Jonathan Adler made some kind and interesting comments about my column on federalism yesterday. I've been out of commission and so was unable to respond, and will be again for a while. But here's my further several cents' worth.

Jonathan says that it is fair to call conservatives hypocrites on federalism when they oppose the federal gun-free schools act as unconstitutional while supporting the federal medical-marijuana ban as constitutional. I will admit that it is hard for me to think of a rationale to distinguish these cases at the moment, and I have become more persuaded by Jonathan's position on the medical-marijuana question since the last time we exchanged comments about it. (I still maintain that the demand that John Ashcroft give up on attempts to enforce the federal law in advance of a definitive judicial ruling on its unconstitutionality was, if anything, more hypocritical coming, as it did, from people who ordinarily believe in judicial supremacy.)

No doubt Adler is correct that many conservatives adopt "constitutional or theoretical rationales for or against federal involvement on a fairly ad hoc basis." Of course, most people, including most conservatives and, I would add, most libertarians, cannot be expected to have fully thought-out, perfectly consistent theories of federalism. If someone wants to argue that most supporters of a ban on partial-birth abortion have not thought through the constitutional and federalist issues involved, I will concede the point without a qualm. If someone wants to argue that the partial-birth abortion ban is unconstitutional or is not consistent with a sound theory of the limits of the federal government, I will engage him in that debate. But if someone is saying that a person who calls himself a federalist and supports the ban (or, say, supports a federal judicial ruling against state laws on sodomy) is a hypocrite--well, the point of my essay was to explain why I thought that claim is false.

Here's my review of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment in that other magazine.

The current issue of Commentary has the letters-to-the-editor in response to Josh Muravchik's outstanding essay on the prevailing campaign of idiocy, asininity and slander towards "neocons" (real and perceived). Some of the letters seem to score real points until you read Muravchik's response. Muravchik thoroughly, incisively and almost brutally smacks back all of the nonsense thrown at Neocons from lefty critics and supposedly objective journalists. In my opinion he only let's one pitch get over the plate. Jacon Heilbrunn writes in an otherwise thoughtful and even-tempered letter that:

"Obviously, [Leo] Strauss does not provide a blueprint for neoconservatism. But it seems fair to say that while not all neoconservatives are Straussians, almost all Straussians are neoconservatives. All of which suggests that neoconservativism may be more complicated than some of its adversaries care to admit.

After addressing many of Heilbrunn's other points Muravchik deals with this one by responding:

"As for Mr. Heilbrunn’s interesting claim that almost all Straussians are neoconservatives, I wonder how he knows."

This was clearly an attempt at civil sarcasm toward a less than adversarial critic (who often writes for Commentary himself). But Muravchik is really giving Heilbrunn something of a free pass. Without getting far into the weeds on what constitutes a Straussian, to say that "most" Straussians are neocons would require a level of uniformity among both neocons and Straussians Heilbrunn cannot demonstrate. Bob Goldwin, Walter Berns, Harvey Mansfield, Martin Diamond, Harry Jaffa, Peter Schramm, Ken Masugi, the late Allan Bloom, to name just a few can fairly be described as Straussians. They can all also be described as conservatives. I can think of nothing that makes them particularly "neoconservative." Indeed, if neoconservatives are supposed to be particulary devoted to foreign policy (another misconception in my book), I'd be at pains to figure out how these guys are neoconservative at all. And, as William Galston's example might indicate, I'm not even sure Straussians are even necessarily conservative, let alone neoconservative.

In other words, when it comes to most Straussians, the conservative ones get called "neoconservative" simply because they fit a journalistic -- i.e. not an analytical or conceptual -- preconception.

If Mr. Heilbrunn would like to send me a note explaining what specifically makes Straussians neoconservatives, I would love to see it and post it here.

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

From a longtime African-American reader of NRO (I know because he's been sending me smart emails for years):

I was born and raised in Chicago, not the Caribbean, but I consider Kwanzaa a load of pseudo-African rubbish, cobbled together in 1966 by an ex-convict with a lavish imagination and time on his hands. It has nothing to do with any established African cultural or religious tradition, and it wouldn't matter to me if it did, because I'm not African--I'm American. My folks came over from Africa, to be sure, but I came from Chicago. My beloved sister celebrates Kwanzaa, God bless her, but I can scarcely think of it without sneering. Puhleeze!

From a reader:

The other reader's response was good, but it skipped over the most offensive notion, common to most Afro-centric ideas, that Kwanzaa supports - that the varying cultures of the entire continent of Africa can be swept into a singular celebration. It never ceases to amaze me how the general population allows Afro-centrists to paint with such a broad brush. It strikes me as a curious form of reverse stereotyping generated by a segment of the African American community that demeans the legitimate cultural heritage of blacks in the United States. Even if that heritage is one that includes slavery.

BBC has been told that Libya had nuclear programme and enrichment of uranium. Also stocks of chemical weapons, aerial bombs loaded with chemical weapons. Biological weapons programme was less well developed. Long range missiles of up to 1,000 km were being developed (in future the range will be no more than 300km). The full accounting of the WMD programme will be very interesting.

This is an interesting and significant development which vindicates both US and UK foreign policy post September 11. Israeli intelligence, which had long claimed that Libya had a nuclear programme, has been vindicated.

From a reader:

Now, what the heck is that, Jonah? You tell me. I'm Caribbean born, and I despise Kwanzaa. Non-sequitur, I know. Kwanzaa is just a secularist bid to rend the black American community from Christianity (which many wrongly view as a European religion) and shovel them into either socialism (check out the principles of Kwanzaa), or Islam (why many BAs believe historically has nothing to do with slavery. Ignorance is bliss, I say; dangerous bliss).

Sending Kwanzaa greetings won't gain President Bush one single vote. Instead, it makes him complicit in the canard about the racism and genocidal tendencies of Christianity and in the fragmentation of American society to which BA racism has been contributary.

That's my bloody .02 worth on the bloody topic! Yes, I'm frosted.

[Name withheld]

[The initial] finding, and the total absence of evidence or argument to support it, struck many as bizarre. Having read the DCSD's report, we ourselves concluded, “The panel's ruling—objectively speaking—is incompetent and shameful.”

On December 17th, Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation published its own response to the DCSD's finding. It is more politely expressed than ours, but comes to much the same conclusion. The ruling is thrown back to the DCSD with instructions to think again. Among a long list of telling criticisms, the ministry says this: “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and...the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”

A Kwanzaa greeting (shouldn't "Kwanzaas" have an apostrophe?) from President Bush:

Presidential Message: Kwanzaa 2003

I send greetings to those observing Kwanzaa.

Celebrated by millions across the world, Kwanzaa honors the history and heritage of Africa. This seven-day observance is an opportunity for individuals of African descent to remember the sacrifices of their ancestors and reflect on the Nguzo Saba. Kwanzaas seven social and spiritual principles offer strength and guidance to meet the challenges of each new day.

During this joyous time of year, Americans renew our commitment to hope, understanding, and the great promise of our Nation. In honoring the traditions of Africa, Kwanzaa strengthens the ties that bind individuals in communities across our country and around the world.

Laura joins me in sending our best wishes for a joyous Kwanzaa.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Daniel Ortega comes to Saddam's defense.

Talk about standing by your product:

A traditional doctor in central Nigeria has been shot dead by a patient who was testing the potency of an anti-bullet charm the herbalist had prepared for him, police said on Wednesday.

Ashi Terfa died when patient Umaa Akor fired a gun at his head two weeks ago in south-central Benue state, police spokesperson Bode Fakeye said.

"Akor went for an insurance against bullets and contacted Terfa to prepare it for him," he said.

"To confirm its efficacy, the herbalist tied the charm around his neck and insisted that Akor should fire a gun at him. The experiment proved fatal for the herbalist and his skull was shattered," he added. "He died immediately".

Fakeye said the suspect had appeared in court for culpable homicide, but had been release on bail.

"The motive to kill could not be established against the suspect since the herbalist asked him to shoot to test the charm," he added.

The belief in withcraft and charms is rife in Africa.

Did you hear what the troops were calling the Sikorsky Blackhawk which Hillary used to tour Iraq? "Broomstick One"

From a reader:

Shirer was absolutely convinced that Hitler and the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag and most historians now think it was the just the work of the insane Dutchman.

I don't know why, but I always had the impression that the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer was a tough slog. One reason might be that I tried to read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire at too young an age and I somehow conflated the two in my mind. Regardless, I'm a couple hundred pages into R&F of the TR and I must say I think it's great, entirely accessible and a real joy to read. If there are any historians out there who know if and how Shirer is considered out of date in some way -- particularly on the subject of Fascism (I don't much care about, say, the military analysis) -- I'd love to hear from you. My own book isn't a historiography so I don't have much time to read about the historians I read, but I would be curious nonetheless.

Just got back from CNN and am digging out. Found something close to 7,000 catalogs (Pottery Barn, Victoria's Secret etc) in my mail. I am astounded that paper, printing and postage are so cheap so as to make sending 5 copies of the same catalog to one household cost efficient -- particularly when we buy nothing from 9 out of 10 of said catalogs.

Have any DC-area residents noticed how inane the moving walkways at Reagan National Airport are? They have a recorded announcement which blares constantly "Caution! The Moving Sidewalk is Ending!" The only problem is that it's so loud and the various sidewalks are so close together, there's no way a blind person could know when the sidewalk is actually ending. It must be a living terror for blind folks. I know it's a pain for the sighted.

"Bottom of the scream" should read "Bottom of the screen." I suspect you typed this as CNN makes one want to scream!

Dear K-LO,

I had to write to let you know my terrific experience ordering these books[The NR Treasury of Classic Bedtime Stories and the two literature volumes].

First, some background: my wife reads to our two sons (6 & 9) just about every night. They are working through the Harry Potter stories. It's a very special time for them.

My wife laments that she isn't into soccer and can't play it with the boys like I do. She said that their nightly reading is the best, most fun thing she does with the boys.

Well, if that wasn't enough to trigger your 'suggestions' from The Corner to purchase said books! I mean, Wow! Talk about the PERFECT gift!

I ordered on Monday and the books arrived Wednesday.

Super fast service - and yes fellow NR readers -- There IS still time!!

Now if only I can manage my 10 thumbs to properly wrap this...

Thanks! All the best!

comes from a college friend whose judgment I respect:

"I must admit that I was surprised to read your Corner post re: gays in the
military. As you well know, i've been opposed since college. In seven years
in the military I've seen nothing to change my mind.

"The morale problem is insurmountable. No, no, I don't mean anti-gay
sentiment. I truly fail to understand how front-line leaders such as myself
can be expected to keep horny 18-year-olds away from each other. I can't get
these yo-yos to come to drill sober, let alone keep their mitts off of each
other if sexual attraction is present.

"This problem is present with women, too, and for that reason I'd cheerfully
endorse an all-male military. But women are easier to keep segregated. We
can have women's rooms, women's bathrooms, etc., and women can be easily
identified as such. Precisely how do we work showers for gay soldiers? And
when Private Boy and Private Girl spend lots of time alone, common sense
tells us that something's afoot. When Private Boy and Private Openly Gay But
Swears He'll be Chaste slip away...are they pals, or something more? And if
it's Private Boy and his supervisor, Sergeant Openly Gay, Etc., then what?
What can a leader do?

"Too trivial? After four lonely, dirty months in the field, it wouldn't seem
so. And my understanding of human sexuality doesn't support the notion that
18-year-olds can shower in the nude with other 18-year-olds to whom they are
sexually attracted, and not have bad things happen. The left might buy the
idea that the sexual urge can be flipped on and off like a switch - off when
at work, on when at home. The right should know better.

"It does no good to point to the rules against fraternization, sex with
subordinates, etc. Those rules aren't obeyed among the heterosexuals, and,
as noted earlier, we have strong measures in place to help hetero soldiers
avoid temptation. And still we have awful problems.

"And do let's keep in mind that all of these problems are quintupled in the
stress of a deployment, and quintupled again in combat. . . .

"I'm not acquainted with the British experience. But I'd take it with several
grains of salt, as a) the p.c. juggernaut has likely squelched any evidence
that a pro-gay policy has failed, just as the p.c. juggernaut routinely
squelches evidence in the U.S. that women in the military is a failed
policy; b) I've heard that many foreign militaries quietly track gays into
non-combat positions, and c) what the hell do Europeans know about fighting
contemporary wars anyway? Britain is the least bad of the bunch, but acting
as the American Army's valet doesn't really demand the same uncompromising
quest for the military excellence that we demand out of, say, the 82nd
Airborne.

"It's probably true that, in a garrison, rear-eschelon environment, gays
(like women) can do as good a job as anyone else. But the military
recognizes that the garrison environment is not the true military
environment. The Army, at least, demands that every soldier be able to fight
like an infantryman under combat conditions, regardless of their 'real Army
job.' Every soldier must meet that standard. A soldier sexually attracted to
other soldiers cannot meet that standard.

"Sorry to belabor the point, but I've spent much time examining the issue -
and for me, the point is far from academic."

A few quick points before I get on a plane. First, where are all the Democrats denouncing these leaks from Saddam Hussein's interrogation room? I mean we were told that leaks are terrible, especially pertaining to intelligence operations, right?

More important, I'm kind of at a loss as to why all of these reports of Saddam being defiant and arrogant are being taken at face value. Keep in mind I've read little news while I've been here and am only going by the cable news networks.

Since when does the CIA -- who's handling Saddam -- leak how super-important interrogations are going? In other words, any news that's allegedly coming out of Saddam's pie hole is news his handlers want leaked. My most hopeful guess is that Saddam's actually singing like a bird but the Americans don't want the bad guys to know it. Normally, you keep even the capture of an important asset secret so you can roll-up all of his contacts without them flying the coop. Since that was impossible, my hope is that the Americans are saying he's not cooperating even as they have all of these successful raids. Doesn't that seem plausible?

And if he is spilling the beans, then we may be in even much better shape than things seem.

Sixth Circuit Upholds Ohio Law Restricting Partial-Birth Abortion

In a ruling with possible national significance, Ohio’s law restricting the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion was upheld today by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. The Ohio statute generally bans killing a live child who has been delivered outside the body of the mother at least past the baby’s navel (if he or she is being delivered feet first), or whose entire head has been delivered outside the body of the mother (if he or she is delivered head first). However, there is an exception to the ban “to preserve the life or health of the mother as a result of the mother’s life or health being endangered by a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

The law was challenged by Ohio abortionist Martin Haskell, whose 1992 instructional paper on how to perform this method of abortion touched off the national debate over partial-birth abortion.

Today, in Women’s Medical Professional Corporation v. Taft, a three-judge federal panel upheld the law. By a vote of 2-to-1, the panel rejected the arguments of abortion advocates that the Constitution requires that partial-birth abortions must be allowed when the health risk to the mother is only negligible or transient.

James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), commented, “The court rejected -- as most Americans reject -- the outrageous claim by pro-abortion advocates that the Constitution guarantees a right to kill a child who is hanging halfway outside the mother’s body for negligible and transient health reasons.”

...I attended a midnight showing of The Return of The King last night/this morning, taking my 15 year old daughter dressed in her Arwen attire. Observations: Full house, the show sold out with advance sale tickets. I bought ours over a week ago. Good, clean crowd. Lot of bookish kids and young adults. A few early teens with parental supervision, the majority were between 16 and 22, I think. Very few old, mid-40s geezers such as myself. I may have been the oldest person in the crowd. Lots of the kids doing homework and studying while on line as it's finals week in the schools here. A significant number wearing LOTR costume including a group of about 15, each dressed as a different principle character...quite impressive! Basically it was a theater lobby full of apparently studious and intelligent students out to have a good time with a thought provoking movie. And violating all kinds of curfews (with their parents permission in most cases).

The movie itself is outstanding. Decent adjectives fail me this morning on only 3 and a half hours of sleep. I agree with Pearce that it is not true to the book in a number of places, but that, in the end, that matters little. "The Return of the King" is a master work, and its timeliness (re: Beard and Rhys-Davies) is nothing short of miraculous. We'll probably see it a couple of times more during the holidays. Maybe my daughter and I will take the rest of the family, maybe not. We had a magical time together early this morning....

Jonathan: Okay, this time I'll try to find common ground with you on this question. I think you'd agree with me on the following: Among the defects of the Supreme Court's recent federalism jurisprudence is the failure to acknowledge (or possibly even to comprehend) that decisions by the federal judiciary, no less than the Congress, can raise federalist concerns. If the federal courts strike down a federal ban on partial-birth abortion while leaving alone federal court rulings that keep states from banning it, either, that's not federalism. That's the federal courts keeping up a national regime of abortion on demand.

Back to disagreement: As we've discussed, I believe that a federal ban on partial-birth abortion is perfectly constitutional. But I could live with a contrary federal ruling (as could the unborn) if Roe goes too.

David Frum, the Family Research Council, the Alliance for Marriage, and Andrew Sullivan have all tried their hand at interpreting the president's remarks on gay marriage. Here's another possible interpretation: The president has not made up his mind about what to do or, if he has made up his mind, is not yet ready to say so. That does not necessarily mean, as Frum suggests, that the president is waiting on a further legal development to clarify the situation. He may be trying to figure out whether a failed attempt to pass an amendment would make the legal landscape worse, a scenario that Frum raises.

What to make of the president's language suggesting that states should be allowed to create legal arrangements into which people could enter if they chose? Some social conservatives have interpreted that as a presidential statement that states should be able to create civil unions for gay couples. The president's statement, however, leaves it unclear whether he would want a constitutional amendment (if he ends up going for one) to require civil unions to be a legislative act rather than a judicial one.

My impression is that the president leans toward a position that is a bit more qualified than what he said. If my impression is correct, the president's view is that states should be able to create various legal arrangements so long as they are not discriminatory. Then the question is what is meant by "discriminatory." It seems highly unlikely that the president would support an amendment that required states to have civil unions for gays so as not to discriminate against them. I think what he thinks--and I admit that this is piling inference on impression, and we will have to wait for a more formal announcement of the administration's position to be sure--is that states should be free to let gay couples into civil unions or domestic partnerships so long as non-gay couples, and indeed couples who are not in a sexual or romantic relationship, are also eligible to enter these arrangements. That's a position to the left of what social-conservative activists wanted earlier this year, but to the right of what conservatives in Congress are seeking.

MS. SAWYER: His daughter has said that those photos were disrespectful and humiliating to him, but he also seemed sedated, by the way.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.

MS. SAWYER: Was he sedated? And was it designed to humiliate him?

PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I don't--first of all, I don't know if he was sedated or not. I mean, that's a question you'd ask the folks in the field.

Secondly, it was designed to reflect the truth and to show--and to show the world that this barbaric person was found in a hole, hiding, cowering, that--it's also interesting that he's going to receive the justice that he never gave others. And it's--it's a dramatic moment. And I can understand a daughter being concerned about her dad. I mean, presumably somewhere in this hard, barbaric heart there was some love for his child. And--but he showed no love for the Iraqi people, particularly those that dared express an opinion other than his.

New poll re LA Senate race -- outgoing Dem AG Richard Ieyoub, 28 percent; Repub. U.S. Rep. David Vitter 15 percent; Repub. former Senate candidate Suzie Terrell 15 percent; Demo. U.S. Rep. Chris John 13 percent. Source: Baton Rouge Morning Advocate.

Hillyer's take: This is before Breaux throws all his considerable weight behind John. Chris John should handily surpass Ieyoub, if Ieyoub even runs.

Meanwhile, the word is that Vitter is the anointed (or self-anointed, but in this case that's pretty much the same thing) GOP candidate, for better or worse. That would open up Vitter's House seat, which greatly interests a very good state Rep., Steve Scalise.... and also is probably of interest to one Bobby Jindal. This is the one area of the state that Jindal carried quite handily for the Senate; if he gets in, he's almost a shoo-in for election. Vitter, of course, wants Jindal to run for the House seat -- because that means that Bobby won't run for the Senate, and Bobby is the only GOPer who could threaten Vitter's lock as the top candidate from the right.

The early betting is that Bobby (and everybody else) lets Vitter pursue his burning senatorial ambitions, while Bobby waltzes into Congress in the seat held for so long by Bobby's earliest backer, Bob Livingston.

has a good article in defense of the conventional wisdom on Howard Dean. (Come to think of it, given that the conventional wisdom about conventional wisdom is that it's wrong, is it really possible to write a defense of it?) I liked these two passages in particular:

"And Dean has other assets, too. The headline in Sunday's New York Times reads, 'Dean Formulates a Nuanced Approach to Foreign Policy'; one can't buy advertising like that. In the article, readers are assured that that the Vermonter 'shows a fluency in discussing the world that is certainly beyond where Mr. Bush was four years ago.' Even under the new McCain-Feingold law, such contributions don't have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission. . . .

"This is a mostly hawkish country. Dovish candidates of both major parties -- George McClellan in 1864, William Jennings Bryan in 1900, Wendell Willkie in 1940, McGovern in '72 -- have all gone down to severe defeat. It's fair to say that in wartime American history, no anti-war candidate has ever won."

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."

The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."

When interviewer Dave Ross asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: "I don't know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they've been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they'd find him.

"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

US production rose 0.9 pct in Nov.-Fed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. factories, mines and utilities ramped up production sharply in November, according to a Federal Reserve report released Tuesday showing further signs of a manufacturing recovery.

The Fed said U.S. industrial production advanced 0.9 percent, its biggest monthly gain in four years. Output in the factory sector, which alone accounts for more than four-fifths of total industrial production, also posted a 0.9 percent gain. U.S. industries also operated at 75.7 percent of full capacity, their fastest pace since September 2002.

Both figures were well above Wall Street expectations for a 0.5 percent gain in production and 75.3 percent capacity use rate.

US single-family home starts hit new high in Nov WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. single-family housing starts rose to a fresh record high in November, as persistently low mortgage rates fueled strong demand for housing, a government report showed on Tuesday.

US current account gap narrows in Q3 WASHINGTON, Dec 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. current account deficit narrowed more than expected in the third quarter, a government report showed on Tuesday.

The gap in the current account, the broadest measure of the nation's trade with the rest of the world, shrank to $135.0 billion from an upwardly revised $139.4 billion in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said.

US consumer prices post surprise fall in November WASHINGTON, Dec 16 (Reuters) - U.S. consumer prices took an unexpected tumble last month as the cost of energy, clothing, furniture and lodging all fell, according to a government report on Tuesday that showed underlying inflation running at a nearly 38-year low.

K-Lo,

I think the last two days has totalled more F-words from you in The Corner (quoted or otherwise) than in the last two years combined. :)

Has Jonah been driving you crazy or what? :)

The difficulties and tragedies we have faced in Iraq show that the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at unbelievable cost. An administration prepared to work with others in true partnership might have been able, if it found no alternative to Saddam's ouster, to then rebuild Iraq with far less cost and risk.

As our military commanders said, and the President acknowledged yesterday, the capture of Saddam does not end the difficulties from the aftermath of the administration's war to oust him. There is the continuing challenge of securing Iraq, protecting the safety of our personnel, and helping that country get on the path to stability. There is the need to repair our alliances and regain global support for American goals.

Nor, as the president also seemed to acknowledge yesterday, does Saddam's capture move us toward defeating enemies who pose an even greater danger: al Qaeda and its terrorist allies. And, nor, it seems, does Saturday's capture address the urgent need to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction and the risk that terrorists will acquire them.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

The notion of neutral judges for a trial of Saddam is unnecessary. Neutrality is important in protecting individuals from the state. When judges are dependent upon the state for their positions (as with colonial judges), they are biased in favor of the state. In the case of Saddam, there are no issues of fact (he did order the Kurds gassed, etc.) and the only question is the appropriate means of punishment. Simply handing Saddam over to the Kurds, for example, would result in justice that is both “real” and retaliatory. Just as the Italian people knew what to do with Mussolini at the end of WW2, so the Iraqi people will have no trouble figuring out the just way to handle Saddam. I doubt we will even need to provide the lamppost or the rope. Mussolini got what he deserved; Saddam should too.

There are no neutral qualified Iraqi judges available for a trial of Saddam. Exiled Iraqi judges are most likely to be biased against him, resulting in retaliatory justice rather than real justice. By using judges such as Judge Abi-Saab of Egypt, who recently completed his term as a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, there would be a greater likelihood that Iraqis and Muslims throughout the Middle East will believe the judgment of the Tribunal.
It is too risky to leave this trial to the Iraqis. Even qualified judges have had trouble reigning in Milosevic; the Rwanda Tribunal's judges learned the lessons from the Milosevic trial and kept much tighter reins on the defendants during the just completed Media trial. If Saddam is permitted to do what Milosevic has done at The Hague, it will give him an ideal platform to rile up anti-American sentiment throughout the middle east.

Red Cross expects to visit Saddam

GENEVA (Reuters) - The International Committee of the Red Cross said Monday that Saddam Hussein should be treated like any other prisoner of war and that it expected to be able to visit him.

"The (Red Cross) should have access to all persons protected by the Geneva conventions, including prisoners of war," the Swiss-based agency said in a brief statement.

U.S.-led troops who toppled Saddam, 66, in April captured him Saturday in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit.

The U.S. commander in Iraq, Lt.-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said he was being accorded all the rights of a prisoner of war.

"We are going to treat him humanely, we are going to treat him according to the Geneva Conventions," he told CNN.

The conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war say the Red Cross must be given access to them, but do not say how soon after their capture this must happen.

The Red Cross declined to comment on whether television pictures showing a bearded and dirty Saddam shortly after his capture amounted to a violation of the conventions, which prohibit the exposing of prisoners to "public curiosity."

"We do not wish to enter into a public debate on this," the Red Cross said, adding that if it had any misgivings these would be expressed directly to Washington.

The third Geneva convention states that prisoners of war can be moved from one country to another, so the United States would not be breaching the conventions by moving Saddam out of Iraq.

Secretary Powell is undergoing surgery this morning for prostate cancer. The operation is being performed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. He will be there for several days before he returns home. He will be on a reduced schedule while he recovers from the operation

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

The Glorious Leader, Direct Descendant of the Prophet, the Lion of Babylon, the Father of the Two Lion Cubs, the Anointed One, the Successor of Nebuchadnezzar, the Modern Saladin of Islam had been brought low, forced to bow down, whisked away to an "undisclosed location" to contemplate his fate while waiting to stand trial for his vast crimes against humanity....

..."Don't shoot," the man said, according to a military source. "I am Saddam Hussein, the president of the Republic of Iraq." Saddam "said very little," according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the Fourth I.D. "He did not make any statement while he was there."

"Saddam is a dictator and the Iraqi people suffered under him, but on the other hand, it was the (American) occupation that caught him," Mohammed Horani, a legislator with the Palestinian Parliament, said in the Gaza Strip. "There will be a sense of confusion in the public."

The Ululation of Gunfire again; you should all be here now. What fireworks! You should be here. The Baghdadis are expressing what they really think again. Can you hide this now CNN & others?...Just now the Miserables are beginning to bomb the streets, out of hatred and desperation. They will attack the people. I tell you, there should be no complacency. Unleash the people against them and NOW. ...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. Now is the time, now is the time; Do not delay; unleash the Counter Terror.

God Bless Iraq; God Bless America; God bless the Allies.

But there is another reason to be thankful that Saddam Hussein is alive. The man who called upon his countrymen and fellow Muslims to sacrifice their own lives in suicide attacks, to blow themselves to bits in order to glorify his name, failed to follow his own instructions. He refused the grand opportunity of a martyr's death, or even that of the hardened Hollywood gangster, determined that the cops would never take him alive. Instead, Saddam Hussein surrendered meekly and was, according to the reports, even cooperative.

We took Saddam Hussein alive, and, in doing this, we have done a great deal more than simply knock down a statue of a dictator -- we have vanquished a collective nightmare. We have turned the light on a bogey-man, and revealed him to be a broken old man, hiding fearfully in a six by eight hole.

A captured Saddam with a tongue depressor in his mouth. His tongue can't be half as depressed as the French, John Kerry, Howard Dean, The Guardian et al. They've all been saying for months that the Coalition needs to hand over more power and authority to Iraqis. Handing over Saddam to be tried in Baghdad is an excellent start. Or do they now want him on a plane to the Hague?

Tony Blair's tone was very sober, very reflective. There was none of the triumphalism of Paul Bremer. The key word in what he was saying was "reconciliation". What Downing Street is hoping now is that the capture of Saddam will unlock all that resistance on the ground.

Kathryn:

My daughter was so proud to learn that it was the 4th ID that got Saddam. Those are the soldiers for whom she and her Girl Scout Troop were collecting recreational stuff -- dvds, sports equipment, paying cards.

And yes, we did find someone with a government contract to ship the goods. When we get a photo of the guys and gals watching Monty Python and the Holy Grail and eating candy canes, we'll send it along.

Kathryn:

Hi. I'm a regular reader of NRO online, which I consider an excellent site (Victor Davis Hanson is a favorite). I see I've been nailed for my comments on the Nuremberg trial--and properly so. "Railroaded" was foolish and wrong. It just popped out.

What I was trying to say was that--in the eyes of many lawyers today, and not just liberal human-rights activists but conservative scholars, too--the Nuremberg trial was a flawed model for dispensing this kind of justice. The Soviet Union sat in judgment on the Nazis. The main indictment concerned not the Holocaust, but the "waging of aggressive war"--a vague concept that gave rise to charges of "victors' justice." There was no right for defendants to confront their accusers--in other words, hearsay was allowed. The law applied in Nuremberg was ex post facto (necessarily, but problematically).

Don't get me wrong. The trial accomplished a great deal, punishing several of those who bore most guilt for the Holocaust and enshrining the principle that genocide and other crimes against humanity cannot be committed with impunity without some international response and consequences. Justice was done at Nuremberg, albeit rough justice. The defendants were NOT railroaded.

But the trial wasn't pretty. And that's what I was trying--and failing--to say.

Cheers.

Terry Moran

CAPTURE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN CAN SPUR SEARCH FOR PEACE, ANNAN SAYS

New York, Dec 14 2003 2:00PM

Reacting to the news that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been taken into custody, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today said this could help stabilize the war-ravaged country.

"The Secretary-General considers that the capture of Saddam Hussein, the epitome of the former regime, is an important event," a UN spokesman said in a statement released in New York. "It offers an opportunity to give fresh impetus to the search for peace and stability in Iraq, on the basis of an inclusive and fully transparent process."

Through his spokesman, Mr. Annan reiterated the UN's readiness "to do everything possible to help Iraqis, if asked and as circumstances permit."

When you buy Tupperware, you get Teflon, too. (He's referring meatphorically to the many Dean meetups.) Normally, gaffes stick to a candidate and dry up money. Dean has reversed that. Every time he runs into trouble, his backers give more. It's almost a form of human insurance.

For months, the other candidates have tried to derail the Dean Machine. John Kerry calls him a flip-flopper. Joe Lieberman warns that Dean is in danger of being isolated on the left on national security, trade and spiritual values. John Edwards explains that optimism, not anger, wins presidential elections, a point borne out by the failure of populist campaigns to ever win the White House. (FDR, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton all ousted GOP incumbents with smiles, not scowls.) These arguments may be true, but they aren't likely to be relevant in the primaries...

NRO friends--

Usually there are only get two calls one gets before 8 am at home(I find the telemarketers often wait until 9): either there's been a death in the family, or a major worldwide event (the "better turn on the TV" call).

Well, for a change, today's call began a wonderfully happy day.

However, something tells me the day was even happier for Jawad Amir, the Iraqi who spent twenty-one years living in a wall, hiding from Saddam's terror. How delightful that he managed to survive long enough to see Saddam hiding in his own hole? Justice truly is patient (and often ironic).

Keep up the great work, and enjoy our early Christmas present from the 4th ID!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe Dowd will soon quote the President: "The capture of Saddam Hussein does ... mean the end of violence in Iraq."

The Daily Telegraph warns that the EU ‘constitution’ will be back, but concludes on an optimistic note:

”And so the process goes on. Neither Spanish amour propre, nor German obstreperousness, nor popular opposition, nor even, we suspect, one or two "no" votes in referendums will stop it. For the Euro-elites, what matters is the process itself. They have almost forgotten the original declared purposes - peace, prosperity and so forth - in their determination to integrate, always and everywhere. They are almost like the apparatchiks of the Eastern bloc in the late 1980s, who had long since stopped believing in the principles of Marxism-Leninism, but who kept going because they did not know what else to do - and who were able to get away with it, too, by ignoring popular opinion. Eventually, the desire for national democracy caught up with them. Sooner or later, it will do for the Euro-elites, too.”

High Wycombe, the (Conservative-controlled) council (local government) so uncomfortable about posting details of a carol service in a public library turns out to have very different standards when it comes to throwing a party to celebrate the Muslim festival of Eid. That, it turns out, was just fine. Margaret Dewar, hypocrite and Councilor explains:

"It is quite a different thing having a party organized by a library to promote cultural understanding and accepting notices for religious services.”

In its malevolent dishonesty, that statement takes some beating – Dewar deserves to be voted out of the office she has obviously disgraced for far too long – but it’s also typical of the way in which Britain and other countries in Europe are failing to respond to the challenge of fundamentalist Islam. Also in the Daily Telegraph, Kevin Myers ponders some of the issues that are raised:

“Islam is much like Christianity: its spectrum is very broad, and many forms of it encourage moderation and toleration. But there are extremes which have no parallel in Christianity, nor even in communism or Nazism: the suicide bomber who believes that paradise awaits those who die in the act of the killing the infidel is a creature for whom the European mind, and European institutions have been wholly unprepared. And at a less extreme level, though the experience of communism has prepared them intellectually for the idea of national disloyalty, Europeans are hopelessly ill-equipped to deal with an abiding mass loyalty to foreign entities by their fellow citizens.”

Tolerance of those of a different religion, or none, is a vital civil virtue, but tolerance should never be confused with the nonsense of mindless ecumenicism, apathetic acceptance or the self-hating fantasies of multiculturalism. French-style bans on head scarves are not the way to go, but the time both for secular sorts and the representatives of other faiths to start arguing back against the Islamic extreme is long, long overdue. And if that ‘offends’ some people, that’s just too bad.

In a democracy, debates aren’t always polite.

The Ace of Spades - Motorhead Another One Bites the Dust - Queen

Anything by Courtney Love's band, "Hole" and what I have cranked right now, "We're Not Gonna Take It" by Twisted Sister

It took 38 minutes for the "Where's Osama" question. How much longer until we hear how about the professional misconduct of Iraqi journalists cheering at the news of Saddam's capture?

TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein near his home town of Tikrit in a major coup for Washington's beleaguered occupation force in Iraq.

Bemoaning the collapse of talks over the EU Constitution, comments from Britain’s EU-federalist Observer include this:

“Coming hard on the heels of EU splits over the war against Iraq, the breakdown means that plans for …a greater role on the world stage for the EU as a balance against America have been put on ice.”

We’ll see.

From the Sunday Telegraph:

”A church has been told that it cannot publicise its Christmas services on a community notice board to avoid offending other religions. The Church of England may be the established faith of the United Kingdom. But Buckinghamshire county council regards it as a "religious preference group" and the ban was upheld yesterday. "

In a nicely ironic touch, Buckingham county council, turns out to be run by Britain’s Conservative party.

Statement by Governor Dean on the Capture of Saddam Hussein

WEST PALM BEACH - "This is a great day for the Iraqi people, the US, and the international community.

"Our troops are to be congratulated on carrying out this mission with the skill and dedication we have come to know of them.

"This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the UN, NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort.

"Now that the dictator is captured, we must also accelerate the transition from occupation to full Iraqi sovereignty."

PRESS GAGGLE BY SCOTT McCLELLAN

Press Secretary's Office 9:14 A.M. EST

MR. McCLELLAN: Good morning. I want to run through a little bit of yesterday and today, how the President was informed about this.

Secretary Rumsfeld called the President at about -- approximately 3:15 p.m., yesterday. The President was at Camp David. The Secretary informed the President that U.S. forces believed that they had captured Saddam Hussein. Secretary Rumsfeld -- well, let me back up. The conversation began by Secretary Rumsfeld saying, something to the effect of: Mr. President, the first reports are not always accurate. The President interrupted the Secretary and said: This sounds like it's going to be good news. And Secretary Rumsfeld then continued and said: General Abizaid called me, he feels confident that we got Saddam Hussein. The President said: Well, that is good news. (Laughter.)

Both expressed --

Q Did he use the word "confident"? I'm sorry. He used the word "confident"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I don't know the Secretary's exact words, but essentially something to that effect.

Both expressed some caution at this point, because it was not confirmed. The President and the Secretary talked about how -- discussed the potential that this could be an impostor, so they were still cautious at that point. The President felt that -- the President said that this ought to be reported from the theater, it is a military matter. The Secretary agreed with him.

The President asked him how confident General Abizaid was, and the Secretary said that he was very confident. And the President asked him how they know that it was Saddam Hussein. Secretary Rumsfeld at that point, I guess, gathered a little bit more information, called the President back and informed him General Abizaid had confirmed through some identifying marks on Saddam Hussein, and I think you can probably get that from General Abizaid, himself.

Q What time was that call?

MR. McCLELLAN: This was all pretty -- shortly after the initial call.

Q This is still yesterday?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, this is shortly after the initial call at 3:15 p.m.

Q Where was Abizaid?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, he was in Iraq.* The President said that he was going to call the Vice President and Dr. Rice. The Secretary said something about who would contact Secretary Powell, and the President said he'll have Condi inform Secretary Powell and Andy Card. The President then informed the Vice President and Dr. Rice. He was at that point, as I said, still reserved in his judgment, expressing some caution.

The President also in that period told Mrs. Bush that: It looks like we've captured Saddam Hussein, and she said: Great.

Q But Cheney was his first phone call after learning about this?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll try to double check that. I know he contacted the Vice President and Dr. Rice right after he got off the phone.

Q So Rice told --

MR. McCLELLAN: She informed Secretary Powell and Andy Card.

Q You don't have the President's words when he told Cheney or Rice?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think it was -- I was just kind of describing the way he was looking at it.

MR. McCORMACK: She also talked to Tenet, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: And Director Tenet. Okay.

Q Where?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry? Well, she's here.

MR. McCORMACK: I don't know where she was.**

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, we'll double check that for you. But the President called her.

Then a little bit after 5:00 a.m., this morning, Ambassador Bremer called Condi to confirm that it was Saddam Hussein. And at 5:14 a.m., Condi called the President and reported to him, and that was essentially confirmation that we got Saddam Hussein at that point.

Q Was he asleep at the time?

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me double check. I suspect he was already awake at that point, but let me double check that.***

Q He had not been briefed in between the two calls?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Had he not been briefed in between the two calls?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll try to double check that. I'm sure that there were conversations throughout the day, but those are the ones I know of.

Let's see, this morning the President -- Senator Frist contacted the President this morning. The President spoke with Prime Minister Blair. He spoke with --

Q When?

MR. McCLELLAN: This was a little bit after 8:00 a.m., this morning.

He spoke with Director Tenet. The President also spoke with Mr. Pachachi the acting president if the Iraqi Governing Council, and expressed his congratulations. The President -- oh, I might add, too, that -- let me back up on the calls.

The President and Mrs. Bush watched the briefing this morning. The President was particularly moved to see the outburst of joy from the Iraqis during the briefing, the Iraqi journalists.

Q Was he in the residence?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, he was in the residence at that point. And, getting back to the calls. When we he was talking to Mr. Pachachi, the President let him know that he was very moved by the outburst of joy from the Iraqis during the briefing. And the President said that he believes in the future of the Iraqi people. He's also spoken with Secretary Rumsfeld this morning; he spoke with General Abizaid, to congratulate our troops; and he's spoken with Secretary Powell. And last I left the Oval, President Aznar. I think that's --

Q Powell and then --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Abizaid, Powell and Aznar were the others?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, Aznar.

Q And he talked to Rummy this morning, also?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q Were all those calls from the Oval?

MR. McCLELLAN: And he will be making -- he's making additional world leader calls; I'll keep you posted as I can.

Q Are we going to hear from him today?

MR. McCLELLAN: He will be talking to other coalition partners and world leaders, as well. You can expect to hear from the President at approximately noon today. He will make remarks in the Cabinet Room, it will be pool coverage.

Q Cabinet Room, you said?

MR. McCLELLAN: Cabinet Room, pool coverage. Just to give you a couple general comments, the President believes this is very good news for the Iraqi people. He is very happy for the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein was a brutal, oppressive dictator who was responsible for decades of atrocities. And the Iraqi people can finally be assured that Saddam Hussein will not be coming back, and they can see it for themselves.

The President is particularly proud of our men and women in the military and all their sacrifices and all their successes that they have achieved, and he congratulates our troops.

Q Was the President briefed at all on how Saddam Hussein was found, what Saddam Hussein might have said?

MR. McCLELLAN: He has been briefed on those matters, I don't have a complete readout of that, but he has been briefed on those matters.

Q Is that pretty much all you've got?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's pretty much it. I will keep you posted, but you'll hear from the President.

All right, thank you everybody.

END 9:21 A.M. EST

* General Abizaid was in the theater, but not in Iraq.

** Dr. Rice was in Washington.

*** The President was already waking up when Dr. Rice called.

…Talks on the draft EU ‘constitution’ have collapsed. Like Dracula - and unlike Saddam - this monster will, doubtless, be back, but for now, the only thing to do is to enjoy Berlusconi’s opening comments. The Guardian takes up the story:

”Gathered for lunch on the top floor of the Justus Lipsius on Friday morning to launch formal negotiations over the constitution, the 25 heads of government and their ministers were braced for battle. Instead, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, whose country holds the EU presidency, suggested they just chat about 'football and women'. There was a stunned silence, before 'the Belgians started droning on about the inter-governmental conference', said one diplomat.”

Forza Italia!

I'm am American expat living in London, and I was listening to BBC London (Radio 5) shortly after the announcement of Saddam's capture. The host of a call-in show was going on about how the Americans unnecessarily subjected Saddam to humiliation by showing the video of him being given a medical exam and being unwashed and unshaven. She termed it "serial humiliation", and asked "what's next, beheading him and parading his head on a pole around Baghdad"? It's absolutely amazing how so many here dredge up hatred for the U.S. no matter what.

Sugar Land, Texas - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) today lauded coalition forces for the late night capture of Saddam Hussein in Tikrit, Iraq.

"Today is a heroic day for the people of Iraq and the cause of human freedom," DeLay said. "Saddam's capture marks the 'end of the beginning' of the struggle for free Iraq."

"Some doubted our cause and our strategy, but today our nation and our world are safer because of American resolve," DeLay said. "God bless our coalition, God bless our troops, and God bless our commander-in-chief."

"And if the infantrymen and special forces who collared that monster are ever in Sugar Land, the steaks are on me!" DeLay said.

Capturing Saddam is a good thing - he was a bad guy. I'm really glad he was captured and not killed.
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. Saddam was a bad guy, but it isn't clear he's any worse of a guy than some of the folks who are a part of our "Coalition of the Willing," so this pretense of moral clarity, etc... is ridiculous.
Saddam wasn't a threat to us. This was a war of choice and we made a bad choice (and many more bad choices subsequently). Kosovo was also a war of choice. Whether or not that was a bad choice, consider the disparity in the media coverage of those wars.

2. Terry Moran, about 20 minutes later, discussing the problems of giving Saddam a fair trail. He said that the Nazi leadership who were tried at Nuremburg were "railroaded." He immediately qualified this remark by adding "in the eyes of many jurists today." Got that? Goering was RAILROADED!

3. Ivan Watson, on NPR at around 8:50 am, was asked about the reaction by Iraqis to seeing the video of a captured Saddam. He said that some Iraqis would celebrate, others would be upset at seeing Saddam "humiliated." Got that? Sticking a tongue depressor in the mouth of a deposed dictator who murdered tens of thousands (and who could be hiding a cyanide capsule in his mouth like Himmler did in order to commit suicide upon capture) amounts to HUMILIATION. Let's check the Geneva convention on that, shall we?

It's good that it's clarified where Saddam Hussein is now. But I do not hope that people forget now that George W. Bush has lead the world into a war without proof of WMD and a connection to Osama bin Laden. What Bush did was wrong. And Americans need to remember that next year when the presidential elections take place. Michelle Mauriere, Leipzig, Germany.

"I hope this will put an end to some of the violence."

But MP George Galloway, kicked out of the Labour party in October after a television interview in which he fiercely condemned military action in Iraq, was sceptical that it would change any critics' mind. Speaking from Egypt, he told BBC News 24: "It might be seized upon by the prime minister as something to laugh about, but I very much doubt if it will be the last laugh, because the truth is the country was taken into the war on the basis of a lie.

"This will not stop the Iraqi resistance... if anything, it may set the resistance free, if you like, from the cloud of Saddam Hussein, and transform it into a purely national resistance movement without the charge that it's being controlled from behind by the deposed president."

``We are celebrating like it's a wedding,'' said Kirkuk resident Mustapha Sheriff. ``We are finally rid of that criminal.'' ``This is the joy of a lifetime,'' said Ali Al-Bashiri, another resident. ``I am speaking on behalf of all the people that suffered under his rule.''

I don't have cable or satellite (live in the boonies, and frankly it's not worth the money), so I've had to rely on the main network stations for news on Saddam's capture. I've been struck by the dour faces and the almost pained looks on all the reporters' faces. They seem almost disappointed that we caught the SOB. In the time I've been listening, I've seen Sandy Berger and Dick Holbrooke and a number of other hand-wringers telling me not to celebrate and a bunch of network types telling me that this really isn't all that good.

Well, bugger that for a lark. I'm thrilled to my toes about this. I've been singing, "Ding dong, the witch is dead" all morning, and I've been holding my two-month-old baby son and telling him that he's safer now. I'm waiting for Fox News Sunday to come on because at least there I hope to see professional journalists have to suppress a bubbling joy and excitement that they really feel--in other words, people who feel how I feel about all this but who have a job to do. I really don't think those network types feel that way...but naturally they're not biased.

I hope the conservatives and Republicans hit back hard on this with those mainstream media types. Nothing shows the chasm between normal Americans and the professionally pretentious as their reaction to some of the best news of the year.

Merry Christmas!! Woo-hoo!

French newsmag L'Express just made a fool of itself by publishing it's last week cover with the title: George W. Bush The man Who Ruined Our Year. It's a great day for us, the French supporters of George W. Bush, we are vindicated! God bless America!

The official 4th ID March is the song "I'm Looking Over a Four Leaf Clover" done in a march tempo. Looks like the looking finally paid off. Now there's a tune to run through your head today!

Christianne (sp?) Amanpour, EuroCNN, 2:30pm Central European Time, being asked for comments on the political fallout of today’s announcement, opens with this: “Well, let’s not forget, Osama Bin Laden is still at large, as are hundreds wanted by the Hague…” (that’s transcribed from memory).

So… took about 38 minutes from your asking the question.

My brother and I sat watching the news of Saddam's capture, and we couldn't help but grin at the title of the operation: "Operation Red Dawn." We were further elated when the announcement was made that the objectives were called "Wolverine One" and "Wolverine Two." I would bet that an officer in his late twenties or early thirties named the operation after the 1984 Patrick Swayze/Charlie Sheen movie about the communist invasion of the U.S. "Wolverines!"