TIMES / NEW / ROMAN / ONLINE

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released their long awaited report on the threat Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed to the United States and the verdict does not look good for the Bush administration. The non-partisan and highly respected think tank has confirmed the long held notion that undue political influence on intelligence estimates resulted in a poor decision-making environment, with war hawks cherry-picking flawed and weak intelligence to fit their policy of invasion and regime change while ignoring or playing down information that accurately portrayed the threat Saddam posed to the U.S, the Middle East, and the world. In other worlds, Bush got his war by hook and by crook.

This from this morning's Globe and Mail:

The Carnegie report says there is "no solid evidence of a co-operative relationship" between Mr. Hussein's government and al-Qaeda and "there is no evidence that Iraq would have transferred [weapons of mass destruction] to terrorists -- and much evidence to counter it."

Mr. Cirincione said U.S. threat assessments were deeply flawed, mainly because of undue influence on intelligence officials by their political masters.

"We exaggerated the threat. We worst-cased it, and then acted as if that worst-case was the most-likely case. And some of the things we thought were not working, like UN inspections and sanctions, were actually working better than anyone anticipated," he said in an interview on CNN.

"And that's been made clear not only by what we found, but what the interviews have been with Iraq officials and scientists. Their programs were crippled by years of inspections and U.S. military strikes, and the sanctions that prevented them from getting anything going at all."

The six-month study compared public and declassified intelligence information with statements made by administration officials. The report concludes that the administration made the threat from Iraq sound more dire than the underlying information.

The Guardian has this to say:

The intelligence community, the report says, began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views "sometime in 2002". Repeated visits to the CIA by the US vice president, Dick Cheney, and demands by top officials to see unsubstantiated reports, created an atmosphere in which intelligence analysts were pressed to come to "more threatening" judgments of Iraq.

The report concludes that "administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programmes".

In the end we knew this was happening as it was happening. We knew the truth was being severely mangled as it was coming out of their mouths. It's expected for politicians to lie about just about everything to get what they want, from having sexual relations with interns or Tax cuts, but this is different. This is much a much bigger and infinitely more dangerous game. Hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis have died in a war that would never have taken place if the American people and the world had been told the truth about Iraq. Instead, the U.S intimidated, bribed, cajoled, lied and blackmailed their way into a mishandled and poorly planned conflict that not only effectively siphoned off all international sympathy after the attacks of September 11th, 2001 but also continues to kill people day after day without pause. The only discernible silver lining to all of this is one of the greatest aspects of American democracy: there are elections every 4 years.

I'm still wary of Bush and his traveling freakshow of babbling spindoctors conjuring up some anthrax in a bunker somewhere in Iraq, perhaps a week before election day, but I just don't know, and I'll tell you why: I thought Saddam had the damn weapons and so did you (don't lie fellas). Nothing too serious, no nukes or anything that nasty, but at least a milk carton of some evil botulism or a few vials of sarin tucked away in his private study, but alas, no dice. . .as of yet. So what gives me the right to speculate and trumpet the egg on my face, anyway? Because nothing's been dug up so far. It appears as if there was nothing to all the fear-mongering. These inspectors, who are on the U.S. payroll and not the U.N.'s, have found nothing despite the zeal with which they've gone about their increasingly politicised tasks. You can imagine Rumsfeld taking the Aussie headman of this crowd of weapon hunters aside and whispering: "Find these fucking things or we're both finished, got it?"

This on their retreat from al Jazeera tonight:

The United States has pulled out its 400-strong team looking for illegal weapons in Iraq even though another group searching for weapons of mass destruction remains in the country.

"They picked up everything that was worth picking up," a US official told The New York Times on Thursday, referring to the Joint Captured Material Exploitation Group.

Headed by an Australian brigadier, the team's task included searching weapons depots and other sites for missile launchers that might have been used with illicit weapons.

Some military officials are viewing the pullout as a sign that the US has given up hope of finding chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, the daily said.

However, a team tasked with disposing of chemical or biological weapons remains part of the 1400-member Iraq Survey Group that has been searching for weapons of mass destruction since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, a member of the survey group said.

However, he told the paper the team, known as Task Force D/E, for disablement and elimination, was "still waiting for something to dispose of".

Good to see that he has a sense of humour about things. I think I remember Rumsfeld referring to the weapons hunt as looking for needles in haystacks, but maybe he meant a "program" for needles, I really don't know and I hesitate to speculate (as you well know).

I seldom find myself trawling for interesting news at MSNBC because my efforts are not usually rewarded, but tonight I came across an interesting article on how American soldiers are dealing with the psychological effects of combat. Here is an excerpt:

In a "normal" war, only 10 percent of the Army's forces would be in frontline combat roles—the others would have support duties and be far from harm's way. Yet in Iraq, all U.S. forces are effectively in combat roles. Typically, 25 percent of frontline soldiers will suffer from combat stress, experts say. Not all of those will go on to get full-blown posttraumatic stress disorder. But even in Gulf War I, studies put the number of PTSD victims at 5 percent to 10 percent. In Iraq, with a much longer engagement and nearly all troops potentially in harm's way, the rate could be much higher.

Also, the high number of suicides by U.S. soldiers in the Iraqi theatre has not suprisingly alarmed the Army. War is hell, as the saying goes . . . and that's probably enough explanation for that, but why do I have to go to AP, Reuters, and Al Jazeera to find this out? Because it's a bum rap. The war for hearts and minds isn't being fought solely in the streets of Tikrit, Baghdad and Samarra, but also in New York, Washington, and London. The folks on the Bayou and in the Beltway certainly don't want to know about how their little war affects their boys and girls unless it's good news or at least bleeds with dignity, which in the media world is something suicide is completely bereft of, that is unless it's a star who overdoses on a speedball and champagne.

Nevertheless I should steer you towards a story that is getting play, and that is how some soldiers are passing up on the need for counselling and are going the other way instead, taking their frustrations out in ways that are more gung-ho than Freudian. Have a look here at tonights BBC lead story, for example, but also this CNN video (no longer in their archives) that a reader sent me. Viewer discretion is strongly advised. . .

For a tight encapsulation of the fallacy that has been and remains the U.S War on Terror, read William Cook's essay at Counterpunch entitled Failure to Respond to 9-11.

Slap a beard on Perle and he could be Santa. I read this Telegraph article and was struck by the Christmas spirit of peace and goodwill permeating it. When there's no one left to bomb will they go away? Read on:

President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.

The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.

The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.

In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.

Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.

Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.

Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.

It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.

Such officials prevailed over invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but have been seen as on the back foot since the autumn as their post-war visions of building a secular, free-market Iraq were scaled back in favour of compromise and a swift handover of power next June.

The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.

As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.

Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.

The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.

The authors urge Mr Bush to "tell the truth about Saudi Arabia". Wealthy Saudis, some of them royal princes, fund al-Qa'eda, they write.

The Saudi government backs "terror-tainted Islamic organisations" as part of a larger campaign to "spread its extremist version of Islam throughout the Muslim world and into Europe and North America".

The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets.

Hyper-right-wing intellectuals who have no military experience clamouring for war from their armchairs are only scary when they're listened to. Can't we put put these two back in the box again? War on the Korean peninsula. . .hmm, sounds great fellows, especially when the United States is nearly universally despised at the moment, and stretched thin militarily on the ground. Maybe the coalition for that fight will include Tonga this time, and if they're really lucky, maybe even the military juggernaut of Uruguay. Probably over 100,000 dead in the first month sounds about right, when you consider how Seoul is within artillery range of the North Koreans. Nice plan, too: pull back your forces while the capital gets a good pounding and then fight for the ruins. What's next? An op-ed article on how the Koreans were responsible for 9-11?

This article from Arab News:

Lest anyone forget the power of incumbency, President George W. Bush delivered a few reminders in the past few weeks. The capture of Saddam Hussein and the announcement that Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi had agreed to open his country to weapons inspections demonstrated that ability of the occupant of the White House to generate positive and transformative news.

This is a critical fact to note in an election year. Not only can the incumbent administration make news more easily than its challengers, but it can also better manage news as well.

Challengers must fight to get press coverage. And at this point in the Democratic primary process, with the nine candidates sharply attacking each other and the Bush White House, the news coverage that they generate usually has a negative tone.

The president, on the other hand, has been on an upswing. Congress supported his proposal to reform the way that senior citizens pay for expensive prescription drugs. The nation’s economy is continuing to show signs of recovery, and now Bush can bask in the glow of two significant foreign policy successes.

The Democrats’ dilemma is clear. While the president’s victories have produced simple straightforward headlines, their criticisms are more complicated and, to some ears, may sound like mere complaining.

Also of concern has been the ability of the administration to manage bad news and change the subject of coverage when they needed to.

Who remembered the Enron or Halliburton scandals of the summer of 2002? And whatever became of the challenges to the vice president’s dealings with oil company executives in planning the administration’s energy policy?

The war with Iraq, which was itself a “subject change,” provides yet another case in point. The raison d’etre of the war was the danger posed by the Baghdad regime’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the not so subtly implied links between Iraq and international terrorism.

The former is no longer mentioned, while continuing violence in Iraq is now noted as proof of the connection between terror and the former regime.

In the American public’s mind Sept. 11, Afghanistan and Iraq have all been morphed into a vague but clearly threatening reality — a “reality” that has been cultivated by carefully managed news.

In this picture the details have been ignored or deliberately pushed aside. What has been promoted as important to consider is that “we were attacked and we are fighting back — and our power has been decisive.” That Afghanistan is in a state of upheaval, that Pakistan may very well have been destabilized and that Al-Qaeda remains a very real threat - are not subjects for discussion. What matters is that “we are fighting terror” and, in this vague fight, we are told “we are winning”.

The coverage is managed and “spun” and, when needed, shifted to new topics — positive stories of victories. For a while, for example, as daily attacks against US forces were taking their toll, public support for the war was declining. This required management. To a degree, the effort has been successful. Americans and Iraqis continue to die, on a daily basis, but the stories of these deaths no longer generate front-page news coverage. For example, a series of attacks on US forces on Christmas Day resulted in four American deaths. A review of a number of major US daily newspapers found the story on page 39 in one, page 18 in another and not even appearing in another two.

In most instances, US deaths are reported buried in much larger press round-ups of Iraq-related news. In the past, they were featured as separate stories.

In a similar vein, Iraqi civilian deaths, resulting from actions by coalition forces, have all but disappeared from the US press. After pre-war polling showed that the US public was highly sensitive to such “collateral damage” deaths, the Pentagon refused to release such data forcing US reporters to hunt for these numbers on their own. Often times they had to go to Iraqi hospitals to learn casualty figures. Now, however, the coalition-administered Iraqi Ministry of Health has joined the Pentagon’s efforts by forbidding hospital staff from issuing any information to the international news media. Still some negative news will, on occasion, leak out, but it is episodic and incomplete.

As a result, the management of “bad news” has been quite effective, leaving the field wide open for coverage of what is termed the “larger” political news coverage of “progress”.

All of this is to say that the United States public is in the dark about much of what is happening or not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and the magnitude of the challenges facing both countries. What they know is that the United States is facing an upgraded “Orange Alert”, “Saddam has been caught” and the “United States is still fighting and winning the long war against terror”.

Even with this, the public remains deeply divided. But with accurate news so difficult to come by in this “cloud of war” that has descended on the country, it is increasingly hard to discuss the merits, or even the reality, of this war or the foreign policy that led us into it.

This will continue to be the situation in the next year. Reality may, on occasion, break through and the press may respond with tough stories, asking hard questions. But as the past few weeks have shown the administration has more arrows in its quiver, and, as the situation warrants, they may decide when and how to use them.

It's snowing here so naturally my thoughts return to the plane crash in Egypt. It's too weird out here (on the deck). I can hear the ocean and the ships bleating in the white darkness but the streets are quiet with the big flakes falling. Ok, so my first thought was terror. My second is more disturbing: the Egyptian President was going to meet Tony Blair at Sharm el-Sheikh today, security is tight, surely there is missle defense operational at the resort meeting place, air threats abound, it is dawn, and a chartered flight flies out to sea and gets too close. . .

Perhaps it was an accident, but with terror on the brain you get to thinking and. . .well, it's shameful, really.

Check out the BBC Breaking News story here.

Initially I'm freaked out because it was a clear day and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair is in Sharm el Sheikh as we speak, right where the plane went down on the Red Sea coast. It's odd that terror is what we think of first rather than the French tourists on board who just disintegrated.

I wonder if many people look at the great buildings or monuments in their cities and no longer stare at them with awe but rather question how much of a target it might represent to terrorists. To anyone living near the Houses of Parliament or work in the West Wing I've never come this close to empathy. I can almost understand what it might feel like. I've been held up, scared out my wits, charged by animals and been subjected to storms and gnarly turbulence, but none of that can come close when I start entertaining a worst-case scenario, like thinking the distant rumblings of a cement truck signals the beginning of an 6.5 earthquake. We are living in times fraught with fault lines. Terror bites, friend.

I thought about it on the ferry coming back from the island, on the bridge, and while having a smoke on my deck looking out to sea at all the massive tankers coming and going along the water. I could have gotten out a pen and started to colour-code the grades I was giving for security at the targets I was imagining. Not to be defeatist (for I shall overcome), but terrorism is effective.

I recall looking up at a jet-liner on Palmerston in Toronto in late September, 2001 and thinking "Oh Jesus, that's too low" or being a little secretly frightened of panel vans as they drove along the Strand in London last year during the run up to war in Iraq. Remember that Volkswagen ad with the man who has a miniature Beetle (the new kind) on top of his head 'cause he can't get it off his mind? Well, today I have terror, and it sucks. I hope that this crash was nothing, but I feel bad that people died nevertheless. I never imagined I would ever think something like that.

I'm always a little surprised that all of Vancouver Island hasn't been developed, paved, and sold for top dollar every time I go over there. It is God's country, brutha, and I'm an athiest. I had a great time. Nothing but food, beers, surf, rainforest, and good company. I've revisited a book idea which might have merit, and will probably go forward with that and Times New Roman concurrently. I wish I could do more to jazz the site up, add photo's, stats, etc...but in the end that sort of thing is garbage, for a good news site should be about thinking and providing many points of view not purchased or overtly influenced, each with a heavy dose of thick-grained salt. That's what I'll be trying to achieve in 2004. Note: I don't mention balance in that mission statement because the arguments of the right are mostly retarded. ;-)

So, back to the news shall we?

It seems no sooner had I switched my computer off that all hell started to break loose. First, mad cow disease. This is a nasty business, and since I am a carnivore of note used to lathering himself in offal while gnawing on the odd carcass, I feel I should be heard. Very few countries have an FDA-like organisation checking for things such as mad cow. I've eaten cows in parts of Africa where I'm rather certain the animals in question were never tested for anything other than genitals and four legs. In fact, wherever I go, I devour the indigenous animals with a fury that would get me locked up here at home. And by most accounts I'm fine. With all this hype internationally and in the United States over a single confirmed case of BSE, one could imagine a Gary Larson style cartoon with a couple of cows in Bangladesh referring to the plight of their poor American cousins by saying "And they thought we had it bad!" In any event, it now looks as if Canada is getting blamed for this particular mad cow. CNN has a story up tonight that says:

Soon after the December 23 announcement that mad cow disease had been found in a Washington dairy cow, officials quarantined two herds. One was the herd the infected cow was in before slaughter; the other was the herd where her bull calf was taken.

The department has also been trying to track the whereabouts of 81 cows originally thought to have been imported with the infected cow from Canada September 4, 2001, via a port in Oroville, Washington.

One of those cows has been tracked to a dairy farm in Mattawa, Washington, USDA Chief Veterinarian Ron DeHaven told reporters. As a result, he said, authorities this week placed that cow's herd under quarantine.

As with all things American, it could get entertaining: "You can overcharge me for gas and smokes and make it impossible to fly from A to B but if you take my Big Mac I'll fucking kill you bastards."

Unless this gets worse it's a non-story, like a single case of cholera in downtown Scottsdale. It might freak you out long enough to make you forget about the war, but not long enough to sway your attention from the fate of Michael Jackson.

Which brings me to other news: the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson story. Remember this? The ex-diplomat went public to show the Bush administration had lied about Iraq purchasing uranium from Niger in an op-ed piece in The New York Times (read it here). By claiming the White House wasn't being up front with the American people he invited attacks which we're swift, but none more personal, dangerous, illegal, and stupid than the public outing of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a Central Intelligence Agency NOC. A NOC is a spy, an agent with non-official cover, working overseas usually under a false identity. It is illegal to reveal the identity of an agent, but two "senior administration officials" called up 6 journalists to say Wilson was a crank and by the way his wife is CIA. Wilson thinks it was Karl Rove who ordered the leak or did the leaking. Attorney General John Ashcroft was leading the investigation but has now recused himself, bringing in independent Patrick Fitzgerald who I hope will waste no time and scare the crap out of the White House. Josh Marshall has some great insights into the Plame case here. This story nearly died in the last few weeks so I'm glad to see it creeping back to the front page. It has had the potential to be worse than Watergate but the attention-span of the media has been swayed by mad cow rumours, the freakshow that is Michael Jackson and Merry Christmas, don't get on a plane. Dig in your heels, boys...break's over. Get back to work.

Other than that, the war in Iraq continues to kill people even though it ended in last May and Afghanistan remains about as "free" as it was before 9-11. The War on Terror is a fuck-up. Anyway, it's snowing outside and I'm glad to be home and writing.

I'm going to the island for a week for the Christmas holidays so postings might be few and far between over the next few days. Before I go, I just wanted to respond to a question a colleague asked me yesterday as to why I haven't been posting about the day to day loss of American soldiers in Iraq for the last week or two. It isn't the result of a thought-out decision on my part, but I've been beginning to feel as if such reports accomplish little. We all know it's a messed up situation over there and people continue to die on a daily basis, but I'm wary of the "if it bleeds it leads" cliche of the major news outlets. Times New Roman will always try to focus on the bigger picture, the themes underlying the daily doses of death and destruction this war is wreaking. And it's Christmas. . .I hate to be reminded of an elevated terror threat, unneccesary deaths, and flight cancellations when all I want is my family to be safe and happy for a few days. It's already Christmas eve, and there has not been a single sugarplum vision dancing in my head, only breaking news banners of crazy cattle and op-ed messages of doom. Please world, just a few days respite to play Santa and have a few drinks. . .

I would give my lunch money to see Bush and Clark in a nationally televised debate. It would almost be unsportsmanlike of Clark to really go at him full-speed, but it would certainly be a rare treat to watch. The New York Times, perhaps foreshadowing such a debate, has an article up with Clark ripping Bush's Iraq policy. Here is an excerpt:

Gen. Wesley K. Clark on Monday blamed "bad leadership" by President Bush for the nation's heightened antiterrorism alert status, saying that it was a "strategic mistake" to shift resources to Iraq from the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"A wise leadership would not have put us into Iraq at this time," General Clark told reporters after serving hot meals at Manna House, a nonprofit agency in this city in the northeastern part of the state. "Instead we'd have concentrated on Osama bin Laden."

The comment came on a day when several candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination took issue with the administration's financing of antiterrorist programs on the local level.

General Clark did not fault the Department of Homeland Security for raising the alert on Sunday to orange from yellow. Because there was no way to know the intelligence behind the alert, he said, the administration should be given the benefit of the doubt on that decision.

"But that doesn't change the reality," General Clark said. "We knew who attacked this country on 9/11 and it was not Saddam Hussein. It was Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network."

"We should have gone after that network and we should have gone after it directly instead of taking half the United States Army and putting it in Iraq and using $150 billion and distracting us from our world leadership in the war on terror," he said. "It was a strategic mistake. I just hope that we'll be able to protect this country and we don't have more Americans who will suffer as a result of the president's bad leadership."

General Clark has proposed spending $40 billion in his first two years in office to improve domestic security. The money, which would come from rolling back Bush tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year, would help police and fire departments pay for equipment and staffing to prepare for attacks.

Phew. Though he is still considering an independent candidacy, the man some claim gave Bush the White House by running in 2000 (therefore splitting the left), will not run as a Green. Thanks, buddy.

Ok. I'm a little curious to know if this story has any juice to it. If you see anything, let me know. The story goes: Saddam was held by the Kurds before being delivered to his spider-hole. Rumour or fact, believe it, don't...I don't care...but if this is true I must hand it to the Bush administration for the gumption. I realise it's a dirty business but they sure can make it amusing.

Paul Krugman has a great op-ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Telling it Right". Have a look:

"This is a very, very important part of history, and we've got to tell it right." So says Thomas Kean, chairman of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Kean promises major revelations in testimony next month: "This was not something that had to happen." We'll see: maybe those of us who expected the 9/11 commission to produce yet another whitewash were wrong. Meanwhile, one can only echo his sentiment: it's important to tell our history right, not just about the events that led up to 9/11, but about the events that followed.

The capture of Saddam Hussein has produced a great outpouring of relief among both Iraqis and Americans. He's no longer taunting us from hiding; he was a monster and deserves whatever fate awaits him. But we shouldn't let war supporters use the occasion of Saddam's capture to rewrite the recent history of U.S. foreign policy, to draw a veil over the way the nation was misled into war.

Even the Iraq war's critics usually focus on the practical failures of the Bush administration's policy, rather than its morality. After all, the war came at a heavy cost, even before the fighting began: to prepare for the Iraq campaign, the administration diverted resources away from Afghanistan before the job was done, giving Al Qaeda a chance to get away and the Taliban a chance to regroup.

And while the initial invasion went smoothly, since then almost everything in Iraq has gone badly. (Saddam's capture would have been a smaller story if it had happened in the first flush of victory; instead, it was the first real piece of good news from Iraq in months.) The security situation remains terrible; the economy remains moribund; gasoline shortages and power outages continue.

To top it all off, the ongoing disorder in Iraq is a clear and present danger to our own national security. A large part of the U.S. military's combat strength is tied down in occupation duties, leaving us ill prepared for crises elsewhere. Meanwhile, overstretch is undermining the readiness of the military as a whole.

Now maybe, just maybe, Saddam's capture will start a virtuous circle in Iraq. Maybe the insurgency will evaporate; maybe the cost to America, in blood, dollars and national security, will start to decline.

But even if all that happens, we should be deeply disturbed by the history of this war. For its message seems to be that as long as you wave the flag convincingly enough, it doesn't matter whether you tell the truth.

By now, we've become accustomed to the fact that the absence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction — the principal public rationale for the war — hasn't become a big political liability for the administration. That's bad enough. Even more startling is the news from one of this week's polls: despite the complete absence of evidence, 53 percent of Americans believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, up from 43 percent before his capture. The administration's long campaign of guilt by innuendo, it seems, is still working.

The war's more idealistic supporters do, I think, feel queasy about all this. That's why they lay so much stress on their hopes for democracy in Iraq. They're not just looking for a happy ending; they're looking for moral redemption for a war fought on false pretenses.

As a practical matter, I suspect that they'll be disappointed: the only leaders in Iraq with genuine popular followings seem to be Shiite clerics. I also wonder how much real commitment to democracy lies behind the administration's stirring rhetoric. Does anyone remember that Dick Cheney voted against a resolution calling for Nelson Mandela's release from prison? As recently as 2000 he defended that vote, saying that the African National Congress "was then perceived as a terrorist organization."

Which brings me to this week's other famous prisoner. While the world celebrated the capture of Saddam, a federal appeals court ruled that Jose Padilla must be released from military custody. Mr. Padilla is a U.S. citizen, arrested on American soil, who has been held for 18 months without charges as an "enemy combatant." The ruling was a stark reminder that the Bush administration, which talks so much about promoting democracy abroad, doesn't seem very concerned about following democratic rules at home.

I just read in an interesting article in The New Yorker by Philip Gourevitch entitled "Winning and Losing"

Enjoy:

One day late last summer, as the tally of bombings, shootings, and acts of sabotage against the American occupation in Iraq took on the unmistakable profile of a war of guerrilla insurgency, the office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, at the Pentagon, designed and distributed e-mail flyers with a cautionary headline: “how to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas.” The e-mail invited those involved in the “wot”—the war on terrorism—to a private screening of the Italian Marxist director Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1966 masterpiece, “The Battle of Algiers.” The movie, which will be rereleased in theatres next month, is surely the most harrowing, and realistic, political epic ever filmed. It depicts the conflict between Algerian nationalist insurgents and French colonial forces in the late nineteen-fifties, or, as the flyer put it: “Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar?”

For all the differences between France’s fight to keep Algeria—a country it had occupied since 1830—and America’s current dispensation in Iraq, the parallels between the drama of insurgency and counter-insurgency in “The Battle of Algiers” and our present Iraqi predicament are as clear and as depressing as the Pentagon film programmers promised. The ugly truth that Pontecorvo lays vividly bare, as his camera tacks back and forth between the Algerian guerrillas and the French paratroopers, is that terrorism works. For, although the film focusses on a chapter in the Algerian struggle when France succeeded in crushing the rebel movement, the final moments of the movie show how within a few years the French were forced to accept defeat and retreat, an outcome that in retrospect appears historically inevitable.

Such is the bind that the Bush Administration has led us into in Iraq. Appalling, intolerable—in all senses, maddening—as the terrorist tactics of the Iraqi insurgents may be, their truck bombs, donkey-cart missile launchers, and sniper rifles are tactical political instruments that have steadily and systematically succeeded in isolating American forces in Iraq. They have effectively driven the United Nations, the international staff of the Red Cross, and other aid groups from the country, and—more disastrously—they have fostered a mutual sense of alienation between the American forces and the Iraqi people they are supposed to be liberating. Triumphalist pronouncements from Washington notwithstanding, our occupying forces are now clearly on the defensive. And the more aggressive their defense becomes, the more it serves the insurgents’ purposes. When an American adviser in Iraq speaks of a new strategy of “terrorism versus terrorism,” as Seymour M. Hersh reported in these pages last week, and an American lieutenant colonel tells the Times, “With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them,” one may be forgiven for concluding that the enemy is defining the terms of the fight to his advantage.

In “The Battle of Algiers,” there comes a moment when the commander of the French paratroopers, Lieutenant Colonel Mathieu, realizes that, despite a spate of strategic successes against the insurgency, he is losing the larger battle for public opinion. At a press conference, reporters confront him with allegations that his men have tortured Algerian informants. Mathieu reminds the reporters that the press had originally been unanimous in calling for the suppression of the rebellion. “That’s why we were sent here,” he says. “And we’re neither crazy nor sadistic. . . . We are soldiers. Our duty is to win. Since we’re being precise, I’ll now ask you a question. Is France to remain in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, you must accept all the necessary consequences.”

President Bush has consistently assured us that America will “stay the course” in Iraq, but what he means by that—what that course is—is not clear. Just as the official reasons for the war keep shifting, so does the Administration’s proclaimed objective. For now, we are in Iraq because the President and his most influential advisers wanted to go to war there. Having made a misleading case for the war, the Bush team drastically mismanaged the crucial early period of the occupation, and has recently responded to the Iraqi insurgency by scrapping its original plan for political revitalization in favor of a hastier schedule of “Iraqization.” With Bush’s attention turning ever more urgently to holding on to the White House in next year’s election, he is pushing for the election of an Iraqi transitional government by the middle of next year. “We’re going to get out of there as quickly as we can, but not before we finish the mission at hand,” Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, explained the other day.

Unlike the French mission in Algeria, Washington’s goal in Iraq is not to prevent the people from governing their own country but to help them to do so. Presumably, the insurgents—about whose politics, allegiances, organization, and objectives shockingly little is known—also want to see Iraqis in power, if not the same ones that Washington might favor. The question “Is America to remain in Iraq?” would ultimately receive the same negative answer from the occupiers as from the guerrillas. But, as the Bush Administration pushes for speedy elections and a speedy exit, Algeria’s example is again worth bearing in mind. In the early nineties, an Islamic fundamentalist party won elections in that country by a solid majority but was prevented from taking power by the secular military, which refused to accept the democratic election of an anti-democratic government. As a result, the country descended into a civil war that is reported to have claimed a hundred thousand lives.

Right now, there is no Iraqi state and, in the absence of an Iraqi leader, President Bush holds power. Of course, Iraqis won’t get to vote for him when they do eventually go to the polls, and for that, at least, he can be grateful. His apparent impatience to get out of the country suggests that he recognizes how difficult it will be to maintain the claim that he is that country’s liberator even as he serves as Commander-in-Chief of an increasingly relentless counter-insurgency campaign. The President cannot afford to lose Iraq. What is less obvious, with the guerrillas setting the agenda, is what the price would be to win it.

If the United States was ever presented with a perfect candidate for President since JFK, Wesley Clark is that man. I've been intrigued by Clark since reading a bio on him during the Balkans War. His credentials blow every other Democratic candidate out of the water, and when you stand him up to Bush, he towers above the child president in character, intelligence, and experience. I've just finished watching his new campaign video called "American Son" and it was brilliant. Clark is one of those extremely rare people that combine raw talent with superhuman drive. He excels at everything he puts his mind to. If I could, I'd vote for him twice.

Breaking News from the BBC:

Libya's leader Colonel Gaddafi has said his country sought to develop weapons of mass destruction capabilities but will dismantle this programme completely, Prime Minister Tony Blair has announced.

"This decision is an historic one and a courageous one and I applaud it," Mr Blair said.

My first reaction is big deal. I doubt the program was serious. I'm suspicious that perhaps there is a quid pro quo at work, where Libya comes forward, giving Blair and Bush a news coup that will be played up as a victory in the press (until exposed as hollow), in exchange for something as yet unknown to the public. Smacks of bullshit to me. I suspect Libya's WMD capability is probably nothing more sinister than a filing cabinet filled with "how to" pages printed from a website or two. Nothing. It's Libya. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's politics. Gaddafi is a no show in the power arena, a hyena scared of his shadow since Reagan bombed his house. Not to be too cynical, but I think he's being used to shine up the tarnished images of Bush and Blair because, truly, getting Libya to deal is like getting a dog to sit. However, the wording of the BBC headline still bugs me: "Libya to give up WMD." Right...yet as far as the BBC knows Libya may never have possessed them, just a "program". Who knows, it might be just a filing cabinet. This story is garbage.

I am more than a bit surprised that the media isn't jumping all over former Republican Governor (NJ) Thomas Kean's comments concerning the findings of his Bush sanctioned, independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. What gives, CNN? Mark Gisleson poses the same question over at Bush Wars, asking his readers to stay on the look-out for any new sightings of this story. Like I said in my previous post entitled Bad Moon Rising for Bush, Kean's damning indictment that the White House was caught sleeping at the wheel has the potential to seriously threaten the jobs of some of Bush's appointee's, and perhaps even dampen Bush's chance of re-election. If his report shows the Bush administration was caught napping, then this story deserves to be front and center.

So, I say again, what gives, CNN? Is this story going to get shouted down by the sounds of trumpets marking the capture of someone irrelevant to the present War on Terror? I can't imagine that happening, but it's been a couple of days since this story broke, and still nothing. Perhaps the sound of silence is really the sound of knives being sharpened. Nevertheless, Times New Roman is comfortable out front, waiting for the big boys to catch up.

It's alway disturbing to be reading the news only to find that the President of Iran agrees with me:

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has said Saddam Hussein is unlikely to receive a fair trial because he could reveal too many embarrassing details. "Saddam will undoubtedly make statements that will not be pleasing to many people among those who are now standing against Saddam," he said. Iran - which was invaded by Iraq in 1980 - is preparing charges against the ousted Iraqi president.

Mr Khatami has said he does not "like the death penalty". "But I believe if there is one case where there should be an execution, the fairest case would be for Saddam," the moderate cleric told reporters.

It can be applied to convicted murderers, armed robbers, rapists, apostates and drug traffickers.
At least nine executions across the country have been reported by the Iranian media in the last week alone. President Khatami said Saddam Hussein had hurt "many people," including many Iranians.

"What we want is an open trial for Saddam, and that it should be fair," he said. But he said he doubted that the trial of the former Iraqi leader would be "totally fair" because of the awkward details he could reveal.

The United States backed Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war, providing financial assistance and military intelligence. After the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, the country was regarded by Washington as more dangerous than its neighbour Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was also supported by the Soviet Union, European nations and other Arab states. BBC News Online world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds says the French President Jacques Chirac and the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld might find their names in the frame. In 1975, Mr Chirac - then prime minister - showed Saddam Hussein round a nuclear plant and later referred to him as "My dear friend".

Former Republican Governor of New Jersey, Thomas Kean, now heading an independent commission on 9-11, has dropped a bombshell on the increasingly unfortunate Bush administration. It is the ultimate pooh-pooh on what was promising to be the first good week for the president since he prematurely announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq. Back to the doldrums, old fella.

This Breaking News from CBS news:

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean. "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame. "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said.

To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building. I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission. The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots. "If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said. Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers. Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will."

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

I can't begin to imagine how Bush can possibly counterspin this. Kean is a Republican, hand-picked by Bush, and he is going to point fingers.

Kenneth Roth, the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, has an op-ed piece up in the International Herald Tribune demanding a fair trial for Saddam Hussein in the International Criminal Court:

Despite the obvious merits of an internationally led tribunal, Washington is adamantly opposed, which largely explains the path chosen by the Iraqi Governing Council. But Washington's opposition reflects its ideology, not concern for the Iraqi people. The Bush administration calculates that a tribunal of Iraqis selected by its hand-picked Governing Council will be less likely to reveal embarrassing aspects of Washington's past support for Saddam Hussein, more likely to impose the death penalty despite broad international condemnation, and, most important, less likely to enhance even indirectly the legitimacy of the detested International Criminal Court.

Perhaps with less of an axe to grind, Joe Conason from the New York Observer spells out just some of the potential consequences of giving Saddam Hussein a microphone in open court:

President George W. Bush and the provisional Iraqi authorities have promised that before Saddam Hussein is executed, he will most certainly receive a fair trial. Conveniently enough, the Iraqis set up a war-crimes tribunal in Baghdad for this purpose just last week. So sometime after Saddam's Army interrogators are finished sweating the old monster, the preparations shall begin for what promises to be a courtroom spectacular.

Advocates of human rights and international law hope that the prosecution of Saddam will improve somewhat upon his regime's standard of criminal justice, which generally entailed horrific torture followed by confession and punishment. They have urged that Saddam's trial be conducted with complete fairness and transparency. Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon's favorite member of the Iraqi Governing Council, says that Saddam must be afforded the lawful treatment he denied his victims.

Those laudable aims presumably require that he be permitted to defend himself legally, no matter how indefensible he actually is. Human Rights Watch, which demanded action against Iraqi atrocities before such concerns became fashionable in Washington, now insists that the captured dictator "must be allowed to conduct a vigorous defense that includes the right to legal counsel at an early stage."

Apart from blaming his underlings for the genocidal crimes on his indictment, what defense can he (or his lawyers) offer? Following in the style of Slobodan Milosevic, he may well wish to spend his final days on the public stage bringing shame to those who brought him down. Unfortunately, it isn't hard to imagine how he might accomplish that if he can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Charged with the use of poison gas against Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam could summon a long list of Reagan and Bush administration officials who ignored or excused those atrocities when they were occurring.

An obvious prospective witness is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who acted as a special envoy to Baghdad during the early 1980's. On a courtroom easel, Saddam might display the famous December 1983 photograph of him shaking hands with Mr. Rumsfeld, who acknowledges that the United States knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. If his forces were using Tabun, mustard gas and other forbidden poisons, he might ask, why did Washington restore diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November 1984?

As for his horrendous persecution of the Kurds in 1988, Saddam could call executives from the banks and defense and pharmaceutical companies from various countries that sold him the equipment and materials he is alleged to have used. He might put former President George Herbert Walker Bush on the witness stand and ask, "Why did your administration and Ronald Reagan's sell my government biological toxins such as anthrax and botulism, as well as poisonous chemicals and helicopters?"

Saddam could also subpoena Henry Kissinger, whose consulting firm's chief economist ventured to Baghdad in June 1989 to advise the Iraqi government on restructuring its debt. "After my forces allegedly murdered thousands of Kurdish civilians in 1988," he might inquire, "why would you and other American businessmen want to help me refinance and rearm my government?"

Indeed, Saddam could conceivably seek the testimony of dozens of men and women who once served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, starting with former Secretary of State George Shultz, and ask them to explain why they opposed every Congressional effort to place sanctions on his government, up until the moment his army invaded Kuwait during the summer of 1990. Pursuing the same general theme, he might call Vice President Dick Cheney, who sought to remove sanctions against Iraq when he served as the chief executive of Halliburton Corp.

The long, shadowy history of American relations with Saddam would be illuminated not only through witness testimony but literally thousands of documents in U.S. government files. Memos uncovered by the National Security Archive show that Reagan and Bush administration officials knew exactly how the Iraqi government was procuring what it needed to build weapons of mass destruction, including equipment intended for construction of a nuclear arsenal.

From time to time, during those crucial years when Saddam consolidated his power and prepared for war, U.S. diplomats issued rote condemnations of his worst actions. Then, as the record shows, they would privately reassure Saddam that the United States still desired close and productive relations. The other governments that were Saddam's accomplices include both opponents and supporters of this administration's pre-emptive war -- from France, Germany and Russia, to Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Pertinent as these issues are to Saddam's case, they do not mitigate his record of murder and corruption. And the man dragged from his pathetic hideout near Tikrit hardly seems to possess the will or the capability to raise them. Either way, he will get what he deserves. Yet it will be hard to boast that justice and history have been fully served if his foreign accomplices escape their share of opprobrium.

Is there really going to be a fair trial in Iraq? I'm not suggesting that he deserves one, but a lot of dirt can come out of this. Keeping in mind what a 6 month interrogation might do to even the strongest of minds, and the fact that Saddam has refrained from making smart choices in the past, I doubt Saddam will be afforded the same freedoms to defend himself that Milosevic is presently enjoying to American displeasure in the Hague. As with Milosevic, it would be much better to line him up against a wall and offer him a smoke. Well, as of this morning, it doesn't look as if Saddam has access to legal counsel. Big deal, right? As far as Saddam being granted the justice he denied millions, without a lawyer with him in that room with his CIA interrogators for the next 6 months, how can any trial be fair? I guess Justice is not only blind, but also American. And in this case, I'm fine with that. Just don't give me garbage about a fair trial, because for the sake of entertainment I'd like to have the world hear the depths to which the U.S was responsible for supporting his brutalities, especially in an election year. Anybody know if Johnnie Cochran is a democrat?

I always find it terrifying when it is revealed to me how staggeringly ignorant (but decidedly passionate) we all can be. The American love affair with the idea that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 continues to hold fast despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including an admission as such from Bush himself. Indeed, almost 70% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the WTC and Pentagon attacks. That is infinitely more terrifying than Bush getting re-elected because it re-enforces the old truth that you get what you deserve. If the Bush administration has disavowed the notion, why is it so prevalent? What weirdness is at play that has warped the convictions of the majority? Rumour? Gut feeling? Fox News? It would be easier if I was confident enough to say 70% of Americans are just plain gullible, but I'm not. It's a mystery that provides me with little but unease. Read this commentary from Jimmy Breslin in the New York Daily:

The guide from the tour bus stood in the center of a crowd in winter hats and announced, "This used to be called Ground Zero. We don't use that anymore. We now call it the World Trade Center." Behind him yesterday was the Russian steppes. Brooding and empty, with nothing to stop the icy wind coming off the river. In the wild exulting over the capture of a defeated man, Hussein, you'd think that the trade center would not be as continually and vigorously inspected by sightseers. After all, Hussein had nothing to do with this. Bin Laden is your man.

Yet small crowds such as this one with their tour guide gathered through the afternoon for the length of the fence looking out at the famous and frozen real estate. Each person you spoke to, and they were from all over the country, were pleased that the new trade center would be the world's tallest building. Also, they were supremely happy because Saddam Hussein had had something to do with blowing up the Twin Towers.

Here was a woman in the cold, Linda Jacobs, standing with her husband, Ken, from Newport News, Va., and saying, "He probably did. Who knows. But he probably did." Her husband said, "Oh. yeah. He was in on it." A couple from Knoxville, Tenn., Elaine and Will, agreed. "I believe he was in on it on some level," she said. "He was around there someplace," the husband said. Betty Hipp, San Antonio. "Of course Saddam was responsible." I was out there for some time, taking notes and hometowns, and it was all the same. Saddam is bin Laden.

To thaw out, I went into the Burger King on the corner of Liberty and Church, where Mary Garcia, 53, was behind the counter and looking out the big window and right at the trade center and the people there to look at it. "For me Hussein did it, the other guy, too. These people both is together in Iraq and in the trade center," Garcia said. "If Saddam don't do nothing, why he go into a hole? Because he is afraid we catch him for the World Trade Center that he did with bin Laden? The both of them together." She said she has a son in Iraq, Sgt. Peter Garcia. "He was from Italy, they send him to Iraq. He's married already in Italy. His wife doesn't stay at the base in Italy. She goes home to Puerto Rico with the baby. "Yesterday I get up in the morning and I hear they caught this Saddam. I go, oh, thank you God. Oh, how happy could you make me? Now maybe my son comes home."

It is a rule of mine not to use man on the street interviews, but this was so unanimous and forceful that I had to listen. And as I did, I could hear George Bush and his people all saying: "We went and got Saddam because it is better to fight terrorists in Iraq than in Manhattan."

No matter that Saddam had nothing to do with the attack. There were 15 Saudi Arabians who were in the suicide attack. Then immediately, the FBI gathered up those members of bin Laden's sprawling family who were in America and got them on planes to Switzerland. And soon, the Saudi Arabian prince was at Waco, Texas, for an amiable day with Bush.

How could you not blame Saddam Hussein for everything? He murdered his own, yes. And he was going to kill all of us with nuclear weapons. "I know they are there," Bush announced. There was nothing nuclear about Saddam hiding in his hole. There was no anthrax or smallpox, just rats and lice.

But the unmistakable feeling is that more and more of the American public will consider Saddam Hussein a partner in terror with Osama bin Laden and that it was a wonderful thing we did, going to war to catch one of them.

This belief in two enemies probably is going to be welcomed by Larry Silverstein, the builder who by mouth alone, has made it appear that he owns the land, the buildings, the sky above and the water below. Silverstein has $3.5 billion coming as insurance for the raid. He contends that they were two separate attacks, one on Tower One, a second on Tower Two. Therefore, he wants to be paid double. Seven billion. The insurance companies involved are inclined to do battle. Without the double insurance payment, people around him say, he won't be able to build a front stoop to a building made of thin air. "Two attacks," Larry says.

"Larry, it is the World Trade Center attack," he is told, including by judges in early rulings that were at least ominous for Silverstein.

Perhaps there was a chance in the freezing air yesterday. He can claim that Osama bin Laden made one attack on a tower and then Saddam Hussein's suicide bombers went into the second tower. Two people. Two attacks. Two payments!

I said it yesterday and I'll say it agin: the next few weeks are vital for the United States and the future of Iraq. We are going to see how the capture of Saddam Hussein will play out. We don't know at all whether or not the insurgency will gasp it's way into oblivion now that Saddam is gone, paving the way for undisrupted elections and the peace that is essential for a democracy to take root, or whether Saddam was not nearly as important as the media and the Bush administration is letting on. There is a real danger here for Bush, who has seen his polling numbers go up in the wake of the capture. If the attacks by fedayeen and ordinary Iraqis continue, Bush is running out of people and groups to blame. If Americans continue to die I believe the media will go hunting and Bush's numbers will drop. CNN is reporting that 10 have been killed and 15 wounded after a truck packed with explosives detonated in central Baghdad. Is this a death rattle or a sign that Saddam mattered little? In any event, I shall keep abreast of developments and keep you posted. Also, did you notice that Madonna has endorsed Gen. Wesley Clark for president? This could signal the turn of the tide! Watch out Dean.

This story from Al Jazeera:

Iraq probably got rid of its weapons of mass destruction in 1991 as the country's toppled leaders claimed, the former UN chief weapons inspector has said. "The Iraqis have consistently stated that they (weapons of mass destruction) were destroyed in the summer of 1991," Hans Blix told journalists in Stockholm on Tuesday. "My guess is that there are no weapons of mass destruction left."

Blix was in Stockholm to announce the creation of a new independent international commission on weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He said there was reason to look further into Iraqi claims after the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Saddam must have knowledge about what he ordered. He should know about what he built" and "he must have some information himself on when they destroyed their weapons of mass destruction." Blix added the capture of Saddam Hussein was unlikely to bring the occupation forces in Iraq any closer to finding the elusive weapons, but that he may still tell investigators how Iraq acquired, developed and eventually got rid of the weapons. A former Swedish diplomat, Blix was charged with searching for weapons of mass destruction in the 15 weeks leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq.

He criticised the US for making claims to justify its strike on Iraq that it couldn't back up. "I think that much of what was said was not sufficiently well based," he said.

Blix has been assigned to lead a new Swedish-financed commission on weapons of mass destruction, which is set to work in 2004 and 2005 on finding ways of limiting the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The new commission will cover the general threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but Blix said it would also discuss countries of particular concern, like North Korea, Iran, Iraq and the Indian peninsula, as well as the risk posed by terrorist organisations.

OK then, the question is this: if American intelligence was so poor, can the U.S ever be trusted to give the right information again? Clearly not 100%. The danger of such inexactitude will become apparent when and if another crisis arises where American security is threatened and the "evidence" comes from the CIA.
The world will be suspicious to the point where instinct will point them in the direction of serious doubt. I'm being generous here, for it seems to me that no nation would go to war with such bad intelligence being the lynchpin of their purpose. In the words of Roger Daltry from The Who: "I won't get fooled again."

This piece from Iraqi writer Tariq Ali called The New Model of Imperialism: Saddam on Parade examines the significance of his capture:

My first reaction to the capture of Saddam Hussein was both anger and disgust. Anger with the old dictator who could not even die honourably. He preferred to be captured by his old friends than to go down fighting, the one decent thing he could have done for his country.

I felt no pity for Saddam. He had killed some dear comrades of mine and imprisoned too many others, but the US had no right to do this. It was the responsibility of the Iraqi people.

I also felt disgust with the way in which the TV networks were covering this event. CNN and BBC World had become total propaganda networks, to such an extent that it must have made Berlusconi smile. Parading a captured prisoner in this fashion is the new model of imperialism. The latter-day equivalent of how barbarian chieftains were paraded in ancient Rome, prior to their execution.

For years the US had built up Saddam as the big bogeyman in the Middle-East. Now that he has gone what possible excuse is there for the Western soldiers to remain in Iraq? Why not an immediate general election to elect a Constituent Assembly? Is it because an elected Assembly would demand an immediate end to the Occupation, Iraqi control of Iraqi oil and Iraqi firms to reconstruct their country? These demands will unite the bulk of Iraqis regardless of their religious or ethnic origin.

What effect will Saddam's arrest have on the resistance? Several weeks ago I wrote that even if Saddam was captured and killed, the resistance would continue. There is no reason to change that view. In fact those who were, till now, reluctant to back the resistance will now come out openly against the Occupation. Those in the US and elsewhere who argued that the resistance was led by Saddam and the remnants of the old regime, will now get a big shock. This week a peaceful mass uprising in Hilla removed a US-appointed Governor. The slogan chanted by the people was: "Free elections now!' Actions of this type are bound to increase.

If it is true, as the warmongers argued once they couldn't find any 'weapons of mass destruction', that they were ridding Iraq of a tyrant, the logic should now be an immediate end to the Occupation. I don't think this will happen. That is why a political resistance could spread throughout the country. Banning trades-unions as the Occupation has done won't make too much difference. The Iraqi underground is vibrant and hopeful.

And what will they do with Saddam? The Occupation of Iraq is illegal and so the US will not tempt international law by trying him in the Hague. There is a further problem. In order to help Kissinger and other US war criminals it was agreed that leaders cannot be charged retrospectively. If there is a tribunal in Iraq, it will, like every other institution today, be US-dominated. Will it be public? And what if old rogue decides to tell the whole story of his collaboration with the US throughout the Eighties of the last century? What if he reveals his conversations with Donald Rumsfeld during the Iran-Iraq war? Its a problem for them. So they will do what suits their interests.

After all, the Emperor Hirohito in Japan sanctioned and supported a war that led to the deaths of tens of millions during the Second World war. He was needed against Communism and so they transformed him into a friendly marine biologist.

I don't think they need Saddam any more, so he can't be transformed into a friendly neighbourhood archaelogist, but they will try and get what they want out of him, though even a broken and defeated Saddam is unlikely to help them find the weapons that never existed.

It doesn't look like Saddam's capture is solving much in the short term. These next few weeks are crucial for the U.S occupation. If the insurgency continues unabated, killing more Americans and those helping them, it will reveal the irrelevance of Hussein to the overall effort to de-stabilise the country. On the other hand, if the attacks begin to slow down we could see an accelerated withdrawal of the bulk of American forces, perhaps before the spring, clearing the way for a political solution, a smoother UN entry, and maybe, just maybe, some semblance of a rocky peace. The news coming out today doesn't look too promising for the U.S, but as I said, it will take weeks for the dust of Saddam's capture to settle. This from The New York Times:

American soldiers killed 11 attackers who ambushed their patrol using a flock of pigeons as a signal of the force's approach, a United States military statement said today. The incident, which occurred Monday, appeared to be a further sign that the insurgency has not slowed after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

American officials have said that the capture of Mr. Hussein by American forces from an underground hole on Saturday would not completely quell the violence in the country against military forces. Since Mr. Hussein was detained, there have been several car bombs and attacks against American forces and the Iraqi police who work with them.

But the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, told reporters at Baghdad airport today that the capture of Mr. Hussein would send a signal to anti-American insurgents.

"When you take this leader who at one time was a popular leader in the region and find him in a hole in the ground, that is a powerful signal that you may be on the wrong team and maybe should be thinking about some other line of work," he said, in remarks carried by the Reuters news agency.

On Monday, American soldiers from the Second Infantry Division traveling through the city of Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, saw a large flock of pigeons take flight, apparently as a signal to announce the arrival of the soldiers.

Moments later, two men on a motorcycle firing automatic weapons used children leaving school as cover to attack the patrol, the statement said. American forces deployed snipers. As the patrol continued, gunmen using an overgrown field as cover attacked it with automatic weapons, while others fired rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, the statement said.

The statement said the soldiers killed 11 attackers, and that there were no American casualties. In November, American soldiers killed 46 guerrilla attackers in a firefight in Samarra — the largest battle in the country since coalition forces toppled Mr. Hussein's government last spring.

Today, protests in support of Saddam Hussein broke out in at least two Iraqi towns, Falluja and Ramadi, while American forces were wounded by a roadside bomb in Tikrit, news agencies reported. The American military said in a statement that in Falluja some demonstrators with assault rifles fired into the air, and the Iraqi police called in American forces to help push back rioters at the American-backed mayor's office. It said that after the crowd dispersed, American troops shot dead one "enemy" after a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at a tank.

In the past 24 hours, the military said, five "enemy personnel" were shot dead during joint patrols by American and Iraqi forces in Khaldiya and when the soldiers and Iraqi forces were fired on after up to 750 people gathered for a pro-Saddam rally in Ramadi.

This from Reuters:

And then there was one. The capture of Saddam Hussein throws the spotlight on the world's other most wanted man, the elusive Osama bin Laden. The leader of al Qaeda and suspected architect of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington could remain at liberty for much longer as difficult Afghan terrain, friendly tribes, a deep well of loyalty and his role as an ideological inspiration all combine to protect him.

"Saddam is no longer a problem now, so bin Laden is the focus," U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad said. Many analysts argue that with bin Laden still free and possibly planning more attacks on U.S. soil and elsewhere, including perhaps in Iraq itself, he poses a far more potent threat than the former Iraqi leader. "The single biggest weakness of the U.S. has been the failure to target and neutralize Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri," said terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna, referring to the al Qaeda chief's Egyptian deputy. Capturing bin Laden presents a much more formidable challenge to U.S. troops and intelligence, analysts say.

"Unlike Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden is not viewed as a tyrant who has butchered many people around him," said Husain Haqqani of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington. "Saddam was in a circle with room for betrayal but there are very few such in the Osama circle. "And he has local support, he is like a fish swimming in favorable waters," said Haqqani. That is one of several critical factors that analysts say have helped bin Laden evade the manhunt. "For more than 10 years, Osama has lived along the Afghan-Pakistan border and enjoys significant support there," said Gunaratna, author of "Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror." "The Americans have not done anything for these people and they see Osama as their hero and they will protect him," he said.

Protecting a guest is a way of life in the ancient honor code of the Pashtun tribes that populate the region where bin Laden is believed to have taken refuge. "Anyone who handed over Osama bin Laden would be seen as a traitor in the Muslim world," said counter-terror expert Clive Williams of the Australian National University in Canberra. "They would rather be prepared to martyr themselves."

In addition to the loyalty of people in the region, bin Laden is operating in terrain so rugged and mountainous that it provides a natural barrier against those searching for him. "Saddam Hussein was totally isolated in a country effectively under U.S. control while Osama has the advantage of having people on both sides of the border," said Haqqani. "There are warlords and local commanders on the Afghan side and possibly low-level government functionaries on the Pakistan side who are ideologically sympathetic," he said.

Also, analysts noted the lure of the militant Islamic ideology that martyrs would be rewarded in the afterlife, compared with Saddam's vehemently secular Baath party. Such differences are crucial, they said.

Saddam was no guerrilla fighter with an organized clandestine network of agents and safe houses like al Qaeda, said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani expert on Afghanistan and author of a book on the Taliban. "Saddam's capture was a question of intelligence," said Rashid, adding that the chances of someone approaching the U.S. forces with intelligence about bin Laden were remote. "This entire region is hostile to the Americans and hostile to the Pakistani government," he said. That reduces the attraction of the $25 million reward on bin Laden's head.

"For the Afghans, their honor is more important," said Gunaratna. "Money is a just a green piece of paper." While some analysts say elements of Pakistan's military Inter Services Intelligence may be sympathetic to bin Laden, others cite signs that Pakistan is already tracking down those protecting him if he is hiding in the lawless border tribal regions. "What we are seeing is that Pakistan is investing more resources in developing intelligence on that border, but it is a very long border," said Gunaratna of the highly porous 2,450-km (1,500-mile) frontier with Afghanistan.

Analysts say Pakistan is eager to cooperate with U.S. forces in tracking down members of al Qaeda to boost relations with the United States. Since the September 11 attacks, some 460 al Qaeda members, including several top leaders, have been arrested in Pakistan. But Washington has not given the hunt for bin Laden the importance that it could have, analysts said.

It has devoted limited resources to Afghanistan, with only 12,000 troops based in the rugged, landlocked country compared with more than 10 times that number in Iraq. "Afghanistan is a forgotten war and it is a mistake not to pay attention to it," said Haqqani, adding that U.S. interest evaporated with the overthrow of the Taliban and the apparent dispersal of al Qaeda's leadership in November 2001. "The Americans need to put resources and men on the ground. That is an absolute necessity," Haqqani said.

I've always thought Saddam was a nasty man, really the worst kind of scum, up there in the pantheon of skidmarks on par with Ceaucescu, Noriega, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Nixon. Seeing him laid out, man-handled by a bald medic on TV looking about as "into it" as a cro magnon man snatched by aliens, I realised how omnipotent and inexorable the present projection of American power really is. As to how people stand up to the U.S is beyond me. Is it bravery? Not according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld:

"Here was a man who was photographed hundreds of times shooting off rifles and showing how tough he was, and in fact, he wasn't very tough, he was cowering in a hole in the ground, and had a pistol and didn't use it and certainly did not put up any fight at all. . .In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave. . ."

I suppose not. Hussein was a killer when he was a teenager, and really dug it for all his life. He is responsible for killing millions and started two really unintelligent wars (but not this one). He stood once astride his country like a colossus, but for the last 8 months he has been in a hole. Being down a hole that long just sucks, even if you're sleeping on a pillow of $750,000 in crisp $100 bills, packing a pistol and two AK-47's. What was he hoping for? To live to fight another day? To save himself from simple humiliation? To defeat the invaders? None of that matters now. Anyway, would we give a shit?

Have we so demonized Saddam that we have stripped him of his only remaining possession: his humanity? Yes. Have we whipped ourselves up into a frenzy of vengeance that we are under threat of losing our own? Maybe.

No one will shed a tear for Saddam, but if he is put on trial and allowed to defend himself, to make statements of his own choosing before the world? It's tough to say. Really, it would be better for Bush if the dictator was set against a wall and shot, today. Talk of a trial by Iraqi's is already getting support from the Bush administration. What could happen then?

This from a friend on the island,

"And if Saddam has a sense of humor and has his wits about him, he shall
call a few good witnesses:

- April Glaspy, the then US ambassador in Baghdad, to prove the US
complicity in giving him a green light to invade Kuwait,

- Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld, for all the help and support they gave
him in the war against Iran and the 1988 massacre of the Kurds, and

- Norman Schwarzkopf, The US millitary commander, for allowing and
facilitating the massacre of the Iraqi Shi'its after the first Gulf War."

This might not require a sense of humour but common sense. Saddam has displayed little of that. The press is going to go on a rampage of vilification to steel our hearts to pity. We are meant to hate him, and we do. But we must ready ourselves, so the thinking goes, for the moment when he has the microphone. Does he pull a Ghandi, mesmerising all with a rhetorical labyrinth of well-reasoned points, challenging our moral authority, challenging the U.S case, all the while retaining his dignity and composure? Not in a million years. He will do as always, just blunder along, digging himself deeper in our disdain, like a Milosevic or a Mugabe, mad-mouthing rants in platitude while alternately pouting like a child.

This excerpt from today's Time exclusive:

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

Not exactly the argument I'd choose. Whatever the case, it's been a good day. I'm sure somewhere out there more people were made happy by his capture than those who were made sad.

Alright! Great job finding a bearded, pathetic shell of a man living in a dirt hole. It's a great day for Iraq and a victory for Bush, but let's keep our eyes on the ball. I'm sure the celebration will cast away the clouds of doubt for a few days over why the Americans went into Iraq in the first place, but once the music stops there will still be no WMD found and no link with Al Qaeda. Did the U.S go to war to put Saddam on trial? Will his people will put him on trial, burn him at the stake, and then say "thanks America, here is your exit visa"? Is that the new spin? I'm afraid we're going to see a lot of that in the coming days, but the more pressing question is this: in the short term will this make the Iraqi people more responsive to the outstretched hands of America therefore limiting the daily attacks against them? I hope so. This was a war where the endgame is still malleable. There has been too much killing for stupid reasons. Just make sure you keep your eyes on the goal-posts, I think they're going to move yet again.

Al Jazeera has this for sale in the final graf of it's breaking news story:

Intifad Qanbar, the spokesperson for the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council, claimed DNA tests had shown that the captive was Hussein.

Nothing as yet confirmed. CNN is going bananas.

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has possibly been captured in a raid near his hometown of Tikrit, U.S. officials say. However, the officials told CNN on Sunday that the identity of the individual, who was one of a number of wanted Iraqis caught, was still being confirmed. A coalition news conference in Baghdad, scheduled for 1200 GMT (7 a.m. ET), is expected to shed more light on whether the Iraqi leader was captured. The raid was based on intelligence that Saddam was at a particular location in the area, the officials said. The former Iraqi leader is number one on the coalition's 55 most wanted list, and his evasion has been a political sore spot for the U.S. administration.


The BBC has it from an Iranian source that the U.S have got him:

Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been arrested in Iraq, according to unconfirmed reports. He was detained in his ancestral home town of Tikrit, Iraqi Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani said on the official Iranian news agency IRNA.

This from Reuters:

"The American forces in Tikrit announced that Saddam was arrested on Sunday. The Americans said that they will announce the news officially in the next few hours," IRNA quoted Talabani as saying.

This is going to be a busy news day...

Breaking News from the BBC:

A car bomb has exploded at a police station in an Iraqi town, causing several casualties, witnesses say.
One report said at least six people were killed in the blast in Khalidiyah, about 35 miles (60 km) west of Baghdad, but this could not be confirmed. US forces, backed by helicopters, have cordoned off the area, witnesses say. Scores of Iraqis have been killed or injured by bomb attacks targeting police stations and those co-operating with coalition forces.

There were no US troops in the immediate vicinity when the blast occurred, a US military spokesman told Reuters news agency. Casualties were taken to hospitals in the nearby city of Ramadi. In November, at least 18 people were killed in two car bomb attacks on police stations north of Baghdad. The blasts, in which 13 Iraqi policemen died, happened minutes apart in the towns of Khan Bani Saad and Baquba, known to be strongholds of supporters of Saddam Hussein.

These "dead end" fedayeen attacks that are killing civilians and those just trying to put back together the pieces of their lives might backfire, turning those who support any and all attempts to de-stabilize the American presence in Iraq against them. Being brutal, regardless of intent, usually doesn't fly with people who are more concerned about the infinitely more pressing bottom line of necessity. But there is no trust for the Americans. This should come as no surprise as they are an army of trained bulls in a big china shop, not taught the finer points of how not to upset people. They might be able to field-strip their weapons with ease and hog-tie suspected "terrorists" in seconds, but I have serious doubts about their social graces. The terrible truth for middle America is this: the Iraqi people, like the French, will never be grateful to you for anything. There will be no Statue of Liberty sailing the Atlantic astride tankers of crude coming all the way from Baghdad, and that's what Americans will begin to tire of first, the lack of thanks, the squalor, the otherness of it all. They can take the bodycount, no problem, but they might turn the channel if things get much uglier.