Calpundit: Saddam Capture

I rather doubt that Saddam was really guiding the insurgency, so his capture probably won't change that too much. But you never know: even if he isn't the brains behind it, he's certainly a symbol. At a minimum, there are a lot of people in Iraq who are breathing a sigh of relief that at least he won't be returning, and that's got to help.

I wonder if now we'll figure out what the real story is on the WMD? I suspect not: his story is probably going to be that there never was any and we just weren't willing to believe him. So it will stay a mystery for a while longer.

I'll confess that I'm a little surprised that apparently we don't know what we're going to do with him. The only realistic choices at this point are an American military tribunal or turning him over to the Iraqis, and I suspect it will be the latter. But in either case, why is it that we didn't figure this out months ago? Odd.

First Comment.

It doesn't change much.

Posted by: jd at December 14, 2003 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

"why didn't we figure this out months ago?"

Because as with everything this administration does there was an absence of forethought.

Posted by: Kimberly at December 14, 2003 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

I agree. It is a great symbolic achievement but Iraq will still be miserable for the forseeable future. However, I must applaud the troops for acheiving one of the goals they set out to accomplish.

Posted by: mrmaguda at December 14, 2003 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Every time a bloody dictator is captured is good news. But I'm dismayed at the ejaculations of the press, that this is a historic day and now everything will suddenly change in Iraq, the war is now justified, the insurgency is dead and everything will be hunky-dory. Most of the "experts" NPR has had this morning were totally pathetic -- especially those two pretentious ignoramuses Walter Russell Mead and Michael O'Hanlon, that NPR insists on inflicting upon its listeners.

There are enough examples in history to know exactly what's going on: Once a totalitarian regime is toppled, power splinters and many groups start competing for power. That's what happened in Iraq. Capturing Saddam Hussein may end up shifting allegiances between groups, but it will make no difference to the insurgency, and our troops will remain the target of choice until one Iraqi group becomes stronger than the others and starts assimilating the rest or attacking them. But as long as we're there we will remain the common, convenient enemy. The scary thing is that some of these groups are predictably far more ruthless and worse for us than Hussein's original regime. In what way exactly will a Taliban-like theocracy, or even a Shiite Iranian-like theocracy be better for the US and the West than Saddam Hussein secular, nationalistic dictatorship?

There are many such examples in history, the most recent being Afghanistan. The Soviet regime of the '70s was indeed reprehensible and definitely against our strategic interests. It seemed to make sense for the US to support the "freedom fighters." But of course there were no "freedom fighters." Just different insurgents -- a couple of groups were sort of quasi-democratic, but most were definitely not. Once the Soviets left, the country splintered and we ended up with the Taliban, a group that was by any criterion far worse for the US and the West than the previous Soviet puppet regime ever was.

I hope I'm wrong, but that was my great fear from the beginning of Bush's criminally stupid adventure and I have seen nothing to prove I'm wrong. What our "experts" don't seem to realize is that everything comes in degrees, along a spectrum. Bad and bloody and ruthless as Saddam Hussein was, there are worse monsters in this world. By removing him we may indeed have cleared the way for a worse one to come along. This is no time for exaltation.

Posted by: Ares Akritas at December 14, 2003 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe the administration really didn't believe he was alive.
The Hague is a third alternative. I doubt that he would be tried in the United States. That would really make the U.S. a magnet for terrorists.

Posted by: gz at December 14, 2003 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

We don't want to give him to the international courts or the hague because most of his real crimes against humanity were committed while he was supported by us. We don't want to open up that can of worms. I would say he should be tried by the Iraqis, but that will be hard given that they don't have a real, legitimate govermment.

Posted by: MDtoMN at December 14, 2003 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

I want to know why no-one could throw a razor down to him so he could shave while he was skulking in his hole.

That's an impressive beard for eight months isn't it?

Posted by: Magnum at December 14, 2003 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

There may be some confusion in the press about Saddam's ultimate disposition, but the plan has been pretty clear for a while now.

He'll be detained and interrogated by Coalition forces until we've got the intelligence we want out of him, then he'll be turned over to the newly formed Iraqi tribunal.

I expect the Iraqis will ultimately execute him, perhaps publicly.

Posted by: Smash at December 14, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

You people have a very 'glass half empty' outlook don't you?

Posted by: Gracho at December 14, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

My general impression is that this won't change much. I read a news report today that Saddam was captured at the bottom of a hole - with two AK-47's and a pistol, but not much else.

Not much else.

As in -- no communications equipment? Granted, signal can be intercepted, but Saddam obviously had his hideout well planned, and one would think that if he were running things, then we'd see him captured with at least some communications equipment OF SOME SORT.

That wasn't the case.

Additionally, the guy put up no resistance, and news reports pointed out that he was somewhat dazed and disoriented when captured. That tells me that he was basically running for his life, and wasn't really involved in the running of the resistance.

Yes, this is a good day. But let's not kid ourselves. This ain't over yet.

Finally, I sincerely hope that this Administration doesn't take this as a sign to do something stupid -- like the recently announced contract rules -- in the negotiations with the Shia over the upcoming elections.

THAT is the scarey thing about this otherwise good day. How will the Administration overreact?

Posted by: Tony Shifflett at December 14, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Here's to Karma! No qualifications; this is simply a wanderful thing. Way too many brutal dictators either die of old age or go off to live lives of luxury in exile. Even if this ends up having no effect whatsoever on the ground, it's still a wonderful day justice. Our troops did amazing work capturing this SOB alive and I am incredibly proud of them.

Posted by: WillieStyle at December 14, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

One possible result of turning to the Hague would be that it might give Hussein the opportunity to bring the legality of the US invasion into court.

Bush probably wouldn't like that.

Posted by: Jon H at December 14, 2003 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

We know what to do with Saddam if he was captured because there are a number of clear and legitimate avenues for his trial - under the Geneva Convention, the Genocide Convention, the Nuremburg principles and Iraq's own laws. An international tribunal ( UN, Coalition or special ad hoc), U.S. military court-martial or a special Iraqi tribunal could each preside effectively. Two levels of trials could run consecutively or concurrently.

It's simply a policy choice made at the highest level - Bush and Blair primarily- after the fact of capture much like Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill hammered out what to do with high level Nazi leaders.

Posted by: mark safranski at December 14, 2003 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

". I read a news report today that Saddam was captured at the bottom of a hole - with two AK-47's and a pistol, but not much else."

Not much else? What about the great big stash of money he had. He was using it for something wasn't he?

Posted by: Gracho at December 14, 2003 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

With all his money, why didn't he pay some Syrians to hide him in their basement? That would have been so easy...what an idiot.

Posted by: me oh my at December 14, 2003 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

From the article Kevin linked to (bold added):

Hours after the capture -- but before it was announced -- a car bomb exploded outside an Iraqi police station in Khaldiyah, killing at least 10 Iraqis and wounding 20 others, most of them policemen, U.S. officials said. Iraqi officials reported a higher casualty toll.

Is the implication there that the bomb might not have been triggered if they had only known?

Whose on that byline: Pollyanna-con?

How horrible that the media is apparently winding up to establish a new benchmark: number of coalition soldiers killed post-Saddam's capture.

Posted by: -pea- at December 14, 2003 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

His arrest shows that he had been long been decapitated from the insurgency. Counterintuitively, if he had been found with comms equipment etc. would have indicated that there is a real chance of the insurgency being stopped in its tracks. The insurgency is well past its tipping point and the Occupiers would be best served by using his capture to try and work out an exit strategy.

Posted by: Alamut at December 14, 2003 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with Willie - today is a day to be happy.

I agree that this doesn't erase any of the underlying problems with this war by a long shot. But let's talk about the politics tomorrow. In and of itself, what happened today was a very good thing.

Posted by: JP at December 14, 2003 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Way too many brutal dictators either die of old age or go off to live lives of luxury in exile.

Indeed. A few of them and their henchmen have had a sunnied retirement in the US.

Today is a good day. But the day that the Iraqis can give Saddam both due process and just desserts will be one to celebrate even more.

Posted by: ahem at December 14, 2003 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

-pea- - that report may well be intended to show that the attack was not in response to the arrest. Or it could possibly be a slight dig about the timing of the announcement of the arrest.

Kevin - I don't see what Saddam can really contribute re WMDs - we already have a consistent narrative from the interrogated Iraqi weapons scientists, i.e. Iraq had used more CWs against Iran than admitted, that what was left had been destroyed because it wasn't useful strategically against the US but a bluff was, and that there was no real nuclear program and Saddam was out of the loop on that point.

Posted by: rilkefab at December 14, 2003 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

I think the long-term important thing here is that we will soon find out how much of the insurgency is "Saddam remnants" and how much is a larger melange of nationalist and/or religious and God knows what else motivations. If attacks continue or accelerate, than in the long run this will make little difference and the occupation is doomed to a negative outcome. If attacks subside, then we still have a shot at making this work.

Whatever the long-term outcome though, I celebrate today. Scratch one scumbag tyrant.

Posted by: FDRLincoln at December 14, 2003 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Appropriately:

"Sic semper tyrannis."

Posted by: The Dark Avenger at December 14, 2003 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Apologies if already asked and answered, but...
doesn't a positive DNA analysis take weeks???

Second, if one person ever says to me how "librul" Dan Rather is, I'll have to recall an interaction that Rather stated three! times within a hour of Hussein's capture (to S. Berger, Kerry and Biden), "game, set and match to President Bush 2004?"

Librul media my ass!

Posted by: eric at December 14, 2003 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

Keep bitching you bitter a-holes.

Posted by: None at December 14, 2003 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with WillieStyle! (sorry Willie)

Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Posted by: spc67 at December 14, 2003 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

I'm glad that Hussein's been caught. He is a pimple and a boil and a wart in the anal canal of humanity, and it's good that he's been caught and will not be coming back to power in Iraq.

Now, the big question that's going to get answered soon: Will the attacks subside, proving that if you kill the head, the body will die? Or, now that Iraqis know that Saddam's not coming back, will this only intensify violence in that country as the various factions jockey to be alpha male?

I'm going to suggest that we look at the record: The record shows that the Bush administration is very, very capable of achieving military success in the short term, followed by long-term incompetence. We've seen it in Afghanistan and we've seen it in Iraq. I have seen absolutely zero evidence that they've learned anything from their screwups, so I predict they'll keep screwing up until someone (read: us) takes the controls away from them.

After all, remember when Saddam's sons were killed -- you don't remember that? My point exactly.

Posted by: Jacknut at December 14, 2003 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, great plot twist, G.B. But now we need to punch it up in the third act. Let's have some Fedayeen rescue Saddam from prison, like the Nazi paratroopers sprung Mussolini from Gran Sasso in 1943.

Or maybe we'll have insurgents take some hostages -- probably unarmed Red Cross types. They'll grab a couple dozen and openly bargain for Saddam's release. Then the 4th ID can track down where the hostages are being held, raid the place, and liberate them all. We'll make a separate TV movie about the cutest, blondest hostage. It'll be boffo!

Posted by: Grumpy at December 14, 2003 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Pitt (a.k.a. Lord Chatham) to Parliament in 1778: "My lords, if I were an American as
I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I would
never lay down my arms- never, never, never".

Posted by: Sovereign Eye at December 14, 2003 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Great news. I'm pleased the Iraqi's will have something to feel good about from the mess. Remember that Iraqi reporter at the press conference, scrreaming at saddam's image on the press conference video? I was just waiting for some security grunt to hustle him off instead of letting him vent. That they didn't showed class on theirs and Sanchez' part.

Now, we do get to listen to Hardcore Hawks turn into Pollyannas and backslap each other over this success and its foreshwadowing of imminent pacification. Let 'em have their sunshine. In fact, I'd encourage it. Because a.) it is a success, however tangential now. b.) success makes them stupid with arrogance. c.) Calling it besides the point feeds the trolls and chickenhawks who'd miss the point anyway.

If I was Bush, my worry would be "shelf life". The cheering over Operation Prop Pilgrim lasted what, 3 days? The danger here is that now, the lid really could come off. Fears about Saddam's possible return if he held out till we left has been a powerful disincentive to declare allegiance--Pro-US, Pro-insurgency or Pro-baathist--for Iraqis on the ground. They now have a clearer choice.

If we--as Americans--let up the reins a bit (not to mention the barbed wire corraling of villages), to demonstrate clearly that our priorities were in sync after all with those of most Iraqis, then some grace can come of this.

If, big IF, Bushco don't fall in love with this event as divine vindication of their previous bungling, we can help our troops and the country climb out of a darkening hole. If not, now that the choice is simple for Iraqis: insurgence or us knocking over their furniture for 5 more years, well, we don't want to go there, do we?

Posted by: fouro at December 14, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

I'm glad he's caught, and I'm glad he's caught alive. Dead Saddam is a victory for Bush. Living Saddam is a victory for freedom and an embarassment for Bush.

I wonder, though, if he'll live long enough to face a trial.

Posted by: Alan Bostick at December 14, 2003 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

I think Smash is giving Shrubby a bit too much credit; I don't think we had a plan to deal with a captured Saddam.

Without a doubt he'll be detained for a while to see whatt, if anything, he can provide from an intelligence standpoint. But the major part of this detainment will be for this appointed administration to decide what to do with him.

I think there will be some kind of US-led Nuremburg-type show trial. First, it will enable the US to control what Saddam might say or reveal. Second, I'm sure Rove would want some trial to coincide with the campaign season to divert media attention away from the campaign.

Posted by: JadeGold at December 14, 2003 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Officials said they were able to confirm Mr. Hussein's identity using DNA tests.

Don't DNA tests take weeks to perform?

Posted by: GFW at December 14, 2003 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

am I the only one who smells a rat?
Here was an operation involving 600 soldiers going after a tip on saddam hussein, and NOT A SHOT WAS FIRED???
THat tells me they knew that not a shot would be fired at them.
Saddam was found disoriented in a hole in the ground with a gun and a couple of local goons, not his own men.
I think this was a hand-off. Someone has had him on ice for a couple weeks, he got too hot, so they sold him to the US for concessions to be paid at a later date. Some war-lord turned him over to the US.

Posted by: tony at December 14, 2003 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

"Nuremburg-type show trial" is an oxymoron. At best it shows genuine ignorance of Nuremburg and Stalin's show trials of the 30's. At worst it's an inability to tell the difference.

Saddam's capture and trial is good for the Iraqis, good for America and good for the world. It may also, as a matter of tertiary importance, be politically good for Bush - if that's what disturbs you so much then your sense of proportion is seriously askew.

Posted by: mark safranski at December 14, 2003 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

GFW, page up about 10 posts!

I'm stunned more people haven't asked this question?

Posted by: eric at December 14, 2003 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Saddam in his his hole was an impediment to bush's strategy of cut and run.

The troops are coming home.

Posted by: obruni at December 14, 2003 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Good news! And the fact that he is alive is better!

/TinFoilHatOn/
You charge Halliburton of war-profiteering for $60 mln and get Saddam alive.
How much overcharge we need to uncover in order Osama bin Laden to be captured?
/TinFoilHatOff/

Posted by: GB at December 14, 2003 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Officials said they were able to confirm Mr. Hussein's identity using DNA tests.
Don't DNA tests take weeks to perform? "

I am sure there are some faster procedures for VIPs.

Posted by: GB at December 14, 2003 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

"Officials said they were able to confirm Mr. Hussein's identity using DNA tests.
Don't DNA tests take weeks to perform? "

I am sure there are some faster procedures for VIPs.

Well, either way, it's great news they bagged him. We might get things back on track.

Posted by: GFW at December 14, 2003 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

In principle it shall be judged by an Iraqui tribunal: Saddam has been detained in Iraq, and most of his crimes were against Iraquis. If Saddam crimes had been mostly against the USA, then these could ask for extradiction, since taking him directly would be a propaganda disaster.

Other instances are not to be considered at this time, unless anyone believe that Kuwait and Iran should present a demand at the Hague for the wars Saddam waged against them.

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume at December 14, 2003 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Was this whole war about capturing Saddam? Does that mean it's over and our troops can come home?

Posted by: James E. Powell at December 14, 2003 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Pathetic. Who says it hasn't been figured out. Just because you don't know doesn't mean others don't.

Posted by: Alex at December 14, 2003 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

A DNA test is only hard if you don't know for what to look. They had been ready for that since almost the beginning of the war, so as to be ready to identify him from any remain in case a bomb did a mess with him.

DSW

Posted by: Antoni Jaume at December 14, 2003 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Where's Osama Bin Forgotten?

Posted by: ts at December 14, 2003 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

I liked the Bad Santa reference and ran with it.

Posted by: John Moltz at December 14, 2003 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

At a minimum, there are a lot of people in Iraq who are breathing a sigh of relief that at least he won't be returning, and that's got to help.

On the other hand, with the fear of Saddam's return gone, what further reason is there to support the continued American occupation? I think this might cut both ways...

As far as the media coverage, what I saw (mostly on NBC) was mostly on the "well, this doesn't mean the insurgency's over" kind of thing. Nor did anyone ask if this was game, set, match to President Bush...(Rather's becoming increasingly senile, I fear...)

Posted by: John at December 14, 2003 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Well, having had his ego threatened by 9/11, Bush wanted to prove he was more manly than his daddy or bin Laden by getting the old family nemesis Saddam and making an example out of him, to send a message and discipline the world: you can't fuck with Dubya or the USA. Well, he got him. So now that his ego has been fed, and he doesn't have to worry about the humiliation of leaving Iraq without getting Saddam, and then maybe Saddam getting back in power, hopefully the troops will come back soon. I always felt that was the most important reason we didn't want to get out of Iraq. Even if we'd handed things over to the UN and the UN had found Saddam, it wouldn't have proved to the world how big our dick was.

Hopefully, after Saddam, Iraq will have the wisdom to ignore the example we've set of might making right, insecure machismo, and ignoring democratic institutions such as the UN and international law, and it will develop into a more progressive country. I'm glad that at least none of the Iraqis are stupid enough to think that Bush did all of this because he cared about their suffering.

What is unfortunate is that Bush and his followers will see this as a vindication of their policy of disciplining the world. Judging from his rhetoric today, we can expect the war on terra to continue.

Posted by: DanM at December 14, 2003 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

This is excellent news! I am pumped up. Excellent work on behalf of the military and I give big props to President Bush's political courage on the Iraq situation.

And the commenters on here that are wringing their hands and whining out conspiracy theories - get a grip! Just enjoy the good news.

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 14, 2003 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Wait a minute...that picture...living in a hole in the ground...

Has anyone checked Ted Kaczynski's cell recently?

Posted by: Some1 at December 14, 2003 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Here was an operation involving 600 soldiers going after a tip on saddam hussein, and NOT A SHOT WAS FIRED???

Yes, I too wondered a little about that, considering how trigger-happy the american troops have been.

The real winners are the shiites. Now when the americans kindly have deposed of Saddam, maybe some shiite cleric with lot of armed followers decides it's time to show the infidels the door.

Posted by: mg56 at December 14, 2003 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

obruni:

Saddam in his his hole was an impediment to bush's strategy of cut and run.The troops are coming home.

It is a wonderful sentiment obruni...I'd love to have my friends stateside, but no foreign multinational is safe in Iraq without massive troop support. (Sovereign Eye's post @ 11:28 cuts to the heart of the troop necessity.)

mark safranski:

Saddam's capture and trial is good for the Iraqis, good for America and good for the world. It may also, as a matter of tertiary importance, be politically good for Bush.

Politically good? Juan Cole seems to think:

"He will be tried, and two nations' dirty laundry will be exposed, the only basis on which all can go forward towards a new Persian Gulf and a new relationship with the West."

The trial may well be a hyper-media event to rival OJs. Or it may get knocked off the tube by Michael Jackson's woes.

Fame is a fickle mistress.

My hunch is that it will fast become a overly-detailed snorer and politically irrelevant.Not really a made for tv drama at all.

[Aside: rilkefab: thanks for that valid perspective. I didn't see that angle.]

Posted by: -pea- at December 14, 2003 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

MSafranski: If I intended to make reference to Stalin's show trials, I'd have made reference to Stalin's show trials. What I said stands.

The fact is a Nuremberg-style trial will have to happen for 2 reasons: 1.)it's important the case against Saddam is laid out meticulously because any other way isn't going to play well on the Arab Street; 2.) the US will want to exert control over the proceedings, probably for what are very political reasons.

I'd also add this administration does nothing without assessing impact on Job One: political gain.

Posted by: JadeGold at December 14, 2003 01:00 PM | PERMALINK

To jadegold and to people who think like him;

jadegold stated:
"I'd also add this administration does nothing without assessing impact on Job One: political gain."

To me you are saying this this administration is unique that it considers political ramifications before doing any action.

WHAT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT DO THAT?

Every administration does do that. To imply that only the Bush's administration does that is SIMPLY WRONG.

Posted by: Dan at December 14, 2003 01:26 PM | PERMALINK

GFW: "Don't DNA tests take weeks to perform?"

Obligatory Simpsons quote:
"Wiggum: We want a DNA test.
DNA guy: Ooh, ooh, ee, ooh, ooh, that takes, uh, eight to ten weeks.
Wiggum sighs, hands him a carton of cigarettes.
DNA guy: Did I say weeks? 'Cause I meant seconds."
--"Who Shot Mr. Burns part 2"

Posted by: Grumpy at December 14, 2003 01:33 PM | PERMALINK

>How horrible that the media is apparently winding up to establish a
>new benchmark: number of coalition soldiers killed post-Saddam's
>capture.

God bless you! I'll start it right now.

Bomb Kills U.S. Soldier in Iraq

So that's 1 and counting. I love this new benchmark. It's
certainly better than the old one!

Posted by: Dan the Man at December 14, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

Sheesh Kevin, what is that, the last remaining flicker of credulity? I hope so; I'd thought better of your critical faculties. There's no mystery left. I thought you'd realized months ago that -- since 1998 -- there never were any WMDs. Saddam was, in fact, absolutely correct when he said he didn't have any, and the administration absolutely did, for reasons of their own, refuse to accept this.

How much evidence does it take to convince you that the "real story" was that the Bush administration was just seizing any old excuse to get its war on?

Posted by: Canadian Reader at December 14, 2003 01:37 PM | PERMALINK

This is a great day for the military built during the Clinton administration.

Posted by: poputonian at December 14, 2003 01:52 PM | PERMALINK

Dan: I'm sure every administration weighs the political ramifications of every issue/event. However, for this appointed administration, political gain is the first priority and holds the most weight in any decision.

It's not in dispute.

Posted by: JadeGold at December 14, 2003 01:52 PM | PERMALINK

My initial reaction was, "So what?" He didn't have any WMDs, he didn't have any plans to attack the U.S. or Britain, he isn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and he doesn't have any connections with al Quaeda or other organized terrorists. Yes, he killed many innocent Iraqis. however, U.S. sanctions and the invasion of Iraq itself are responsible for the deaths of at least as many Iraqis as Hussein, if not more.

It probably won't change much. Judging from how he looked and the way in which he was captured, it's highly unlikely that Hussein was leading any organized attacks on US troops. I also don't buy that the forces attacking U.S. troops in Iraq were doing so out of fear that Hussein would return to power. That just doesn't make sense, because the U.S. would never allow Hussein to come back into power in the first place.

So, I think the attacks will continue for as long as U.S. troops occupy Iraq, and in a few months Husseins capture won't seem like such a big deal.

Posted by: Terrance at December 14, 2003 02:09 PM | PERMALINK

"I wonder if now we'll figure out what the real story is on the WMD? I suspect not: his story is probably going to be that there never was any and we just weren't willing to believe him."

Here's what Saddam had to say: ?We didn?t want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.?

Fairly ridiculous if you ask me--risking war with the United States over privacy concerns.

Posted by: eTALKINGHEAD at December 14, 2003 02:28 PM | PERMALINK

Jadegold

How do you know that? Are you a memeber of the inner circle? Or is just what you believe and therefore it is fact?

Posted by: Dan at December 14, 2003 03:01 PM | PERMALINK

"His arrest shows that he had been long been decapitated from the insurgency. Counterintuitively, if he had been found with comms equipment etc. would have indicated that there is a real chance of the insurgency being stopped in its tracks." It's being reported that a briefcase with minutes of a meeting of the guerilla leaders was found with him. That means: a) He was serving in some capacity-probably as figurehead. b) The names of the leaders are now in the hands of the allies. This should be a big help.

As far as a trial- I think the Iraqis will want him badly and he deserves what he gets. This gives a huge boost to the coalition (and the Governing Council) when they needed it. I hope the army gets more of the CERP funds that have been doing the most good. The CPA is a typical bureaucracy. Some, at least, of the blame for slow reaction and mistakes (like dispersing the Iraqi army) should go to the clumsy bureaucracy. Bremer is a State Dept. guy, not Pentagon. We are not imperialists and have no experience with this sort of thing. I wish we would learn faster but don't expect expertise at something we haven't done since about 1953 (Japan).

Posted by: Mike K at December 14, 2003 03:02 PM | PERMALINK

At first I thought they had re-arrested Nick Nolte. The beard doesn't work, Nick. Oh, it's Saddam Hussein? Where's his boyfriend, Satan? Talk baout "letting yourself go"! No resemblance to those statues whatsoever. And where was he all this time? Hiding in a hole?

Very Bugs Bunny. So much so I expected him to say "Hey, this isn't Pismo Beach!"

Bugs, BTW, can currently be seen in the egregiously underrated Looney Tunes Back in Action.

Saddaa is headed for jail. Maybe the same one housing another errant U.S. operative -- mauel Noriega.

A trial? That would be delightful. Can Mark Gerigos fit him in?

Too bad Saddam's former employer, Ronald Reagan, can't be called as a "character witness."

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 03:03 PM | PERMALINK

Look at all that shooting in the air. This is a bad day for gun control.

Posted by: Left winger and proud at December 14, 2003 03:20 PM | PERMALINK

It's being reported that a briefcase with minutes of a meeting of the guerilla leaders was found with [Saddam].

Could you give a link to that report, Mike K.?

Posted by: Nell Lancaster at December 14, 2003 03:32 PM | PERMALINK

Briefcase, and other interesting tidbits:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,561472,00.html

Posted by: GFW at December 14, 2003 03:33 PM | PERMALINK

There is a subtext in this and other threads I have been following today. What, exactly might S.H. be prepared say and perhaps prove in the course of a trial that would give the US Administration as well as the French and German Parliaments a serious case of the vapors?

One cynical/conspiratorial post I encountered suggested that Saddam will be "Jack Rubyed" once interrogators have exhausted him as an information source and his political value has declined to prattle point.

My experience of the past several months tells me not to dismiss this entirely. Equally strange shit has happened.

As for Saddam's capture and probable demise, I am with my former client, an Iraqi Muslim who is consulting his Koran in hope of discovering an obscure verse that would allow him to host and participate in a splendid celebratory piss-up. I do hope that he finds one.

Posted by: RC at December 14, 2003 03:35 PM | PERMALINK

A startling new photograph of the captured tyrant is now available at this URL:

http://ceicher.homeunix.com/archives/000667.html

Posted by: Charles E at December 14, 2003 03:43 PM | PERMALINK

Kool-Ade's up, folks. First glass is free.

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 03:50 PM | PERMALINK

What, exactly might S.H. be prepared say and perhaps prove in the course of a trial that would give the US Administration as well as the French and German Parliaments a serious case of the vapors?

We disallowed the tu quoque defense at Nuremberg, so we could do that here too. How it would play to the Muslim audience isn't clear.

Posted by: Roger Bigod at December 14, 2003 04:01 PM | PERMALINK

You people have a very 'glass half empty' outlook don't you?

They certainly do.

Some see the good news in Iraq as good news for GWB. Their hate for him is so great and they want to see him lose in Nov 04 so bad that they see any good new in Iraq as bad news. It?s the same for any good news regarding the economy.

Posted by: Matthew at December 14, 2003 04:02 PM | PERMALINK

What "good news reagrding the economy"? Are the thousands put out of work getting employment?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 04:13 PM | PERMALINK

Regarding this glass-half-empty analogy, I do think there's an element of Bush loathing to it. But most of it is just realism. Do you seriously think that we have events in Iraq under our control? It's slowly been spiraling out of control ever since we took Baghdad. Saddam may have been playing a role in the resistance, but it's almost certainly going to continue without him.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think so.

Posted by: M. at December 14, 2003 04:23 PM | PERMALINK

I don't agree with Kevin that, "The only realistic choices at this point are an American military tribunal or turning him over to the Iraqis." He's thinking about the forum of the trial, but, there are other issues to consider, including:

-- Can we get useful military and WMD information from Saddam before the trial?
-- How can we get Saddam to cooperate?
-- Should we try to get info from Saddam about secret support from France, Russia, etc, (if there was any).
-- What type of trial should be held? Open? Closed?
-- What crimes should he be charged with?
-- Should the trial be a full-fledged show trial, displaying the full range of his cruelty?
-- Is it important to execute him, or would life imprisonment be OK?

These and other decisions must be considered in the light of
-- American law
-- international law
-- likely impact on Iraqis and other Arabs and Muslims
-- ability of the Iraqi Provisional Authority to successfully conduct a trial

These considerations are continually changing, so an advance plan wouldn't have worked. Coincidentally, the Iraqi Provisional Authority recently set up some sort of structure to conduct war crimes trials. My guess is that Saddam will be tried there.

I don't think the lack of a pre-planned trial forum matters. First of all, there will be time to make that decision while Saddam is questioned. Also, even if there were some extra delay in trying him, it wouldn't matter much. Clearly he will never again be a free man. The important thing was capturing him.

Posted by: David at December 14, 2003 04:36 PM | PERMALINK

"I rather doubt that Saddam was really guiding the insurgency, so his capture probably won't change that too much."

Ah, the bottomless desire to create defeat out of victory shines forth in every word.

"The Subconscious Yearning for American Defeat"
http://www.americandigest.org/mt-archives/000749.html

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at December 14, 2003 04:37 PM | PERMALINK

Roger Bigod: True enough but my thought went to the public image sphere - "...the jury will disregard..." They may not.

Posted by: RC at December 14, 2003 04:38 PM | PERMALINK

What "good news reagrding the economy"?

Third-quarter growth of 7.2 percent is strongest in nearly two decades.

Posted by: Matthew at December 14, 2003 04:47 PM | PERMALINK

David Ehrenstein did it ruin your day hearing that Saddam was captured?

Posted by: Matthew at December 14, 2003 04:57 PM | PERMALINK

So.... the War Against Saddam is over.
Now we're fighting the Iraqi Civil War.

(Y'know, it is kinda odd that CNN already has obits ready for the pope, but the admin hasn't a clue as to what we'd do with Saddam now that we finally have him?)

Posted by: bubba at December 14, 2003 04:59 PM | PERMALINK

Jeebus. I glanced at that picture and I thought it was Friday cat blogging already, and that I had skipped work by mistake.

Posted by: Spinning Tops at December 14, 2003 05:02 PM | PERMALINK

RC:

It's unlikely there will be a jury. There wasn't at Nuremberg. There doesn't have to be an adversary system, with defense attorneys. In that case there wouldn't be a line of questioning that would allow SH to lay out the support we gave him in the Iran War, etc. But even with defense atturneys, the judge would just interrupt and forbid the line of questioning. Some of the lesser defendants at Nuremberg were allowed to get away with presenting tu quoque material, but the judges probably ignored it.

Posted by: Roger Bigod at December 14, 2003 05:30 PM | PERMALINK

Having Saddam = good thing

but what does it change

Looking at the picture he looks like (Kaczynski|manson|any other creep) we woke up a little too early.

What kind of control did he have over the insurgents, if any? What is the intelligence here?

I hope that his capture does ameliorate things. But I really refused to give Bush Kudos for getting and going after the wrong guy in the first place.

Posted by: Texan at December 14, 2003 05:30 PM | PERMALINK

"David Ehrenstein did it ruin your day hearing that Saddam was captured?"

A sudden rainstorm interrupted my Christmas shopping. That's about it.

I can't think of anything outside my immediate purview that would "ruin my day."

Andrew Sullivan dying in screaming agony would cheer me enormously, however.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 05:36 PM | PERMALINK

D. Ehrenstein -

What an utterly hateful and homophobic thing to wish upon an HIV-positive gay. Some "Liberal" you turned out to be.

Now, about that Kool-Aid: Grape or Orange?

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 05:56 PM | PERMALINK

Hm, Tonto, Somehow I doubt that David Ehrenstein is "homophobic."

Say, your name is Spanish, isn't it? If it's not, it should be.

Posted by: JakeV at December 14, 2003 06:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Tonto" speaked with forked tongue.

You know nothing of the history, do you now dear.

Read and Learn.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 06:07 PM | PERMALINK

What an utterly hateful and homophobic thing

David E - did you know you are fabulously self-loathing? Heh.

Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 06:12 PM | PERMALINK

"What "good news reagrding the economy"?" Third-quarter growth of 7.2 percent is strongest in nearly two decades. Matthew

When you're at rock bottom, any increase looks like a big one. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people, including most of the "little people" at Enron, Worldcom, etc. who just got screwed over bigtime by the Rethugs in Congress think that a 7.2% increase in their zero income is just fabulous.

Posted by: Temperance at December 14, 2003 06:24 PM | PERMALINK

Fabulous? Definitely.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 06:25 PM | PERMALINK

Any indictment of Saddam in an Iraqi tribunal could, and probably should, involve implicating much of the present administration as accessories: the administration, of course, won't allow that, one way or the other.

Posted by: buermann at December 14, 2003 06:29 PM | PERMALINK

David E -

Doesn't make it a bit less hateful, nor (necessarilly) less homophobic.

Self-loathing happens. Read much Saul Bellow?

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 06:30 PM | PERMALINK

This is a great day for the truth. Think of all of the loose ends we can tie up now that Saddam is available for interrogation (and you can only lie for so long to a skilled interrogator). What did he talk about with Donald Rumsfeld in 1983? Did he really get satellite intelligence from the Reagan administration during the Iraq-Iran war? What kind of deals did he have with the French for arming himself? Not Geniuses has a good post about these and other questions that we should be asking the old bastard.

Posted by: JLowe at December 14, 2003 06:31 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you assume that they don't have any plans for what to do with Saddam after he was captured?
Just because they didn't publish or broadcast them, or because they react to all questions with a "No comment"?

That's hardly a logical conclusion.

Posted by: Zachary Braverman at December 14, 2003 06:34 PM | PERMALINK

David E - you will always be fab to me.

Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 06:35 PM | PERMALINK

NTodd -

Fab, schmab. Hate begins at home.

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 06:41 PM | PERMALINK

Invading Iraq to get Saddam is like driving a busload of nuns over a cliff in order to get that old nun-murderer hiding in the toilet.

Posted by: Numlock at December 14, 2003 06:42 PM | PERMALINK

Andrew Sullivan should die in screaming agony, but not from AIDS or any other gay-associated disease. Cirrhosis, maybe. Also, several right-wing heterosexuals should die in screaming agony at about the same time just to cover the accusations of homophobia. And some of them should be women, too, and minorities, so that we aren't accused of being pomo or whatever.

Please take all complaints to the Rottweiler.

Posted by: Zizka at December 14, 2003 06:52 PM | PERMALINK

A lot of people here have been making the claim that, since he was captured with no communication equipment, he could not be involved with the attacks against American troops.

This conclusion does not follow from the premises. He could have been using chains of messengers, like OBL has done since he learned the NSA was listening in on his satphone calls.

Posted by: Jorhe at December 14, 2003 06:58 PM | PERMALINK

Here's a thought.

We've heard so much about Saddam's bunkers. All his hardened soooper-tough secret underground complexes. The kind of thing that really calls for a mini-nuke.

So where do we find him?

In a primitively constructed hole, probably smaller and less comfortable than cells in Saddam's prisons.

Another myth down.

Posted by: Jon H at December 14, 2003 07:04 PM | PERMALINK

Fab, schmab. Hate begins at home.

I would agree, and David E and I have argued quite loudly about hate and other things over at Eschaton in the past. I just can't brook your calling him a homophobe.

Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 07:07 PM | PERMALINK

Zizka -

Gotta agree: Misha's over the top. Don't read him much, but I think in his case it's a posed response to DU types. Ditto much of what's on LGF. Mutually Assured Detraction, I suppose. No less unpleasant.

Haven't read much of David E. If I've made a premature extrapolation, I owe him an apology.

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 07:09 PM | PERMALINK

A lot of people here have been making the claim that, since he was captured with no communication equipment, he could not be involved with the attacks against American troops.

It's not just people here (BosGlobe):

Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division troops that captured Saddam, said his forces found no telephones, radios or other communications devices in Saddam's hideout, suggesting he had not been directing the insurgency as some had speculated.

''I believe he was there more for moral support,'' Odierno said. ''I don't believe he was coordinating the effort because I don't believe there's any national coordination.''

Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 07:10 PM | PERMALINK

"This conclusion does not follow from the premises. He could have been using chains of messengers, like OBL has done since he learned the NSA was listening in on his satphone calls."

Even if he was using messengers, he has none of the accoutrement you would expect of someone acting as a manager of an insurgency. I'd expect there to be *something* like notebooks, something to write plans in, information sources like newspapers, maybe maps with coalition facilities marked, even if they're just rough hand-drawn maps.

Maybe Saddam has a mind like a steel trap, and can compose these plans in his head. Maybe he's the Mozart of guerilla warfare, composing movements in his mind without writing anything down.

But I doubt it.

Posted by: Jon H at December 14, 2003 07:13 PM | PERMALINK

NTodd -

Can't post a link, but the TV news types are reporting he had a paper report from resistance leader(s). He would have been a fool to use any type of electronic commo. We would have had him long ago, if he had.

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 07:16 PM | PERMALINK

My impression of Saddam's state is that he seems like a dependent.

I think someone, probably someone in the Baath party, was given responsibility for keeping Saddam hidden, and Saddam was just moved around passively, like a parcel.

Posted by: Jon H at December 14, 2003 07:16 PM | PERMALINK

>Maybe Saddam has a mind like a steel trap, and can compose these
>plans in his head. Maybe he's the Mozart of guerilla warfare,
>composing movements in his mind without writing anything down.

Yes, that's it. Finally somebody understands. He's the Serpentor
of guerilla warfare. The DNAs of the past great guerilla
leaders like Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Sargent Slaughter have all
combined to create the one known as Saddam Hussein. Why did no
one understand before?

Posted by: Dan the Man at December 14, 2003 07:24 PM | PERMALINK

I think someone, probably someone in the Baath party, was given responsibility for keeping Saddam hidden, and Saddam was just moved around passively, like a parcel.

...and occasionally stuck a mike to his mouth for one of his motivational tapes. Makes sense.

Posted by: poputonian at December 14, 2003 07:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I saw the same report. I'm still not convinced that he's been directing much of anything, and neither apparently are the folks prosecuting this war. He might very well have been in communication with some Ba'athists via non-electronic means, just as the Red Team did in the Millennium Challenge. That said, it's become increasingly clear that the resistance is not largely Ba'athist, and pretty much everybody in the know agrees that Saddam's capture will have very little impact on the insurgency operates.

Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 08:08 PM | PERMALINK

"...on how the insurgency operates." Oy.

Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 08:08 PM | PERMALINK

NTodd -

Eternally the skeptic, I shall wait and see. A downturn in resistance attacks, such as they are, would not surprise me, but I'm inclined to think that Izzy da man.

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 08:18 PM | PERMALINK

eTALKINGHEAD said:

"Here's what Saddam had to say: ?We didn?t want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy.?"

"Fairly ridiculous if you ask me--risking war with the United States over privacy concerns."

Saddam was always concerned that the US was out to assasinate him - one of the reasons that he obstructed the UN weapons inspectors in the mid-90s. Given that UN weapons inspectors were spying on him, maybe he wasn't being paranoid.

Maybe also it is a cultural thing - look at how Iraqis react to intrusive searchs of their houses. How vulneable might he have been if he did allow the weapons inspectors in?

Anyway, it is good news that he is out of the way - or is he?

Posted by: casualworker at December 14, 2003 08:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Doesn't make it a bit less hateful, nor (necessarilly) less homophobic."

Did you read my bio?

"Self-loathing happens. Read much Saul Bellow?"

Yes. Most recently Ravelstein, which is a roman a clef about a self-loathing HIV+ closet queen named Allan Bloom, author of (among other things) The Closing of the American Mind -- a book with which you're doubtless familiar.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 08:27 PM | PERMALINK

Maintianing an image of Saddam as an absolute all-powerful figure is a propaganda necessity. At the height of his power he only controlled select portions of Iraq -- a country divided and sub-divided by all manner of often-opposing tribal factions.

"Saddam was just moved around passively, like a parcel."

Yes. Much like the man who put him in power -- Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 08:56 PM | PERMALINK

David E. -

Had not previously read your bio. Thanks. Never doubted you were creative and accomplished. I gather you're also gay and probably Jewish. I have no problem with any of that. Some of my best ... oh, never mind.

Bellow has been my favorite fiction writer for over 40 years. Am familiar with Bloom's work, but have only read reviews and references odf same. But if you ENJOY Bellow and his theme of complex identities, I highly recommend the fiction of Sherman Alexie, a Spokane/Cour d'Alene Indian (no Native American bullshit, please) who left the rez to become an incompletely acculturated urbanite.

Alexie once wrote that he grew up worshipping Crazy Horse and hating Tonto. Why hate? Because he identifed with Tonto, knowing that he (Alexie)would also leave his people behind and join the white man. He did not want to face the pain of that inevitable choice until he was ready to make it.

All of which is too long, too layered, too personal and way OT. Sorry if I overinterpreted your attack on Sully, whose work I admire very much.

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 09:06 PM | PERMALINK

Undoubtedly this is an unmitigated disaster for the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-U.S., pro-Saddam crowd - especially since Saddam turned out to be such a wimp - armed with two AK-47's, a machine pistol - and the chicken hawk didn't have the balls to defend himself.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out he had to coaxed out of his sh*thole with a candybar, a blankie and a promise of a warm bath.

Kinda hard to press on the "it's about Oiiillll!!" shibboleth with all the Iraqis firing guns in the air celebrating Saddam's capture. As an aside, if all you smarter than thou morons are so convinced the U.S. is an occupying force, why don't Iraqis turn their guns on the U.S. troops instead of firing them into the air?

Dipsh*t losers.

Posted by: Tim at December 14, 2003 09:07 PM | PERMALINK

Ending torture and tyranny in Iraq was not a mistake. Supporting democracy in Iraq is not a mistake.

Helping the long-suffering Muslims of Iraq who now seek to live democratically is not a mistake. In the long, long history of the Middle East, this breakthrough may one day be ranked as a dramatic turning point in regional history

Posted by: Dan at December 14, 2003 09:14 PM | PERMALINK

>Supporting democracy in Iraq is not a mistake.
>Helping the long-suffering Muslims of Iraq who now seek
>to live democratically is not a mistake.

Well, sheesh, in that case the Bush Administration had better
change its act in Iraq or we need a new administration in the
US because the Bush administration is an impediment to
democracy in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61200-2003Dec12.html

"More importantly, Iraq's first free local elections were due to be
held in Najaf last June. The U.S. military had conducted a voter
registration drive and built ballot boxes, while 18 candidates had
festooned the streets with colorful posters declaring their
positions. Then Bremer overruled the local U.S. military commander
and abruptly canceled the election. Publicly, the occupation
authority said conditions were not suitable for a vote, although
U.S. officials privately said it had been canceled in part because
they were concerned about the outcome."

Posted by: Dan the Man at December 14, 2003 09:22 PM | PERMALINK

"I gather you're also gay and probably Jewish."

"Gather"? LOL! My father was Jewish. I was raised a Roman Catholic.

Lapsed, of course.

"I have no problem with any of that."

Well isn't that special !

Yes, I'm familiar with Sherman Alexie. Have you seen his movieThe Busaniess of Fancy-Dancing ? It's won awards at several gay and lesbian film festivals.

"Sorry if I overinterpreted your attack on Sully, whose work I admire very much."

I'm not sure what you mena by "overinterpreted"?
And I have no idea why you -- or anyone else -- would admire him.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 09:22 PM | PERMALINK

Undoubtedly this is an unmitigated disaster for the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-U.S., pro-Saddam crowd - especially since Saddam turned out to be such a wimp

I would think that Saddam turning out to be a wimp would be a disaster for you who folks who said he was a threat.

And for the last time: we are not pro-Saddam.

Posted by: NTodd at December 14, 2003 09:23 PM | PERMALINK

here is Hussein bio from http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm

"On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's political in-fighting. Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody.

A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq."

So Saddam took power in 1979, Reagan took office in 1981, So I ask you David E.--how did Reagan put him in power? as you stated in your quote

"Yes. Much like the man who put him in power -- Ronald Reagan"

Posted by: Dan at December 14, 2003 09:24 PM | PERMALINK

"I would think that Saddam turning out to be a wimp would be a disaster for you who folks who said he was a threat."

SING OUT LOUISE!

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 09:24 PM | PERMALINK

"So Saddam took power in 1979, Reagan took office in 1981, So I ask you David E.--how did Reagan put him in power? as you stated in your quote."

Hey Kevin do you have alink to thatpic of Rummy with Saddam?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 09:26 PM | PERMALINK

Better Bad Santa Hussein:

http://www.blackcore.com/blog

Posted by: thom at December 14, 2003 09:29 PM | PERMALINK

David E. -

Complex identities, indeed. I can relate, but I'm not going to go there. Ditto your Sully bait.

Do you hold Camille in similar contempt?

(Have read "Fancy Dancing" but have not seen the film. I thought "Smoke Signals" was excellent.)

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 09:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Complex identities, indeed. I can relate, but I'm not going to go there."

Well you brought it up. Why back away from it now?

"Do you hold Camille in similar contempt?"

Certainly not. She's a pompous idiot, but not a danger to life and limb. (My friend Monika Treut finds Camille very entertaining -- and has filmed her on several occasions.)

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 09:35 PM | PERMALINK

DAVID E.

That link is http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

And the caption reads "Right: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.)"

So I ask AGAIN how did Reagan put saddam in power 4 YEARS AFTER saddam took power and before Reagon was even elected?

How did Reagan do that? HOW? Inquiring minds want to know

Posted by: Dan at December 14, 2003 09:35 PM | PERMALINK

OK, let's amend that to "kept him in power" if you prefer. Saddam's rule was "in our interes." His crimes were committed without comment on our part -- until now.

The righteous posturing of the Cheney-Bush junta over "crimes against humanity" stands in sharp contrast to Republican reluctance to criticize the likes of Augusto Pinochet and our fascist clients in Central America.

Of course, being poor countries, they didn't have rape rooms. They had to rape and murder nuns in the open air.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 14, 2003 09:40 PM | PERMALINK

David E. -

Enough. Can't match your anger. Maybe another thread.

Posted by: Tonto at December 14, 2003 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

So David E.

are you saying that Reagan should have invaded Iraq and overthrow saddam or what other actions should Reagan have taken to make sure that saddam would not be in power?

And as far as supporting Pinochet who left office in 1990--what does that have to do with Bush who didnt take office until 2001?

I will admit that Republicans do have a history of supporting dictators just because they were anti-communists. I can only deduce that it was felt that they (dictators) were the lesser of 2 evils. And I am not saying that what they did was right.

One of the truths about foreign diplomacy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Pinochet was anti-communist.

Being anti-communist does not give anyone the right for a dictator (or any other government leader) to have its regime commit numerous human rights violations against its own countrymen or any other people for that matter.

But please David E. explain the reason(s) that the liberals support such dictatorships such as Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, Daniel Ortega, etc...?

Wil you please explain that to me?

Posted by: Dan at December 14, 2003 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

"You people have a very 'glass half empty' outlook don't you?"

Actually, I beg to differ. given that Osama Bin Laden (remember him-actually attacked the US, no apparatus of state for us to invade/depose him from, much more dangerous guy i think, at least to us)is still running around loose, given that this will prtobably do little to reduce the kind of iraqui nationalism that's actually feuling the attacks on our soldiers, given the huge const in lives, dollars and world credibility that the war has already incurred, given that regardless of this it will certainly boost the popularity of an American President who constitutes a walking, talking (well kinda) threat to the environment, American civil liberties and world peace, well maybe that glass is alot more than half empty.

to clarify: this isn't to say that i am sad Hussein has been deposed and jailed. but i would easily trade him back for the lives of the soldiers we lost doing it, and to not have it done by a government that i at least have the illusion of participating in.

Posted by: Urk at December 14, 2003 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

who woulda thunk that the renegage leader of the iraqi resurgency was jerry garcia?

Posted by: nova silverpill at December 14, 2003 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

One of the truths about foreign diplomacy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and Pinochet was anti-communist.

And Osama bin Laden is anti-secular states - which means he's anti-Saddam Hussein, and (if he's still alive) is doubtless gloating over the capture of Saddam Hussein.

One of the great lies of foreign diplomacy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - since this would logically make Osama bin Laden the friend of the US, as he and Saddam Hussein are long-term enemies.

Posted by: Jesurgislac at December 14, 2003 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

"We've heard so much about Saddam's bunkers. All his hardened soooper-tough secret underground complexes. The kind of thing that really calls for a mini-nuke.

So where do we find him?

In a primitively constructed hole, probably smaller and less comfortable than cells in Saddam's prisons.

Another myth down."

Um, the bunkers existed. Just because we knew where they were and he didn't dare stay in them once we had taken over most of the country doesn't vanish them from existance. Unless you were using the word 'myth' in a non-standard way to mean "something that definitely really existed".

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 14, 2003 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

I am sure that some chunk of the anti-US attacks were done by Saddam loyalists with the objective of driving the US out. These attacks will probably diminish with his capture.

On the other hand, the greatest nightmare of many Iraquis was that the US would prematurely withdraw and Saddam would return to rule Iraq.

However, with Saddam gone, they will oppose the US occupation even more vociferously.

The Bush administration feared the same nightmare. Now they have less pressure on them to stay the course.

Posted by: McDruid at December 15, 2003 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

I predict that Saddam will be tried by an Iraqi Tribunal or other US-controlled venue. He will be convicted and executed in October of 2004. Late October. Cynical, aren't I?

Posted by: McDruid at December 15, 2003 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

I predict that Saddam will be tried by an Iraqi Tribunal or other US-controlled venue.

sure, but will the let him try on the glove?

Posted by: Boronx at December 15, 2003 01:09 AM | PERMALINK

We need a Bronco chase.

Posted by: Dark Avenger at December 15, 2003 01:34 AM | PERMALINK

"I will admit that Republicans do have a history of supporting dictators just because they were anti-communists. I can only deduce that it was felt that they (dictators) were the lesser of 2 evils. And I am not saying that what they did was right."

Oh sure you are. Why not come out and admit it? Be Honest -- as all you neo-fascists love to say.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 15, 2003 07:34 AM | PERMALINK

This should do for Junior's re-election chances what capturing Noriega did for his dad's.

Posted by: MrClark at December 15, 2003 08:13 AM | PERMALINK

So, does that make Roosevelt responsible for Stalin? After all, without our help, the Soviet Union would have fallen in 1941.

Or do the greater goals sometimes matter?

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 15, 2003 08:21 AM | PERMALINK

"I wonder if now we'll figure out what the real story is on the WMD? I suspect not: his story is probably going to be that there never was any and we just weren't willing to believe him. So it will stay a mystery for a while longer."

First: who's we? The World? Please name anyone with any respectiblity who isn't on record about Saddam's WMD existence.

Second:
WMD's won't be "discovered and confirmed" until the 2004 Democratic candidate has offically shaken out.

I'd say we find and confirm WMD's in March or April of 2004.

Then it's Game. Set. Match.

OBL's DNA will be scraped from a Tora Bora cave wall in late July or early August of 2004.

Posted by: Black Oak at December 15, 2003 08:30 AM | PERMALINK

"My initial reaction was, "So what?" He didn't have any WMDs, he didn't have any plans to attack the U.S. or Britain, he isn't responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and he doesn't have any connections with al Quaeda or other organized terrorists. Yes, he killed many innocent Iraqis. however, U.S. sanctions and the invasion of Iraq itself are responsible for the deaths of at least as many Iraqis as Hussein, if not more."

Apparently the Telegraph is another "neo-fascist" source. It's reporting that Abu Nidal trained Atta at the behest of Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/14/wterr14.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/12/14/ixportaltop.html

When the Czechs blew the whistle on the connection, Abu Nidal committed suicide in Baghdad by shooting himself in the head four times. Just to be sure, I guess. Come on you guys. Oswald acted alone and Bush was enforcing the 12 UN resolutions so we could get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Schadenfreud running over around here.

Posted by: Mike K at December 15, 2003 08:31 AM | PERMALINK

Unless you were using the word 'myth' in a non-standard way to mean "something that definitely really existed".

No as should be clear from the context you quoted, the myth was that there was any need for mini-nukes. If you were even vaguely interested in honest debate you would have argued against that. But since that would have prevented you from making snide and insulting comments like your final sentence, honest debate is out and caricature is in.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 15, 2003 08:46 AM | PERMALINK

Just thought I'd drop back in and see how all of you were taking the good news about Saddam's capture, and it's got this "David Ehrenstein" character so upset that he's literally wishing death on Andrew Sullivan. (Nice sensitive leftist moment, that.)

Ehrenstein then becomes so unhinged that he blasts Ronald Reagan for putting Hussein in power in 1979, before the Reagan presidency had even begun! (LOL!!) Hey, since you're just lashing out at random now, why not have some fun with it? Apparently any random conservative icon with whom you disagree will do! Why not Rush Limbaugh? Or perhaps the newly-elected Governor Schwarzenegger? And why would anyone take what you say seriously while you've got that "hatehatehate" tape playing in your head all the time?

Anyway, I'm still feeling good after the capture. Great step forward for America and for the people of Iraq - awesome job by the US military. Nice job on the part of the Bush Administration, as well!

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 15, 2003 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Man. Dan Rather is looking rough these days.

Oh, wait . . .

Posted by: RoguePlanet at December 15, 2003 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

"And Osama bin Laden is anti-secular states - which means he's anti-Saddam Hussein, and (if he's still alive) is doubtless gloating over the capture of Saddam Hussein."

I'm sure "Beatnik Joe" has the skinny on the Bin Ladin family's close relationship to Bush.

(Clue to the Clueless: Leftists aren't the "sensitive" doormats you want them to be. Alan Colms is a work of fiction.)

In answer to an earlier outburst: I have always been opposed to Fidel Castro, as has anyone on the gay/lesbian left with an ounce of sense.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 15, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Dave! You're friends with Monica Treut? You're more fabulous than I thought! I wrote my thesis on contemporary German film... I'm a fan of hers... and Doerrie.

Keep up the good work.

Posted by: GFW at December 15, 2003 01:50 PM | PERMALINK

And heeeeere's "David Ehrenstein" with yet another far-flung, pass-me-the-tin-foil, the-Illuminati-are-coming conspiracy theory! My day would just not be complete without one.

Please, do inform us about this close, personal relationship between Bin Laden and Bush that you just made up while you were in the bathroom. You do, of course, know that your accusations are wild and inflammatory but devoid of all fact. Hey! Kind of like before where you claimed Ronald Reagan eeeeevilly put Saddam in power - before he became President of the United States! LOL! So let's see what kind of craptacular evidence you've gathered from indymedia!

Thanks for informing me that you guys on the left aren't as nice as you seem. I'd always kind of thought that people on the left were just wrong, but actually nice enough at heart not to do things like wish death on Andrew Sullivan. You learn something new every day!

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 15, 2003 01:53 PM | PERMALINK

It is factually incorrect that Reagan put Saddam into power in 1979. There is no doubt however that the Reagan administration favored Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, which I believe was initiated by Hussein. While not totally informed on this issue, a quick check reveals that very early, the administration took Iraq off the list of nations that support terrorism. In addition, the US provided the Hussein regime with grants and credits allowing Hussein to import food and as a result to devote more money to his war effort. Also, I believe as recently as 1988 the US Commerce dept approved the export of Botullinum and anthrax cultures into Iraq. It is somewhat mysterious to me that this took place, in light of the fact that by that time Hussein had proven himself to be a thug.

These are the only irregularities I am aware of, but there are probably more. There is also no doubt that other Western nations were also complicit in this sort of thing. The list includes our coalition partner Great Britain and our implacable French and German foes as well. As an American I can celebrate the departure of Hussein, but would also be very interested in how my tax dollars were used to support this tyrant. Perhaps Beatnik Joe with his nuanced knowledge of history can explain it.

Posted by: Roland at December 15, 2003 02:16 PM | PERMALINK

Gee whiz, Joe. I had no idea that Gore Vidal was living in my bathroom!

You've doubtless read what he had to say abotu the Bush-Bin Ladin connection in his Book Dreaming War: Blood For Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 15, 2003 02:20 PM | PERMALINK

"why didn't we figure this out months ago?"

Because as with everything this administration does there was an absence of forethought.

This post is a good example of how the angry left is desparately looking under every rock for ways to Bash Bush.

Rummy told Leslie Stahl last night on 60 Minutes that they had plans drawn up for sometime for the eventual capture or death of Saddam. The Iraqis were skeptical that Saddam's two sons were actually dead. This necessitated a change in procedures when Saddam was captured or killed.

Sorry. Better luck next time.

Dow Jones today: 10,022. Is it time to get out the Diebold stole the election meme yet?

Posted by: Dennis Slater at December 15, 2003 02:36 PM | PERMALINK

Someone mentioned in a blog comment, not sure which blog, I think Hesiod (christ, who can keep up) that it looked like he hadn't shaved in 3 weeks.

3 weeks?!

Posted by: Mark H at December 15, 2003 02:43 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Dennis, did you notice how Leslie was encouraging Rummy to torture Saddam? What was that about?

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 15, 2003 02:54 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Slater's comments suggest that he disapproves of the left's criticism of President Bush concerning the conduct of the Iraq war. I suspect he might be right about the left not being satisfied with any solution to this issue. However, the circumstances of the trial are probably very important. A trial in Iraq would add legitimacy to the government currently in place. In my mind, Hussein's co-conspirators in this dictatorship should also be rooted out. This includes his trading partners in the US and Europe. This trial is an excellent opportunity to discover this sort of thing. I doubt the governments of Europe and the US have very much interest in explaining their conduct. The officials in Iraq might have better luck at this sort of thing, as they have to respond to public pressure to some extent.

Also, with regard to your comment about the DJA. Are you suggesting that it fell 19 points today because of the capture of Hussein, that it is currently 10,022 due to the magnificent leadership of President Bush, or that this magical number indicates that a Democratic canidate must lose in 2004?

Posted by: Roland at December 15, 2003 03:16 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, David Ehrenstein, you've got to get yourself some better reading material, even if it is just for the bathroom - I mean, Gore Vidal conspiracy theories? So now you think that the "Bush junta" caused 9/11, now, too? LOL! This gets better by the minute! Have you always been this far in outer space or are you coming unglued before our very eyes?

Do you actually believe this load of anti-American hooey? Tell me, for I want to know!

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 15, 2003 03:52 PM | PERMALINK

You don't "want to know" anything, dear. Your mind is made up.

With Hospital Corners.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 15, 2003 03:57 PM | PERMALINK

My favorite quote: "Regards from President Bush."

From this story:

THE US soldiers were seconds away from throwing a hand grenade into a dank hole when they heard a voice.

"Don't shoot. My name is Saddam Hussein," the fallen Iraqi leader said in English.

"I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate."

The soldiers replied: "Regards from President Bush."

Posted by: Dennis Slater at December 15, 2003 04:26 PM | PERMALINK

Do we really need another round of ?the Dow is not the economy? lessons for the victims of Bush Defender Syndrome? How does the Dow change the fact that there are fewer people with jobs now than when Former Governor Bush took office? How does the Dow change the fact that his incompetence helped stall any recovery from the mild pullback expected after the longest expansion in our history? The inane crowing about the Dow is just as stupid as the crowing about spending $200 Billion, more than 400 soldier?s lives, and thousands of Iraqi lives in the worst managed arrest ever? Dick Wolf personally could have arranged this arrest and still come in $199 billion dollars under the bloated Bush budget.

Bush is a failure on the economy, and a disaster at foreign policy. No need to ?bash? the former governor, just pointing out the cost of his failures is sufficient to make the BDS afflicted cry ?bashing.?

Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 15, 2003 04:46 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree with the notion that the election of Bush in 2000 resulted in a recession. I do believe that his fiscal policy is a cynical scheme designed to get him re-elected in 2004. With the combination of several tax cuts and spending hikes, the economy must eventually improve. The US government alone is employing many more people now than it was in 2000. The downside to this is that the US has accumulated a large amount of debt in the last few years. Taxpayers in the future must service the debt. As the debt becomes larger and larger, a greater percentage of yearly revenue must be used for this purpose. However, in the present the President is re-elected as the economy improves over the next year.

Recently President Bush made a speech in which he stated that the US had for too long supported tyranical regimes in the Middle East. Looking back at our history in both Iran and Iraq, this is a true statement. It is also understandable for people to be suspicious of his motives with regard to Iraq. The fundamental US concern in the area is to secure the oil in the region for the US and allies. This has been true for sevral decades, and 9/11 ultimately does little or nothing to alter this objective. Given that, it is reasonable to suspect that there could be motives other than the ones President Bush stated for invading Iraq.

Posted by: Roland at December 15, 2003 05:23 PM | PERMALINK

Come now, David Ehrenstein, don't just give me the slip! Let's hear the facts behind that Bush-Bin Laden connection you've been bragging about. Unless, of course, it's easily torn apart and composed exclusively of el crapola. But surely that's not the case, is it?

Tell me, for I want to know!

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 15, 2003 06:40 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree with the notion that five cynical justices abusing their power to intercede on behalf of their favored partisan constitutes ?election,? but I wouldn?t suggest that their appointment of Bush resulted in recession. On the other hand, he did do his level best to paint the mild slowdown expected after the Clinton miracle as a recession, and his wildly inappropriate policies did ensure that fewer people would be working.

I do have to be amazed by what can only be called the shortsightedness of the American people. Bush is now promising to cut the deficit in half after his second term. That would be great, if he hadn?t come into office with a surplus, but he didn?t and any plan to cut the deficit is merely a plan to fix the problems he created. And then there is the small problem that his solution is more of the failed policies that led to the problems in the first place.

It was one thing to let him get within stealing distance when Clinton made the Presidency look so easy even a moron could do it. It is another to be so bamboozled by the bombing of brown people that you let the guy whose failures led to the deaths of thousands of Americans, Iraqis and Afghanis keep his office.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 15, 2003 06:46 PM | PERMALINK

Lori Thantos

I certainly agree that Bush's economic policy is misguided. I must have misunderstood your original post. I am surprised that he promised to cut the deficit in half. I suspect he lacks the means to do this. Cutting the deficit will require legislators to make some difficult decisions on his behalf. The GOP controlled Congress will probably not have the will to do this, as they will face re-election in 2006.

I have one question though. I admire Clinton as a man and think he did an excellent job as President. I also believe he made some mistakes. For example, he failed to act quickly enough in Rwanda even after it became apparent that some horrible was going on there. He also bombed Iraq a number of times, though certainly not on the scale of Bush the Younger. Do you believe that he was correct in this or no?

Posted by: Roland at December 15, 2003 07:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Tell me, for I want to know!"

No you don't.

Posted by: David Ehrenstein at December 15, 2003 07:54 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Dennis, did you notice how Leslie was encouraging Rummy to torture Saddam? What was that about?

Could it be that Leslie is into S & M?

She forgot she was talking to Rummy. How dumb can she be? I get the impression that Rummy thinks all media people have the intelligence of broccoli.

Rummy looked tired. The guy is old and was probably tuckered out from the long day. I get cranky if I do not get my afternoon nap. I hope he got his.

Posted by: Dennis Slater at December 15, 2003 08:17 PM | PERMALINK

Taxpayers in the future must service the debt. As the debt becomes larger and larger, a greater percentage of yearly revenue must be used for this purpose.

If the economy improves obviously debt will become smaller if spending stays constant. Remember when the two parties were arguing whether the budget would be balanced in 7 (the Repubs) years or in 10 (Clinton) years? Neither were right. It happened within 3 years because the economy was booming. I have tried to look up how much of the increased revenue was due to revenue from capital gains. Haven't been successful. Given the large increase in stock prices over a two year period the capital gains revenue had to be substantial. Then as the market fell the capital losses, which can be carried forward, had to have an opposite effect on tax revenue. The Clinton surplus may have been a mirage. Any data anyone has or links would be appreciated.

The fundamental US concern in the area is to secure the oil in the region for the US and allies.

I agree. Oil is what drives the world's economy. The middle east is one of the major sources of inexpensive oil. To put the control of this oil in one or two hostile country's hands is economically and politically dangerous.

Iraq was a thorny problem in the fact if we lifted sanctions -to get more oil in order to somewhat stabilize the supply coming from the middle east we would give Saddam the wherewithal to rebuild his forces and WMD and, in time, threaten his neighbors again.

If we allowed the sanctions to remain in place the world (and the US) would continue to be heavily dependent on the Saudis for oil. There was a big economic risk putting all of our oil eggs in the Saudi basket considering the state of terrorism in the world.

Given the options available to the US, invading Iraq was a good solution of the oil problem - for us, for the rest of the industrialized world, for the region, and for the Iraqi people. The removal of Saddam solved some other problems in the middle east as well. Was it about WMD, terrorism, etc.? Yes, but the big reason was oil. Without a stable supply of oil from the mideast the world economy goes into depression and chaos. There was a significant chance of the supply being interrupted with Saddam in the picture. Once Iraqi oil is brought on line in a stable and free Iraq we will hopefully secure a large, reliable supply in the event another supplier is taken down.

I think Bush was courageous for taking this step. We, and the rest of the world, would be in a world of hurt economically without middle eastern oil. He took a big gamble and it will be interesting to see if it pays off. I don't think there were many other alternatives open to him.

Once Iraq is stabilized, we should put heavy pressure on Syria who may be supplying people, material, and funds to terrorize the US forces and the Iraqi people. Syria needs to be cleaned out. If Syria hid Saddam's WMD or is supplying significant support for the Iraqi terrorists, we would have justification for harassing them by moving a couple of divisions into the western deserts and Marines off shore.

I don't think, might be wrong, that France, Germany, and Russia are not ndent on Saudi oil the way we are and probably felt they could work with Saddam to accomplish the same goal Bush was working towards without going to war. Their opposition was more economic than philosophic. They would have rather worked with Saddam concerning oil than the US and already were. Moral high ground meant nothing to those countries.

This makes sense to me and others may think it is a pile of horse crap. Fine.

Posted by: Dennis Slater at December 15, 2003 09:37 PM | PERMALINK

... his wildly inappropriate policies did ensure that fewer people would be working.

... any plan to cut the deficit is merely a plan to fix the problems he created. And then there is the small problem that his solution is more of the failed policies that led to the problems in the first place.

Could you list some of those inappropriate and failed policies for me?

Posted by: Dennis Slater at December 15, 2003 09:42 PM | PERMALINK

David Ehrenstein, you disappoint me! I thought that you had all this great information about a "Bush-Bin Laden" connection. Let's hear it! Surely it wasn't all just a bunch of crapola you and\or Gore Vidal made up, was it? If you're so embarrassed by what you believe that you won't even explain it, then perhaps you should re-evaluate whether or not it's reasonable to continue with these beliefs.

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 15, 2003 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

There is no question in my mind that Rwanda was a huge failure on the part of the Clinton administration.

The question on Iraq is, honestly, a much more complex one. The policy of containment he inherited was brutal towards the ordinary Iraqis. It was not a good option, but no one was willing to do something more constructive. Not Bush, not Clinton after him, and not Bush after him. Clinton, of course, was particularly tied by the same moronic calculation that keeps sanctions on Cuba which are effective at 1) keeping Castro in power, 2) undermining the Cuban economy, 3) using #2 and #1 to ?prove? that communism doesn?t work. This is why the Republicans can?t be trusted with national security. A friendly communist nation would be good; an Iraq with incentives for good behavior would be good. Instead we have both of them in a position where their only rational response is to hate America.

Clinton?s policies wrt Iraq were the product of a combination of his focus on other things (including staving off the Republican witch hunt ? they spent more money investigating him than they did on anti-terrorism efforts), inheritance of a bad situation, and (part and parcel with the first) his work on so many other fronts. While containment was bad for the Iraqis, it ensured that Hussein was not a threat when Clinton left office, and wouldn?t be with the same minimal attention.

The bombings themselves weren?t particularly damaging to the Iraqis and were part and parcel with the strategy of containment. They were also why Bush had no difficulty taking down Hussein. With the power of hindsight, one can see that Clinton should have done more to make Iraq stable enough to prevent the warmongering of his successor. But as good as Clinton was, there was no way he could have predicted that the son of George H. W. Bush would have the foreign policy genius of a boiled turnip.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 15, 2003 10:32 PM | PERMALINK

Here?s a question for you Mr. Slater. If the purpose of tax cuts is to enhance revenue, how does one return the people?s money to them by reducing taxes? We?ve already established that a tax cut will increase the collections, so doesn?t this ensure even greater surpluses? Tax cuts for the wealthy don?t work. Look at the CBO projections. No matter how they score it, there is no way that Bush?s gift to the upper class pays for itself.

This is the difference between Clinton whose minor tax increase was hailed by such brilliant minds as Dick Armey (an economist by trade) as a sure fire way to ruin the economy. Not only did it not do so, it helped collect on the Clinton boom, which included serious work on building up the engine of our economy ? entrepreneurial efforts.

Bush has also demonstrated that corruption is the rule, nothing will be done if you are a big enough contributor (seen Ken Lay?s face in a courtroom recently?). He also has helped sweep the incredibly damaging faux energy crisis in CA under the rug, where the Republican Party bizarrely managed to pin the blame for actions taken by Wilson and a bunch of Texas Republicans on Davis and put in a thoughtless puppet to eliminate the only recourse the state had against the criminals whose actions seriously damaged one of the nation?s most productive states.

Did I mention steel? Did I mention the $300 advance? These weren?t serious economic policy, they were gag gifts.

Oh, and stop with the WMD scare tactics. Hussein didn?t have them, he wasn?t going to get them with even a minimal amount of policing, and you merely demonstrate that you aren?t serious about politics when you claim otherwise. The unprovoked invasion of Iraq was merely a way for the Republicans to bomb brown people and pretend they were suddenly serious about an issue they neglected for more than a decade in favor of investigating a real threat to the nation ? decade old land deals and the sex life of a political enemy.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 15, 2003 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Lori Thantos - you said "3) using #2 and #1 to ?prove? that communism doesn?t work. Do you believe that communism does work? If so, what evidence can you produce to support this assertion? I mean, aside from the gigantic bodycount. Let me guess - the only reason Communism has been such a historic, repeated, and miserable failure is just that you were not in charge.

It kind of seems that Calpundit's readership is a lot further on the loopier side than I'd have expected, since Calpundit himself doesn't seem to be anywhere near this nutty.

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 16, 2003 07:05 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know that if this thread has run its course, but I thought I would write some things down.

I do a agree that a poor economy will lead to dramatically lower tax revenues. This has been seen rather dramatically this year in California. The deficits in California lead to the replacement of Davis. Also, did President Bush claim he was going to cut the deficit in half or the debt? You accumulate debt even if you run small deficits. The last time I looked, I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of 22% of the budget was required to service the debt. I also agree that a surging economy will increase tax revenues. I believe that there is a lot of debate from professional economists about the extent of these effects. It was very instructive though to watch a Senate hearing a year or so ago on this matter. Before the Senate sat three economists, one gentleman from the Brookings Institution, one from Cato, and one from the Heritage Foundation. The last 2 economists were supply siders. The one thing all agreed on was that President Bush's budget that year would cause a large deficit. They disagreed on the effects of the deficit on the economy in the long run.

With regard to Iraq:

Dennis Slater

I am kind of puzzled. Maybe you can clarify this. You agree that the number one policy goal for the US is to maintain a supply of oil from the Middle East, while you argue that France, Germany, and Russia were immoral for opposing the war on the basis of a similar economic calculation. In your opinion, to what lengths should the US go in order to secure the oil? I find myself moved by the argument that removing Hussein was a moral thing to do. But the US continues to ally itself with local strongmen in the region. This makes me suspect that President Bush would remove a democratically elected leader in order to access the oil, if that leader were troublesome.

Lori Thantos

I agree that the Cuba embargo is ludricrous. I believe it is left in place to ensure that American sugar can companies never have to compete with the growers in Cuba and to ensure that politcally active Cuban exiles continue to vote for the Republican party. Honestly though, I'm not sure that economic incentives would be effective against Hussein. I believe that a combination of sanctions and inspections prevented him from threatening his neighbors. I was and remain unconvinced that he posed a danger to anyone outside of Iraq. I find the fascination that the US had with Hussein to be odd, since the North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il probably has WMD and has a history of exporting weapons. Could you explain more?

Posted by: Roland at December 16, 2003 07:06 AM | PERMALINK

Roland, from December 12 AP:

http://tinyurl.com/zh56

Yes, Bush?s plan is to cut the deficit, not the debt. And there is no way that he can do it given that his big plan is to make the budget busting tax cuts permanent.

As I said before, the problems with Iraq are complex; an optimal solution requires much more thought than the Clinton administration gave it, let alone the ?bomb ?em so we can distract from our failures at home? regime. You are right that there is something unseemly about Bush?s obsession with this tiny country that Clinton?s military had already ensured wasn?t a threat, but if you want rational foreign policy, you have to have rational leadership.

What would have worked with Hussein? I can?t give you a good answer. Other than brutal sanctions, and unprovoked invasion, nothing was ever tried. Let?s be clear, he was never the threat GHWB made him out to be either; all that ?He?s a Hitler? stuff was crap in 91, and by the time GWHB?s little boy had the reigns Hussein was only slightly more threatening than the five decade old corpse of Hitler. We needed someone with imagination to work out a way to end the sanctions that were crippling Iraq. Not someone whose inferiority complex led him to avenge his daddy.

Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 16, 2003 08:04 AM | PERMALINK

More wacky conjecture from Lori, but no explanation as to his\her steadfast belief in Communism (see my post above.) I also like how Iraq is now "that tiny country." What ever happened to all the bellyaching about how we would lose thousands upon thousands of lives in the invasion of Iraq?

This sort of loony, unhinged frothing at the mouth is precisely the sort of thing that drives people away from the left in droves. Why are so many of Calpundit's readers like this when Calpundit himself does not appear to be? It really is strange.

Posted by: Beatnik Joe at December 16, 2003 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Beatnik, I am also a bit confused as to Lori's use of the word "Communist" since the main topic here is Iraq, which has not been labeled that. Be that as it may, her point is valid. In the case of Iraq, we have blamed Saddam for the poverty and hunger that were, at the least, exacerbated by our policy of sanctions.

But this is part of the false dichotomy that we were presented with last year: sanctions or invasions. Anybody clever could have come up with variations that might have avoided the current contretemps.

After all, consider the last country that we warred with that had a history of invading its neighbors, using chemical weapons, and engaging in war crimes. We kept the head guy (Emperor "Showa" indeed!) and rejiggered the government to produce a friendly country allied to the US.

After 1991, Saddam would have been ripe for such a makeover. He couldn't really indulge in any more military adventurism since he had run out of neighbors to invade. We slide him the usual MidEast potentate deal: build as many palaces as you want, and oppress your people to your hearts content, just don't fight your neighbors and keep the oil flowing.

Posted by: McDruid at December 16, 2003 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

McDruid, the reference to communism was merely in pointing out that the situation in Iraq is similar to Cuba, that the false dichotomy you clearly see in Iraq was driven by the same kind of unthinking, unhinged, and unhelpful Republican ideology.

Beatnik Joe, sorry if I missed your irresponsible rant the last time I posted in this thread. Even if I hadn?t missed your nuttery, Roland had a more coherent thought process and it was more interesting to discuss something with someone who is interested in ideas rather than spouting moronic ideological blather.

Since he appears to be gone, can you explain how well Cuba is doing under Castro taking into account the boycott by its largest natural trading partner?

Totalitarianism (which you are confusing with Communism) doesn?t work. I?m sorry if you don?t understand the distinction, but the fact that the Soviet Union failed had nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the real government they had. Proving Communism doesn?t work requires that someone try it. Sure, Castro is a dictator, and is no one?s idea of a good guy, least of all mine, but that doesn?t mean that Cuba is some kind of hellhole, and it doesn?t mitigate the problems caused by the US.

Let me be perfectly clear, because obviously I?m talking with someone with a fairly limited ability to read or think clearly: Cuba?s problems are not proof that communism doesn?t work. Cuba?s problems are the result a combination of factors including simpleminded anti-communism on the part of US foreign policy. Part of the reason for the idiotic foreign policy on the part of the US is the fear that acting in a rational manner would disprove the notion that communism doesn?t work. This in no way supports Castro, demonstrates that communism works, or relates the political system in Iraq with that of Cuba. Do you understand or do I need to type slower?

Posted by: Lori Thantos at December 16, 2003 10:54 PM | PERMALINK