The Dish

“The French will always do exactly the opposite on what the United States wants regardless of what happens, so we’re never going to have a consistent policy,” – Howard Dean, 1998, arguing against exactly the kind of foreign policy he is now advocating.

QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “If he truly believes the capture of this evil man has not made America safer, then Howard Dean has put himself in his own spider hole of denial. I fear that the American people will wonder if they will be safer with him as president.” – Joe Lieberman, finally taking the gloves off. And why shouldn’t Lieberman go for broke with an unabashed pro-war appeal to a largely anti-war primary electorate? It’s what he believes. It distinguishes him. He’s losing anyway. And it’s good for the Democrats to have a serious pro-war candidate (alongside Gephardt). Lieberman now needs a strong, simple ad on this theme – and fast.

YOU CAN’T MAKE THIS STUFF UP: Fresh from Howard Dean’s raising of the question of whether president Bush had been tipped off in advance by the Saudis about 9/11 comes Democrat Jim McDermott, not exactly a stranger to conspiracy theories. He tells a radio show in Seattle that

the U.S. military could have found the former Iraqi dictator “a long time ago if they wanted.” Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said, “Yeah. Oh, yeah.” He added, “There’s too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing.” When the interviewer asked again if he meant to imply the Bush administration timed the capture for political reasons, McDermott said: “I don’t know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they’ve been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they’d find him.”

You begin to wonder if some Democrats have gone nuts – politically as well as psychologically.

Here are two actual reviews of “Angels in America,” the leftist play hailed by every living critic as a masterpiece for the ages. Dale Peck sees its datedness, as well as its merits. Timothy Hulsey is much tougher. Money quote:

The scenes and speeches in Angels never add up, perhaps because Kushner’s characters don’t change or progress much over time. Roy Cohn, the one major character who never fails to impress audiences (and who gives actors a chance to tear off whole chunks of scenery with their teeth), starts the play as an amoral son-of-a-bitch, and ends the play as an amoral son-of-a-bitch. Prior Walter, the protagonist, begins the play as a sweet, introspective left-winger with a trust fund, and ends as a sweet, introspective left-winger with a trust fund. You’d think that angels and AIDS would have had more of an impact on these guys, but no.

I also didn’t realize that Kushner had written an earlier play equating tolerance of Ronald Reagan with aquiescence in Nazism. Ahead of his time, for a change.

ONE QUITS: Kudos to Jewish World Review for pointing out how the religious right’s “Alliance for Marriage” has also allied itself with some terror-supporting Muslim outfits. Hey, it’s one thing the mullahs and Richard John Neuhaus can agree upon. One major conservative rabbi has now quit the organization. Will more follow? Stay tuned.

JEWCY FRUIT: A new line in t-shirts for the Jewishly inclined.

“I have been a severe critic of Saddam Hussein and his regime for decades and find it bizarre that you should have characterized my listing of his crimes as a sign of faint disappointment in his capture. I did not oppose the Iraq war, precisely on the grounds that I couldn’t bring myself to do anything that might keep him in power. I have many Iraqi Shiite friends who suffered from his genocidal policies.
All I was saying, or my wife was saying, was that the task of actually governing Iraq is still there for the Americans, and capturing Saddam may not change all that much–indeed, it is not entirely impossible that some aspects of governing may become more difficult.
There certainly is no doubt that the Bush imperial adventure in Iraq has been deeply marred by their arrogant ignorance of Iraq and their incredibly inept administration of the country since May. Saying so does not make me a supporter of Saddam, and, as someone who has often admired your writing, I am sorry to see you stoop to mere demagoguery.” – Professor Juan Cole. More feedback on the Letters Page.

“Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by the US-led unjust and immoral war, and the death toll continues to rise as innocent people are being killed in US military raids, bombardments and Sharon-style collective punishment, and harmed by the depleted uranium shells used by the US-led forces. So at this moment of joy, other questions keep intruding: Who is going to try Bremer, Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair? Will Iraq ever be free?” – Sami Ramadan, Sydney Morning Herald.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE II: “Terrible news: Saddam is captured. The chicken hawks will gain in power now.” – Ben Richards, Free Dartmouth, Dartmouth College’s liberal blog.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE III: “There really do seem to be a lot of us here who are genuinely happy that Saddam is captured. This suprises me. I’m not happy they captured him. That’s not to say that I’m sad. I just think today’s news doesn’t stir any emotion in me at all. Saddam was never a threat to me. He never did anything to me personally. I doubt he ever did anything to you. In fact, Saddam, over the course of his life and rule of Iraq, probably did more to help America than any other world leader. …” – from our friends at the Democratic Underground.

Here’s the text. Analysis later.

The hero of Vanity Fair apparently calls Bush administration officials “fucking assholes and thugs.” The anti-Bush people keep getting classier and classier, don’t they?

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE: “I kind of feel the terrorists have won by making me write this, since it ought to be obvious to any idiot, but yes, I’m quite pleased that a monstrous mass murderer (though a former ally to Messrs. Reagan, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) will be brought to justice and will not be able to threaten anyone ever again. However, just as obviously, it does little to justify what remains a dishonest, self-destructive, hubristic adventure that continues to undermine our security and the stability of the region with each passing day, but there it is.” – Eric “quite pleased” Alterman, on his blog.

We will all have our own memories of yesterday. No, the war is not over. The Baathist terrorists will continue, although they must feel somewhat demoralized. The dead-enders have now reached a real dead-end. There will be time to think about the domestic ramifications of this – and what it might mean for Iraq’s transition to freedom. Just not so fast. For me, the moment I won’t forget was the sudden roar of excitement and jubilation from Iraqi journalists in the press conference room when Jerry Bremer gave the news. Salon describes it well:

The room erupted in cheers and shouts. Iraqi reporters in the room began yelling, crying, sobbing. A middle aged Iraqi man sitting near me wept while he frantically took notes. Other Iraqis called for Saddam’s death. A man sitting in the front row wailed with his head in his hands. The press conference paused briefly while the man calmed down.

It is not for us to understand fully what these people were put through. At a moment like this, when we can see fully and clearly the evil that existed for so long – evil that we in the past did our part to maintain – it is important simply to recall the dead and their loved ones. Think of every moment when some poor soul believed he was about to die, every moment spent in hellish prisons, every person tortured beyond imagining, every child dumped in a mass grave, every person of faith treated as an enemy of the state. To watch the perpetrator of this extraordinary evil brought low – into a rat-hole in the ground – is a privilege. It happens rarely. It is a moment when some kind of cosmic justice breaks through the clouds, and all the petty wrangling and mistakes and political jockeying fall away in the face of liberation from inescapable fear and terror and brutality. It was a day of joy. Nothing remains to be said right now. Joy.

(for thinly veiled disappointment at the capture of Saddam): “I can’t believe this. I’m crying here. I feel that we now don’t have a chance in this election.” – poster Carrie B. on Howard Dean’s campaign blog. Way to get your priorities straight, Carrie.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE II: “The same men who are going to carry on attacking the Americans will, of course, be making a secret holiday in their heart over the capture of Saddam. Why, they will argue, should they not rejoice at the end of their greatest oppressor while planning the humiliation of the occupying army which seized him?” – Robert Fisk, on form, in the Independent.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE III: “The thought of a 21-year-old losing his life while chasing what is, in the end, a complete stumblebum, is shattering. A soldier was killed in Iraq yesterday, so he certainly wasn’t looking for Saddam. The president, all his people and generals look around for something to grasp and hold high, look what we have done! and yesterday was their greatest day, they had captured a name known all over the world. By nightfall, they were finally silent, and the rain beat down on the new graves of the young.” – Jimmy Breslin, New York Newsday.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE IV: “I look forward to the day when sanctions mass murderer Clinton is pulled from a hole all burly faced and brought to justice – when Colin Powell is yanked from his hideaway for his role in the ‘highway of death’ massacre of 50,000 Iraqi soldiers as they exited from Kuwait or even for incinerating Panamanians in their shanty towns – and what about Bush, Cheney, Bremer and their democratic party accomplices who have been saying ‘me too!’ every step of the way? One thing good about the capture is that now it will end US and media speculation about whether capturing him will dampen the spirits of the Iraqi resistance fighters. It indeed could prove to be a double edged sword where now the recruitment into their ranks can go forward without the taint of being ‘Saddam loyalists.'” – Bob Witanek, Committee To End The Occupation of Iraq.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE V: “My wife, Shahin Cole, suggested to me an ironic possibility with regard to the Shiites. She said that many Shiites in East Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere may have been timid about opposing the US presence, because they feared the return of Saddam. Saddam was in their nightmares, and the reprisals of the Fedayee Saddam are still a factor in Iraqi politics. Now that it is perfectly clear that he is finished, she suggested, the Shiites may be emboldened. Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. As with many of her insights, this one seems to me likely correct.” – blogger Juan Cole, history professor at the University of Michigan, looking on the bright side.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE VI: “Funny how Saddam Hussein appears in the news just when both the American and British Governments are struggling to gather support for their respective ‘Presidential’ campaigns. This fantastic piece of detective work has the same smell as the reason the war was ‘inaugurated’.” – David, Rome, Italy, another BBC listener.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE VII: “Saddam might call on Donald Rumsfeld and say I met him in 1983 and he sold me chemical weapons to use against the Kurds and of course the Americans don’t want that. I think they may be very embarrassed. The Americans ordered his assassination before they caught him so clearly there’s not much chance of him getting a fair trial,” – British anti-war deputy, Tony Benn.

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE VIII: A classic interview from a clueless anti-war interviewer on Australian television:

Sharon Ghidella: What about Australians troops though, we’ve still got 850 Australian troops over there in Iraq, surely now that we’ve got Saddam Hussein, they’re on the road to recovery as such, or towards democracy, isn’t it time to pull the Australian troops out of Iraq? Prime Minister John Howard: No I don’t believe so. Ghidella: Why not? Howard: Because the job is not yet done, it’s not completed, we have caught Saddam but that doesn’t mean that overnight…

Another classic question from Ghidella: ” The world may rejoice, but globally though it’s not going to have that much of an impact is it, the fact that Saddam Hussein has now been captured, he hasn’t been in power for seven months.”

GALLOWAY AWARD NOMINEE IX: This one is really ingenious. Indymedia – one of the major anti-war sites – simply (as of 10.30 pm last night) doesn’t mention the capture of Saddam at all. Its more pressing headlines? “Majority of the population of Uruguay votes against privatisation.” “Activists Gather in DC to Oppose CAFTA.” Eloquence itself.

GALLOWAY AWARD NONINEE X: “Wipe away the celebration spittle. The capture of Saddam Hussein, like so much surrounding this fantasy war, will produce more questions than it answers. Just as the U.S. administration worked the PR machine when the war ‘officially ended’ now the capture of Hussein will also prove to be just another plastic Turkey moment. Another moment that does not really matter.” – Adam Porter, GuerrillaNews.com.

VON HOFFMAN AWARD NOMINEE: “The task force’s search for Saddam was, from the beginning, daunting. According to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, it may have been fatally flawed as well. From 1994 to 1998, Ritter directed a special U.N. unit that eavesdropped on many of Saddam Hussein’s private telephone communications. ‘The high-profile guys around Saddam were the murafaqin, his most loyal companions, who could stand next to him carrying a gun,’ Ritter told me. ‘But now he’s gone to a different tier-the tribes. He has released the men from his most sensitive units and let them go back to their tribes, and we don’t know where they are.’ … The task force, in any event, has shifted its focus from the hunt for Saddam as it is increasingly distracted by the spreading guerrilla war.” – anti-war journalist, Seymour Hersh, in last week’s New Yorker.

My favorite response from the “progressives”: “It just don’t make me any money.” Ah, the strain of the moral high ground!

A riveting account of a confrontation between Saddam and the new Iraqi government:

Mr. Rubaie said: “One thing which is very important is that this man had with him underground when they arrested him two AK-47’s and did not shoot one bullet. I told him, ‘You keep on saying that you are a brave man and a proud Arab.’ I said, ‘When they arrested you why didn’t you shoot one bullet? You are a coward.’
“And he started to use very colorful language. Basically, he used all his French.”
Mr. Rubaie added: “I was so angry because this guy has caused so much damage. He has ruined the whole country. He has ruined 25 million people.
“And I have to confess that the last word was for me: I was the last to leave the room and I said, ‘May God curse you. Tell me, when are you going to be accountable to God and the day of judgment? What are you going to tell Him about Halabja and the mass graves, the Iran-Iraq war, thousands and thousands executed? What are you going to tell God?’ He was exercising his French language.”

Ah, French. Not literally, of course. But a lovely little irony, don’t you think?