Year: 2003

A reader writes:

I too am hopeful about the progress of the war.- But I don’t know which network you are watching.- I am hearing reports of fierce fighting in the north as well as Basra in the south.- An Iraqi tug was stopped while attempting to mine a waterway.- And we are not yet confronting the forces around the capitol.- Yes it is going well.- So far so good.- That’s it.- If SH is dead, why aren’t Iraqi leaders running through the streets with white flags shouting don’t shoot?- Is someone suggesting that the Iraqi regime can continue operating with a SH look alike?- To what end?- I don’t think so.

All good points. But there’s also the possibility that some in the Saddam command structure are as in the dark as we are. The question we have yet to answer is: where did the tip of Saddam’s whereabouts come from? An inside job? Brilliant Special Forces work? Either option is highly encouraging. Again, I’m waiting to see new footage of Saddam.

Even the Guardian can smell it.

Lileks observes a moronic convergence:

11:50 NPR is running . . . the BBC. It’s interesting, listening to these guys – I’m unsure how it’s possible to sneer the entire time you’re speaking. I fear the announcer’s face will stay that way. Perhaps you can recognize an old Beeb hand by the permanently curled lip. I’ve tuned in twice in half an hour; both times they were talking about the FAILURE to get Saddam, and what this FAILURE means for the war which might be hindered by this initial FAILURE. And then the reporter – a female one, with a sneerier sneer – says the question now is when the attack will come, and whether the President will give his generals permission to act with a free hand.
Um . . . haven’t we already settled that question? I know it conflicts with the Beeb’s view of Bush as a vulture with a bloody globe clutched in one claw, the other holding the leashes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I heard hours ago that theater decisions had been left to the folks who do this for a living.
Unbelievable: NPR’s top of the hour theme is somber, downbeat, with a few disconsolate snare drums – music to lose by! Is it too much to ask of these people to play something that doesn’t sound like the music you’d use for the sinking of a f–king aircraft carrier? *$#%*(#$%$#5

Nah, James. They’ve only just begun. Imagine how terrified they are that Saddam might actually be dead.

Overnight, some new resistance is reported from some Saddamite troops. But still no new footage of Saddam. Meanwhile, what anyone with a brain would expect:

So far, however, there is no indication that the Iraqi population at large is resisting the allied forces. At Safwan, another town in the southeast, Iraqis waved in celebration as members of the 1st Marine Division hauled down giant portraits of Saddam Hussein. “We’re very happy… Saddam Hussein is a butcher,” said a man in the back of a pickup truck, identifying himself only as Abdullah. A woman fell at the feet of the Americans and embraced them, touching their knees, the Associated Press reported.

Are you watching this, M. Chirac?

I’ve been watching the television for a couple of hours now and I can’t stop watching. Why? Because something incredible is beginning to look possible. The fact that, as I write this, we are being told that Saddam was in the bunker when it was hit; we have seen no credible video of him since; large numbers of the Iraqi military may be surrendering en masse; the command and control system within the Iraqi military structure seems to have broken down; and there seems to be no meaningful military opposition at all so far – suggests something beyond believable. Have we destroyed this regime with one strike? We cannot now know. Maybe I’ll be proven horribly wrong and this is a defensive ploy. Maybe things will get much worse. But there’s something strange about this beginning. It’s not “shock and awe.” It’s one strike, and then tentative, quiet ground advance. And almost nothing from the other side. Did the threat of “shock and awe” lead to a senior defection, and surrender from the near-top? Is that why this is going eerily well? Who gave the White House the intelligence about Saddam’s whereabouts? And is he reliable? Perhaps that’s why the war is going so gingerly so far. Let’s just say: I’m amazed that this dream scenario is even conceivable. Was Saddam brutally betrayed? And did the White House know in advance? Right now, in the early morning hours, all this is beginning to seem at least within the bounds of possibility. Or have I lost it and this is just crazy optimism? See you when I wake up.

The fact that it’s still possible that Saddam and his odious, murderous sons are dead or severely wounded is immensely encouraging. If we don’t see a better image of Saddam than his impersonation of Dame Edna Everage last night, I’m going to assume the best. His old mistress has claimed that the tape was not the real man. There are other reports of one of Saddam’s sons having a brain hemorrhage. Who knows? But here’s hoping. It could save many lives.

A ‘TWO RESOLUTION’ GAFFE? Interesting detail from British government leaks about the negotiations that led to war against Iraq. Obviously, some of this is self-serving from London. More obviously, it will tick off Bush. Here’s the most telling detail:

Another senior British official said: “There was tremendous in-fighting in Washington. The drafts of the speech went back and forth. I think there were 28 versions before the final text was agreed. For us the key phrase was Bush’s commitment to seeking a new UN resolution to disarm Iraq. We were only sure we had it 24 hours before the speech. For some reason this was left out of the text on the teleprompter as Bush was reading it, and he had to improvise. He managed to ad-lib a sentence saying ‘we will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions’. But instead of saying ‘resolution’ he said ‘resolutions’ in the plural. That’s how we got stuck with the French idea of two resolutions.”

If that’s true, it’s an amazing screw-up. All of the last few months’ agony because of a teleprompter mistake? Somehow, I doubt it. But stranger things have happened.

It’s getting uglier. The Brits release details of France’s trade with Saddam. I can’t wait till we get the receipts.

KUWAIT BLAMES FRANCE: At least that’s what this interview suggests.

RAINES WATCH: “As the Pentagon expressed satisfaction with the early stages of the war, 16 U.S. marines and British royal commandos were killed.” – the snide, self-satisfied sentence from Howell Raines’ chief stenographer, Patrick Tyler, in the New York Times today.

A first-hand account from the epicenter of fifth columnism. Here’s another report from a pathetic protest in D.C. And another from Paris. Lamer? Then there’s this story about a puke-in in San Francisco. Yes, a puke-in. Hey, guys, why not just start defecating on the sidewalks? Here’s what I don’t quite understand: If you’re trying to persuade mainstream Americans that this war is wrong, why do you stop rush-hour traffic, rely on school kids playing hookie and set up a public mock-vomitorium? I guess asking obvious rational questions of these people is pointless. And then you’ve got the senior contingent. What has happened to old journalistic warhorses like Jimmy Breslin and Richard Reeves? Breslin just compared the president directly to Adolf Hitler. Reeves just predicted that the president will be assassinated because of the Iraq war. Can you say political suicide?

Here’s an investigation. It looks like he checks out.

FINALLY, “SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES”: It does seem, after all, that the French do understand the term they wrote into Resolution 1441. They just meant it not for Saddam, their ally, but for the U.S.

Here’s one reason the anti-war movement has been a failure:

I had some problems getting to work today. A few people (not a lot) blocked some city streets to protest the war. Just a few minutes ago, the whole group of protesters (maybe one hundred and fifty) walked down the middle of-Second Street-trying to put up barricades by rolling garbage bins and dragging newspaper boxes into the street. They spilled a lot of “Bay Guardians” – a far-left free daily – in the process. The police followed behind, cleaning up after them, but not really arresting anyone. Really, what would be the point? I watched the proceedings from my office window with a co-worker. He’s a strong Democrat and he opposes the war. Looking down at the pathetic-looking group and their shenanigans, he shook his head and said “It makes me want to support Bush.”
Someone-needs to tell the protesters that trying to shut down San Francisco, the city that loves France, is not going to have any effect of America’s foreign policy. All they’re doing is pissing off their choir.

Only one problem with this analysis: these protests are about no-one but the protestors. It’s their anti-Bush therapy. They’re going to need much more of it in the near future.