Saddam caught, world saved

Threat level orange. Merry Christmas

U.S. Raises Threat Level to Orange (Newsday) announces that all may not be “Mission Accomplisheder” with the capture of Saddam (as the White House put it).

“The government on Sunday raised the national threat level to orange, the second-highest, saying attacks were possible during the holidays and that threat indicators are “perhaps greater now than at any point” since Sept. 11, 2001.”

I’m sure all of America’s fear- and world-weary travellers really appreciate the heightened security the government is willing to offer at this time of year. Think of your 48-hour ‘visit’ to the airport as a Christmas present from the US of A.

Why is the US on orange-level alert? The most dangerous man in the world was recently caught. The US military had little to no trouble apprehending him after local farmers told them where he was. He put up no fight whatsoever, unless you count running and hiding in a hole in the ground as fighting, and you can now enjoy a picture of him with gaping maw in pretty much every major US publication’s ‘year in pictures’.

For those with a weaker memory, this is the guy you was supposed to be able to scramble an attack on New York within 30 minutes. Yeah, that guy. Hard to believe, no? It was hard to believe then, it’s hard to believe now, yet polls are showing renewed support for Bush, now that he personally delivered a fake, plastic turkey to hand-picked, supportive troops and managed to capture the man who had nothing at all to do with 9-11.

People are stoked.

Democratic infighting

This issue was, of course, picked up by the Democratic contenders, but in that middle-of-the-road, subdued way we’ve come to expect from our career politicians. You can almost smell the all-night meeting that led to the carefully formulated opinion you hear in the 10-second, well-rehearsed 17th take of the sound-bite brought to you by Rupert Murdoch.

Apparently, Dean took a firm stand against the administration’s strutting over Saddam’s capture, saying that it wouldn’t change anything. Then, a whole bunch of other Democrats jumped on him because they figured with so many people excited about Saddam’s capture, they’d tap into that groundswell, regardless of whether Dean’s right or not.

In Why Win When You Can Whine (Plastic), the fact that ‘prominent’ Democrats have come out against Dean’s ideas on the capture of Saddam diminishes the whole point. I’m not surprised to see the media casting the whole party as Lieberman and Kerry — they’re the ones with the weakest opinions.

Some clarifications about what Democrat should mean are necessary here, no? The ‘Democrats’ mentioned as having a problem with Dean are Lieberman and Kerry, both almost pure political machines without a single unpolled opinion. Both are also quite conservative Democrats — Republicans running as Democrats (watch the debates, read their platforms, not very left-leaning, are they?)

I lump Dean in with them for the most part because his platform and debating suffers the same flaws — he seems to say what he needs to in order to swing polls.

I’m happy to hear that the Democratic front-runner has voiced a reasoned opinion about the capture of Saddam, though I fear he’s doing it not because he believes it, but because he wants to distance himself from the hoe-down going on in the White House. I mean, he’s right, catching Saddam wasn’t worth the war, but now he’s the anti-war candidate? He’s switched opinions several times in the last year. Kucinich and Sharpton are the anti-war candidates. They may not have a chance in hell, but let’s be clear.

The puerile responses from Lieberman and Kerry shouldn’t even be noted: it shows them for the shallow creatures that they are. They are happy to sweep away all the evil the war has brought (and will bring), not because a dictator has been removed (that’s good, but what is he replaced with…is it better? Are less Iraqis dying? Are more fed? Watered? Provided with electricity? Jobs?) but because they see political advantage.

Dean is right, but he’s doing it because he sees political advantage. If Kucinich says it, its because he really believes it and doesn’t care about the polls. Dean only says it (even if he believes it) when the polls jibe.

I thought the reaction in Saddam In Custody (Democracy means you) was much more reasoned and kept the focus on the more important issues involving US foreign policy.

And the Bush administration?

Here’s where it gets fun, because it’s just so brazen in the White house these days. We’re all a little uncomfortable about the destruction of Iraq, about the lies about WMDs, etc., etc., etc. and the defending of our borders in an oil-soaked country 6000 miles from home, right? It’s pretty sordid, we regret it, right? We wouldn’t do it the same way the next time, right?

Wrong.

Our glorious leader, our Commander-in-Chief was stupid enough to say (quoted from Cheers of a Clown by Carol Norris (Counterpunch)):

““What’s the difference?” asked Mr. Bush when Diane Sawyer recently asked him about the lack of WMDs. Wow. We’ve all heard George Bush say some pretty flippant, arrogant, unbelievable things. But, this one is a showstopper. It’s a statement inconceivably divorced from the realities of the horrors of war, as it flippantly ignores the myriad and diverse concerns and questions of the world.”

There are no morals, no ethics here. We have pure Machiavellian leadership now — the ends justify the means. Period. Even if the ends are 95% bad, we’ll single out the one good thing that came of it and focus like a laser on that. Anyone who doesn’t focus enough is a fool, a traitor, a terrorist or a communist. Or all of them, whatever. Just disappear.

And, of course, the media is happy to bob along for the ride, building myths out of lies. Selective Memory and a Dishonest Doctrine by Noam Chomsky (Common Dreams) notes that the US media has gone overboard in ignoring the administration’s doings, with this fine bit of reporting by “ David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator”:

“Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, “the Bush administration’s idealist in chief,” whom he described as a genuine intellectual who “bleeds for (the Arab world’s) oppression and dreams of liberating it.””

Wow. Wolfowitz as altruistic savior of the Arab world. Is there anything that can’t get published as gospel truth? Believe it or not, I’m so floored by that statement, I can barely make snide comments of my own.

Muammar’s slick move

And lastly, my hats off to Muammar Qaddafi, who, in the most brilliant diplomatic maneuver in recent history, has one-upped the war-mongering US by volunteering to destory WMDs he doesn’t have. This makes it orders of magnitude more difficult to justify attacking Libya for WMDs that don’t exist. With this token, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, olive branch offered to the US, it nullifies the possibility of attack. A good move by them considering how rabid and slavering Reagan got over Libya in the 80s.