For all the negative rantings from President Bush's detractors, the War on Terror has resulted in yet another positive development for the entire world.  Colonel Moammar Ghaddafi, President of Libya, has announced that he is giving up his clandestine nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.  He announced that he will allow international weapons inspectors to verify all of this, unconditionally.  Furthermore, he renounced his country's long-time support of terrorism, and called upon other Arab nations to do the same.  He's been negotiating all of this with President Bush and PM Blair for the last nine months, in secret. (Yes! "Unilateral" action; no French, no UN! Won't Kofi be furious?)

What a pragmatist.  Ghaddafi is the first Middle East dictator to clearly see that all those things will not be tolerated by the rest of the world any longer, and that pretty words and promises will no longer suffice to appease the West.  Supporting terrorism and concealing illegal weapons are no longer a guarantee of power in the world. They are a guarantee of one's own destruction.

It turns out that Ghaddafi approached President Bush and Prime Minister Blair as our troops were entering Iraq.  After the last time he was on the wrong end of US weaponry, it seems, he learned how to read the writing on the wall.  Five days after seeing Saddam Hussein getting his head checked for lice on international television, Ghaddafi decided he just doesn't want that free medical exam the US Army would offer.  Smart man.

Let's hope other supporters of terrorism turn out to be as smart, or at least as pragmatic.

Note: I wrote about this at greater length in a new article for Useless Knowledge, an online magazine. It's called Libya: The First Domino Falls.

The "mainstream", by which I mean "mainly Liberal", press has been bending over backwards to be especially kind to the groups of people blowing things up in Iraq lately.  I'm surprised their spines haven't snapped by now... but it might be more accurate to wonder whether they have any at all. 

That there are groups in Iraq deliberately causing the deaths of innocent men, women and children (when they can't get Americans or other Coalition troops) is undeniable. The media seems to look forward to reporting the daily body count of innocent civilians and troops killed.  Whenever a soldier dies, their barely-hidden satisfaction is almost palpable. The total number of military deaths is invariably calculated using the words "...since President Bush declared major combat operations over in May".  Is there anyone so blind as to be unable to see the point they're trying to make of this?  Unless you just dropped in from the Twilight Zone, it should be obvious that the media is conducting a propoganda campaign of its own.  Why are we condoning the media's use of the deaths of our soldiers to score political points against our President? 

At the same time, all American media outlets, as if by common agreement, are refusing to name these groups of people for what they truly are, going out of their way to lend these groups legitimacy in American minds.  The killers of innocent Iraqis are not insurgents. They are not rebels.  They are not freedom fighters, anti-Coalition forces, the "opposition", former regime supporters, or simply criminals. 

They are TERRORISTS.

Anyone who targets non-military personnel in an attempt to cause fear and sow mistrust, as well as make a political statement or gain attention for a cause, is a terrorist.  Haven't you wondered why whenever an explosion occurs anywhere but Iraq, even in nearby Turkey, the American media immediately begins discussing terrorism... but when discussing events inside Iraq, that word is hardly ever uttered?

The latest terrorist attack in Iraq was upon the headquarters of the Shi'a, the religious group savagely oppressed by Saddam Hussein.  As reported by ABC News, for instance, the word terrorist never appears except in a single direct quote... even though the attack is almost identical to other terrorist attacks around the world.  "An explosion destroyed a Baghdad office of Iraq's largest Shi'ite party on Friday in an attack the movement blamed on Saddam Hussein supporters." the story reports.

Mohsin al-Hakim, a Shi'a party official, actually said "The men of the regime and terrorist elements are behind the attack."  Even so, the news agency reported that, "The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq which works with U.S. occupiers, blamed Saddam loyalists, as it did after Wednesday's assassination of one of its leaders."  Why is the word "terrorists" missing?

Isn't it fascinating how they manage to discount the terrorist elements at the same time as they work in the reference to the US as "occupiers"? It's as if most Iraqis don't favor the coalition and condemn the attacks on them as terrorist acts, as the latest poll by Baghdad's Cultural Association shows they do. 

Ahh, that's journalism at its finest.  In a single well-turned journalism-school sentence, ABC News manages to bash the US, denigrate the SCIR for working with us, and delete the actual word "terrorism" from a direct quote to push its view of who murdered Iraqi civilians.  Allow me to edit that single sentence. Make it "The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq which works with U.S. rebuilding efforts, blamed Saddam loyalists and terrorists, as it did after Wednesday's assassination of one of its leaders."  Is that less truthful, or far more so?

Any objective observer, even the Twilight Zone visitor, would be forced to wonder why "news" agencies openly favor the terrorists over the Coalition. 

I wonder that myself. So should you.

The frantic spinning and denial of the magnitude of Saddam's capture by the Left is, in fact, dizzying.  For months, I have been predicting a massive split in the Democratic party as the Classic Democrats -- people like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller -- finally throw off the yoke of the Leftist Democrats -- people like Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton. It looked as though this would happen after their defeat in the 2004 election, but the shocking statements by prominent Democrats may help to accelerate the process.

In an interview Monday with a Seattle radio station, [Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash)] said 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."
McDermott went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."
When interviewer Dave Ross 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.
"It's funny," McDermott added, "when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

Howard Dean, darling of the Left, has decided to completely ignore all the evidence -- some old, some recently uncovered -- which points to Saddam's long-running support for terrorists and terrorist networks, including al-Qaeda.  He, and those like him, want to pretend that the capture of Saddam -- which they have been attacking President Bush for not accomplishing from the outset of the war in Iraq -- now means nothing.

"The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."

What might be funny, if war itself weren't so tragic, is that most Democrats were calling for the removal of Saddam all these years to ensure the security of America... right up until it looked as if something might finally be done about it.  Remember, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated in part, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime". (It passed both houses of Congress easily, by 360-38 vote in the House, and unanimously in the Senate.)  As late as the beginning of 2003, most Democrats were hollering about the threat of Saddam's WMDs... until it seemed President Bush was about to heed their warnings.  Their policy is clear... whatever GWB does is wrong, no matter what, even if he does what they demand.

But I think in cold, crass political terms. I think it's good for Bush so I think it's bad for me. So I'm not happy, and I don't care if it's politically incorrect to say so.
- Magic Rat

By what authority do we invade and occupy another country and arrest its citizens?
- leftofthedial

but it still doesn't justify the war. Thats how I feel. They can gloat all they want. Our soldiers will continue to die over there. This war is hardly over.
The whole future of a nation hangs in the balance and we just removed the one man all Iraqi's feared.
- braden

I'm tired of the Bush sideshows, and I don't like what America has become. This is a very temporary coup for Bush, but once they keep showing the weary and pathetic-looking Saddam complicently being taken into custody, I think it's going to backfire. They should have cleaned him up, gave him some PCP, waited until it kicked in good and hard, and then arrested him. But hell, I'm not going to tell Rove how to do his job.
- liberalmuse

The capture of Saddam is all fine and good, but does how does this help someone facing a bleak Christmas because they lost their job? How does this help someone with an illness who just lost their insurance coverage? How does this help someone who's underemployed, working several jobs and struggling to pay the mortgage? It just don't make me any money.
- bushwentawol

Earlier this week I almost despaired as the "news" media almost completely ignored nearly 20,000 Iraqis marching in the streets of Baghdad to protest, as Baghdad blogger Zeyad put it, "against Arab media, against the interference of neighbouring countries, against dictatorships, against Wahhabism, against oppression, and of course against the Ba'ath and Saddam". 

Well, they're unable to ignore the good news coming out of Iraq today.  Saddam Hussein, the monster, the brutal dictator, the terrorist supporter that American and other soldiers have died to depose, has at last been captured alive.  He was found cowering in a hole, with a pistol he didn't even bother to fire. 

What does this mean for Iraq?

It means, for one thing, that Iraqis can finally begin to work towards a future for themselves without having to look back over their shoulders in fear. It means they can believe that the United States keeps its word.  It means they can begin to place trust in their burgeoning freedom and democracy, secure in the knowledge that the old regime has finally passed away.  This man, this monster, was a constant presence in their lives,  a shadow looming over every waking moment for decades. Now his regime is truly over.

According to al-Jazeera, there are those who hoped we would never capture Saddam. 

"Of course it's bad news. To us, Saddam was a symbol of defiance to the US plans in the region. And we support any person who stands in the face of the American dominance," said Azzam Hnaidi, an Islamist member of Jordan's parliament.

For my part, I'd rather see what some actual Iraqis are saying today.

Before this, I prayed the traditional prayers of thanksgiving. That I, and the Iraqi people should see this day! This, surely, is the mother of all days for us. The heroes of our valiant Pesh Mergas, and the heroes of the U.S. Fourth division have done it.
Alaa

This is the day of all Iraqi martyrs who were slaughtered just to please his sick lust for blood.
Rest in peace my brothers. The paradise is yours and the disgrace and hell is for all the tyrants on earth.
Thank you American, British, Spanish, Italian, Australian, Ukrainian, Japanese and all the coalition people and all the good people on earth.
God bless the 1st brigade.
God bless the 4th infantry division.
God bless Iraq.
God bless America.
God bless the coalition people and soldiers.
God bless all the freedom loving people on earth.
I wish I could hug you all.
Omar

I don’t know what to say.. I am confused.. no ... I am very happy.. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy.. .. I am very happy..
This is the end of tyranny.. congratulations .. a great day.. for Iraqi and all the good people.. share us our great day.. I can’t express my feelings.. thanks to the coalition forces and all the honest people who helped in that great operation....thank you thank you thousand times..
AYS

To the Iraqis, I say that is only the beginning for you and for Iraq's future.  MABROOK!

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#art-1

When those words were written in 1789, the Founding Fathers weren't thinking about protecting child pornographers, taking money from citizens by threat of force to give to "performance artists", banning Christmas displays by New York City schools, or pretty much anything said or written in defense of NAMBLA (thanks, ACLU).  Those words were written primarily to protect what they lost under English rule, what they fought and won a war to take back: the freedom of political speech.  The freedom to criticise, discuss, praise or damn the government as they saw fit, without fear of arrest. They enshrined it in the very first amendment to the Constitution, to make certain that their descendants would not have this precious freedom curtailed.  However, in a stunning slap in the face to our once-cherished freedom of speech, that's exactly what Congress did.  And this week, the Supreme Court of the United States, supposedly devoted to ensuring that no law passed would violate the Constitution, let it happen when they upheld the McCain-Feingold law.

In a 298-page ruling issued by The Supreme Court, it was ruled that "corruption or the appearance of corruption" is sufficient justification to "regulate" our freedom of speech.  That means we only lose some of it, not all at once -- isn't that comforting?  By "corruption", they mean when an individual, corporation or special interest group makes a large donation to a candidate or party, and recieves preferential treatment in return.  Let me work this out.  If a candidate favors, say, the aims (pardon the pun) of the National Rifle Association, and they make a campaign contribution to him or her, and the candidate continues to favor them... that's corruption? No, but that's the appearance of corruption now, isn't it? And the appearance of corruption is all it takes to "regulate" it.  Real corruption is when, say, President Clinton pardons tax cheat Marc Rich (who traded with Iran while they held American hostages) after his wife Denise gives $1.3 million to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign and the Democratic National Committee, $450,000 to the Clinton library, over $100,000 to Hillary's campaign and thousands of dollars in gifts to the Clintons. Corruption is when Hillary's brother Hugh is paid $400,000 to get Glenn Braswell (convicted of fraud and tax evasion) and Carlos Vignali (a convicted drug dealer) Presidential pardons, and succeeds.  Now THAT'S corruption.

The fallout effect of this ruling will be felt as the campaign season of 2004 draws to a close.  Try buying a television, radio or newspaper ad next September or October and see how far you get.  No media ad can influence the vote within 60 days of the election by attacking or promoting any candidate.  The problem with this ruling is that every talk show on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS is going to have a steady conga line of Bush-bashers and politically-active Liberals under the guise of "news".  Newspapers and magazines are going to be jam-packed with "news" stories like "How Bush Is Destroying The Entire World And How (whoever) Can Save Us All".  Advocates for President Bush, Republicans, and Conservatives will be left further out in the media cold than a Soviet-era Siberian gulag in winter.  Sixty days of a steady stream of anti-Bush rhetoric to which the administration will be unable to publicly reply. 

Thank you, members of the Supreme Court, for ensuring us a completely one-sided media blitz in the two months leading up to the 2004 election.

The talking heads and pundits are all in an uproar today, talking about what they percieve as a major gaffe in our foreign policy.  President Bush is sending former Secretary of State James Baker to convince countries owed money by Saddam to "forgive, restructure or reduce" those debts so that the new government of Iraq isn't crushed underneath them. At the same time, it was announced that only Coalition partners can bid on the Iraqi reconstruction projects specifically paid for by the US government... in other words, only those countries which risked something to liberate Iraq -- whether that was troops, materials, or being told to "shut up" by Jaques Chirac -- should benefit from American taxpayer dollars.  Neither of these things has much to do with the other, except that the same countries which we're asking to forgive Iraq's debt, we are also excluding from being the primary bidders on the American-paid portion of the reconstruction.  There are several circumstances that those attacking the Bush Administration over this don't seem to realise.

Forgiving the debts of Saddam has nothing to do with us, only with the future of Iraq.  We don't owe them any money; the debts are not ours, and they are not the Iraqis'.  They are Saddam's.

France, Germany, Russia and China should want us to forget the fact that they supplied Saddam with weapons, munitions, and equipment right up to and even (in some cases) during the war, and lent him money which he used to build arsenals and palaces while his people starved. They should be asking the world to forgive them, and the sooner the better.

By making sure that American money only goes to countries that stood by us, openly supporting us even if only in word, President Bush is sending the clear message that America rewards its allies.  Those countries who worked to keep a brutal dictator in power should get nothing.

Frankly, I don't see that the appeasers have a leg to stand on here.  Do they really think that the timing of these two announcements was some sort of accident?  While critics bemoan the timing, calling it a mistake, I think it was very precisely calculated to deliver a message. The countries that we're asking to forgive Saddam's debts still have a chance to make their money back from the reconstruction... if they play ball. They can bid on the contracts if they stop publicly slamming us at every opportunity and join the Coalition. There's still room for them to do so, if they can put their puerile America-bashing aside, and grow up.

It looks as though the countries that opposed us on the war to liberate Iraq are about to discover the price of their opposition. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has issued a statement that 26 prime rebuilding contracts for Iraq will only be open for bidding from coalition partners and contributing nations.

Good!

Why should countries that worked against us reap the rewards of (primarily) American and British blood, sweat and tears?  France and Russia had lucrative oil deals with Saddam, for which they were willing to oppose the US and keep Saddam in power. According to the Global Energy Network Institute:

In early 1999, French oil company Total merged with Belgian oil company Petrofina to create TotalFina, the world's sixth-largest oil company and the third-largest oil company in Europe. In 2000, TotalFina merged with Elf Aquitaine to create TotalFinaElf.
During the 1990s, Total and Elf Aquitaine reportedly negotiated with Iraq on development rights for the Majnoon and Nahr Umr oil fields. Majnoon is the largest of Iraq's oilfields slated for post-sanctions development, with reserves of 12-30 billion barrels. In July 2001, angered by France's perceived support for the U.S. "smart sanctions" plan, Iraq announced that it would no longer give French companies priority in awarding oil contracts, and would reconsider existing contracts as well.

According to Business Week:

Lukoil is Russia's biggest, most globally diversified oil company, and Baku native Vagit Alekperov, its first and only CEO, is its global strategist.
In 1997, Alekperov signed a $20 billion, 23-year deal with the Saddam regime to extract 5 billion barrels of oil from Iraq's West Qurna field. Five years later, Lukoil has not drilled a single well there. It can't develop the Qurna field, which would boost its reserves by more than 25%, while U.N. sanctions are in place.

No wonder France and Russia labored so long and hard to get the United Nations to lift the sanctions on Iraq.  No wonder they wanted Saddam to continue to rule.  Germany and China were also major beneficiaries of keeping Saddam in power, according to the Heritage Foundation's research.

So who was pulling whose strings here?  Saddam had France, Russia, Germany and China over a barrel, to make a bad pun of it.  Those were the countries that most benefitted from Saddam's iron-fisted rule of Iraq, and their price was open opposition to the United States. They chose to stand by Saddam instead of us.  They worked to convince Saddam that he could stand against the United States -- with their eager help, of course. France, Russia, Germany and China were also Saddam's top weapons suppliers.

If you want to dance, the saying goes, you have to pay the piper.  Those countries danced with Saddam for years.  Time to pay up.

Earlier this year, a bill was signed that made the national Do Not Call list a reality, causing telephones across the country to fall silent at dinner time. Now Congress has passed the first anti-spam bill, the Anti-Spam Act of 2003, (H.R. 2515), which should soon be heading for the President's desk.

Spammers and telephone solicitors -- who we all love to hate -- complain that these laws infringe on their rights to free speech.  That's like a burglar complaining that laws against breaking and entering restrict his right to pursue his profession.  These people steal our time, our freedom to use the phone or internet, and our peace of mind.  It's about time this is stopped.

For the moment, the best way to deal with spam is to forward it all to uce@ftc.gov so the Federal Trade Commission can prosecute the worst offenders. That's where all MY spam's going from now on. How often do you get a chance to spam the government?  You can also fill out the FTC's complaint form if you have that kind of patience.  But the bill will allow the FTC to create a Do Not Spam list which will work like the Do Not Call List. 

Though companies complain that the Do Not Call list (and soon, the Do Not Spam list) restricts their freedom of speech and trade, they're ignoring the fact that the kind of people who sign up for such lists wouldn't buy products from a cold caller or spammer anyway.  Frankly, I think this is good for the companies themselves.  Instead of wasting their time and resources annoying people, they can concentrate on people who really WANT to enlarge various body parts, invest in cheap fly-by-night stocks, build a cable descrambler, look at "secret" webcam pictures, or buy the Paris Hilton sex video.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Another of the Left's attacks on Bush and Blair for leading a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate Iraq seems to have crumbled.

Much of the criticism seems to have faded away with the discovery of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, buried in mass graves all over the country. Some were children. Some were still alive.  It is said (or so I'm told) that there are as many mass graves as there once were pictures of Saddam.  There are still too many people who couldn't accept the fact that Saddam was such a bad person (the Left believes there is no evil except Bush) that he had to be removed without waiting for as long as his allies the French wanted him in power.  The bones in those graves tell us that twelve years was already far too long to have waited.

That still leaves the rather small (but vocal) crowd that believes it was wrong to liberate Iraq no matter what, because they feel they weren't told the strict, literal, absolute truth about his weapons of mass destruction.  They claim the President lied about something or other. (This changes frequently.)  They'd like to pretend that the entire Western world wasn't privy to the same knowledge, the intelligence that led Bill Clinton to state that "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons" and "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." (Of course, aside from lobbing in a few cruise missiles, he was content to leave Saddam alone to rebuild without those pesky UN inspectors bothering him.)  They'd like to pretend, as Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said, that "this whole thing was a fraud".  (Of course, that doesn't quite mesh with his assertion in 2002 that "we have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction", does it?)  As more evidence comes to light in Iraq every day, their cheap political stunts paint them further into a corner.

Here's a case in point: Tony Blair has been viciously attacked by the press and those against Iraqi liberation for presenting a dossier which stated in part,

Intelligence reports make clear that he sees the building up of his WMD capability, and the belief overseas that he would use these weapons, as vital to his strategic interests, and in particular his goal of regional domination. And the document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.

Well, the man who gave British intelligence that information has at last come forward to assert the truth of his claim.  According to today's Sunday Telegraph,

An Iraqi colonel who commanded a front-line unit during the build-up to the war in Iraq has revealed how he passed top secret information to British intelligence warning that Saddam Hussein had deployed weapons of mass destruction that could be used on the battlefield against coalition troops in less than 45 minutes.

Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of last year.

In an exclusive interview with the Telegraph, Col al-Dabbagh said that he believed he was the source of the British Government's controversial claim, published in September last year in the intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.

He also insisted that the information contained in the dossier relating to Saddam's battlefield WMD capability was correct. "It is 100 per cent accurate," he said after reading the relevant passage.

"Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within half-an-hour."

Col al-Dabbagh, who spied for the Iraqi National Accord (INA), a London-based exile group, for several years before the war, said, however, that he provided several reports to British intelligence on Saddam's plans to deploy WMD from early 2002 onwards.

Of course, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting to hear the apologises Mr. Blair deserves for the unconscionable attacks on his character made by the pro-Saddam, pro-terrorist faction masquerading as anti-war groups.  The only thing they're "anti" is the spread of that terrible "democracy" stuff.

Since Thanksgiving, the visits of President Bush and Senator Clinton to our troops overseas have been the subject of much debate and comparison.

Frankly, I don't see any similarities between them.

President Bush went to a place where his life would be in danger if his presence became known.  Any enemy of America would go out of his or her way to spare Hillary's life in the desperate hope that she might try to run against him in 2004.

Hillary and her entourage forced hungry soldiers to wait an extra hour for their dinner in Afghanistan while she and her entourage were served first.  President Bush served the troops in Baghdad with his own hands, manning the mashed potatoes station.

President Bush got standing ovations from the soldiers in Baghdad.  Organisers had a hard time finding soldiers willing to have dinner with Hillary. Videos of her at the dinner table showed a soldier seated next to Hillary who seemed to avoid looking in her direction, even when reaching for a utensil near her.

President Bush's speech was designed to raise the morale of the soldiers, and it did.  Hillary's every word was designed to crush it, and we have yet to see the effect of that. Don't we have punishments for people who give aid and comfort to the enemy by deliberately hurting the morale of out troops? (Mildred Gillars, known as "Axis Sally", was sentenced to 10-30 years in prison, of which she served 12.)  Telling the troops on the front lines that their number is inadequate, they can't win without UN involvement, their commander-in-chief is lying to them, the war in Iraq was the result of Bush's personal obsession, and that "the obstacles and problems are much greater than the administration usually admits to" is disheartening, if not an outright attempt to demoralise them.

While in the Baghdad mess hall, President Bush posed for a picture with a decoration turkey on a platter (a tray full of turkey slices isn't worth photographing).  Hillary's entire Middle East jaunt was a pose, a decoration. And anyone who doesn't see her visit for what it was -- a blatant attempt to undermine the morale of our soldiers putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan by trying to make them question their commander-in-chief while in a war zone under his orders -- is the turkey.