and that will take some introspection on both sides to answer. In the meantime, each side will continue to tear the center to pieces in an irrational attempt to achieve total victory.

Addendum: Not to ping-pong back and forth too much, but the Deacon at Power Line posted a very good response to my post above. I do agree with him that the problem with the radical left, both then and now, is a fundamental dislike of America and American power as created by its mostly capitalist economic engine. This hatred logically informs the hatred of George W, which then isn't really irrational for that segment of the left. What seems to be different is that the hatred is not just coming from the socialist left, but also a good chunk of what used to be considered the loyal opposition. I recall this from the Reagan presidency as well, but more muted because Reagan seemed like such a personable, affable fellow, even to his political opponents. While Clinton approaches Reagan in his ability to communicate and connect on a genuine level -- a talent unfortunately missing in George W, as Hindrocket notes in the previous Power Line post -- it did not shield him from the vitriolic and almost pathological hatred he generated on the right.

Just as a further clarification, though, I thoroughly disliked Clinton as did Deacon and plenty of others who can still build a coherent and rational argument based on policy differences rather than moral clashes. There are a large number of people these days on both sides of the divide who can't seem to do that without relying exclusively on bumper-sticker slogans and almost complete ignorance of the issues involved.

[As an off-topic aside about Reagan, I remember reading a story about an unplanned appearance Reagan and John Lennon made on a Monday Night Football game in the 70s. Don Meredith, I believe, told the story about how the crew and cast were terribly worried when the two ended up in the booth together; one could hardly imagine more polarized political celebrities. But Reagan wound up with his arm around Lennon's shoulder, explaining the finer points of American football to a seemingly engrossed John Lennon. Just a reminder of when it still seemed possible to separate the political from the personal.]

Getting Tough Works with Both Friends and Enemies

Despite his would-be Presidential opponents' dire warnings, Bush's get-tough policy with the Axis of Weasels appears to be bearing fruit for the Iraqi people:

U.S. special envoy James A. Baker III won German and French agreement Tuesday to work for Iraqi debt relief, but Washington did not say whether it would lift the ban on firms from those nations bidding for lucrative reconstruction projects in Iraq ... "Germany and the United States, like France, are ready not only for debt restructuring but also for substantial debt forgiveness toward Iraq," German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's spokesman Bela Anda said in a statement after talks with Baker. The German statement indicated that the United States also was prepared to relieve debt, and that levels would be decided by the Paris Club of creditor nations. ...

France, keen to carve a role in aiding Iraq, said Monday the Paris Club could strike a debt relief deal in 2004 and that France itself was ready to write off some of Iraq's debt. Iraq's debts are estimated by the International Monetary Fund at about $120 billion dollars, of which about $40 billion is debt and arrears to the 19 Paris Club countries.

How foolish do such Democratic luminaries like John Kerry and Howard Dean look now when they warned that the failure of Bush to cut the Axis in on lucrative post-war construction contracts would result in a failed Baker mission? These pretenders have not yet learned the lesson of the past quarter-century: you do not reward hostility and backbiting, you punish it. Otherwise, you only encourage more of it. Bush is introducing an old but critical element to American foreign policy, one that has been lacking for decades ... a backbone.

But What Does Lauryn Hill Think About It?

More nonsense from the See, this time in regards to the capture and treatment of Saddam Hussein:

[Cardinal Renato] Martino said he felt "compassion" for Saddam, even if he was a dictator, after seeing the video of the ousted leader having his mouth probed by a U.S. military medic. The tapes showed "this destroyed man" being "treated like a cow, having his teeth checked," Martino said, using the Italian word "vacca."

And if we hadn't bothered to give him medical attention, what would the Vatican have to say about that, Cardinal? [sigh] All this fuss and bother over a tongue depressor. I guess the Vatican is concerned that a routine dental and oral examination is somehow equivalent to this:

Punishments short of death were meted out according to a clear hierarchy, he said. Those who stole had their fingers or hands cut off. Those who lied had 18-pound concrete blocks dropped on their backs. Informers who gave inaccurate information had hot irons put in their mouths, he said, and army deserters had their ears sliced off.

Ali said one fellow Fedayeen member had his tongue cut off for repeating a comment someone else made comparing Uday's shiny clothes to women's garments, while another who disobeyed an order had his fingers cut off.

Yes, I understand now how tragic it was for Saddam to be forced to open wide and say, "Ahhhhh." It's deeply insulting for the genocidal tyrant to receive medical attention, especially after the loving care he gave the citizens of Iraq under his leadership:

An Iraqi soldier, who according to the facility's records witnessed the beatings, said interrogators regularly used pliers to remove men's teeth, electric prods to shock men's genitals and drills to cut holes in their ankles.

In one instance, the soldier recalled, he witnessed a Kuwaiti soldier, who had been captured during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, being forced to sit on a broken Pepsi bottle. The man was removed from the bottle only after it filled up with his blood, the soldier said. He said the man later died.

"I have seen interrogators break the heads of men with baseball bats, pour salt into wounds and rape wives in front of their husbands," said former Iraqi soldier Ali Iyad Kareen, 41.

The next subject for the Vatican will be to ensure that Saddam is humanely and fairly treated during his interrogation and trial. Funny that we don't recall the Vatican making this much noise while justice in Iraq meant this:

The interrogators said separately to both husband and wife that they would cease the torture if they signed confessions admitting to be collaborating with the oppositionists. They refused. The wife was stripped naked and cigarettes stubbed out on all parts of her body whenever she refused to implicate her husband. She was beaten and thrown around the interrogation room. Her children were forced to watch the torture. She was eventually released, having been told that her husband would continue being tortured until she returned to confess. She was arrested again two weeks later and the same pattern of torture was repeated, leaving her a psychological wreck.

During his interrogation, the husband’s arms were tied behind his back and he was then suspended in the air using a hook hung from the ceiling. This caused intense pain as his shoulder muscles and ligaments were torn. After a period, the interrogators entered the room and the husband was unhooked and placed in a chair in the middle of the room. From close range, he was then shot at with a pistol whenever he refused to agree to sign his confession. Sometimes shots were fired which missed his body, at other times the pistol muzzle was placed against his fingers, toes or arms and fired so as to mutilate these areas.

Over the following two weeks further interrogations occurred at intervals, following periods of food and water deprivation. Eventually the husband’s and wife’s wider family paid a bribe to an Iraqi Intelligence officer and both the husband and wife were released. They subsequently escaped from Iraq.

As Atomizer says in his post at Fraters Libertas, these are moments when I am embarassed to be a Catholic. Unfortunately, as recent revelations about our Church have shown, current Roman Catholic leadership seem more intent on averting their eyes than facing down true evil.

The Vatican acts to protect the oppressors of our age by speaking out against action to defeat evil, and then protecting the evil once they have been brought low. How can such cowardly and craven Church leadership hope to inspire its membership to oppose evil? When Christ returns, peace will rule the day and the evil in our world will be utterly cast down. Until that time arrives, we must oppose evil, and the nature of evil is such that talking nice doesn't stop it. Turning the cheek only works when the oppressor has some emotional connection to decency.

That's why Gandhi was successful, by the way; the British saw themselves as bringers of civilization, and when resistance inevitably led to the massacre at Amritsar and other such events, the British saw that they could not be both civilizers and oppressors. Gandhi would not have lasted two weeks against Hitler or Saddam, and would only have been rescued by those who use force to oppose force. It's also the reason no one volunteers to be human shields on Israeli buses or Israeli restaurants; it's a tacit recognition that one side avoids civilian casualties and the other side could care less.

Whose side is the Catholic Church on, anyway? They cannot be neutral in the fight against evil, or else it is an admission that they no longer believe evil exists. Has the Catholic Church embraced moral equivalency?

Still Falling ...

Perhaps coincidentally -- or perhaps not -- US forces rouded up 78 "insurgents" in an extended raid Monday night and Tuesday morning:

American soldiers arrested a rebel leader and 78 other people during a raid north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said Tuesday. ... At 4:30 a.m. Tuesday morning, troops from the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division arrested Qais Hattam, described as the No. 5 fugitive on the division's list of "high value targets," said Capt. Gaven Gregory of the 4th Infantry's 3rd Brigade.

I suspect that as Saddam's interrogation continues and the materials found on him are evaluated, we will see more and more of these operations. During that period, the "insurgents" will be forced to speed up missions, making more and more mistakes and allowing us to either kill or capture them in greater numbers.

Keep your eyes open.

Mark Steyn: Put Nihilism to Good Use

Mark Steyn, in another brilliant column, serves up a damning indictment of the creaky and increasingly sclerotic United Nations:

For months the naysayers have demanded the Americans turn over more power to the Iraqis. Okay, let's start by turning Saddam over to the Iraqis. Whoa, not so fast. The same folks who insisted there was no evidence Saddam was a threat to any countries other than his own and the invasion was an unwarranted interference in Iraqi internal affairs are now saying that Saddam can't be left to the Iraqi people, he has to be turned over to an international tribunal.

You can forget about that. The one consistent feature of the post-9/11 era is the comprehensive failure of the international order. The French use their Security Council veto to protect Saddam. The EU subsidises Palestinian terrorism. The International Atomic Energy Agency provides cover for Iran's nuclear ambitions. The UN summit on racism is an orgy of racism.

The Bush administration's position on Iraq has been consistent throughout the past year: remove Saddam, stabilize the country and its ethnic/religious differences, create the foundation for democracy, and then let the Iraqis run things themselves. The UN position has shifted to whatever it feels is the best position with which to batter the US: Don't remove Saddam. Okay, now that he's fled Baghdad, let us run things. No, wait, it's too dangerous here, we're leaving, the US needs to provide more security. Oops, no, now you need to leave to let the Iraqis run things themselves. Wait, they're not capable of running their own justice system, they need to defer to an international court.

What rubbish, and what fools are those who continue to see this nest of vipers as a credible authority on world events. The UN is one thing, and one thing only: a debating society. It passed up its chance to be anything more when it refused to enforce its own Security Council resolutions regarding Saddam's disarmament and the truce he signed at the end of the first Gulf War. It has become the League of Nations, and anyone who pretends differently is a dupe, and a dangerous one at that.

Steyn sees this, and he sees the solution as well:

I've come to the conclusion that the entire international system needs to be destroyed.

I don't suppose that's a priority of the Bush Administration, or at least not until the second term. But he's in no hurry to return to the Security Council fairyland of make-believe resolutions that never get enforced. On Sunday morning, his speed-call list was restricted to the Coalition of the Willing – the prime ministers of Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy and Spain. He seems to be roughing out the contours of a new club here: dictatorships need not apply, but nor need those democracies that serve as the dictators' front men in polite society (are you listening, Jacques?).

At some point, and it's coming sooner and sooner, Americans will have to confront the fatal paradox of trying to promote democracy and human rights through an organization that is mostly comprised of governments that at best do not share these values, and at worst are constantly working towards their defeat. When that day of reckoning finally arrives, we will rid ourselves of the UN illusion and begin building international alliances and coalitions with nations that share our values and our goals, and save the UN for Toastmaster speeches, diplomatic courtesies, and the occasional food fight. (via Power Line)

A Visit to Srebrenica

Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota, and his wife Mary are in Srebrenica visiting Minnesota National Guard troops standing guard as part of the NATO effort to keep Muslims safe in Bosnia:

The weather turned suddenly ominous on Monday as Gov. Tim Pawlenty and First Lady Mary Pawlenty were finishing their tour of the memorial site of the worst massacre in Europe since World War II, walking somberly past gravesite after gravesite of newly buried victims.

Gray clouds enveloped the small valley where 7,000 Muslim men and boys were rounded up to be executed later by Serb forces in July 1995. Thunder rumbled in the distance as the Pawlentys, finishing the second day of a two-day tour of Bosnia, looked at photographs in a small basement museum.

Governor Pawlenty's trip has been chronicled for the past few days, as he performs the happy task of visiting Minnesota reservists and reviewing their accommodations. The Pawlentys' visit also highlights the tragic history of Srebrinica and the reason why Minnesotans have to stand guard in Bosnia:

"It underscores the importance of our military being here," Pawlenty said, standing in the memorial, dedicated only a couple of months ago. "My impressions are it's a horrendous tragedy, and it's sad to see these grave markers and what it represents: people being incredibly cruel and evil toward one another."

The men and boys were rounded up at an abandoned battery factory across the road from where the memorial is now located. They were bused away and later shot over a period of days. Others were hunted down as they fled in the woods. Srebrenica's status as a "U.N. protected zone" provided no safety. After the atrocities of Srebrenica became known, a NATO-led alliance bombed the Serbs. Four months later, the war was over.

The Star-Tribune doesn't quite do justice to the story. The UN, which had been in charge of the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, designated Srebrenica a safe zone so that non-combatants could flee to the city to avoid the brutal fighting going on in the Yugoslavian civil war. They stationed Dutch troops there to keep the civilians safe. However, when Serbian partisans began rounding up and killing civilians, including children, the UN and the Dutch decided to keep their powder dry and never fired a shot to protect the civilians they had insisted on putting in Srebrenica. Thousands of Bosnians were slaughtered in the city, and to this day, NATO forces continue to search for and find bodies of the victims.

When Democrats insist that the UN must be put in charge of Iraq or anywhere else, remember Srebrenica. The bureaucrats at the UN will not fire a weapon to protect civilians, and have a poor record of courage under fire anyway. Let's not forget that they've bugged out of Srebrenica, Rwanda, Iraq, and are threatening to pull out of Afghanistan where they are in charge, leading comedian Larry Miller to comment that the UN couldn't be trusted to stop a food fight. Putting the UN in charge of anything but a debating society is a recipe for disaster, as history proves over and over again, and anyone who prescribes this course of action is a fool who should not be trusted with national security decisions.

A Class Act All The Way

Singer Lauryn Hill, after being invited to perform at a Christmas concert at the Vatican, paid back their hospitality by insulting her hosts and their religion:

American singer Lauryn Hill, from a stage used by the Pope, shocked Catholic officials at a concert by telling them to "repent" and alluding to sexual abuse of children by U.S. priests. The broadside came during the recording Saturday night of a Christmas concert attended by top Vatican (news - web sites) cardinals, bishops and many elite of Italian society, witnesses said.

Pardon me, but having a hip-hop artist telling anyone to repent is somewhat akin to having a drunk lecture you on the evils of cocaine. While I am aware that the Amrican Catholic Church has a big problem with sexual-abuse scandals -- and should be a lot more cooperative with investigators, especially in Los Angeles -- what Lauryn Hill said and did does nothing to help the situation, She was just rude, as the story makes clear:

"I did not come here to celebrate the birth of Christ with you but to ask you why you are not in mourning for his death inside this place," she said according to a transcript of her statement run by the Rome newspaper La Repubblica. ... Hill, 28, did not sing the song listed on the program but instead sang a song about social injustice. ... Hill told the crowd to seek blessings "from God not men" and said she did "not believe in representatives of God on earth."

I am appalled by this behavior, especially the last quote. Lauryn Hill may think of herself as a modern Martin Luther, but having heard her music, I won't be waiting for one coherent thesis, let alone 95 of them. It takes a lot of chutzpah to go to someone's house to celebrate their holiday and tell them that their religion is false. If that's what the organizers of the event wanted, they could have just invited the equally rude and idiotic Sinead O'Connor, who has a better voice anyway.

Freedom of speech and religion are wonderful, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be polite, especially when we are in someone else's house. Lauryn Hill's family apparently didn't teach her any better.

NYT: Wong's Wrong

Power Line directs its readers to this odd article in the New York Times, a question-and-answer section with Edward Wong, a reporter in Baghdad, I believe; its introduction is poorly written:

This week, the Times reporter will answer readers' questions from Baghdad.

Are the readers from Baghdad, the questions from Baghdad, or the reporter from Baghdad? In basic English, they teach you to be clear about modifiers. But beyond that, the Times can only scare up two questions for Wong, the second of which is answered so poorly it defies belief:

Q. I wonder if the filming and publication of the videos and stillshots of Saddam Hussein during his medical checkup (being investigated for headlice, having a light shone back onto his tonsils) violates international law for war prisoners. Is Saddam considered a POW? Do the Geneva Conventions apply to him, especially with regard to treating POW's in ways that humiliate them and turn them into “public curiosities.” -- Jim Herriott, Nashville, Tenn.

A. Some Iraqis have expressed anger over the display of the humiliating video footage of Saddam Hussein, while others have found it to be a fittingly ignominious document of the end of a much-hated ruler. Those upset by the video are especially incensed at the images of a doctor prodding at Mr. Hussein’s face and examining his mouth. American officials undoubtedly showed this video to demonstrate the powerlessness of Mr. Hussein. But one could argue that the American government is violating its own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. Last spring, during the American invasion of Iraq, officials in Washington objected to videos that the Iraqi government had turned over to Al Jazeera showing American prisoners of war. The Pentagon said the videos were humiliating and violated the Geneva Conventions. To stay consistent with that definition, one would have to say that releasing the video of Mr. Hussein also violates the Geneva Conventions.

You would think that a reporter on the Baghdad beat would understand the Geneva Convention and the rules of war, especially if he's arrogating to himself the position of expert in one of the nation's most prestigious broadsheets, but it appears that knowledge isn't a necessary prerequisite for reporters at the Gray Lady. Salient points:

1. In order for the Geneva Convention to apply, captured prisoners have to be in uniform bearing the recognized insignia of a nation-state. Saddam was wearing civilian clothes, according to the information at the time of his capture, probably in order to keep from being caught. If he was wearing civilian clothes, then not only is he not a POW, he could be shot on sight as a spy.

2. We are no longer in a war with the Iraqi Army, which is why we disbanded them and allowed them to go home. We are an occupying power, and what attacks have occurred have been perpetrated by irregulars out of uniform (see above). People arrested under these conditions are not POWs, they are criminals.

Our soldiers were captured in uniform during battle and were therefore POWs and entitled to Geneva Convention protections. Actually, if you saw the video of the Iranian POWs and their treatment by the Iraqis while the cameras were rolling, the Americans got off pretty easily; the Iraqis habitually kicked and punched the Iranian POWs and filmed it all. Saddam was captured in a hole, miles and months from any battle, out of uniform. In other words, no soup for you, Saddam.

But I also share Power Line's incredulity at the NY Times for even entertaining this question, let alone the unbelievably biased and insipid answer they provided.

National Pool: Swingin' Saddam?

Hugh Hewitt announced today that the guys over at Fraters Libertas will be hosting a national office pool for the date of Saddam Hussein's actual execution. While I don't normally support the death penalty for religious reasons, this may be a special case; besides, I don't have a problem joining in the pool. I never win these things anyway.

As for their announced prize ... be afraid. Be very afraid.

UPDATE: As the post at Fraters Libertas states, I'm throwing in three DVDs as a prize in this contest:

Red Dawn - Patrick Swayze saves America by peeing into a radiator. No, really. After seeing this movie, try to explain, without the liberal use of alcohol, why they named the Saddam-capture mission after it.

Judgment at Nuremberg - Actually, the classic Spencer Tracy/Marlene Dietrich film is not out on DVD -- how the hell did they forget this one? By the time Saddam's swingin', they may have rectified this major oversight and released this brilliant film on DVD or re-released it on video. If not, I'll be offering Nuremberg., a pretty good substitute that stars Alec Baldwin and Jill Hennessey. Yes, I'm aware that Spencer Tracy is a better actor than Alec Baldwin, even now.

Hang 'Em High - A real man's film, where Clint's stare is worth a thousand words, and the achingly beautiful Inger Stevens makes you wish you were helping avenge her attack. Seriously, this is a damn good movie, a lot more complicated than some think, and actually asks questions about justice, revenge, and the price we're willing to pay for each that might be good to think about in our times now. Cool theme music, too!

NOTE: I considered adding Is Paris Burning? to the list, but it's got a rotten ending ... it turns out the answer is "No".

Lileks Detects a French Influence

I caught a little bit of the James Lileks interview on the Hugh Hewitt show this afternoon, and he revealed compelling evidence for French involvement in Saddam's months on the lam. I'll quote this as accurately as possible:

"Obviously the French had been advising Saddam while he was in hiding. When they found him, he had a loaded pistol but surrendered without firing a shot."

Today, Lileks broke out of his semi-hiatus to post a brilliant Bleat regarding the capture of Saddam Hussein:

What struck me was his expression when the doctor poked around in his maw for a suicide pill – he had the standard reflex familiar to anyone who’s been in a dentist’s chair. The intimacy of the act makes you look away. You look up; you endure; you disengage until it’s over. Saddam humiliated himself. A big bald Yank stuck a stick in his mouth and he couldn’t even look him in the eye.

This was their hero? His army evaporated. His statues came down like cheap plastic bowling trophies. He ran away. He hid in a hole. There’s your man, O brave foes of American imperialism. It’s Ozymandias in reverse, really – in Shelley’s poem, the stumps of the great statue punctuate the vast and trackless desert, and when we are asked to look upon Ozymandias’ works and despair, it’s a comment on the smothering hand of time. Nothing remains. But now the entire world can look upon Saddam’s works, and despair for different reasons. We see what he did.

I suspect that as we continue to translate the IIS files and work with the newly-freed Iraqis, we will see everything he did. Be prepared to be horrified.

Alterman: Dazed and Confused

Eric Alterman seems to have a lot of trouble with reality these days. Over at Altercation, he speculates on the "real" cause of the war in Iraq:

I wonder if we went to war in part the way we did because Powell was too sick to mount a fight and did not have the courage to resign. It’s just a hypothesis, but you know, the course of the early Cold War had a great deal to do with FDR’s various secret maladies. Just a thought….

Well, yes, it's just a thought, but it's a stupid, malicious thought, and not terribly well-connected, either. FDR was President, and so the "secret malady" theory at least has some sense to it. (If you're not familiar with this quasi-conspiracy meme, FDR was dying while he negotiated with Churchill and Stalin regarding postwar Europe and seriously dropped the ball due to failing stamina and intellect. This makes perfect sense if you think Churchill was an idiotic lap dog to Roosevelt, although Churchill does state in his memoirs that Roosevelt was not the same in the last year of the war.)

Powell is Secretary of State and not President; if anything, you could argue that his sickness kept him from forcing the French to honor their word to him and quit backing homicidal tyrants, but the plain fact is that nothing short of Jesus Christ was going to separate Chirac from Saddam, and even that's just a maybe. Their work together goes back over 30 years. And prostate cancer, while serious, is hardly debilitating. And since the option then was to either confront Saddam militarily or shrug off the containment policy altogether -- we waited 12 years for compliance, after all -- Powell could hardly have been surprised by the action that was taken, nor do I think he disapproved of it.

Besides, Alterman apparently likes to keep nutcase company, as he states in the same paragraph:

I asked [fomer ambassador] Joe [Wilson] why Powell had turned out to be such a wimp—failing to use any of his prized credibility to put the breaks on his lying colleagues, and instead telling all those falsehoods at the UN and convincing a boatload of gullible reporters of a whole mess of stuff that just ain’t so. Wilson—whose speech repeatedly termed the members of the administration to be “fu**cking assholes and thugs” said he had no idea.

So the basis of Alterman's "malady" theory is that Joe Wilson had no idea why Powell was a wimp, in Alterman's estimation. Besides the obvious defects of relying on Wilson's intellect for such a diagnosis, doesn't there appear to be a large leap in logic between "Powell didn't act like I wanted him to" and "Powell must be too sick to defy the President"? (via Instapundit)

Return Of The King Wins NY Award

As we continue to count down to the wide release of The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King on Wednesday, the film has been selected for a prestigious award more commonly given to indies:

Normally a champion of arty, independent fare, the New York Film Critics Circle on Monday chose "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" as the top film of 2003.

The three-hour-plus epic, which is the final part of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy based on J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy novels, is a sweeping spectacle of computer-generated imagery — and it couldn't be more different from the rest of the films the group honored.

Ever since the release of the first installment, The Fellowship of the Ring, speculation has abounded that Peter Jackson and his trilogy would get no serious Oscar consideration until all of the films were released and could be evaluated as a whole. This news seems to indicate that the industry is ready to recognize the historical nature of Jackson's achievement. Be prepared for an Oscar sweep next year, and Viggo Mortenson should be considered for Best Actor or Best Supporting Actor.

Meryl Yourish Scoops Time Magazine

As I posted earlier, Time Magazine has published an account of the preliminary interrogation of Saddam "Peace! Peace!" Hussein. However, as we often see in the blogosphere, one of our peers has gotten the rest of the story. Meryl Yourish has the transcript:

U.S.: How are you?

S.H.: I am sad because my people are in bondage.

U.S.: Would you like a glass of water?

S.H.: If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?

U.S.: Well, how 'bout a beer, then?

S.H.: Okay, but only if it isn't that Zionist beer. I will drink, but I will still be sad because my people are in bondage.

U.S.: So tell us where you're hiding the weapons of mass destruction.

S.H.: Weapons of mass destruction? We have no weapons of mass destruction. Iraqis are too sad to operate such weapons, because we are a people in bondage.

U.S.: Dude, that is getting so tired already. Can't you come up with a new line?

S.H.: You see what I mean? Iraqis cannot even use their own words about being a people in bondage, we are such a people in bondage.

Read the rest, if you can keep from doing spit-takes from laughing out loud. (But who can do spit-takes when my people are into bondage? er ... in bondage?)

"We're Not About Anger," He Replied Furiously

Today's Washington Post takes a look at the Dean campaign, which more than ever seems to be all about tapping into anti-Bush fervor instead of actual political thought:

But even though he has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and his one-sedan campaign entourage has morphed into a full-scale motorcade, complete with press bus -- the Dean campaign is still running primarily on the tonic that fueled his rise: Democratic loathing of President Bush.

All over Iowa, Dean encounters Democrats who get a "searing pain" from the president. "What we think of Bush can't be printed in a family newspaper," said John Kaiser, a veteran Iowa Democrat who decided to support Dean only after long, personal talks with four other contenders. "And Dean is the guy who has tapped that outrage."

I recall a time not too long ago when Democrats accused Republicans of irrational hate against Bill Clinton, clucking their tongues at anyone and everyone who opposed him. Now, however, hate seems to be in style. Dean insists that it isn't the backbone of his campaign, though, in this humorous exchange:

Dean responds negatively -- in fact, angrily -- to the suggestion that his campaign is driven by anger. "This campaign is not about anger. It's about hope," he said testily this weekend as he hopscotched from the heartland to Dixie to California in pursuit of caucus votes and contributions. And yet the "hope" he is offering, he told the crowds, is that "we can give George Bush a one-way bus ticket back to Crawford, Texas."

The problem for Dean will be translating true-believer-partisan hate into mainstream political support. But Dean's problem there is that Dean cannot keep his mouth shut, nor can he keep his politics consistent. The Carpetbagger Report noted in September the Top 10 Howard Dean flip-flops, about which I posted earlier. It will make little difference in the primaries -- perhaps -- but if anger is all Dean has in the general election while running on a record like this, be prepared for a massive Bush landslide, especially with a strong economy, job growth, a free Iraq, and Saddam behind bars or dead.

Dominoes Fall

Saddam Hussein's capture appears to be working out even better than anticipated. The man who surrendered to US forces by declaring, "I want to negotiate!" may be responsible for the following:

Since Saddam's capture on Saturday, U.S. Army teams from the 1st Armored Division have captured one high-ranking former regime figure — who has yet to be named — and that prisoner has given up a few others, Hertling said. All the men are currently being interrogated and more raids are expected, Hertling said.

The intelligence that led the military to the men came from the first transcript of Saddam's initial interrogation, and a briefcase of documents Saddam carried with him at the time of his arrest, Hertling said.

The Lion of Arabia turns out to be the Weasel of the Middle East.

"We've already gleaned intelligence value from his capture," Hertling said. "We've already been able to capture a couple of key individuals here in Baghdad. We've completely confirmed one of the cells. It's putting the pieces together and it's connecting the dots. It has already helped us significantly in Baghdad."

The intelligence has also given the U.S. military a far clearer picture of the guerrillas' command and control network in the city, and has confirmed the existence of rebel cells whose existence was previously only suspected, Hertling said.

From the initial batch of successes, Hertling said it was apparent that Saddam still played some role in leading the anti-U.S. insurgency.

The good news just keeps on coming.

Power Line Rebuts Mondale

As a follow-up to his earlier posts on the subject, Big Trunk at Power Line writes an extensive and detailed rebuttal to former VP Walter Mondale's eccentric and unbalanced criticisms of the Bush administration's foreign policy at Macalester College last week. I had addressed this to some extent in my post earlier, which Big Trunk is kind enough to mention. However, his exposition explains in much greater detail why Mondale is the wrong messenger with the wrong message at exactly the wrong time:

Those of us who lived as adults through the four years of the Carter administration in which Walter Mondale last served as a public officeholder will find the manifestations of BDS in Mondale’s statements especially strange. Although Mondale seems to believe that the Carter administration foreign policy in which he played such an active role should serve as a benchmark, we may be excused for thinking that it was rather an unprecedented disaster.

We recall, for example, how Carter proudly announced that the United States had overcome its "inordinate fear of Communism," famously planted a kiss on the cheek of Leonid Brezhnev, and then reacted with shock when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

The essay describes in devastating detail how Carter deviated from the long-established policy of containment until the Afghanistan invasion, and how Carter's ineptitude caused American prestige to suffer an unprecedented drop. He quotes Henry Kissinger:

Henry Kissinger observed at the time that the Carter administration had managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War.

Read the entire essay. It is a grim reminder of the dark days in modern American history when defeatists held power and America was in full retreat in global politics. While the post-office careers of both Mondale and Carter demonstrate the forgiveness that makes America great, it also demonstrates the historical amnesia that constantly puts America in danger.

The Education of Saddam Hussein

Jim Hoagland has a good column in today's Washington Post about Saddam Hussein, including some of his own experiences with the former tyrant as interesting background to recent events. Hoagland interviewed him in 1975, prior to him grabbing all power in Iraq:

The dictator flashed his tailored cuffs and diamond-encrusted jewelry at me in an encounter in 1975 as he described in minute detail his commitment to Arab socialism. He went on to deny that the atrocities I had seen in Kurdistan a few weeks earlier could have happened. When I reported both atrocities and atmospherics, Hussein sent word that he was outraged -- that I had mentioned the cuff links.

Vanity and megalomania always constituted a large part of Saddam Hussein, it seems, which makes his apprehension in a rathole all the more compelling. Hoagland gleefully wonders whether those cufflinks were pawned to finance his flight, but with $750,000 in US currency on him, I doubt that he needed to worry about the cufflinks. However, Hoagland does describe one heartwarming scene which occurred near the end of Saddam's meeting yesterday with members of the Iraqi Governing Council:

"Why didn't you fight?" one Governing Council member asked Hussein as their meeting ended. Hussein gestured toward the U.S. soldiers guarding him and asked his own question: "Would you fight them?"

Had Saddam made that calculation in 1990, or even as recent as February or March of this year, he likely would not have been forced to live out of a rathole for the past several months. (via Instapundit)

Afghans Start Constitutional Convention

Afghans today took a dramatic step towards building a peaceful, modern democratic society by starting a consitutional convention:

A landmark constitutional convention began in Afghanistan on Sunday with solemn prayers, the songs of children and a stirring speech by the nation's former king, who echoed the aspirations of his war-weary countrymen with a call for unity and peace.

Some 500 delegates -- from village mullahs to Western-educated exiles -- were gathered at a huge tent in Afghanistan's battle-scarred capital, Kabul, to hammer out a new constitution in a traditional loya jirga, or grand council.

The meeting, which is expected to take several weeks, is being conducted under tight security, as Taliban terrorists are still a threat. Even the delegates are being searched prior to entry.

One of the interesting issues the loya jirga must confront is womens' rights in a new Afghanistan. Women under Taliban rule were notoriously oppressed, unable to do almost anything without a man present and forbidden to wear anything in public except the burqa. Now, women are part of the loya jirga and are participants in the creation of the new Afghani political structure, and are expected to greatly expand the role and rights of women. However, because of the danger surrounding these proceedings, the female delegates still arrived in burqas, which they shed once inside for normal clothing.

Another critical issue will be the creation of the executive. Afghanistan has been a warlord society, and so on one hand the delegates will be reticent to create a single executive office with strong power; on the other hand, only such a strong, single executive may be able to bring the warlords under control. Hamid Karzai has already stated that if a Prime Minister office is created in addition to a President, he will not fill either role and will instead resign.

Many problems face the Afghanis as they attempt to create a modern government and society from the ruins of the 12th-century rule of the Taliban. However, let's remember that at least now they have the opportunity to build a rational and somewhat liberal government that could allow their different ethnic groups to live in peace with each other and allow women to participate meaningfully in their society. They no longer have police roaming around, beating men for beards that aren't long enough or flying kites, or worse. We may have made mistakes in Afghanistan, chief among them not keeping enough troops in theater, but without our intervention, there would have been no loya jirga and no opportunity for freedom.

I Suppose I'll Let Him Have the Last Word

I've pasted the transcript of President Bush's speech on the capture of Saddam Hussein. Here's a link to the White House site, where there are links to the video.

Happy V-S Day, and good night.

Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m. Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive. He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.

The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq. It marks the end of the road for him, and for all who bullied and killed in his name. For the Baathist holdouts largely responsible for the current violence, there will be no return to the corrupt power and privilege they once held. For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again. All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side. The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals -- sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life.

In the history of Iraq, a dark and painful era is over. A hopeful day has arrived. All Iraqis can now come together and reject violence and build a new Iraq.

The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.

I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq. We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East. Such men are a direct threat to the American people, and they will be defeated.

We've come to this moment through patience and resolve and focused action. And that is our strategy moving forward. The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty. And the United States of America will not relent until this war is won.

May God bless the people of Iraq, and may God bless America. Thank you.

Was Saddam A Captive?

The provocative blog DEBKAFile has an interesting assessment of Saddam's status prior to his capture by American forces:

According to DEBKAfile analysts, these seven anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner.

After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25 m prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia.

DEBKAfile analysts surmise that the American military decided to bypass the negotiators to ensure that Saddam's captors didn't kill him and demand the payment for the body. It's an intriguing post, and you should read the whole thing. I don't know if I buy the theory, but it would explain what Saddam was doing in a 6x8 hole in the middle of the Tikriti area.

Unbelievable Irony

Human Rights Watch, based in New York, is now putting itself in the position of being an agent of one of the worst human-rights violators in the last 30 years:

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said the Council must not mount a political show trial. "Saddam Hussein's capture is a welcome development and it's important that the Iraqi people feel ownership of his trial," Kenneth Roth, the executive director of the rights watchdog, said in a statement. "But it's equally important that the trial not be perceived as vengeful justice," Roth said. "For that reason, international jurists must be involved in the process."

Within hours of Saddam's capture, HRW has made the arrogant and bigoted assumption that the Iraqis are incapable of conducting a fair trial before they've even had a chance to make the first preparations. Instead of supporting Iraqi sovereignty, they are already undermining it with statements that have the effect of delegitimizing the Iraqis.

HRW has said the law creating the tribunal, which has yet to be published, is "flawed" and lacks "essential elements to ensure legitimate and credible trials for perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity." Richard Dicker, director of HRW's International Justice Program, warned: "The tribunal might be seen as a court of revenge, not justice."

Without the law even being published, HRW makes the assumption that it is flawed. And they say Bush is arrogant! Too bad that HRW has decided to throw so much effort in ensuring that Saddam is provided their idea of due process and attempting to lock the Iraqis out of the trial, despite the fact that the Iraqis suffered worst under his rule. Maybe HRW would be better off to wait until plans and arrangements are made before launching its criticism and arrogance, and quit being the mouthpiece of recent history's greatest butcher.

UPDATE: Jon at QandO wants to know when the international community became so concerned with justice for Saddam ... I think he's got the right answer.

UPDATE 2: Jon and I aren't the only ones who see the irony in HRW's concerns. Midwest Conservative Journal is as amused by this as I am.

Saddam's Interrogation: Time Magazine

Time Magazine has published an exclusive story on its web site on the capture and initial interrogation of Saddam Hussein:

After his capture, Saddam was taken to a holding cell at the Baghdad Airport. He didn’t answer any of the initial questions directly, the official said, and at times seemed less than fully coherent. The transcript was full of “Saddam rhetoric type stuff,” said the official who paraphrased Saddam’s answers to some of the questions. When asked “How are you?” said the official, Saddam responded, “I am sad because my people are in bondage.” When offered a glass of water by his interrogators, Saddam replied, “If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?”

Later, the questions become more serious:

The interrogators also asked Saddam if he knew about the location of Captain Scott Speicher, a U.S. pilot who went missing during the first Gulf War. “No,” replied the former Iraqi president, “we have never kept any prisoners. I have never known what happened.”

Saddam was also asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. “No, of course not,” he replied, according to the official, “the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.” The interrogator continued along this line, said the official, asking: “if you had no weapons of mass destruction then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?” Saddam’s reply: “We didn’t want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.”

It is too early to tell whether Saddam's capture will have an immediate dampening effect on the "insurgency" being staged by the Ba'athists, or even if he had any role in the attacks at all. In fact, the unnamed official that is the source of the story asks a telling question:

The official said it may soon be clear how much command and control over the insurgency Saddam actually had while he was in hiding. “We can now determine,” he said, “if he is the mastermind of everything or not.” The official elaborated: “Have we actually cut the head of the snake or is he just an idiot hiding in a hole?”

Or both?

A Rat In The Dirt

Iraqi and Arab supporters of Saddam Hussein are dismayed to find out that Saddam surrendered like the rat that they now know he is:

But for some, his capture was a blow to hopes for Saddam's triumphant return, and his peaceful surrender was seen as a stain on Arab honor. "He swore before the war that Iraqis would fight America, and then he didn't fire a single shot," said Kassem Shelshul, a 28-year-old chauffeur living in Baghdad. "We expected him to commit suicide or resist," he said after watching video of the captured dictator.

Excuse my incredulity, but it amazes me to see that people actually bought into the heroic persona this evil weasel created for himself. Heroic men do not gas defenseless women and children, nor do they scurry out of their capitol when an army approaches it. Haven't these people been paying any attention at all?

At Baghdad's Palestine hotel, where foreign journalists and American contract workers are staying, Abil Daoud was sad. "We lost our only hope and now we are stuck with the Americans," said Daoud, who is employed by U.S. troops as a security guard.

Note to Paul Bremer: start looking for this guy and prepare the pink slip, mm-kay?

Iraqis were shocked that the man they feared for three decades was found hiding in a hole and gave up without a fight. "For the last 35 years Saddam Hussein presented himself as a lion against the Americans and the West and now today they found him like a mouse," said Laad Hamadi, an Iraqi civil engineer. "He didn't fight for his country, he didn't even fight for himself."

No, Mr. Hamadi, he spent most of his life finding other people to fight for him, and so when it came down to defending himself, he had no more courage to do so.

The Post Buries Saddam-9/11 Connection

Power Line has an important post on the Telegraph story regarding the training of Mohammed Atta by the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and why the story is not getting any attention from major US media outlets. In order to understand why the Washington Post, for example, does not appear anxious to look into this claim, Hindrocket notes the following exchange during an on-line chat this morning:

Annapolis, Md.: Will the Post be looking into the story reported by the Telegraph about connections between Abu Nidal, Mohammad Atta and Saddam Hussein? Very likely to be untrue, but would be immensely significant if true. And there's no mention on the Post's Web site about it yet.

Robert G. Kaiser: If we put every rumor and story in the British press (not to mention many others around the world) on the Web site, you'd be dizzy--and no wiser. The Post does not print other papers' uncheckable 'exclusive' stories. And I can tell you that there have been dozens of bad--that is, wrong--ones over recent months. The Telegraph, Daily and Sunday, has not earned our respect for accuracy or careful reporting.

Read the entire post and remember that the Washington Post has actually been rather moderate in its stance on the war in Iraq. And if they're moderate, then you can imagine that the Star-Tribune-type hard-left broadsheets won't lift a finger to inform their readership of this development.

A Silly Lord of the Rings Analogy for Today

Today's capture reminded me of a scene from Tolkien, although it's not the Lord of the Rings, it's from The Silmarillion. I suppose it may be a bit silly to use this as a reference to Saddam Hussein, but it sounds oddly familiar to his capture. This passage comes from the chapter titled Of The Voyage of Earendil and describes the capture of Morgoth, who was Sauron's leader during the First Age of Middle Earth:

... and all of the pits of Morgoth were broken and unroofed, and the might of the Valar descended into the deeps of the earth. There Morgoth stood at last at bay, and yet unvaliant. He fled into the deepest of his mines, and sued for peace and pardon; but his feet were hewn from under him, and he was hurled upon his face. Then he was bound with the chain Angainor which he had worn aforetime, and his iron crown was beaten into a collar for his neck, and his head was bowed upon his knees.

Unvaliant, indeed ... his sons died fighting, a tactically stupid thing to do but a mistake that only hastened their eventual fate. Saddam, who had vowed never to be taken alive, did not even draw the pistol he carried when he was caught, and instead surrendered meekly. The Valar thrust Morgoth "through the Door of Night beyond the Walls of the World, and into the Timeless Void"; I suspect the Iraqis have something similar in mind, if less literary and more literal.

Note: this was my 600th post since starting CQ 10 weeks ago. Thanks to all who visit!

Perpetually On The Wrong Side

Guess who's crying in their coffee today?

Disbelief and gloom seized many Palestinians Sunday at news of Saddam Hussein's capture ... "It's a black day in history," said Sadiq Husam, 33, a taxi driver in Ramallah, West Bank seat of the Palestinian Authority. "I am saying so not because Saddam is an Arab, but because he is the only man who said no to American injustice in the Middle East," he said. ...

Some did not believe news of Saddam's capture even when images of the bearded figure flashed across television screens. "Maybe they captured someone who looks like him," said Laila Abusharigh, 55, in the Gaza Strip. "Saddam is a real man and all of us are with him." Fifteen youngsters from Arafat's Fatah (news - web sites) movement tagged onto a rally in Gaza for the Islamic group Hamas, holding up posters of Saddam. ... "The war will start now in Iraq (news - web sites)," said 16-year-old Yusef Khalil in Gaza. "Saddam helped our people and we will not forget him."

So far, the Palestinian Authority has had the unusual intelligence not to immediately react to Saddam's capture, but the same cannot be said for the population that ululated with glee after 9/11. The Palestinians continually hitch their horse to the worst, bloodiest people they can find, and have a talent for picking the losing side in any argument.

Let's remember this when people insist on sympathizing with the Palestinians.

NZ Bear Wants an Answer

The Truth Laid Bear asks a question for those who continually argued that the war in Iraq was illegitimate and a violation of international law:

Now that he has been found to be alive, I'd ask this to those who considered this an illegitimate war: will you now stand up and demand that Hussein be placed back in power? He was, after all, the "legal" ruler of Iraq.

And if not, why not?

Bear -- and I -- will be waiting for an answer and an explanation.

UPDATE: Well, I got my answer from a member of the left, and while I don't agree with a lot of it, it is certainly a beautifully written, honest, and even patriotic response. See Kynn's take at Shock and Awe, and I'm also adding her to the blogroll.

The All-American Way to Commemorate the Day

What better way, and what more American way, can you commemorate V-S day (Victory over Saddam)?

I love the picture -- looks like Saddam's been without a Ba'ath for a while now ... [yes, I stole the joke from someone in the blogosphere, but I can't remember which site now!] I've already ordered mine.

Al-Jazeera: Fair and Balanced

It's a sad day for American politics when al-Jazeera sounds more intelligent, coherent, and fair than the campaign supporters of a major American presidential candidate. The Arab news agency presents four views on the meaning of Saddam's capture:

Leading analysts and political commentators agree the capture of Saddam Hussein represents a coup for the US but questions remain about its repercussions. ...

Toby Dodge, analyst at Warwick University and International Institute for Strategic Studies, UK: "His capture gives the United States a window of opportunity. If they redouble their efforts and increase their troop commitment, they could contain or even roll back the insurgency. But the temptation of Bush, facing a re-election campaign, will be to call this victory and cut and run. That would be a disaster for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the strategic interests of the United States in the region and beyond."

Dodge makes a great point here -- to paraphrase a bit from Winston Churchill, this is not the end, but it is the beginning of the end. Now is not the time to go squishy. Keep on the offensive and redouble our efforts to track down the leadership of the Fedayeen and other groups. Dodge obviously speaks from previous American action, and one can't blame him for that. But I think the world understands that this President operates from a different philosophy, and I think that his tenacity will continue to surprise people.

Mustafa Alani, analyst at Royal United Services Institute in London: ""There will be a reduction in operations sponsored by former regime loyalists, but this is not the full story because they are not the only group involved. It won't affect those by Iraqi or Arab mujahidin and might increase them because those who did not want to be branded as supporters of Saddam might now join a resistance with a more nationalist dimension.

For the Americans, after the failure to capture Usama bin Ladin after so many years, it is a propaganda coup, especially if he were captured alive. It's an intelligence prize because they can get information from him about cells working now. And it's a huge victory because he was the head of the regime and not like anyone else on the list of 55 most wanted."

My hunch is that we will continue to see attacks for a few weeks while the Fedayeen shoot their magazines dry, but they will not be able to replace lost operatives and will have trouble hanging onto the following they have now. One or two more big captures and it's probably all over. Iraqi enthusiasm for Saddam's fall and the removal of that particular Sword of Damocles will exponentially increase their cooperation with Coalition forces to round up the rest of the Ba'ath remnants.

Read the rest; I find al-Jazeera's open and fair approach refreshing.

The Face of the Dean Campaign

You would think that the capture of a known enemy of the United States would be good news for Americans of all mainstream political stripes, but apparently that does not include the Dean campaign supporters, if his weblog is any indication. Here are just a few comments from Dean's site, Blog for America (via Tim Blair):

HEY GUYS WAKE UP!!! THERE IS NO SUCCESS EXISTS IN THE UNJUSTIFIED WAR WHOEVER WAS CAPTURED!!! IT IS ONLY A DANGEROUS ILLUSION OF SUCCESS WHICH MAY LEAD ONLY TO THE NEXT WRONG JUGMENT AND NEXT WRONG DECISION SUCH AS A NEXT WAR!!! Term “success” in this war should be applied only in the light of bringing international community IN and USA OUT. ...

I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election. ...

I am feeling pretty upset as well. I think our chances are dropping fast. ...

The damage caused by the Bush administration to our society is unaffected by Saddam's capture ...

In other news this morning -- yes, yes, the world still goes on despite Iraq -- the AP has a story on Bush's growing media staff. Yikes. ...

If overzealous Bush supporters are murdering people who speak out against the President, then America should know about it. A gun shot to the head. A quick ruling of suicide. Accusations of rape against the President. Prestigious, credible news organizations of Europe are discussing this news story in depth. Why can't Americans make up their own mind? Why is this story buried in the American media?

I need a shower now ... I feel unclean just for reading through this stuff.

The Leftists Are Squirming

Want a peek at how leftist Americans think about Saddam's capture? Take a look at a couple of these sites:

Eschaton - Check out the comments on this post by Atrios. Guess Atrios hadn't seen this article before posting.

Metafilter - They're not too happy over there. There's one hilarious comment that complains about the "humiliating and degrading" treatment Saddam is receiving by having his examination videotaped. Someone has also started a caption contest with the Saddam picture, and some of the responses are pretty funny.

Democratic Underground - Yes, these "patriotic" folks are celebrating the capture of Saddam by spawning discussion groups with titles like "No one in "Saddam Captured" press conf metioned 9-11 or terra?" and "CNN Reporting that this was a Tip from an Iraqi. Not good analysts". Not one story or post or discussion group about how good it is to have Saddam in custody. So far, there hasn't been a lot of comments in these threads, but then again people really haven't quite woken up yet.

You can find more reaction from both right and left at the Truth Laid Bear.

More later ... (some links via Blogs4Bush)

The Biggest Story Before the Capture

Before I flipped on the news and found out about Saddam Hussein's capture, I was preparing to write a post about a new article in the Telegraph regarding a hard connection between Iraq and 9/11:

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. ...

In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

It would appear that the documents have not been independently verified by the US, but if they are, it makes a solid connection between Saddam Hussein and his regime and the 9/11 operation. This connection, in combination with Saddam's capture, can and should stick a knife in the heart of the leftist campaign against US foreign policy in Iraq and the war on terror.

Big Trunk at Power Line also linked to this, but does not express much optimism for its wide dissemination. Let's hope the blogosphere steps up where the national media does not. And Hindrocket is pessimistic that it's on the level anyway, as it is just too good to be true. Read Hindrocket's entire take on the subject.

WE GOT THE BASTARD

Saddam Hussein was captured by US forces; according to Fox News, with $750,000 in US cash, hiding in a hole like the rat that he is:

U.S. forces have captured Saddam Hussein in a late night raid near his hometown of Tikrit, according to the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. ... Sanchez said the former leader was not injured and has been "talkative and cooperative," after 4th Infantry Division and special operations forces nabbed him at a "rural farmhouse."

"Today is a great day for the Iraqi people and the coalition," Sanchez said.

Not a single shot was fired in "Operation Red Dawn," carried out based on intelligence gathered over several months, Sanchez said.

The Iraqis immediately broke out into spontaneous celebrations, firing guns into the air and chanting, "Death to Saddam!" Even the Iraqi reporters started screaming and celebrating at the press conference when video of him in custody was played.

This should put a stop or at least severely dampen the "insurgency" in Iraq. Without Saddam as either the symbolic or operational head to their efforts, and with the vast majority of Iraqis opposing the actions of the Fedayeen, it should be rather easy to roll up the rest of their operation.

But that's later. For now, let's celebrate a wonderful victory.

UPDATE: Allah is most disappointed in the cowardly and craven way Saddam allowed himself to be captured. He has a suggestion for Saddam, too.

UPDATE 2: Best line of the day, at least thus far, goes to Jon at QandO: "Saddam's hole was filled with mice and rats. And Saddam Hussein. But I repeat myself." Read his entire post.

UPDATE 3: Keep checking The Command Post for more reaction to Saddam's capture.