There was an Iraqi version of "The Simple Life"? Who Knew? I guess the media convergence thing really is getting out of hand...

Nice job, boys.

Strange, I'm not sure if I should be sad that they didn't just shoot him or happy that he can be put on trial.

Either way its good news for everyone involved in Iraq.

By the way, does anyone know where he will be tried?

Daniel,

You're exactly right on your final thought, I believe this is the first 'Big Fish" since Napolean to be taken alive. I cannot imagine the uncomfortability of the heirs of Europe's first dictator.

Gee, I wonder how Salam Pax is taking the news.

Looks like "Georgie" just might know what he's doing after all, eh Salam?

Oh well, I'm sure he'll find a sympathetic shoulder to cry on at 'The Guardian'.

I would like to see Bush come out and say there will be no international trial of Saddam. That the inability of Modern International Tribunals to truly punish evil men with the death penalty disqualifies them from dealing with Saddam.

What I would really like to see is Saddam get a death penalty conviction from an Iraqi Tribunal, and a death penalty conviction from an American Federal Court for Saddam's attempt on Bush 41.

Doesn't the bearded Saddam look a bit like Karl Marx?!?

While I have no problem with hanging this piece of filth by his heels in the public square, I would be willing to settle for life imprisonment and use the threat of a capital sentence to get his cooperation in (a) finding out the locations and structures of the Baathist insurgents (in so far as they are organized), (b) whether or not he had WMD programs (or just wanted people to think he had them) and if so what happened to them, and (c) the billions of dollars he looted from the Iraqi people that should be used for their reconstruction.

Trent,

Regarding your 41 comment: Very kind of Shakespearing moment, don't you think?

In fairness to the left; Said someone else of a group of 'rebels':

"Today will be a day long remembered..." (g)

Dennis writes: "Gee, I wonder how Salam Pax is taking the news."

He has an audio thingy up as part of the Guardian's coverage of the capture. Why not go find out?

The Iraqi Governing Counsel has been unable to reach consensus in regard to what form their new government should take. Perhaps they can work together to sucessfully prosecute Saddam, it would be a start in the right direction. If the Iraqis can take ownership, the calls for internationalization with become irrelevant.

I apologize. Correction: "will become irrelevant"

Dennis writes:

"Looks like "Georgie" just might know what he's doing after all"

Um, no. Saddam's capture, about which we should all be very very pleased, reflects the professionalism and determination of the armed forces presently stationed in Iraq. Hats off to all of them.

How, exactly, does their work eliminate the history of the past eight months? Wasn't the first "Mission accomplished" banner still premature? Wasn't Rumsfeld still wrong to fire Shinseki? Haven't the administration's foreign policy advisers been at loggerheads, and operating a singularly uncoordinated shop for some time now? And what shall we say about sending an envoy to Europe seeking debt forgiveness only two days before very publicly shutting those countries out of reconstruction contracts; or the now amply demonstrated fact that the admin never did any serious planning for postwar reconstruction until well after the occupation had begun -- and more recently has been seeking advice from the Israelis (!) about how to put down an uprising, and on that advice doing things like bombing the buildings of suspected militants and surrouding entire towns with razor wire.

Saddam's arrest is great news -- one very important task accomplished. But the occupation has been (and remains) much harder than it had to be because of poor planning and poor leadership from the White House.

Wow. Per JonH I went and listened. Salam is a bigger shmuck than I had every imagined...which is surprising given my prior opinion of him. You could hear Salam forcing himself to say this was a good thing. What a Yutz. Lileks was right.

Yes, TedL, I reflect on the utter incomptence of the Bush Administration every time something like the capture of Saddam occurs.

I reflected upon it when the U.S. crushed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan without the massive bloodshed, military quagmire and humanitarian disaster predicted.

I reflected upon it when it became apparent that the Osama Bin Laden lies in a nameless grave of a cave in Tora Bora.

I reflected upon it when our troops secured Baghdad and Iraq without the massive bloodshed, military quagmire, humanitarian disaster, refugee crisis, ecological disaster, massive Arab uprising...did I forget anything?...that was predicted.

And now, eight months...EIGHT MONTHS later, because Iraq does not conform to the arbitrary utopian vision of those predisposed to find fault in anything Satan Bush and His Evil Minions do we are supposed to throw up our hands, admit International ANSWER was right all along, and vote for Howard Dean.

And imagine talking to the Israelis about Arab terrorist tactics! What's up with that? Obviously Bush should be talking to the government of Costa Rica about Arab terrorist tactics. Go figure.

If you have any more D.U. memes, feel free to throw them out there.

This should wrap up the insurgency for good. Democracy and Freedom? Right around the corner.
Mission Accomplished.

Are we sure that is really him?

Anyway, Good on yah 4ID.

Ted L wrote:

How, exactly, does their work eliminate the history of the past eight months?

It doesn’t but rather it is the culmination of eight months of steady and often uncredited progress being made in Iraq.

Wasn't the first "Mission accomplished" banner still premature?

Nope, it was raised to signify the end of major combat operations in Iraq.

Wasn't Rumsfeld still wrong to fire Shinseki?

Nope, getting rid of Shinseki made it easier to push through modernization of the armed forces which is something that we will need for the future.

Haven't the administration's foreign policy advisers been at loggerheads, and operating a singularly uncoordinated shop for some time now?

Probably not.

And what shall we say about sending an envoy to Europe seeking debt forgiveness only two days before very publicly shutting those countries out of reconstruction contracts;

I would say “read the actual directive instead of setting up strawman arguments.”

or the now amply demonstrated fact that the admin never did any serious planning for postwar reconstruction until well after the occupation had begun

Burn strawman, burn.

-- and more recently has been seeking advice from the Israelis (!) about how to put down an uprising, and on that advice doing things like bombing the buildings of suspected militants and surrouding entire towns with razor wire.

Gee we sought the advice from people who deal with terrorists on a daily basis about how to deal with terrorists. Imagine that.

Aw, now Mr. Winston - we have to mark this momentous occassion. Mr. 'Ted' is this blogs historic : First of the "buts".

He, at least, had the courage to give his "Yes, But" - loathsome and dispicable as it might be. Where, now, the legion of discordant that would normally have the thread ticker up to 100 this many hours into a post?

Kudos to you, Mr L, in chosing to demonstrate the courage of your convictions when the rest of us sad, mislead, simpletons can only find joy, and not the necessary 'modifiers' that would mark us as sensible men.

And well done, indeed, to the "Steadfast and Loyal".

Due respect to everyone here, but yeesh. Whatever happened to nuance? As a democrat who opposes Bush, but supported the Iraq War, here's my take: The war was morally just and strategically necessary, and there is real progress being made in the aftermath. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration's preference for American unilateralism, disdain for the UN, and staggering inability to hide those feelings have made the job tougher than it needed to be, as have the bureaucratic infighting and overly-optimistic predictions for the post-war situation.

Capturing Saddam is a HUGE step towards securing the peace in Iraq, and finding the info on WMDs, al-Qaeda connections, etc. My one and only feeling upon hearing the news was joy and satisfaction, until I started seeing all the arrogant and ignorant political gloating from Bush supporters and the stubborn and ignorant "ya, but"-ing from Bush opponents on boards like this. I suppose it's naive, but I sure wish we could have gone at least a day without trading pot shots and rationalizations.

Since such bipartisan happiness seems to be impossible, I'll instead just sign off with this suggestion to people on both sides of the debate: you can be thrilled that Saddam is in custody and hopeful for the future of Iraq without thinking Bush is the Second Coming.

So, Bush-haters - feel free to be happy today. And Bush-lovers - this doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of valid criticisms of Bush.

Oh, btw, I want to be clear that I'm referring to the reactions in the Comments section here, not to Daniel's initial post. I almost invariably find his blog entries to be honest, respectful, and insightful.

There is no doubt that Bush scored a big victory today. Whether or not he can translate that into a winning campaign, is something that we can decide tomorrow. It's hard not to rejoice at the downfall of an evil man, and there's no need to hold back about it. Just because Bush believes something, doesn't mean that it's not true. Just because Bush accomplishes something, doesn't mean that it wasn't a success. Today is a big success for America, Iraq, and GW Bush. In a few days, when the euphoria dies down then we'll see if he has the will to carry through the rest of the program. This comes at an awful good time for the Administration, they needed a victory like this to balance some of their muddling and blunders. This seems to fit the bill perfectly.

A great day to be an American.

Even Joe Leiberman thinks so. He keeps proving -- over and over -- that he's the only Democrat worthy of, and capable of handling, the solemn responsiblity of defending this country.

Here's to America and liberty for the Iraqi people. Heck, I'll even throw a bone to Joe Leiberman.

Well said, Oldman. Spats we can (and will) have another day.

and I suppose that means I have to close with a "Merry Christmas" to you, as well. Fair enough. No snide remarks then, just warm regards.

Mr. Wellesley,

We'll cross wits as you say another day. Today, we are all Americans. Except of course, for those that aren't. ;-) Holidays are a time that should transcend petty individual differences. After them, we can go back to tearing each other apart. Until then, Wellesley a merry X-mas to you and yours. :-D

Time's up, Saddam!

Its a great day for the Yanks, the Birts, the Spanish, the Poles, the Aussies, the Italians and all of those other members of the coalition I've forgotten to recognize.

Nevertheless, the Bush Administration's preference for American unilateralism, disdain for the UN
--------------------------------------
1) Once again, a redefintion of the word "unilateral"

2) And once again, substituting "UN" for "France and Germany"...

If I only had a nickel for everytime etc. etc.

I had predicted before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein would chicken out and agree to move to a agreed upon safe haven. Thus, it surprised me when this did not occur. Yesterday’s surrender without a fight by this cowardly man makes me think that the behavior of France and the other Old Europeans encouraged him to remain in power. Saddam likely thought the French would place sufficient roadblocks in front of the United States. Eventually we should cut the French some slack. In the meantime, though, we are compelled to rub their faces in the mud. They must pay a huge price for stabbing us in the back.

The wiser heads in the Democrat Party, after Saddam's capture, have resigned themselves to the probability of George W. Bush’s reelection. They have bigger fish to fry---the fight for the very heart and soul of their party. If nothing else, people like Robert Rubin, James Fallows, Brad DeLong and even Paul Krugman are free traders. Their economic views hold little sway in today’s national Democrat Party. Sadly, The crazies are marginalizing the Democrats and rendering them irrelevant. As I’ve said previously, the Bill Clinton of 1992 wouldn’t stand a chance for the party’s current nomination.

David-

Paul Krugman may be a free trader, but he is also one of the crazies marginalizing the Democratic Party. As long as substantial portions the Democratic message are delivered by people like Krugman, you will find Republicans in the White House.

"You're exactly right on your final thought, I believe this is the first 'Big Fish" since Napolean to be taken alive."

Hirohito? Perhaps Noriega?

Slobodan Milosevich was also taken alive. Though Saddam is the 'biggest fish' to be captured alive.

For comments from another crazy liberal Bush-hater, see George Will's column this morning.

He describes the Bush policy re reconstruction contracts as: "a tantrum tarted up as foreign policy."

Oh yes, and to take just one more voice (of many), that liberal pacifist Max Boot:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-boot14dec14,1,6156120.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary.

Steve in Corona,
Are you suggesting that the Bush Admin. doesn't actually have any disdain for the U.N.? Man, are conservative Bush supporters ever gonna be disappointed - and shocked - when they hear that.

Yeah, Ted, I'm sure you and Will are real close on Foreign Policy. Way to cherry-pick, genius.

Hint: Your ideas are supposed to have merit *on their own*

I would just like to thank you for your dignified and mature commentary on this momentous occasion. As usual, Dan Drezner shows he is a man of class.
In contrast to the "intelligent" juvenile gloating provided on the right by the likes of Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit & co. -- supposedly middle aged grown-ups, all.

Can you imagine a situation where Hitler's death has just been announced -- and contemporary pundits cheapen this historic occasion by more than anything else posting gleeful references to Neville Chamberlain supporters?

MARCU$

um, Marcus? What was said is important. I'm sure I wouldn't know - but I beleive they have entire departments at universities devoted to " things said in the past"

“Paul Krugman may be a free trader, but he is also one of the crazies marginalizing the Democratic Party. “

Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong are between a rock and a hard place.
They are tenured professors within a liberal academic milieu. This is why I believe they go so out of their way to blast the Bush administration. These guys desperately desire to please their fellow colleagues. “Look at me, aren’t I a true Liberal?” is their unrelenting message. But they are essentially Bill Clinton 1992 New Democrats---and that will not be in season in 2004.

If there were still large numbers of people running around in 1945 saying we should have listened to Neville Chamberlain, I can well imagine there being some gloating at their expense. But the appeasers of those days were quicker studies than the ones we're stuck with now.

Greg makes a seemingly well balanced comment that Bush isn't all bad or good but adds another log to the "unilateral" fire liberals keep burning to bash Bush.

News flash to all lefties: "UNILATERAL" means doing something "alone". Even though Bush could not get corrupt French, German and Russian leaders (with their own political problems at home) to go along with the US, more than ONE OTHER country did.

So stop being rhetorically cute but intellectually corrupt. Bush got many important leaders to support the effort. That he didn't wait for everyone to get on board a legitimate effort is something called "leadership".

I know that giving up years of playing parse the "is" with your ideological soul mate Clinton is tough. However, to misuse one of the left's favorite phrases from that period: Time to "move on" isn't it?

Hah.

Well put, JAG.

You know, for some strange reason, I'm having a hard time repressing my joy.

Brendan...I was responding to those who only equate the UN with France and Germany..you know, the same ones who use the term "unilateral" to describe our 60 nation alliance..

USA, England, Spain, Poland, Italy etc. = unilateral

All of the above but add France is somehow OK..

As to USA disdain for the UN..It seems we spent a lot of time trying to show the UN the wisdom of being willing to enforce the resolutions it passed over the years towards Saddam..

Now, if you equate UN disdain with the USA subjecting our national security interest to the whim of a French veto..well, that is a different issue, isn't it?

Steve,
You were criticizing Greg for saying that "Nevertheless, the Bush Administration's preference for American unilateralism, disdain for the UN, and staggering inability to hide those feelings have made the job tougher than it needed to be."
The U.N. is set up so that each of the five permanent Security Council members has a veto. The U.S. has exercised this prerogative many times (frequently on resolutions dealing with Israel). If you refuse to deal with the U.N. because you're annoyed that a permanent member may veto your resolution, then I'd say that's the functional and diplomatic equivalent of disdain.
You seem peeved that the U.N. did not simply approve U.S. demands. They did, of course, pass our first resolution, but even John Negroponte, Bush's U.N. ambassador, conceded that the resolution did not authorize immediate resort to force against Iraq, but rather was a sign that if Saddam didn't comply, the U.N. would meet to decide what form the drastic consequences could take. Then, you'll recall, Bush pledged to go back to the U.N. for a second resolutions explicitly authorizing force, but broke that pledge and went to war without it, because he knew he'd lose. Contrary to your suggestion, my recollection is that the administration was having a very difficult time lining up Security Council votes, that Russia was equally likely as France to use its veto, and that China was a probable no vote as well.
You may think that was all outrageous, but that's how it is in diplomacy and international affairs: you don't always get to have your way. Sometimes people disagree with you. Sometimes those people include three of the five permanent Security Council members. If, when two and possibly three vetos are threatening your resolution, you pick up your resolution and go home, then yes, you are exhibiting disdain for the U.N.
I have no quibble with your assertion that we should not subject U.S. national security interests to the whim of a French veto, but as you should realize, invading Iraq had nothing to do with U.S. security interests. As you probably know, the campaign in Afghanistan, which was a matter of national security interest, was supported by both France and Germany, but nevertheless has been weakened by the Bush administration's decision to take troops out of Afghanistan for use in Iraq.
As for unilateralism, while it's not the correct term for the Iraqi invasion, Greg didn't say it was. He said the administration has a preference for unilateralism. I agree - in fact, the administration has loudly declared its intention - its policy - to act on its own whenever it feels that is necessary. Bush would have invaded Iraq by himself if no one had joined in. (What we got was really a bilateral operation. Your reference to a "60 nation alliance" is just silly, though, as if the vast majority had contributed anything more than a tiny token.)
As far as I can see, therefore, Greg was absolutely right: the Bush administration prefers unilateralism, disdains the U.N., and fails to hide those feelings.

Mr. Thomson,

In the spirit of the holidays, just a brief reminder. When being confronted with evidence that doesn't fit our expectations, the wise thing to do is re-evaluate our expectations. The second pertinent point is that wishful thinking about your opponents will fall on their swords conveniently is rarely gratified.

There is no reason to believe that any democrat has conceded the 2004 elections, publicly or in their own minds. Wishful thinking to the otherwise, even the White House expects a close race. Yes, getting Saddam is a boost the White House but only if things get better here on out and Bush is given the credit. Polls on the American public seem to indicate rejoicing, but not some sort of wholesale conversion to Bush's policies. Very few people had their minds changed by this one. I suggest you stop predicting other people do exactly what you need to feel vindicated. If nothing else, it's a piss poor winning strategy. Happy holidays, Thomson.

“There is no reason to believe that any democrat has conceded the 2004 elections, publicly or in their own minds. Wishful thinking to the otherwise, even the White House expects a close race.”

Ever heard of George Stephanopoulos? He has already publicly stated his opinion that president Bush should win reelection. Also, the harsh and justified rhetoric of Senator Lieberman is nothing less than a fight for the very soul of the Democrat Party. He obviously considers the struggle for the Presidency to be of secondary importance. The Bush White House must premise its actions as if the election will be tight. It is simply good strategy not to take anything for granted.

Only a legitimate tragedy can truly jeopardize Bush’s chances. Even the Liberal media poses only a minor threat. America must experience either an economic debacle or a foreign policy disaster. Or, somebody will have to find some scandalous pictures of George W. Bush enjoying gay sex with a farm animal! Nothing less will do.

Am I the only one who was struck by similarities between Saddam and everyone's favorite Crazy Uncle Ted? And no, I'm not talking about TedL, though the coincidence is worth noting, if only to avoid being accused of making cute implied comparisons.
http://www.unabombertrial.com/players/kaczynski_synop.html

As for TedL... compared to any standard other than perfection, the liberation of Iraq has been a stunning success. The nightmare scenarios of mass civilian casualties, thousands of American losses, Arab street uprisings, mass starvation, millions of refugees, etc failed to materialize, so now it's a failure because we didn't wave a magic wand and fix everything in a long weekend. Has everything gone perfectly? Of course not; only fools expect perfection, and nobody is claiming that everything is going perfectly - if they are, I lump them with the people who trumpet every imperfection as a sign of abject failure. Your opinion is noted, and I'll just assume that you won't be swayed by any evidence to the contrary, which makes you irrelevent.

The history of the past eight months is success, a big fascist destroying victory and freedom sundae with a live Saddam in US custody as the cherry on top. The biggest problem we face is complacency in the face of such a huge success - and the administration is staying focused and correcting their errors with astounding speed.

We concluded major combat operations in weeks (that's the elimination of the Iraqi army as an opposition force; the point at which large formation maneuvers became irrelevent; you seem unclear on the concept). Rumsfeld is a brilliant SecDef by any standard.

Prior to taking action, yes, the administration does seem to put out a wide variety of options and opinions that fall within the general overall strategy. Odd that, once action is required, all of that fractiousness and countervailing opinion seems to go away. It's almost like they're looking at problems from different points of veiw and figuring out the best approach. What shall we say about a nuanced, complex foreign policy?

As for planning, clearly, they had a plan; that the first step was "check your assumptions against the situation on the ground" is a GOOD THING. The alternative is going into a situation that may or may not be what you've planned for, appropriate or not. The UN had a plan - those refugee camps are still empty. Not publishing the plan in advance doesn't mean there was no plan; it means that we're not interested in telegraphing our moves in a situation where there are still hostile forces working against us, in and out of Iraq.

There was extensive contingency planning prior to the war; I offer up our short error-correction loop as evidence of this. Governments and military establishments see change as riskier than continuinig with a policy that is in place - even when there's strong evidence that the policy needs to be changed. That our tactics and strategy have been altered numerous times in the pas eight months is not a sign of failure, it's a sign that the administration is keenly aware of the dangers, and of the things we don't know we don't know, and they've PLANNED for the inevitable discovery that some things didn't go as expected. We're a damned sight closer to our best case scenario than we could be based on luck, and the only way to spin it as a failure is to redefine the worst case scenario and claim that perfection beyond the best case scenario was not only possible, but expected.

but as you should realize, invading Iraq had nothing to do with U.S. security interests
--------------------------------------------
You see, this is where you stumble and drop the ball. I will not argue semantics of the word "disdain" as to our dealings with the UN. But I will argue this..because you state your opinion as fact.

I think eliminating Saddam and his sons has made my family and childrens' life and future more secure. There are millions of Americans who agree with me, including the current President and Congress.

There are millions who agree with you, and you get to express your opinion at the ballot box along with myself. (I assume you are American)

It all comes down to the fundamental issue. Do you believe we are in a war against terrorism. A war that will be fought for many years, on many fronts and in many ways. I say we are in such a war.

George Soros has said it is his purpose in life to see that Bush is defeated in 2004. I think that is rather pathetic, but to each his own on that score.

However, Saddam and other terrorists have made it clear their purpose in life is to kill as many Westerners (and Jews) as they possibly can. And this is not idle sentiment, but rather a desire to spend the time, money and resources to see their goal actually proceed with action.

To such men as these, we must imprison or kill them as soon as possible. And I want my elected leaders to be dedicated to that goal...UN or no UN.

Brendan,

"... invading Iraq had nothing to do with U.S. security interests." That is, prima facie, an untrue statement. It is in the interests of the US for the UN to have some credibility. It is in the interests of the US to discourage states from sponsoring terrorism. Et al - though last but not least, oil supplies are a vital security interest to the US, and will remain so until the next fuel shift. It's debateable whether or not we have a national interest in squashing totalitarian regimes, or if we have some moral obligation to impose democracy on the world, but our need for oil is not.

And yes, if you want to put it that way, I am saying BLOOD FOR OIL.

Steve,
I'm really curious... where did you get the idea that Saddam is/was one of the "terrorists" who "have made it clear their purpose in life is to kill as many Westerners (and Jews) as they possibly can. And this is not idle sentiment, but rather a desire to spend the time, money and resources to see their goal actually proceed with action."
What evidence do you see for that assertion? Saddam certainly attacked the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs, the Iranians, the Kuwaitis, but when did he ever attack the U.S.? Did he do it during the 1980's, when the U.S. sold him weapons? The only Westerner he ever deliberately tried to kill, it seems, was George H.W. Bush.
Don't tell me you're one of these people who thinks Saddam was behind 9/11 - you know that even Pres. Bush has admitted there's no evidence for that, right? And you know that the evidence that he had so much as a distant connection to al Qaeda is extremely weak and vague? And that bin Laden indicated that he had no interest in working with Saddam?
Seriously, what are you thinking of? What efforts did Saddam ever undertake to harm the U.S. or its citizens? Because, other than claiming that Saddam was allied with al Qaeda, the Bush admin. has never cited any such efforts, and you'd think they would have, given how they wanted to drum up support for the war and all.
Or maybe you're the last person left who hasn't realized that we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the faulty pre-war reports of WMD programs were based on slanted intelligence and unreliable claims by Iraqi exiles - is that it?

Brendan..the world, and yes, US citizens are safer for their future now that the Saddam regime is ended. That is my belief and I think the belief of millions.

You may not believe that and if so, then Howard Dean is your man since it seems he thinks Saddam and his sons' regime are indifferent to the cause of world peace. Vote accordingly and see you in Nov 2004!

You obviously do not think we are in a war against terrorism versus radical Islamic extremists who want to see my son and wife's throats slit.

I choose not to be nearsighted in these things..Sure Bin Laden was not much of a threat to Americans here until it was too late either.

As I said, anyone who would not hesitate to kill millions of Americans if possible..anyone who would finance, execute or otherwise support a plan to perhaps drop a dirty bomb in a major US city..is a security threat. They must be killed first or imprisoned.

Lynch - for god's sake, the man ran a police state - A POLICE STATE. Ya think maybe, just maybe, that he could have conducted just about any damn thing he pleased. Wheter or not your simple self was aware?

Yeah - it probably *never* occurred to him to do something about the americans. You know, the one's casuing him all that trouble. Is that it?

Crawl back under your rock.

Steve,
Yes, I DO think we're in a battle against radical Islam, but what you don't seem to have grasped is that Saddam was not connected to that battle. You see, Pres. Bush tried to convince us that he was connected to it, but there's been no EVIDENCE that he really was - just innuendo and faulty intelligence. See, I really do want us to win this struggle against radical Islam - that's why I wanted us to stay focused on capturing bin Laden. Instead, the Bush administration took forces away from Afghanistan, failed to find bin Laden, and went chasing after Saddam instead. That's not really fighting radical Islam. The actual, credible evidence suggests that the two biggest supporters of al Qaeda, aside from the Taliban, were elements connected to the governments of 1. Saudi Arabia and 2. Pakistan. But we haven't invaded those countries, have we? In fact, we've been supporting those governments - and now Afghanistan is slipping quickly back into the conditions that led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place.
Saddam, meanwhile DID hesitate to "kill millions of Americans" - in fact, for 12 full years after we forced him out of Kuwait, he didn't do ANYTHING (sorry for the caps - I'm html-ignorant) to kill Americans. Didja hear about Iraqi saboteurs, Iraqi sneak attacks, Iraqi bomb smuggling between 1991 - 2003? No - because there weren't any.
You see, Steve, sometimes presidents lie. Reagan lied, Bush I lied, Clinton lied, and now Bush II is lying as well, about the reasons for invading Iraq. (It's a bipartisan trait.) Try to get in the habit of questioning what you hear from Republican politicians.
And if you actually believe that "anyone who would not hesitate to kill millions of Americans if possible..anyone who would finance, execute or otherwise support a plan to perhaps drop a dirty bomb in a major US city..is a security threat. They must be killed first or imprisoned," then you're going to have your plate full, invading Saudi Arabia (and setting off a holy war in the Middle East), Pakistan, North Korea (and engulfing S. Korea in war), Syria, probably Iran, and maybe others. Now, there are some neo-cons who think the U.S. should do just that. But most of us think they're nuts, and that we should try containment, inspections, soft power, diplomacy, and genuine homeland security (which is, more or less, what the Bush admin. is now doing with all of the aforementioned countries), and should only invade if it is absolutely essential to the battle against radical Islam - which, in the case of Iraq, it definitely was not. As Gen. Anthony Zinni, a former envoy to the region, said before the war, Iraq was not a top priority - we had numerous other, more pressing problems in the Middle East.
Saddam was a mostly secular tyrant who was laying plans for regional domination. He was a bad guy. It's better that he's gone. But he didn't have a dirty bomb, he didn't attack Americans, and he wasn't allied with radical Islam.

TommyG,
I see, so I should join you under your rock of paranoia, where we refuse to consider evidence, just unquestioningly accept whatever our leaders say, agree to hate whoever they tell us to, and march blindly off to invade wherever they send us?
Or is it that, as long as someone runs a POLICE STATE, for god's sake, we must assume that they are doing the worst things imaginable at all times, are always secretly plotting to kill us, and must be overthrown? Even if there's no evidence of that? Even if the IAEA says they don't have nukes, and the IAEA turns out to be correct, and David Kay scours the country unimpeded but can't find a shred of direct evidence of an active weapons programs?
Doesn't it bother you a little that Blix and El Baradai turned out to be right, and that, after all the fear-mongering and the exaggerated claims by the Bush administration, we've now had the run of the place for eight months or more and can't find anything to back up those claims? That Rumsfeld said we knew where the WMD were, but they weren't there? That none of Powell's claims to the U.N. bore out?
If that's good enough for you, then, as I said to Steve, I hope you've got plenty of time, because you're gonna be pretty busy, invading all those police states that actually do have weapons that are now, or may be in the near future, in the hands of parties who maybe, just maybe, wanna hurt Americans. E.g., Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Syria.
Although, Tommy, you should realize that there's an alternative: rather than accepting whatever Bush tells us about a POLICE STATE, we could
1. consider the evidence even-handedly,
2. discount unreliable reports from exiles that get cherry-picked and then funneled directly to the Vice President by ideologues with axes to grind,
3. review the history of the past 12 years, and
4. recognize that we don't have to spin fantasies about what Saddam might be doing under inspectors' noses, because we have a pretty good idea of who's actually plotting and taking actions to harm Americans. It's those radical Islamists in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's ISS, and al Qaeda operatives in various countries. Steve, under that Corona rock of his, correctly identified radical, violent Islamist extremists as our real enemy (he just got confused that Saddam had been part of that enemy). That's what the evidence shows.

Well, we could ask our pilots who tried to enforce the UN decree of the no-fly zone all those years if they agree with your view on Saddam's not doing ANYTHING to try and kill Americans....dut I digress.

Yes, the war on terrorism is quite a challenge. And a democratic Iraq will go a long way to showing these brainwashed (mostly) youths in the countries you mentioned that there is another way to live.

The "we haven't gotten Bin Laden" rhetoric is LAUGHABLE..because three days ago people just like yourself were saying "we haven't gotten Bin Laden OR Saddam Hussein yet"...does the phrase "rope a dope" mean anything to you.

Finally, allow me to flip this coin over. The entire radical Islamic world is in mourning (and anger) that Saddam Hussein has been captured. Isn't that an odd reaction to someone you have no allegiance with?? I know all the talk about Saddam being "secular" but in fact he USED radical Islam to further his desire to see Jews killed didn't he?

You see, I am not going to split hairs about terrorist ideology. If someone wants to see my son's throat slit so he can dance in his blood, for the simple reason that he is an American (and a Christian, god forbid) then he his my enemy in this war. If you want to argue "yes, he wants you dead but he is not allied with radical Islam so is not part of the war on terrorism" then go ahead and enjoy the minority....especially come the elections of 2004

Steve,
Apparently you haven't been reading my posts too closely. I've been asking you what evidence you have that Saddam was actually in league with radical Islamists and was, with them, preparing to strike at Americans.
You've only come up with two things (and hinted at a third), neither of which proves your point:
1. "radical Islam is mourning Saddam's downfall." I don't know if you're aware of this, but the goal of bin Laden and radical Islamists generally is the establishment of strict Muslim rule over the whole Muslim world. Strict Muslim rule is preferable to secular Muslim rule, but secular Muslim rule is vastly preferable to infidels controlling Iraq. Lesser of two evils, you see. Radicals Islamists could mourn someone's downfall without acting in concert or alliegance with that person.
But anyway, how do you know they're in mourning that Saddam was caught? I haven't heard that. Are you just assuming that to be the case? Are you extrapolating from something Bush said in self-justification? Or do you have actual evidence of all this 'mourning' (as distinct from standard, boilerplate statements about how the Great Satan must be driven from the Middle East, which they would have said whether or not Saddam was captured)?
2. "Saddam shot at American pilots." Yes, you got me. Americans who were flying military flights over Iraq itself to contain Saddam's military in Iraq were at risk from Saddam. Unless your son was one of those pilots, though, then Saddam wasn't plotting to hurt your son. (And if he was one of those pilots, then I thank him for his service in helping to keep Saddam's regional ambitions in check.)
3. [Implied:] "Saddam made payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." Now, that's actually true, and certainly an evil thing to do, but a) it has nothing directly to do with the U.S., b) Hamas and Islamic Jihad have never attacked the U.S. or its citizens, and c) it was essentially a publicity/popularity stunt by Saddam. It does nothing to advance your evidence-free, faith-based view that Saddam was in league with radical Islamists.
Meanwhile, you're expanding your own personal war even further: "I am not going to split hairs about terrorist ideology. If someone wants to see my son's throat slit so he can dance in his blood, for the simple reason that he is an American (and a Christian, god forbid) then he his my enemy in this war." Dude, before it was just radical Islamist terrorists, plus Saddam - now it's everyone who'd like to kill your son just because he's American (plus, again, Saddam). Now, leaving aside that there's still no evidence that Saddam himself ever plotted or prepared to do such a thing, there's the problem that the sphere of people who hate Americans seems to be getting wider all the time. Every time a stray bomb kills children in Iraq (or Afghanistan), the U.S. gains new enemies even among the non-radical Islamists. You're sworn to fight these enemies, but every time, in your lust to take on low-priority non-threats like Saddam, you invade another country and bomb its people, you just create new enemies, and heighten the risk that the fallout from your actions will in time be visited upon your son.
Steve, you've become convinced, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Saddam was a threat to Americans living at home, and that he had to be taken out. If you allow yourself to become convinced that the entire Muslim world is your enemy, and that you must fight them, then they WILL BE your enemy. The radical Islamists were a fairly small bunch, but their numbers can grow indefinitely if people are given reasons to hate the U.S. Our actions in going after Saddam were not only unnecessary, but counter-productive, because they were likely to produce even more enemies. We might avoid that in the future, if we maintain a healthy skepticism about our leaders' pronouncements, and insist that we exhaust all other options and examine all the evidence fairly before marching off to war.

Brendan, I have seen the light. The world is NOT any safer now that Saddam's regime is over. In fact, we just made it worse since now these folks are REALLY angry with us.

Please direct me to Howard Dean's website so I can make a contribution and stop the madness.

Yes...What... was...I ..thinking? Must appease...must. never. judge. Country much less safe...

What's that address, Steve?

> I choose not to be nearsighted in these
> things..Sure Bin Laden was not much of a threat
> to Americans here until it was too late either.

Incorrect. Unlike Saddam, Osama B. *did* have a track record of targetting Americans long before Sept.11 2001. Saddam has strictly been a player on his home soil...he has never attacked Americans abroad. The closest thing you have, is the alleged assassination attempt of former President Bush in 1993 but that one isn't clear either.

> And a democratic Iraq will go a long way to
> showing these brainwashed (mostly) youths in
> the countries you mentioned that there is
> another way to live.

Why? After all, tens of millions of Arabs have been exposed to democratic secular capitalism either as Western immigrants (many send money to their relatives back home) or indirectly, by watching satellite TV. What makes you think Iraqis will be more likely to embrace democracy than, say, relatively homogenous and prosperous Arab nations such as Kuwait & Saudi Arabia...? In particular if it's a form of government that has been imposed on them at gunpoint, by a foreign invasion army.

> Yes...What... was...I ..thinking? Must
> appease...must. never. judge. Country much less
> safe...

Only time will tell, but I will paint a possible scenario of how this could yet backfire.

First, Saddam's arrest turns out to be the final nail in the coffin to the Administration's case that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. I would regard this scenario as MORE THAN LIKELY at this point, since virtually nothing has been found to date. This, in turn, means Saddam DID NOT represent a major threat to Western nations and it also invalidates that claim he was a source of WMDs to Al Qaeda & co.. It does vindicate Howard Dean's position, though.

Next, Al Qaeda manages to carry out an Oklahoma City-level attack on U.S. soil sometime before the next presidential election. If this one can be traced back to Afghanistan much like Sept.11 2001, it means the Administration has focussed its "war on terror" efforts on the wrong enemy while diverting money and people from the true enemy -- Al Qaeda and other organisations that have been attacking Americans abroad for 10+ years now. Again, this would vindicate the Democratic position. So I would not say the "Bush doctrine" has won yet.

MARCU$

TommyG,
I see, so Pres. Bush is appeasing North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria? Hey, Bush = Neville Chamberlain! Why does Bush hate America? And you too, Tommy, you're not calling for us to invade North Korea and Iran, so you're clearly an appeaser. After all, anyone who doesn't agree that the only possible option for dealing with a hostile nation is to invade that nation deserves to be labeled an appeaser. North Korea recently kicked out IAEA inspectors, has launched test missiles over Japan, and has verbally threatened the U.S. - therefore, they MUST be invaded, and anyone who refuses to call for immediate invasion, like George Bush and TommyG, is a pansy, liberal, traitorous appeaser.
Or is it that "appeasement" = refusing to support invasions of whichever nations, but only those nations, that George Bush wants to invade? That's it, isn't it? After all, it's not possible that Bush wouldn't tell the truth, or that reviews of intelligence and IAEA reports and the Kay report would show that he was, at the very least, badly mistaken about Iraq. That couldn't ever be.
You know, Steve and Tommy, I don't know how much independent thought you put into your positions, but if your comments here, and the miserable lack of evidence you've adduced to support them, are indicative of the depth and caliber of your deliberation, then you're pathetic excuses for citizens. We don't do ourselves, or our children, any favors by blindly accepting whatever our favorite politicans tell us.

Brendan,

The simplistic worldview of certain pro-war types is certainly amazing. The problem, we are being told, is there is no democracy in the Middle East. Sounds nice in theory, but how do you actually implement "freedom" in practice when the general population tends to be even more anti-Western than their corrupt leaders?! Or how do you promote democratic reforms when support from the existing autocratic tyrants (e.g. Pervez Musharraf) in some cases is needed for winning the "War on Terrorism?"
---
Here is a good column (by WaPo's Fred Hiatt) on this dilemma. It seems this Administration isn't even willing to risk offending Morocco!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A24133-2003Nov30¬Found=true

MARCU$

no, no... You win. I am completely convinced.

So much so that I'm pinning your posts to the refridgerator so that I can reference them again this summer - when I'll need them most as a buffer to the conflicting information that we'll certainly be seeing in the papers by then.

Keep screaming, I've (um...waitasec...got to book-mark this pa...ok) got plenty of ink in the printer cart.

You know, Steve and Tommy, I don't know how much independent thought you put into your positions, but if your comments here, and the miserable lack of evidence you've adduced to support them, are indicative of the depth and caliber of your deliberation, then you're pathetic excuses for citizens. We don't do ourselves, or our children, any favors by blindly accepting whatever our favorite politicans tell us
-----------------------------------------
Thanks Brendan for this. It speaks volumes.

You see, it can be lonely being the smartest guy in the room. At least you have Howard Dean for company. Maybe your job is teaching at a University or somewhere you get a captive audience, but you look quite foolish here.

My position is the same one held by such Bush lackeys as Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden and in fact close to the majority of Democrats, and definitely the majority of American citizens overall.

Now, maybe you have better intelligence than Senator Biden of the Senate intelligence committee...you know, that Bush hack.

Maybe you alone can interpret the remarks of our leaders given to Congress, the UN or directly to the American people over the past several years. We clearly can't be trusted to think for ourselves.

But by all means..continue to call all Americans who rejoice that Saddam's regime of terror is over "pathetic excuses for citizens" because you are painting quite a politically diverse and rather large number of folks with that broad brush.

Like I said, enjoy being the smartest guy in the room. And enjoy your minority political status for the generation to come.

You know, Steve, now he's got me curious. Lynch, just what *is* a day like for such a deeply-passionate "world citizen" that has no convictions other than that other people are mean and stupid? Where's the certainty? Where the solace, or fun?

Paint us a day, Mr. Wonderful.

Stumbled across this again tonight and thought of this thread...some more of the pathetic excuses for American citizens are listed below..(I eliminated the Repubs since we know they all are evil/stupid..whatever..)
-----------------------------------------------
how each senator voted on President Bush's Iraq resolution. A "yes" vote was a vote to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq unilaterally. A "no" vote was a vote to defeat the measure. Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 48 Republicans. Voting "no" were 1 Republican, 21 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

Arkansas Blanche Lincoln (D): Yes
California Dianne Feinstein (D): Yes
Connecticut Christopher Dodd (D): Yes Joseph Lieberman (D): Yes
Delaware Joseph Biden (D): Yes Thomas Carper (D): Yes
Florida Bill Nelson (D): Yes
Georgia Max Cleland (D): Yes Zell Miller (D): Yes
Indiana Evan Bayh (D): Yes
Iowa Tom Harkin (D): Yes
Louisiana John Breaux (D): Yes Mary Landrieu (D): Yes
Massachusetts John Kerry (D): Yes
Missouri Jean Carnahan (D): Yes
Montana Max Baucus (D): Yes
Nebraska Ben Nelson (D): Yes
Nevada Harry Reid (D): Yes
New Jersey Robert Torricelli (D): Yes
New York Hillary Clinton (D): Yes Charles Schumer (D): Yes
North Carolina John Edwards (D): Yes
North Dakota Byron Dorgan (D): Yes
South Carolina Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D): Yes
South Dakota Thomas Daschle (D): Yes Tim Johnson (D): Yes
Washington Maria Cantwell (D): Yes
West Virginia Jay Rockefeller (D): Yes
Wisconsin Herb Kohl (D): Yes

Thank you Ted L. and DennisthePeasant for restoring my faith in the average IQ of US residents. Saddam was a jerk. He was a dangerous jerk if you were within his reach. And we helped make him that way by giving him money, support, and weapons (in violation of a UN arms embargo). So now Bush knows what he's doing because he capped this botched war by interrogating enough people to find a guy hiding in a hole? Gosh, I feel safer already.

Dan, if you really believe that, I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to talk to you about.