t a c i t u s

I hereby request a 24 hour gloating period!

Granted!

Thank you Tac.

*gloating*

BTW, is anyone else surprised we took him alive? Now we are at risk of all sorts of allegations about the ties between Saddam and Reagan/Bush I that will be revealed!

Oh

*removes tinfoil hat*

Sorry about that

Funny you mention that -- Steve Gilliard's latest post waxes at length on exactly that subject.

Surprising, I know.

Oh please -- Saddam's evil, no doubt, but once he lost his Sugar Daddy in the US by stupidly invading Kuwait (another US chum), his end was only a matter of time. We do not tolerate disobedience from those who stray from the geopolitical course. If Saddam had left Kuwait alone and simply kept within his borders, do you think we'd be in Iraq right now? He tortured his people for years while we actively supported him. Just months before his Kuwait invasion, a US Senate delegation led by Sens. Dole and Simpson flew to Baghdad to shake hands with the monster. Where was the great concern then? No where. It wasn't needed.

But none of this matters in the United States of Amnesia. We can back (and have backed) the worst people imaginable, but it doesn't matter to the likes of the gloaters here, so long as US needs are met. So, in the midst of your gloating, how about a few apologies for backing Saddam in the first place?

Oh, I see -- there wasn't any connection b/w Reagan/Bush and Saddam. And who exactly are wearing the tin foil hats?

If Saddam had only grabbed Shatt-Al-Arabiya, instead of the entire country, he'd happily be gassing Kurds today.

As far as the Nuremburg trials go, Chomsky repeatedly claims that by their standards, every post WWII President could be found guilty and executed.

How many murderous tyrants did we become allies with to stop Saddam?

BU..SHIT!

An Iraqi court is fine, provided we empty his brain and get all pertinent intelligence first. A little heads-up on those WMDs would be nice, followed by locations of mass graves, conventional weaponry, cash stashes, where the other playing cards are, who the top anti-CPA belligerents are, Swiss bank account numbers, al Qaeda connections, etc.

Oh, and Truth & Reconciliation Commissions have had great success in some countries, not in others... depending on how they were formulated and how much support there was from the current government (of course).

South Africa, iirc, is held for as a succesful example.

Any guesses on who is $25,000,000 richer? Family member once again?

Oh, I see -- there wasn't any connection b/w Reagan/Bush and Saddam.

Of course there were. I'm waiting, ok after reading Gilliard, not waiting anymore for charges of lots of unrevealed one's!!!!!!!!!!

Unhappiest man on earth right now? Jacques Chirac?

I suspect the attacks by insurgents won't stop, but it is much more likely our intelligence will improve as some who have been afraid now come forth. We'll see.

He is caught. Good.
Alive. Even better.

No uncertainty any more, no martyr for his followers.

What further good will come from this? We'll have to wait and see.

"Unhappiest man on earth right now? Jacques Chirac?"

No, I think Howard Dean probably has that honor, actually.

If Saddam had left Kuwait alone and simply kept within his borders, do you think we'd be in Iraq right now?

Not really the piercing hypothetical you think it is, chief. Let me rephrase to illustrate: If Hitler had left Poland alone and simply kept within his borders, do you think we'd be in Germany right now? Right. Moral failings illustrated: zero.

Where was the great concern then? No where. It wasn't needed.

Uh, no. Samantha Power chronicles quite nicely the concern that did exist within the United States during the Kurdish genocide. Did we do enough about it? Shamefully, no. But we're doing something about it now, and you can't bring yourself to grant credit for it. How....surprising.

So, in the midst of your gloating, how about a few apologies for backing Saddam in the first place?

Probably because none of us were in involved in US foreign policy in the 1980s. Probably because Americans never were among his primary foreign backers (let's see, an army of Soviet and French equipment...hmmm). Probably because there can be no greater recompense for past misdeeds than -- well, this.

Consider our debts paid. We ran down and captured the perpetrators of the evils you decry.

As far as the Nuremburg trials go, Chomsky repeatedly claims that by their standards, every post WWII President could be found guilty and executed.

Yes, and Betrand Russell calculated that JFK and Harold Macmillan were greater monsters than Hitler. Moral stupidity is no bar to achievement in academia.

Oh, and Truth & Reconciliation Commissions have had great success in some countries, not in others...South Africa, iirc, is held for as a succesful example.

So long as you're not trying to hold the ANC responsible for terrorist acts against innocent civilians, sure.

So far, the greatest problem with eliminating the insurgency was the simple fact that we don't know who they are. Now, with the spectre of Saddam no longer haunting the people of Iraq, I would guess that they will be much more willing to work with the Coalition, providing intelligence or, if nothing else, just not deciding to become part of the insurgency.

This is a great, great day for those who love freedom in general, and the long-suffering Iraqis in particular.

"As far as the Nuremburg trials go, Chomsky repeatedly claims that by their standards, every post WWII President could be found guilty and executed." (emphasis added / kw; see below * )

"How many murderous tyrants did we become allies with to stop Saddam?"

The right number ???

"BU..SHIT!"*

Agreed

Or do you, perhaps, mean BULLS..T ???

One question should be asked. Why did our intelligence falter at the early stages.

On April 7th a report came out of Qatar that stated that Hussein and his sons had fled to Tikrit three days earlier.

On Aptil 7th the intelligence community stated that they intercepted a communication that indicated that Hussin and his son's were in Baghdad and we targeted the place where he was believed to be.

The intelligence community ignored the report from Qatar.

The question is why?

[tin foil hat]

It's one of his doubles.

[/tin foil hat off]

[tin foil hat back on]

The admin. did say they were releasing prisoners from gitmo. They had Saddam down there the whole time, just released him with some others in Iraq and gave him a head start....old comic book huntig style.

[/tin foil hat back off]

;-)

Seriously, this is really good news. It will be interesting to see if he is a wealth of information from WMD to Regan Iran/contra, or if he will clam up. Looks like the dem primaries just took a back seat for the next few news cycles to say the least.

Tacitus,

Keep your light shining into the dark corners of madness and ignorance. I just enjoy it more when you are illuminating the shadows on the left.

Loudmouths:

"One question should be asked. Why did our intelligence falter at the early stages."

Because:

They would really like to write history instead of being aggressive and getting info that just might be wrong or incomplete out to an element that can act upon the information.

They are enamored of "technical means" and distrust any human intelligence.

Their egos are such that any 'source' not personally known is discounted.

They compatmentalize things "to avoid compromise" to such an extent that their news is most always a day late and a dollar short.

They are terrified someone else may get credit for a coup of some sort.

They want 100% solutions in a 51% world.

They are excessively cautious.

And other sorta stuff like that...

Man, lookit y'all. A day which should be unalloyed celebration, and already you're turning this into a partisan issue?

[IRONY. Truly. Me, I think it's good news.]

From Gilliard: "I think his capture, instead of causing people to support the occupation, will, instead liberate people to oppose it."

The man continues to take lemonade and turn it back into lemons! He sounds downright glum about the capture.

Tacitus --

I'm not surprised by your Story Book take on recent Iraqi history. Par for the course. And yes, the French and Russians have Iraqi and Kurdish blood on their hands as do we, having provided hi-tech intel to Saddam during his wars on the Kurds and Iranians, and allowing Saddam to massacre Shias and crush their uprising in early '91. But I'm sure we did it with the best of intentions, right? The US can never -- ever -- be on the side of evil. Does. Not. Compute.

So gloat away. It's all a big game anyway, right? ("Now comes the real fun . . ." yeesh.)

He sounds downright glum about the capture.

Just like with the Uday/Qusay killing this past summer. Of course, when I called him on it, he responded with an irate e-mail demanding that I never quote him again without his express permission. The e-mail closed with a sneering jab at my supposed lack of empathy for wounded soldiers in Iraq -- based on my failure to join in a Gilliard-led discussion on that subject at dKos.

A class act, that boy. Fine American.

Well,

This is one of those turning points in history everyone grabs a hold of, so people either being pesimistic/optimistic about the results of said event is par for the course.

Wow, Jeb, don't trouble yourself with, uh, actual refutations of anything I have to say. Peevish sneering will do.

Look! Giant puppets!

Jeb,
The US can never -- ever -- be on the side of evil. Does. Not. Compute.

More like we're on the side of the lesser evil. Why do you hate America?

I'm not surprised by your Story Book take on recent Iraqi history. Par for the course. And yes, the French and Russians have Iraqi and Kurdish blood on their hands as do we, having provided hi-tech intel to Saddam during his wars on the Kurds and Iranians, and allowing Saddam to massacre Shias and crush their uprising in early '91.

You willing to fight the Soviets to do it?

"Why do you hate America?"

Classic.

Million dollar idea$$$$

T shirts with the Uncle Sam "I want you" figure.....only it reads "Why do you hate American."

I could sell it on Limbaugh's show.....I'd be able to retire within a week*. ;-)

Should read "Why do you hate America?"*

*My gramar and spealign is grate twoday!

Tac,
Speaking of remembering... Try to remember the name of the guy who ACTUALLY attacked America, killing thousands. Um, where'd he go? Oh, right. Look over there, it's Saddam!

Excellent post, Tacitus, and striking that the worst Jeb and his ilk can say about is simply mumbling the old cliches like steps of the rosary-- Chomsky supported Saddam Halliburton...

Saddam Hussein Laid Bare: Deflated, DeFanged and DeClawed

Anybody who saw the Bremer press conference live early this morning had a shock and a treat. We saw a Saddam we never thought existed: he looked frightful with his dirty wild hair and beard, deep new lines cutting into his face made his look 10 years older and his demeanor was one of unworried passivity.

In short, what we saw the real Saddam Hussein laid bare: a big nothing. It's all gone: the power, the ability to inspire loyalists and instill fear in everybody else -- all gone. Obviously the man himself had always been an empty shell.

A truly surprising and gratifying sight. With any luck, by this time next year he'll be a despised laughingstock all over the Middle East.

Recommended execution method after we've extracted all information out of him: Plastic shredder, feet first, knob setting on 'slow'. But that may be too humane for him.

BBC's default reaction: "We all imagined that if the Americans got a tip off they would just bomb somewhere off the face of the earth. But he was captured without a shot being fired. He's looking healthy, he's not been tortured, he's being handed over to Iraqi justice." Glad to know they're in our corner.

Audacious prediction: This moment is the beginning of the end of the "insurgency".

Fast-coalescing position of the hate-Bush Left: "But, it really doesn't change much. Capturing Saddam isn't going to end the resistance to the US occupation in Iraq. It may improve things slightly, or it could even make it worse, but the net effect will probably be negligible." Translation: His capture wasn't that big of a deal because everything else is falling apart.

"Tac,
Speaking of remembering... Try to remember the name of the guy who ACTUALLY attacked America, killing thousands. Um, where'd he go? Oh, right. Look over there, it's Saddam!"

Mmm... Better start working on your lines in case the Bu$hHitler Junta manages to capture poor Osama too, then.

Still, it's too early for an Osama capture - in order to maximize Halliburton profits and Bu$hHitler re-election chances, I'd say October 2004 is a good bet.

Regards, Döbeln

-Stabil som fan!

His capture is a wonderful thing for the Iraqi people. There will be celebration for days and rightful gloating in the US as well. This is well-deserved considering what a monster Saddam is.

And then two realities will set in. First is the insurgency. Some have speculated that the insurgency will die down without Saddam. Others have speculated that it was the fear of Saddam's return that prevented others from joining the insurgency. Remember, when Oday and Kusay were killed everybody said something to the effect of: "There will be a brief spike in attacks and then the insurgents will slip back into the population peacefully and permanently." The opposite happened, of course. So what will be the case here? My guess, based on the scattered interviews with insurgents is that not much will happen here either. Most interviewees tend to say, "Saddam is too busy hiding to have anything to do with the resistance" or something. Nor does he appear to have been much of an inspiration to the insurgents either - at least insofar as he might come back. So the net effect on the insurgency is difficult to figure out. Just don't believe any of the hopeful or hopeless prognostications you will here from the right or left in the coming days. The fact is: we don't know at all. And for America (and American politics) the state of the insurgency will be the most important issue.

As for the second reality, he was CAPTURED, not KILLED. This means a chance for Iraqis to experience the national catharsis of trying its own war criminal. Very much like T&R; commissions or Nuremburg, it brings emotional relief to know that a nation can put closure to a terrible past. But it also may mean drawing out some of the painful memories of it. How many times have we heard about the importance of vengeance and honor in Iraqi culture? Will Iraqis be comfortable waiting for months, if not years, for a chance to punish him? And that's not to mention all the intel that we can gather from him, which I can guarantee will be close to zero. He won't talk because he's got nothing to gain from it. So his capture, not death, is probably the most intriguing part of this whole thing.

Well that's my take on it. We're not going to find out about any US-Saddam links or WMD or anything else from him, I don't believe. He'll be defiant to the end - or just sullen. But don't expect an informational windfall to prove any of your pet conspiracy theories. The main value of his capture is what it does for Iraqis too put this awful episode of their history behind them.

It's a great thing. Anyone decent can see that. On the other anyone decent will not I trust go around DU looking for the worst of the left & using it as a club against every single person who thought the war was a bad idea. Neither, of course, will happen.

Will it make a big difference on the ground? Obviously, I've no real idea. I think it will have an effect but not be any sort of magic solution. My guess would be the effect is bigger as far as lessening the fear of ordinary Iraqis in supporting the occupation and providing intelligence--he's really not coming back, and now they can be sure of it--than it does on the guerillas/terrorists.

Will we really get testimony out of him? There's no possibility of any sort of amnesty or plea bargain, and Milosevic has not turned out to be either honest or a shrinking violet on trial. But we might get testimony of others against him that would be quite useful, now that he'll be well and truly gone.

Try to remember the name of the guy who ACTUALLY attacked America, killing thousands. Um, where'd he go?

Pushing up poppies under 50 feet of rubble in Tora Bora is my default position, at least until there's authenticated audio-video showing proof of life.

More sadness from the Bush-haters. Yes, I'm taking full advantage of the 24-hour gloat period, then back to business as usual.

My reaction on seeing the video was, "God, he looks pooped."

I could also see the thought going through his head, "Praise Allah, it's over."

Thing is, he's not only been captured, he's been defeated. He's beat. He knows it. He shows it. We are going to get tons out of this guy, because he'll be eager to spill his guts to the people who saved him from the hell that is the fugitive life.

re-reading more carefully, I see that spc67 made the same prediction as me about the insurgency. And I forgot to mention how impressed I am, one more time, with the US military.

Hot damn, this is good news. Funny how, after enough time on the run, everyone ends up looking like Ted Kazinsky.

(I'd like to take serious issue with your Guantanamo Bay comments, above, but that can wait for another thread. This is the first really, really good news I've heard in a long time).

oh and does anyone have good links about the Iraqi court system and/or any war crimes tribunal we've set up?

The TRC is a good model, but I doubt it'll be used when the government was overturned through war rather than negotiated settlement, and when there's no Mandela or Tutu to unite people who'd normally oppose it. The amnesty provisions were quite controversial. I think an amnesty provision like the TRC's for lower level folks would be a good thing, but not for Saddam and his top lieutenants or his most gruesome lieutenants.

"I think it is shameful that the ACLU has not commented on the obvious mistreatment Hussein has suffered at the hands of the American military."

Posted by Leslie In SF at December 14, 2003 10:56 AM

Perfect caricature!

"Mmm... Better start working on your lines in case the Bu$hHitler Junta manages to capture poor Osama too, then. "

You fail to see my point. It's hard to get excited about capturing Saddam when there has been no mentions of Bin Laden from the administration for months now. See my previous post about why this should concern Americans. This has nothing to do with Saddam's capture. Ah, how expectations have fallen. First, we were going to capture Bin Laden and string him up. Well, we invaded Iraq and focused our resources on capturing Saddam/WMDs instead. Havn't seen those WMDs either, have you? Heard about them lately? Me neither. Will Saddam reveal the location of his secret nuclear weapon hidey hole? If the head of his nuclear weapons program didn't know where it is, I'm willing to assume it doesn't exist. Don't expect to hear much about his WMDs but please stay tuned for mass graves and torture stories. The realpolitik righties know what I'm getting at.

Are the Iraqi people better off now? Most surely. Are we less likely to be attacked by terrorists? Not likely. And don't give me the song and dance about a long range plan to remake the mideast b/c there is little evidence this is working or would ever work by invading Iraq. Why not start by focusing our efforts in Afghanistan instead of wrecking the place and leaving it for everyone else to clean up?

You do, however, mention some of the worst conspiracy theories of the far left. Touche.

Scramble my VRWC Lt. Deathbeasts! Scatter to the four corners of the bloggosphere and bring back reports of the leftist heathens who will undoubtedly find something negative about today's development. Find the most unconsidered opinion you can and then magnify it for all to ridicule as the True feelings of the treacherous liberals. A hearty plate of righteous indignation awaits the first 10 to return...now Fly, My Pretty Ones. FLY!

/sarcasm off

This time it's OK to gloat. This time it's OK to raise a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Good going guys! Let's hope it takes the wind out of the suicide bombers sails.

y to remember the name of the guy who ACTUALLY attacked America, killing thousands.

Huh. Don't read this site often, do you? Figures.

Speaking as a fully vested Bush scorner (he doesn't deserve nor has he earned hate), I'm as happy as can be. It's great news. (Tho' turning his capture into an aria re the American spirit is sorta silly, after all, we just dragged the guy out of a hole. You think he'd be alive if he'd had a gun in his hand?) What Happens Next is of course what really matters. Since he never had much to do with terrorism world-wide, it will have little or no impact there. Blair spoke to the most hopeful point this morning: now that the Iraqis know he's 'not coming back', they are free to move toward a better future. This of course ignores the sectarian facts on the ground that we ignored in the first place. But today is better than yesterday, and that's progress, yes?

Oh. And I always find it, uhm, singular that when we get good news like this, the first thing, truly the first, that some folks rush to is....we get to gloat now!! Which means what? All this tragedy is really about you and your amusement? What it is, unfortunately, is nothing more than the flip side of an even lesser inclination. The one where some folks seem to actively cheer our country's failures, becuz, you know, it's good to gloat.*

*Except of course any gloating relating to the political demise of Dick Cheney which is, in fairness, the only true way to heaven.

Well, what a darn pleasant way to wake up on a brisk, wet, but clear Sunday morn' in Nor Cal.

Think I'll make me a warm cup a joe. Mmmm ....Coffee.

I'm goin' out to put mah Flag up. Always good to celebrate when tyrants fall.

You know, Harley, I've noted that your function lately seems to be to pop up and chide those who have the gracelessness to chide the left. Presumably we shouldn't do such things because, um, truth is bad, or uncivil, or something. Okay.

Oh, and pandagon has mad props for Tac's post this morning. Get out the good silverware, there's company coming!

You know, Tac....I just find it odd that an event of this magnitude, and Navy's right, it's worth raising a flag, is so quickly seen as a go-to opportunity to 'chide the left.' As if the left didn't want Saddam to be captured in the first place. The latter is right out of the partisan sandbox, and hey, you wannt heft bucket and shovel, be my guest. But seriously, do you honestly believe that?*

*Also the condescending 'uhm' requires an 'h'.

Dude, I know this may cause some blanching, but if you don't think there are plenty of American (to say nothing of foreign) lefties who are in some manner disappointed about this, you need to head on over to Instapundit, Tim Blair, et al. They catalogue this stuff far better than I.

And there's a standard spelling for "um"? Huh. Or huhn. Or something.

Harley:

You still believe in pandagons? And you with the benefit of a liberal education on the east coast...

(Silverware is soooo neuveau -- we Red State folks all use mediocre Stainless from Pakistan...)

I don't think there's anything wrong with observing the Left when it acts stupidly. Lord knows I love to watch Fox News when something truly awful happens to Bush - watching them spin is downright humorous.

Maybe Dean and Chirac are feeling a bit glum today, but I can assure you all that there are two very happy people today: Osama and Zawahiri. While we're worrying about our pet dictator, the likes of whom were just as much a threat to Al-Qaeda as the US was, terrorists at home and abroad are more than happy that the US is gloating over the capture and imminent execution of one of their most hated foes.

Oh, wait, there's only two sides in the War on Terrorism. Hooray! We got 'im! Another victory against Evil! Duhhh . . . [drools onto bib].

Okay, I admit it, I'm glad he's been caught, and especially glad it was done (gasp!) without violence. Kind of ironic, that. The gloating stuff is a bit out of place, though -- did YOU catch Saddam? Okay then. This isn't a football game, it's a war. Please try to be serious.

And dor those of you who want to hang him by the balls & stuff: you're missing the point. We're the good guys, despite having a bad guy leader. Take a pill.

I guess a little gloating here at tacitus is entirely natural. The show is over, the villan has been captured. The base instincts of the conservative masses are now satisfied. Hoo-ya!

Gulf War II is the latest episode of the American Roman circus. We set em up, we knock em down. What fun.

Of course Saddam = bad man. Capture = good for Iraq. Maybe we can stop supporting other Saddams? Nah! We'll need them for future circus acts! Besides, they're so darn easy to "work with".

Harley, Saddam WAS found with a gun in hand, or at least with a gun ON hand.

You seem to believe that when war supporters look at something positive we're ignoring all the problems that remain. Do you actually believe this?

Can James Baker represent Saddam as his lawyer?

Ken, heh.

Tac, I'm familiar with Instapundit's hobbies, that's why I rarely visit. As for American lefties and their disappointment, geesh, I'll take your word for it. I'm assuming some will be disappointed becuz they figure this is good for Bush's re-election, which is moronic and myopic (morypic?), but still believe that's a very small percentage (by which you define the larger group, but hey, you're free to do so).

Oh, and, uhm, standards are important, huh? (Sometimes hunh, but the latter is overly literal and inelegant.)

Just for the record, the Yugoslav tribunal HAS indicted several KLA members. Please look this stuff up before you start smearing international justice projects.

And if you really think the Kosovar or Serbian justice systems would have been able to handle those war crimes prosecutions better than the "international bureaucrats," well, that's just totally crazy.

Osama bin Laden is already dead.

"...Until two years ago, you could hardly shut Osama bin Laden up. He had a great fondness for the sermon, the proclamation, the taped fatwah. And all of these, like the captured video from Kabul showing his gloating over the World Trade Center, were extremely easy to authenticate. Indeed, they were too genuine for my taste. How likely is it that such a loquacious character would manage to sit out the whole Iraq war without feeling any need to orate?

"The last time we supposedly heard from bin Laden was just before the beginning of hostilities, where he appeared to be saying (down a hissing telephone line onto a lousy tape recorder) that his forces were ready to swallow their differences with Saddam Hussein.

"No big surprise there: bin Laden has been pro-Saddam for years: Saddam had been saying the same thing for some time - and now the holy alliance between the two groups is plainly visible. Yet none of bin Laden's words could be attached with any certainty to any recent event, so there was disagreement among voice-print analysts as to whether the tape was a splice-job or not. (The CIA thought it might be for real: a lab in Switzerland disagreed.)

"WHY the mystery? Only because bin Laden was unable to resolve it by speaking plainly in his own voice about actual events, as he was once so eager to do.

"The same conundrum recurs with additional force in the case of the latest video.

"The voice-over seems to be that of Ayman al Zawahiri, one of the few uncaptured lieutenants. It is he who intones the usual jihad rant while his boss walks silently over some landscape. Why so shy, big guy? Cat got your tongue? Figure it out for yourself: it's a lot less risky for bin Laden to pose for an authentic picture, whether still or video, than it is for him to make even a local telephone call. (His deputy Hambali, recently grabbed in Thailand, was caught by using a phone-card.)

"Yet this simple piece of photographic propaganda seems beyond him. Even the dullest and cruellest kidnappers know that, in order for their extortions to be taken seriously, they must produce what is known in the trade as "proof of life" before they can blackmail the relatives.

"Bin Laden is only being asked to give proof of his own life and he can't even manage that..."

Jeebus, people... how can you not be happy about this? You're upset that conservative commenters are doing more gloating than rejoicing, but you are doing more chiding than rejoicing yourselves.

Clever...

I'd heard he was unarmed. And no, I don't believe that. We're not ignoring the problems. That doesn't mean we understand all of them. (By 'we' I mean the admin. ideologues and Chalabists.)

....terrorists at home and abroad are more than happy that the US is gloating over the capture and imminent execution of one of their most hated foes.

Oh, you have a direct line to them, eh? You've spoken with them this morning? What? No? Oh, then you're full of crap, then. Moving on.

The show is over, the villan has been captured. The base instincts of the conservative masses are now satisfied. Hoo-ya!

Someday, when I'm free of my base instincts, I can be more like Joey Giraud and simply not care about the tiresome, ennui-inducing contest of good versus evil. I can be free of passé notions like "justice."

Look, darling -- the masses are celebrating that a killer of millions has been captured (and not killed or tortured himself, now that would be ghastly). How base, their instincts.

As for American lefties and their disappointment, geesh, I'll take your word for it.

The point, Harley, is that you don't have to.

The political fallout of this depends entirely on what happens to the resistance. If this means the end of the resistance then Bush wins. If not, then this moment will be as forgotten as Uday and Qusay's death.

Should look good in a Bush campaign commercial.

Good for him; he deserves it.

As a johnny-come-lately to supporting the war, I am thrilled. Let's move on and up from here.

Harley, reports are that he was carrying a pistol. I think it's telling that the man who swore he'd never be taken alive without a fight, eventually went without so much as even a token resistance.

I don't know that the administration "perfectly" understands the situation w/r/t the great diversity of tribes, ethnicities and religious groups, but I think they aren't ignoring the issue, either. Not at all.

I see the graveyard whistlers are still imagining that they have proof of Saddam's non-involvement with international terror. Harley even states categorically "he never had much to do with terrorism world-wide." So, Harley, you deny even the 25,000 payments to Palestinian suicide bombers, the safe harbor given to such characters as Abu Nidal, the attempt on Bush I's life, etc?

Like I said...

"...but still believe that's a very small percentage (by which you define the larger group, but hey, you're free to do so)."

And yes, you're still free to do so.

(Also, 'look, darling' is an lovely rhetorical flourish, very Tru, but enough off-point crit and no snark intended.)

Reid (or should I say, William Safire)...

You forgot Atta and the Prague connection. C'mon, grandad. Get in the game!

I hate to break this to all the "No Iraq-Al Qaeda link to terrorist attacks" crowd, but the Iraqi provisional government has turned over a document dated July 2001 that explicitly mentions Mohammed Atma receiving training under Abu Nidal in Iraq for hijacking airplanes and attacking the US. It is addressed to Saddam, and the Iraqi Provisional government spokesman state unequivocally it is genuine. I will link to it once I figure out how to make internet links, but you can check it out yourself on WND.com until my computer skills enter the 21st century.
Nobody thinks the US is perfect, but we are better than any other nation around right now precisely because we don't just cut and run anymore. If socialist politics are such a wonderful utopian panacea for humanity, then why haven't any of the socialist regimes around the world been able to surpass the US in achievements, power or wealth? Not to mention the amount of international charity we provide, both via the government as well as by individual contributions to relief organizations?

"Damn it, CNN is again showing Iraqi citizens celebrating Saddam's capture. This is not good! Dean shouldn't say anything for now. He should immediately contact Paul Krugman of the NY Times for advice on how to put a negative spin on this."

You're right, Bird Dog, a perfect caricature. A bit too perfect, a bit too blatent. I smell trolls.

Tac, earthly justice is very weak. No trial or execution would ressurect the thousands Saddam killed, or would address the shared responsibility of those who assisted him, supported him or enabled him. ( in Iraq, Washington, Moscow *and* Paris. )

I'm only commenting on the predictable way that the American public can be stoked up on the villan du-jour and then, predicably cheer at the capture of this villan du-jour leading to a feeling of vindication and justification for American actions that had little to do with stopping his villany.

Aaaarg. People are so damn easy to manipulate. Maybe I should drop my scruples and start doing it too, like a Chalabi or a Dick Morris.

Conservatives are the most easily manupulated by a sin and retribution story. I guess liberals would be easier to manipulate with a story of saving a cute fuzzy critter or something like that. I don't actually know many real liberals so I couldn't say.

Incidentally, I mean it when I say tacitus rocks. This site provides the most satisfying responses ( in terms of depth of content. I'm not a troll! ) of any I've visited, Kos included.

Like I said, it's pretty obvious this stuff strikes a nerve. Gotta ask why.

And if you really think the Kosovar or Serbian justice systems would have been able to handle those war crimes prosecutions better than the "international bureaucrats," well, that's just totally crazy.

Not totally crazy. I have my doubts about the Serbs' ability to DIY, but we could have provided proper assistance if we chose. As for the failure of the Kosovar justice system, that's a direct failure of our own. It's the choices we make.

Harley,

Glad you mentioned Atta, you might wan't to look here:

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

"Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam"

Oh, you have a direct line to them, eh? You've spoken with them this morning? What? No? Oh, then you're full of crap, then. Moving on.

Touche. Though this is the same feeling I get whenever I hear Bush say that terrorists attack America because they "hate freedom" -- as if he'd bugged a meeting of theirs where they'd decided that all things considered, the main reasons Americans are so bad is because they have freedoms. Not that America has been, you know, doing evil things in the world. (And it has, despite the fact that our sins are heavily outnumbered by our good deeds -- but that's not really relevant to fanatics, whatever their stripes (Chomsky, bin Laden, et al).)

Sure, we can all guess at what terrorists motives may be, and sometimes they're kind enough to, like, videotape themselves spelling their motives out for us, but for the most part we're ALL kind of in the dark -- even the terrorists themselves. What causes evil? Good question, even for Hitler and Stalin. They didn't know, and we don't either. We can only fight actions, not vague moral concepts like "evil".

Tac, earthly justice is very weak.

It does not therefore follow that there should be no attempt at "earthly justice."

Aaaarg. People are so damn easy to manipulate.

I find it curious indeed that a loathing for an evil person is ipso facto "manipulation." By this standard, any moral feeling becomes manipulation.

Conservatives are the most easily manupulated by a sin and retribution story.

Okay....recognition of eternal themes of human existence are nothing to apologize for.

Harley,

Look over my question again:

"So, Harley, you deny even the $25,000 payments to Palestinian suicide bombers, the safe harbor given to such characters as Abu Nidal, the attempt on Bush I's life, etc?"

Are you, in fact, denying these well-established facts, too?

Reid

Dean, for whatever its worth, hit the right note in his statement. And insofar as he's motivated by his election chances rather than his country's and Iraq's fate, he's probably relieved that this happened now and not nine months hence.

Like Max M. said, onward and upward. I don't think I count as even a johnny-come-lately war supporter, unless you count knowing we needed to finish the job from March 18 onward. But as long as you understand that, you understand that this is a good thing.

A trial is actually probably very good for both the U.S. and Iraq, so taking him without a shot fired is as much an example as our enlightened self interest as it is of our inherent virtue. Either way, great great job.

Pardon my short term memory gaffe....the info comes from the London Sunday Telegraph. Excerpt follows:

A bombshell memo written to Saddam Hussein in 2001 and recently uncovered by Iraq's new coalition government shows that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta was trained to attack the U.S. in Baghdad.

The memo, authored by Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, is dated July 1, 2001 and describes the "work program" undertaken by Atta at a base in Baghdad run by notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, reports London's Sunday Telegraph, which obtained the document exclusively.

If authentic, the document would be the first explicit evidence implicating Iraq in the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, since it makes a direct reference to what appears to be the 9/11 plot.

In one passage, the Iraqi intelligence chief reportedly informs Saddam that Atta had demonstrated his capability as leader of the team "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy."

Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, the paper said. But Dr. Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
Pardon my short term memory gaffe...it is from the Sunday Telegraph of London that this report is coming. Here is a small excerpt of the report.:

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he told the Telegraph. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

So - check it out for yourselves....or is this supposedly another example of conservative agitprop?

Harley,

Why was your assumption that the gloating has anything to do with left vs. right? The gloating is over the fall of a monster to the forces of freedom. Period.
The forces of light have prevailed over the forces of darkenss in this particular endeavor.
We should ALL be gloating.

Though this is the same feeling I get whenever I hear Bush say that terrorists attack America because they "hate freedom" -- as if he'd bugged a meeting of theirs where they'd decided that all things considered, the main reasons Americans are so bad is because they have freedoms.

Actually, you can look up Islamist literature for yourself (may I compound my sin of recommending Instapundit by recommending MEMRI or LGF on this count?) -- saying that they "hate freedom" is a pretty accurate description of their mindset. The ultimate political goal of most Islamists -- certainly al Qaeda -- is the (re)establishment of a Shari'a-based caliphate in the world. Practices like democracy and religious tolerance are explicitly condemned; the existence of social and behavioral options (particularly for women) is regarded as anathema. In brief -- yes, they do indeed hate freedom. Sad but true.

Bergman - "as if he'd bugged a meeting of theirs where they'd decided that all things considered, the main reasons Americans are so bad is because they have freedoms"

You need to read more MEMRI. You will find the Islamists expressing these exact sentiments in their own words.

There's a discussion of this Telegraph article on the "marines vs. army" thread as well. The alleged intel memo that this article refers to also says that Bashir Assad and Saddam had a "secret meeting on the Iraq-Syria border" to facilitate a shipment (by Al-Qaeda) of some secret material (i.e. uranium) from Niger to Iraq.

Sounds a bit farfetched to me.

Undeniably, this is a good bit of news on two counts: (a) it's a good bet Saddam won't be coming back to power and (b) we, as far as I can tell from news reports, didn't lose any Americans to do it.

What should the CPA do with this one moment when every Iraqi's attention is on the CPA in a good way? The CPA might not necessarily have done, up to now, the absolute perfect job winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people --but I think we clearly have a tiny window of opportunity here, I think just as Antietam gave Lincoln the opportunity to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. What do you all think we should do with this moment?

JakeV - Far-fetched? Maybe, maybe not. But, you can't entirely discount the possibility, can you?

And, if there is even a 10% possibility of collusion between Saddam and AQ, could we afford to take the chance?

Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, one Democrat whom I actually admire, went against the prevailing sentiment in his party and made this point just a couple of weeks ago.

The Telegraph story would be much more plausible if this alleged memo didn't include *both* the Atta/Nidal connection *and* the Niger/Yellowcake story (which has, after all, been the subject of previous forgeries). It's just too good to be true.

Spc asks Why was your assumption that the gloating has anything to do with left vs. right?

Um.. maybe because it is, spc (I'd characterise it as gloating - not shared exhulation in any case):

*gloating*

BTW, is anyone else surprised we took him alive? Now we are at risk of all sorts of allegations about the ties between Saddam and Reagan/Bush I that will be revealed!

Unhappiest man on earth right now? Jacques Chirac?

Reid-- The question is not whether Saddam posed a potential threat, but whether the threat he posed was worth devoting this much time, money, and attention to, when we are also faced by other threats.

Take this story for example, which suggests that Al-Qaeda is carrying on rather nicely, and may already have the means to acquire WMD. Was attacking Saddam the best way to address this problem? Or could the $200 billion been spent in other ways that would have helped our security more?

In answering this question, it's helpful to consider whether connections between Saddam and terrorism existed, and if they existed, how significant they were.

Observing the left's displeasure and anger at Saddam's capture is not just playing to us. It is playing to the folks in the middle east, right now.

It is the Iraqi people who primarily and principly suffered under Saddam. It is the people of Iraq, especially in this age of blogs, that will judge for themselves, who is and who is not, their friend. They are the ones now, who know who freed them, and who would otherwise allow their suffering to continue.

Therefore, documenting the comments from the left, along with the comments from the right, is a good thing to do. It allows the people of Iraq, and the rest of the world, to see who is their ally, and who prefer the rule of dictators.

spc67....oh. I made the same assumption that Tac did. But hey, I'm happy to join you in non-partisan gloating.

Anybody else think that Bashar Assad and Abdullah of Jordan are pissing in their pants right about now. It will be interesting to see how much of the goodies Saddam gives up on these guys. Same is true of Chirac, the Russians and the Saudis.

Vin...

Too good to be true is right. Front pager in the NYT a couple days ago put this myth back in the ground where it belongs. Time to toss the Telegraph cliipping.

I haven't seen much comment from some of the larger, mainstream lefty bloggers on this, but I'm curious to see their take. This certainly doesn't resolve their underlying (and quite valid) criticisms of the post-war flops, but the image of thousands of Iraqis cheering the downfall of this tyrant really ought to elicit some loud applause amongst liberals.

Here's to what "ought" to be.

I'm happy to join you in non-partisan gloating.

Thanks Harley!

*passes across the partisan aisle an illeagal Cuban cigar*

The problem is that Saddam might not give up anything. Like Tacitus said he's a megalomaniac and might just remain silent to any questions. The fact that he knows it is imposssible for him to cut a deal in return for immunity from prosecution will make him less likely to talk. Its a last 'f**k you' to the US and the rest of the coalition, by refusing to help. Its the only thing he can do to damage us now so thats probably what he will do.

Tac & spc,

It seems to me the "lefties" you point us to via Reynolds via Blair are pretty much the classic definition of straw-man arguments. I mean, DU? The comments on a blog (well...close enough)? I don't judge you or the "righties" by what Misha or one of his commentators says. And I'm sure that before too long that a bunch of righties (coulter et al) will be gloating that this is a great thing b/c it helps Bush's reelection. Should we judge "the pro-war right" by those people?

When Reynolds & Tim Blair see this as an opportunity to find and use straw-men to indict the entire left, I think one can see where some of us lefties might take "gloating" in a bit of a different manner than in which it was meant on this board.

It's not a straw man if those people actually exist, Chris.

And, ironically enough, it's Harley, et al., who's implicitly assuming that the entire left is tarred by these morons -- not me.

Tac,

Then why bring them up as *the* (as opposed to say, a fringe-element of it) "anti-war left" as Reynolds does?

And Reynolds is the same guy who said anyone who isn't pro-war is objectively pro-Saddam. Does that mean that b/c I am against going to war with China, I am objectively pro-Communism?

And the reason us lefties are sensitive to being tarred in such a way is that we have been accused of everything from being communists to cyrpto-Islamacists to the creators and distributors of the common cold. Ok, I made the last one up. But the point is we always have to be on the lookout for that.

Tacitus, a straw man argument, by definition, may be targetted at a weak opponent as well as an imaginary one. Saying "they exist" in no way clears you of the charge.

That said, I think the response to this over at Atrios is sufficiently flippant that you don't really need to be pointing at these extremists, because the most popular lefty blogger has already resorted to cute equivocations.

Not exactly.

I'll join Navy Davy in raising the flag today: thank goodness he's caught, thank goodness he was caught alive and can be put publicly on trial for his many crimes, and thank goodness whatever role he may have had in driving insurgency is over. The U.S. armed forces are due a well-deserved congratulations and thank you. As Tacitus said, it wouldn't have been an immoral act to have shot the guy on sight, but the fact that we didn't speaks volumes about the difference between us and Hussein's regime.

The capture won't have a huge amount of practical, on-the-ground effect (my guess is that only a small share of the continued resistance is Baathist in nature), but the morale effect of a trial will be huge, and may sway some fence-sitting Iraqis towards supporting a U.S.-friendly government.

Like Cyranno, I'm extremely curious to see what comes out about Iraq's relations with other nations in the region - but I think most of what comes out will be pre-90s, as the Kuwait invasion ruined Iraq's claim to be a protector of other Arab nations (vis-a-vis Iran, mostly).

Josh Narins-

Of course Noam Chomsky believes every post-WWII U.S. President is a Nuremburg war criminal. What do you expect him to say during those rare moments when he isn't consorting with French holocaust deniers, defending Kim and Castro, or giving aid and comfort to Palestinian terrorists?

Being the beacon of moral clarity that he is, Noam Chomsky's idea of heaven is Pol Pot's Cambodia. By that standard it is certain that Truman through Bush deserves death...they were/are educated, urbanized, some wore glasses and all were class enemies of "the people".

It amazes that anyone would invoke an amoral fraud like Noam Chomsky to cast aspersions on George Bush and the Coalition of the Willing at a time like this. Not that I disapprove, because I want a second term for Bush.

We're out of Iraq by summer of next year. Bank on it.

Here's an off-topic piece of unsettling news on this otherwise gratifying day:
Pakistan's president has escaped an apparent assassination attempt when a bomb exploded near a bridge after his motorcade passed, Pakistani officials said.
He's unhurt - as in two previous attempts - but it's a close call, and a successful attempt on Musharraf would throw a large and dangerous wrench into the world situation. Musharraf is the thin wall between our world and a world in which an aggressive nuclear-armed Islamicist nation is the focus of global attention.

Unequivocally great news. Good job, 4ID and Task Force 121. They deserve our thanks.

I'd also like to thank Instapundit, Misha, Tim Blair, and all the other warbloggers who made this great day possible for the Iraqi people.

And commontator, if we're out of Iraq by next summer, that will be the result of either a miracle or an enormous and dangerous failure of American leadership, with the latter the more likely culprit.

Tha fact that Saddam was arrested is good in many respects, but it's certainly not an unmitigated good. Let's see, what's the tally?

Good

• Those who have been persecuted by Saddam and his former regime can have their day in court and presumably see him punished for his crimes

• There will be fewer innocent soldiers murdered by resistance fighters (if, in fact, they had been operating in support of Saddam) and by extension, the US government (for having put them there in the first place)

Bad

• Will be exploited by the Bush administration to serve as justification for their criminal action in Iraq

• Will serve to obfuscate the fact that it was the US government who propped up Saddam (and created Osama bin Laden, but that's another story) in the first place

• Will deepen resentment toward the US in Muslim countries, who rightly see the US as having run roughshod over the region for decades

• Will serve to obscure the fact that the Bush administration's overall planning for this misadventure has been utterly incompetent

• May strengthen domestic support for Bush (although it seems odd to me to make a connection between the capture of Saddam and any sort of ability or skill on the part of Bush)

You make the call.

Blarg deBlarg, you're wrong.

This is clearly a good thing, because seeing Saddam Hussein looking like a bum demythologizes him instantly.

And did you see those reporters in the press conference? They couldn't stop shouting "Death to Saddam!" They are psyched, and that's good.

Moreover, it will spur morale among our troops, who may have been wondering why they are there.

Even though I think much of the pre and post-war has been FUBAR, these are civilian failures at the top and not military failures. This gives the military a success that even Paul Wolfowitz couldn't find a way to screw up.

Give him time, praktike. Give him time.

A great day for the US military (way to go, 4th ID) and, I hope, for the people of Iraq.

I hope that Saddam's trial is international. God knows the Iraqi people suffered greatly under that evil SOB, but so did countless Kuwaitis and Iranians. They deserve justice, too.

The problem is that Saddam might not give up anything. Like Tacitus said he's a megalomaniac and might just remain silent to any questions. The fact that he knows it is imposssible for him to cut a deal in return for immunity from prosecution will make him less likely to talk. Its a last 'f**k you' to the US and the rest of the coalition, by refusing to help. Its the only thing he can do to damage us now so thats probably what he will do.

That’s certainly a possibility, however I think the fact that he was taken alive after saying he would fight to the end leads me to think his first and foremost consideration has always been his survival. In which case we could use the threat of execution as leverage to get him to give up the goods – i.e. the Baathist insurgents, the WMD programs, the missing people, the looted funds, etc.

It all depends on how much he wants to keep living and whether he has enough useful information with which to bargain for his life.

I disagree on the trial, JKC. It makes the most practical and political sense to have the Iraqis try him, and I doubt they're going to be much more lenient than the Iranians or the Kuwaitis would have been.

I agree with Praktike-- this capture is of great symbolic value, and symbolic value equals real value in a country that was dominated so long not only by Saddam, but by the larger-than-life image of Saddam. There may still be resistance, but at the moment, at least, it won't have a central figure to rally around.

Also, presumably we've been putting a lot of resources into this capture that can now be put to use elsewhere.

I marched against the war, and I've been extremely critical of the "postwar" effort, but I feel the only appropriate comment today is: This is great news for the United States and Iraq, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Another thing - did anyone notice how Iraqi reporters referred to
Saddam in the IGC press conference? Things like "Saddam the tyrant", "the enemy of the Iraqi people," and my favorite, "the ugly man Saddam". It ain't exactly fair and balanced, but I can certainly understand their lack of objectivity in this case.

Saddam captured and Ken White returns within hours of each other. Both are excellent pieces of news.
But do are they somehow connected? I conspire, you decide.

I for one say 'Nice job, Mr. White.'

Now we can focus more of our attention to averting a three way civil war.

I think lefties should be very happy that Hussein was captured. Now he can reveal the full details about those 200 Israelis who didn't show up for work at the World Trade Center on 9/11 (or was it 300 Israelis? I'll have to go back and check the Dean campaign's website).

Wha?

The fact that he knows it is imposssible for him to cut a deal in return for immunity from prosecution will make him less likely to talk.

The smart play is for him to dribble-out valid, and actionable intelligence. It's the only way to stave-off a quick Iraqi death penalty. If your totally uncooperative, then there's no reason to keep you around. You also can't give false information, as that then works against your long term goals--saving your hide as long as you can. The trick is in giving the impression that the information potential from keeping you around is huge. You spend it very slowly. Your future may be pratically zero, but it IS zero if your dead. Instead of a steady stream of intel, look for small (but quite good) pulses over time.

Of course, if Saddam was smart, he wouldn't have played himself into this position in the first place.

Harley:

"Give him time, praktike. Give him time."

Hopefully he'll be history in Jan 2004 when W. fires him after being reelected (:

..."American soldiers tracked a scruffy and haggard Saddam Hussein to a dirt hole..."

It's great news that Iraq's greasy rat has been trapped. But does anyone believe that the person thus described has been the mastermind behind the insurgency?

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".

Joe:

Totally innocent as always...

The kid was torqued that the "Legs" from the 4th ID were involved but did give 'em a grudging attaboy (:

not a bad post on the issue, just a question about this:

"Remember it when the well-fed unfortunates of Guantanamo, with their quality medical care and free Korans, are held up as examples of the utter rot of American ideals.

so would you trade places with them blindfolded in a cage on a beach in cuba for two years in exchange for three squares a day and a book? considering they haven't been charged with a crime and no doubt some of them are guilty of just being in Afghanistan c. november 2001, i don't see how this can be a positive thing. you know jose padilla is living the good life. and ask maher arar about his time in syria.

and how is this the "fun" part?

anyway, thorley winston, good luck with finding those 30,000 liters of anthrax. the truth is out there (check niger, maybe).

Okay, I admit it, I'm glad he's been caught, and especially glad it was done (gasp!) without violence.

Why do you feel that is an admission, Mr. Bergman? This is something for everyone except Baathists and certain Dmeocrat presidential candidates to celebrate. Minds may differ on the effect on violence in Iraq, but does anyone really think it will get now that the Grand Kleagle is being de-liced courtesy of the 4th Infantry?
Hasn't the time long passed when quoting Chomsky is a sign of anything more than intellectual befuddlement? I' betting we'll see Fuming Noam on SNL within the next few months. Any takers?

the one problem that I have with (excessive) gloating over today's news is that its notes of triumph sometimes carry overtones of finality which are misguided and wrong. I think most people on this board will agree that the end goal in Iraq, to the extent that it has been defined, is much broader than the capture (and possible trial) of SH. Granted, this is helpful, but in terms of the larger picture, it does not at all represent the reaching of the end goal. The president, with whom I rarely agree, said as much in his short statement today, and for a change he was exactly right. I think he ought to have a longer statement along the same lines some time soon. To illustrate why I think this should be a point of concern - someone upthread stated how the 'forces of light' have triumphed over the 'forces of darkness'. This is a nice hyperbole, and probably somewhat cheek-in-tongue -and yet, it does seem to imply that there is nothing left to do. Which is not the case at all -the capture of Saddam only closes off a stage of the Iraq project, but does not, in my opinion, represent, or even guarantee, its ultimate success. So, gloating is appropriate, but I think it should be measured - and, maintaining a discussion about where we go from now is not only valid, but IMO absolutely necessary.

WTF. You guys just jump at the chance to take pot-shots at the left.

Howard Dean is the most unhappy person today? Give me a fucking break.

Another thing - did anyone notice how Iraqi reporters referred to Saddam in the IGC press conference? Things like "Saddam the tyrant", "the enemy of the Iraqi people," and my favorite, "the ugly man Saddam". It ain't exactly fair and balanced, but I can certainly understand their lack of objectivity in this case.

Anyone think that this as well as the cheering and dancing when Bremer announced "we got him" will lead to some pooh-poohing their breach of journalistic objectivity?

The "ugly man Saddam" - I like it. Looks a little like Charles Manson donchathink?

Any truth to the rumors that when they were picking lice out his beard, Saddam said "you gonna finish that?" ;)

GFW,

I agree with you totally. That title belongs to Dan Rather, who looked like he had just lost the family farm by betting on a horse race.

It was entertaining to switch between Fox News and some of the other media outlets. I would have thought that every sane person would be happy that a mass murder was captured. I stand corrected.

Matthew G: What's your take on my up-post post (8:10 PM)?

I think it's great that they captured him. And I said so on my blog (follow the link on my name, below).

I am very proud of the military's excellent job in capturing him alive. That rules. Good job, guys. (I should post a followup thanking the troops for not bringing in his corpse.)

I also think it's pretty unbecoming of the right to claim this as "their" victory and as a way of attacking the left, when we're all in agreement that it's great to have him in custody. The idea that the left is unhappy about this is simply false, and is a smear designed to capitalize on a good thing by politicizing it against supposed "enemies."

--Kynn

Any word on who the two guys also found with Saddam were?

RE: Chris in TX: And the reason us lefties are sensitive to being tarred in such a way is that we have been accused of everything from being communists to cyrpto-Islamacists to the creators and distributors of the common cold.

Speaking entirely for myself, I believe that too many who sit at various lengths right of the political fulcrum are viscerally suspicious of the Left failure to articulate a convincing case for the use of ‘soft power’ as an adequate defense against terrorist activity that threatens the security of citizens and the sovereignty of the State. I think it is a deficiency of both style and substance. There is a strong perception that the ’soft power’ position is poorly defined, lacking in credible evidentiary support, and presented with an attitude that is ‘unserious.’ After repeated encounters with the ‘Little Miss American Pie slice and dice deconstructionism’ that too often passes as debate over issues as densely woven with social, cultural, secular and religious threads as any Middle Eastern tapestry, one can be excused for lacking confidence in poorly defined and weakly structured counter-proposals that expose our national security to threat in the vain hope that geopolitical strategies will magically coalesce in an Oz-like splendor of warm and fuzzy global cooperation to do what? Free a country from tyranny? Open an industrial market? Protect a few important bank accounts? Defend the relative value of a theocracy? Facilitate a transition into the modern world? End terrorism? Would you care to wager how long it would take to resolve these issues on an international scale and achieve any significantly greater degree of multi-lateral support than that which we had going in? And try to imagine what the less ethically and legally constrained members of the various terrorist groups would be doing in the meantime? I hope that does not defy anyone’s imagination.

RE: BabyDoc: If socialist politics are such a wonderful utopian panacea for humanity, then why haven't any of the socialist regimes around the world been able to surpass the US in achievements, power or wealth? Not to mention the amount of international charity we provide, both via the government as well as by individual contributions to relief organizations?

Agreed and my problem is what happens to that aid. I would like to see some investigative journalism exposing the extent of corruption in foreign aid contributions. About ten years ago, WSJ published a front page story describing corruption within the World Bank - at the receiving end. The chilling fact is that international aid too often disappears into a black hole. This country is indeed financially generous and where does it go? Why is the Left so cavalier about the international corruption of ’soft power’ that contributes to premature and unnecessary deaths to a degree that is quite possibly more extensive than the overt and highly public acts of terrorism that have riveted our collective attention for two years? Returning to the point above, given the abysmal lack of international accountability in what would seem to be universally supported acts of financial assistance to people in need, what makes anyone think that diplomatic acts, such as negotiated compromise, can be conducted without equivalent failures directly attributable to corruption? Can the Left deconstruct it’s position regarding international corruption in charitable aid and other diplomatic avenues of conflict resolution?

I am numb with the stale stupidity of so-called ‘ethical’ persuasion. This is an engagement that was trivialized by discussion and the Left wanted more?

"Remember it when the well-fed unfortunates of Guantanamo, with their quality medical care and free Korans, are held up as examples of the utter rot of American ideals."

So as long as we provide medical care and free Bibles/Torah/Korans etc. we can ignore the Geneva Conventions? Odd position for you to be endorsing.

This gives the military a success that even Paul Wolfowitz couldn't find a way to screw up.

Extraordinary work by the military indeed. (The military built during the Clinton administration, thank you very much.)

You mean the military pared down by the Clinton Administration, pop. Which paring was begun by Bush I and might be continued even now but for war. The Clintonian military that forced NCOs in my battalion to buy bullets from Wal-Mart for funeral details.

Right, right.

No President has treated soldiers or their families particularly well since Reagan, so please don't try to claim credit for WJC.

A couple of things, flory: First, I'm not saying that at all. Second, the GCand adherence to it are not touchstones of American ideals.

Here's your one warning for violation of posting rules, GFW.

What are the rules? No swearing? Sorry.

Imagine my shock and disappointment, reading today's headlines: Glorious Leader Saddam captured!

Naturally, I sought consolation amongst my America hating leftist pals. First up Comrade Atrios. He hides it well, but the disappointment is clear.

Over to Comrade Kos. Like me, clearly he was distraught at the indignations heaped on the Great One.

Next up, Comrade Drum. The sorrow hung over his once glorious blog, like a shroud.

Even in these sad times, the Left is united in solidarity. Saddam forever! Destroy the tyrant Bush!

Just having fun, Tac. This was a great day for the military, the Iraqi people, etc.; much more so than turkey day.

GFW, yeah, no swearing, there's a link on the top right of the main page. Though personally I'd prefer a little salty language to whatever Steve is trying to do two posts up, that's for sure.

poputonian: Bad call, there. "(The military built during the Clinton administration, thank you very much.)" Too many of us were in the military during WJCs attempt to destroy it. And, yeah, I think at some level in his psyche he really did want to do away with the military. He used it, when it suited him, but he didn't like it. Only through the heroic efforts of a lot of dedicated professionals did our armed forces survive his cuts.

heroic efforts of a lot of dedicated professionals

I hear ya, Dave.

Sovereign Eye,

Normally I refrain from commenting on situations on which I have no data, but I'll give you my intuitive assessment since you asked.

I do not believe that Saddam had command and control of the insurgency. The reason I say that is because I believe that the insurgents have been reduced to a cell-based organization, not a hierarchical military or paramilitary. The people we are fighting now are the dead-enders who have no way out. Their tactics are terrorist; they hope to take away our will to fight so that we will leave Iraq in chaos, in the hope that they can reassert their control.

However, capturing Saddam was important for several reasons:

1. It eliminates the fear of his return, thus freeing many Iraqis to cooperate with the U.S. to end the insurgency.

2. It will give the new Iraqi government an early victory and precious legitimacy.

3. Even though Saddam may not have been giving orders, he did set an example. He sets one still, except that now the example is RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. Sorry, I love Star Trek.

4. It is an incredible morale boost for the soldiers over there. My brother called 30 minutes after it aired on Fox News, and I haven't heard him sound that happy in a long time. Even when Bush came over for Thanksgiving he wasn't that happy (given, he didn't get to see him).

As for Lord Chatham, it is a memorable quote, but it does not apply in this situation. The insurgents are not resisting simply because they want foreign troops off of their soil, they are resisting because they are criminals and we happen to be the ones trying to bring them to justice. When the British left America, those who fought against them were treated as heros. When our troops leave Iraq, those who resisted are still going to be hunted down because of their prior criminal acts. They were never loved by the Iraqi people, merely feared.

It's always a good day when a murderous repressive totalitarian dictator is found looking like a mentally ill homeless drunk. It's too bad the same was never done with Stalin and Mao, who both died fat and happy and in power.

It is tempting at this time to oversimplify and declare that all is well in Iraq. But, truth be told, things are just the same as they were yesterday. There is no effective government in place, there is no economy to speak of, and disorder reigns supreme. Not only that, but the heavy handed tactics of the "occupiers" are alienating rank and file Iraqis.

The violent Sunni minority, who knows they have forever lost their perks and privileges, are going to continue to inflict pain on the Americans in hopes that an early departure will facilitate their return to power. While these Sunnis will not on their own have enough power to affect the US's actions, their continued murderous insurgency will cause the population at large to lose confidence in the Americans ability to provide security. That is a situation that must be continually managed so as not to let the insurgents run wild and multiply, but also to not repress the population with the wholesale arrest of innocents. No easy task, to say the least

But, the real action to watch is south with the Shiites. More and more they are demanding an early American exit in favor of free elections (which they will most assuredly win big). The big fear on our part, however, is that if elections are held too early, an intolerant Shia theocracy will be the result. However, if the Shiites become convinced that the Americans are staying so that they may keep their foot on the throat of Shia Islam, then they will rise up. There have already been massive street protests by the Shia encouraging the Americans to leave. While these protests have not thus far been violent, and while the Shia leaders (particularly Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani), have advocated democracy and non-violence, that situation remains on a knife's edge. If we lose the Shia population (and we will if we overstay our welcome), and the Shia turn violent, then it is 100% over for the coalition. If 150,000 troops can barely contain a ragtag group of Baathists, there is no way they could deal with an insurgency by the majority Shia.

This is a historic day. The leader of a powerful enemy nation is captured and brought *into custody*, rather than strung up on a gibbet. Unlike some of you folks, I don't think an anonymous bullet to the head quite suffices when it comes to despised dictators. Decades of abuse of power touches the lives of literally millions of people - justice should never be about revenge, but about vindication.

Executing Saddam, when & if it happens, will be an afterthought - the life of just one man after the loss of so many. Instead the prospect of a trial, not some kangaroo secret police court but a real, legitimate trial, in which this man is made to face the aftermath of all he has done, offers a much more satisfying and effective form of closure. Put it another way: killing the man means nothing - it is the political figure who needs to be executed. It's a different thing altogether.

A public trial is a very good idea, as a demonstration of western ideals of justice. We'll see if it comes to that.

This really should be a non-partisan day of happiness, both for us here in America and the Iraqis. It seems as though most of the world has reacted with relief and happiness to the news.

Here is a first hand account of Bremer's announcement by a US serviceman and blogger.

For a little more feeling, here is an Iraqi blogger, THE MESOPOTAMIAN, who says:
"Before this, I prayed the traditional prayers of thanksgiving. That I, and the Iraqi people should see this day! This, surely, is the mother of all days for us. The heroes of our valiant Pesh Mergas, and the heroes of the U.S. Fourth division have done it. Now is the time to unleash the Iraqi Counter Terror; now is the time to go for the kill. Let us go after them. Don’t lose this moment. They want to recant and live in equality with the people? they have a chance - otherwise they will have to go. I am too overwhelmed with emotion to write coherently; please excuse me. The foul mouths of the enemies of our people everywhere and the neighboring vultures and hyenas be stuffed with dirt; we will come after you; your time will come."

"Long live the great alliance of Mesopotamia and the United States of America and her allies."

Yeah, what he said. I think. Definitely a different style of rhetoric, but serious enthusiasm. I like his last paragraph.

For a different take on the event, try: Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan

Operation Red Dawn!

Go Wolverines!

I hope Jennifer Gray was there.

Yes, the event has great symbolic significance for Iraquis, particularly if it is followed by a public trial. Cheers to them. And Saddam is truly a cosmic prick, so cheers to the universe.

Beyond that, I can't see that it's going to have substantial effect on the reconstruction, which even uber-hawk Max Boot thinks we're bungling. And while it's a great credit to our military, I really can't see how even the most partisan observer can count this as a credit to Bush. He deserves credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for getting us into the war, but this little episode had precisely nothing to do with him.

And though it's a losing cause, can I just point out that--based on the 2000 election--just over half the (voting) citizens of this country vote Democrat and are thus on "the left." What percentage of that half of the country was anything but pleased by this news, do you think? Everyone above who trumpets the "sadness" of the left about this, based on a (very) few blog posts and comments, is stoking their own hatred in the most blinkered and masturbatory way. And Tacitus, you engage in this very game and then deny it--but it's no accident that purveyors of that sentiment flock to your site.

Hey, Realish -- Go Wolverines!

Really good post Matthew G. Public commentary is so short of practical reality and so long on ethical lapses and theoretical dysfunction. It will be a cold day in the desert before I abandon the strategic objectives of a military operation for the tortured theorizing of a ‘left-out’ ideology.

You're comparing Saddam's Iraq to Hitler's Germany. I protest, I protest!

Matthew G. says:

"The insurgents are not resisting simply because they want foreign troops off of their soil, they are resisting because they are criminals and we happen to be the ones trying to bring them to justice."

How do you know this? How do you know the composition of the insurgency? Sure some of them are criminals released from jail. But if any of the assortment of interviews with insurgents are to be believed, the insurgency is a lot more complex than a gang of criminals or Saddamite dead-enders. This recent article on Falluja demonstrates the complexity of the insurgency. Maybe what they really fear is not jail but loss of Sunni influence in a democratic, Shi'ite-run Iraq? That's not to defend them but it's to point out that we haven't nailed the composition of these people by a longshot. And until we do, we won't be able to defeat them.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c;=Article&cid;=1071272706076&call;_pageid=968332188854&col;=968350060724

Marshall finally has a post up. With a link to Saddam's initial interrogation.

"Remember it when the well-fed unfortunates of Guantanamo, with their quality medical care and free Korans, are held up as examples of the utter rot of American ideals...."

would that include the two juveniles?

Yes.

And weren't you booted from here some time ago? That would be a yes too. Goodbye, Diana.

Elrod,

As I stated at the beginning, the post was based on my intuitive assessment of the situation and not upon data which I do not have available to me.

It is quite possible that the insurgents are comprised of Sunni Muslims who fear an Iraq run by the Shi'ite majority. However, the criminals that I refer to in my post are the Sunni Muslims who comprised the Baath Party and were Saddam's base of power. When I said that they were dead-enders, I was specifically referring to the Sunni who will no longer run the country at the expense of other groups. (Note: I am not referring to ALL Sunni Muslims, merely those who participated in Saddam's murder machine.)

I stand by my post, although I apologize for not being more specific when referring to the criminals and insurgents.

tacite,

good take on today's events. one happy liberal here. i know as a christian i'm supposed to love my enemy and all, but shoot, i'm always in a party mood when a tyrant comes to an ignominious end. pol pot. richard nixon (doh!).

nah seriously. props to the 4ID. there'll be plenty of time to bs about what this does and doesn't mean for the iraqi resistance and american domestic politics tomorrow (monday morning, after all). in the meantime i've still got most of one of the bottles of champanskoye i picked up at billmon's, so i'm sharing it with you guys.

cheers! ching-ching, ching-ching...

Dear Zeke & Tac:

Make that at least two happy liberals.

Interestingly, this may be even a better day for Islam than for the United States.

The humiliation of pretense was and is important.

Still, a great day all around.

I would like to raise two technical issues about the capture of Saddam 1. Spider holes are very, very difficult to find, to see, even in daylight. This was night, about 10:30pm apparently, along side a long dirt driveway...it is possible that by blind luck the soldiers stumbled upon Mr. Hussein's hiding place...but I am coming more and more to believe that our intel led us directly to the this spot...almost like a finger, from a real person, pointing...Here!

Betrayal! (which is not to detract from his being caught, this is what good intel is all about)

Second, Saddam was such a pathetic and bedraggled figure with that beard....Should we have shaved him? His appearance was the best possible propaganda to destroy Saddam's almost mythic standing in the Iraqi mind. Maybe we should never have given him a razor.

Hey, nice use of the vocative there Zeke.

I have read in a couple places that Saddam's beard was fake-- others seem to think it's real. I dunno.

Regardless, I guess removing the beard helped make his identity more convincing to those who might be skeptical that it was really him.

Plus, he might have been hiding WMD in that thing.

"Yes, and Betrand Russell calculated that JFK and Harold Macmillan were greater monsters than Hitler. Moral stupidity is no bar to achievement in academia"

Or, to be more precise, being a brilliant linguist or formal logician doesnt prevent you from being morally blind.

BTW, Im still ululating. This is great news.

"Beyond that, I can't see that it's going to have substantial effect on the reconstruction,"

Biggest obstacle to reconstruction is security situation. Resolving that requires Iraqi participation as troops, informers, etc. Many Iraqis have been reluctant to cooperate out of fear of return of Saddam, which is now no longer possible.

"...almost like a finger, from a real person, pointing...Here!"

Yep, and the rat knew it, too. “In the last three to four weeks, our forces have been able to capture people we’ve been hunting all summer,” said Lieut. Colonel Steven Russell, the commander of the 4th’s 1-22 Infantry Regiment. “This was the inner circle, and we were taking pieces out of it.” Last week they could tell they were getting closer and closer. “Four days ago, an individual was captured that led to the capture of the man we believed was Saddam’s right-hand man,” Russell told Time. “He was captured two days ago. Information he had led to information that led to the capture of Saddam Hussein.”

Makes me wonder if he was out of places to hide and people who would hide him. The master of ducking and dodging ran out of places to run to.

The Telegraph story about Atta and al-Qaeda has a link at the bottom of the page to an earlier story on why Nidal was killed--because he refused to train al-Qaeda fighters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$YH5NQLXQ03PM5QFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml

[New tin foils hat territory]

Saddam was not hiding...he was being held captive.

[/new tin foil hat territory off]

Oh...and...

Go Wolverines!
(Piss in the radiator Danny.)

Classic American cinema.

Found this moonbat (yeah, I read Little Green Footballs) over at Joanne Jacobs education blog. Guess he didn't feel up to airing his opinion to the big boys. Pity, as it would have been a blast reading along as you guys cremated him. As it was, the best I could do was to ask him please to move to Paris and vote in their elections. Sorry. Maybe he'd appreciate talking with some of your playmates, Tacitus. Ken? Mac?Dave? Somebody? Anybody...

"Now that Saddam has been found and is alive and well, we need to apologize to him for killing his sons, knocking down his statue and making him live in a hole in the ground. And he needs to be restored to his rightful place as head of Iraq.

After all, it turns out he was telling the truth. There are no weapons of mass destruction. Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld, are the ones who lied. They're the ones who need to step down.

If Saddam needs to be punished for being a tyrant, just put him in charge of Iraq. After the mess the Americans have made of things, that would be punishment enough.

Posted by Robert Wright at December 15, 2003 01:27 PM "

That's JoanneJacobs.com

dave'swife:

You're making that up, right?

Pleeeze tell me you're making that up. Pleeeeze, pleeeze...

P.S.

Haven't seen or heard Dave since you put out the APB. He must be out shopping ???

Found this moonbat...

yup. if he thinks saddam should be restored, i'd say left and right, "lib" and "auth", would all agree with your moonbat label. maybe he's a larouchie. of course there's something to be said for dubya and rummy stepping down - hey, even a broken clock's right twice a day, right?

Saddam's beard... he might have been hiding WMD in that thing.

LOL, jake. yeah, i bet there were some nasty bioweapon vectors in there!

Tacitus. Ken? Mac?Dave? Somebody? Anybody...

Do I look like a mental health care professional? 'cause that's the only sort who ought to be taken him on...

Do I look like a mental health care professional?

It's the gentle, positive, affirming way you share with us that makes you seem so, Mac. ;)

...and how does that make you feel MattK?

Tell us about your parents...

For my two cents, our buddies the Israelis learned long ago that insurgencies aren't stopped by decapitation. It's not that surprising that we caught Saddam (well, the surprising part is alive), any more than a military victory in the conventional phase of the war.

I've never been partial to the Iraq==Vietnam equation, because to my mind, Lebanon is a better example. If the USA left tomorrow, which I am not recommending, wouldn't there be civil war by the end of the week? The fall of Saddam may dampen the enthusiasm of the Ba`ath Party to clear us out, but on the other hand it might encourage other groups to get us out of the way. This can only be stopped if we somehow impress upon everyone that the rule of law and respect for minority rights is in the cards, no matter who has the biggest militia. (If the Shia redistrict the Iraqi Parliament on Tom DeLay's principles, it'll be a huge fight.) This task doesn't get much easier, Saddam or not.

[Off main topic of post: The Telegraph bought a bunch of nonsense about Iraq and terrorism; no intelligence agencies agree. Next up: a report on $50 million in a Nigerian bank, just waiting for the right claimant.]

This is a historic day. The leader of a powerful enemy nation is captured and brought *into custody*, rather than strung up on a gibbet.

Well, he wasn't the leader of the nation anymore, and its hardly the first time -- even in the last decade -- that that's happened to the since-deposed leader of a powerful enemy nation.

Biggest obstacle to reconstruction is security situation. Resolving that requires Iraqi participation as troops, informers, etc. Many Iraqis have been reluctant to cooperate out of fear of return of Saddam, which is now no longer possible.

I don't think its any less accurate to say "Many Iraqis have been reluctant to challenge the United States, out of fear that if they did successfully do so, Saddam might return to power, which is no longer possible."

Rest assured I won't tire of deleting or freely altering your posts. Banning may be a crapshoot in a world of dynamic IPs, but that doesn't make it an impossibility. Go be foolish elsewhere.

Diana:

A juvenile will kill you as dead as an adult.

Further, healthy, street wise 15 year olds should hardly count as juveniles. They can do a lot of damage -- and do -- and get away with it under that juve tag. Check your local paper.

If Dave's out shopping, why are there 3 less beers in the fridge now than this morning? The gig is up, guys. No more covering for one of your own. I'm headed into that no-woman's land known as Dave's home office. For his sake, there better be a small blue velvet box somewhere in that mess he calls 'work'!

Dave's wife,

We were all with him earlier - helping him with gift ideas for the perfect wife. He seemed rather indecisive and in need of some time to continue his research. I would guess that he is seeking professional sales consultants in order to find the perfect gift for you.*

*Dave, you owe me big time, bruddah.

Tacitus,

I am glad to read your comments about the KLA thugs. Unfortunately, some of the neoconservatives and neoliberals in the Blogosphere are actually still supporting Bill Clinton's illegal war in Kosovo.

I did a blog entry some weeks ago related to this topic - It is about Wesley Clark's ties to Osama bin Laden terrorists.

It is clear that the Clinton/Gore administration had indirect ties to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Their policies aided the terrorists who would later attack us.

Classy, Aakash.