When the Guardian starts worrying that the U.S. and the U.K. are making headway, maybe it’s happening. The most damning piece of evidence is Hans Blix’s leaked report which allegedly says: “the results in terms of disarmament have been very limited so far”. Saddam’s promise to address the al Samoud missile issue “in principle,” despite the fact that there is a clear deadline for their immediate destruction tomorrow, also seems to me to be ammunition for a stronger Security Council position. There will be more surprises and Saddamite gambits ahead no doubt. But the direction seems to be clear to me. The powers urging the immediate disarmament of Saddam are slowly making progress.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: “What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? … Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal.” – president Bill Clinton, 1998.
PAYBACK FOR FRANCE: As regular readers know, I’ve long advocated cutting France out of any post-war Iraqi settlement. No oil contracts, no peace-keepers, no influence as far as we can help it. Charles Krauthammer makes the same point today. After what the French have tried to do to destroy American diplomacy, wreck Tony Blair, and delay a war until it might actually be more dangerous for American troops, they deserve more than indifference.
IN TRANSIT: Packing, moving, flying – posting will have to take a back seat today. But a final thanks for making February the most trafficked month in the history of the site.
THE JOURNAL ON HARVARD’S PHALLUS: It’s a story that won’t quit.
DEAN’S DEFICIT: I’ll never be able to loathe Howard Dean. For what he did in supporting civil unions in Vermont, any gay person would have to thank him for political sense and courage. But that’s all the more reason for calling him on a simple, obvious and brazen fib. According to the New York Times, Dean made the following remarks to the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee:
What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president’s unilateral attack on Iraq? What I want to know is why are Democratic leaders supporting tax cuts? The question is not how big the tax cut should be; the question should be, Can we afford a tax cut at all, with the largest deficit in the history of this country?
Huh? Two things. Whatever else this war is, it’s not unilateral. A clear majority of European nations – eighteen at the last count – support the war. From Australia to Poland, we have dozens of allies, large and small. Britain, one of the few remaining non-American military powers, is contributing most of its armed forces. We may not have unanimous global support for an attack but to describe the coming war as “unilateral” is simply false. Ditto the hyperbole about the deficit. In non-adjusted dollar amounts, it might be near a historic peak. But that’s deeply misleading. As a proportion of GDP, it’s under half its peak in the Reagan-Bush years. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem. I think it’s a major one. But you don’t help your case by absurd hyperbole. And that seems to be the main thing Howard Dean is currently contributing to the national debate.
The Dish 