Capture Won't Mean Much

King Features Syndicate, Inc. ^ | 12-24-03 | Reese, Charley

[Theodore R.]

Capture Won't Mean Much

I don't believe the capture of Saddam Hussein will have any effect on the guerrilla war being conducted against Americans and their Iraqi allies.

Saddam's power was always his ability to command and control. The day he went on the run, he lost that power. He couldn't command or control anyone. On the contrary, he was at the mercy of those willing to hide him and those who might choose to betray him.

As his pictures show, he's a tired, worn-out old geezer. One has to give him credit for being much more slippery than the United States thought he would be (we've been trying to kill him since 1991), but the end was inevitable. It will also prove to be anti-climactic, after the initial celebrations are finished.

Guerrilla war is a young man's game, and the people behind the attacks are young buckaroos, some perhaps with the ambition to be a future Saddam. They were never fighting for Saddam, and I doubt any thoughtful Iraqi ever believed he would come back. He was finished the day the U.S. Army occupied Baghdad.

No Arab I've ever talked to had anything kind to say about Saddam. He was called a thug, and many added that he was stupid. Still, some in the Arab world admired him simply because he defied the United States. These people will be disappointed that he didn't put up a suicidal fight, but who knows what condition his mind is in now. It's been a long and bloody journey since he was a 10-year-old boy running in the streets of Tikrit. In the months before the war, it was said that he had taken to writing romance novels. It could be that he's been out of touch with reality for some time.

At any rate, except for the embarrassment of not being able to find him, he hasn't been our problem, and now that we have found him, it won't solve our problem. Iraq remains as it was. There are those who would like to drag Saddam through the streets, and there are those who would like to drag Americans through the street. We still have to restore services and security and do it fast, as the longer it takes, the more Iraqis will be inclined to join the resistance.

Personally, I have never thought it wise to spend $150 billion rebuilding Iraq when so much of America needs rebuilding. I guess there's something wrong with my psyche, but whether Iraq is a democracy or a dictatorship doesn't matter in the least to me. Call me a provincial. I'm only interested in the welfare of the American people. The war and occupation of Iraq strike me as a sideshow, a political stunt to distract Americans from the problems we face here at home.

Even if we are 100 percent successful, even if we restore Iraqi prosperity and install a Thomas Jefferson who speaks Arabic, all it will mean for the American people is that we will be poorer than we were before we spent all that blood and treasure. The Iraqi people might be better off, but we won't be.

And if doing something won't make things better for the American people, why the heck does the government do it? This war has been a bamboozle job from the start. Americans were conned into believing Saddam had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, that he amassed weapons of mass destruction, and that he had ties to international terrorists. None of that has proven to be true, and I suspect that the U.S. government knew it was not true from the get-go.

Go ahead and celebrate Saddam's capture, if that's your wish, but I personally don't think our washing somebody else's dirty laundry is anything to celebrate. If you will think about it, you will see that whether Saddam is dead, on the run or in jail has no effect on your life whatsoever. And I don't think aspiring to be the janitor of the world is a goal worthy of the United States. Let the people in every country clean up their own messes.

© 2003 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

[Tired_of_the_Lies]

Saddam Hussein is not dead yet. And Jordanian attorneys (the entire bar association, if I understood the news last night correctly) are lining up to defend him, claiming that he is still the President of Iraq and the U.S. illegally deposed him.

If our (the U.S.') only argument is the enforcement of U.N. sanctions, that may not help a lot. Guess whose side the the U.N. will be on.

[Theodore R.]

When Charley Reese was writing columns condemning Clinton's war in Kosovo, where were the conservatives defending that President? Charley is consistent -- he opposes U.S. warmaking abroad and is a true "isolationist" before that word acquire its negative connotation. I believe he wrote that he supports the U.S. at war only when attacked, but he did not consider 9-11 sufficient justification for "regime change" in Iraq. He does not think stability can come out of the Middle East after "regime change" in Baghdad, but we shall see who is correct. We may not know for ten years.

[Theodore R.]

sufficient justification for "regime change" in Iraq.

I meant to say he did not see a direct "smoking gun" (a favorite term of liberals) between 9-11 and Saddam Hussein. However, there were reports that Saddam did at one time have a connection with Osama bin Laden.

[wayoverontheright]

This war has been a bamboozle job from the start. Americans were conned into believing Saddam had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, that he amassed weapons of mass destruction, and that he had ties to international terrorists. None of that has proven to be true,....

And none of this HAS to be true for the success in Iraq to lead to the defeat of terror.

We were attacked on 9-11 because of an extreme deficiency of respect, not an abundance of hatred. Although effectively hated by the entire Middle East, the attack would never have occurred if the enemy knew the response was going have the humiliating consequences for them it has had.

We have regained respect, we have achieved the humiliation factor which Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out must be achieved to win any peace, we are laying the groundwork for instilling FEAR within our enemies, and we are now seeing the final stage, CAPITULATION, to begin in the form of Qaddafi's, Iran's, and Korea's making nice with us.

[Grampa Dave]

Mark Steyn has an excellent article on the deranged ones like Charlie and those who defend his Pros Islamofascist ramblings:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1045861/posts

Mark Steyn: Degrees of Derangement
The Irish Times ^ | December 22, 2003 | Mark Steyn


Posted on 12/23/2003 8:50:54 PM PST by seamole


Last Sunday’s exciting news seems to have prompted a wide array of interpretations around the world. But, to simplify things, most of them fall between two extremes.

The one end is neatly distilled by the headline on John Podhoretz’s post-Saddam column in The New York Post: “Message: America Wins.”

The other end is encapsulated by our old friend Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s Number Two: “America has been defeated by our fighters despite all its military might,” he said in an audio tape broadcast on al-Jazeera last weekend. “With God’s help we are still chasing Americans and their allies everywhere, including their homeland.”

You won’t be surprised to hear I incline broadly to the “Message: America Wins” end of the spectrum. What’s slightly more perplexing is the number of hitherto sane people who take the al-Zawahri line. For example, the distinguished British historian Professor Correlli Barnett, whose piece in the current issue of The Spectator is headlined “Why Al-Qa’eda Is Winning”. If I were Osama, I’d tuck that one away in the cuttings file. Except, of course, that these days what’s left of poor old Osama can itself be tucked away in the cuttings file.

Here, in a nutshell, is why recent trends seem to be going Mr Bush’s way rather than Mr al-Zawahri’s: In the little more than two years since 9/11, two vile dictatorships have fallen in Kabul and Baghdad, and only the other day a third, in Tripoli, has suddenly announced that it’s dismantling its nukes program and the Brits and Yanks are welcome to take a look over anything they fancy. A plus for Bush’s side? Or al-Zawahri’s? You make the call.

But in between these two poles are various other points on the spectrum. At point (a), you’ll find those wise old foreign policy birds who get everything wrong but never seem to notice. That would include all those fellows who tut-tutted that the Pentagon’s announcement that France, Germany and Russia would be excluded from bidding for Iraqi reconstruction contracts was an appallingly amateurish screw-up given that Washington was about to go cap in hand to Paris, Berlin and Moscow asking them to forgive Iraq’s Saddam-accumulated debts. “Democrats seized on the episode as further evidence of Bush diplomatic blundering,” reported London’s Independent.

“Further” evidence: lovely touch that. But you get the gist: the Europeans would now be certain to reject any moves to forgive Iraqi debt. Chris Patten, the EU's external relations commissioner, called Washington’s move “politically maladroit… It’s a triumph for Pentagon diplomacy,” said “a sarcastic Mr Patten”, as The Guardian put it. Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, pronounced: “It is not the wisest decision. You are saying that countries cannot participate in tenders and at the same time you are asking those same countries to cooperate on debt.”

But lo and behold last week Bush emissary James Baker touched down in the capitals of Europe and, in defiance of The Guardian et al, France and Germany caved and Russia semi-caved. Perhaps they took the Pentagon frost-out as a sign that the Administration was serious. Or perhaps they were worried that their old pal Saddam might get too chatty while in US custody. But either way, in a non-sarcastic unPattenesque way, it does appear to be “a triumph for Pentagon diplomacy”. If this is politically maladroit blundering, blunder on; crank the maladroitness meter up another notch.

Not that the Administration will get any credit for it. For among the two other international groupings of Bush-disparagers are those in group (b) who argue yes, there’s good news, but no thanks to Bush; and those in group (c) who say yes, it’s all thanks to Bush, but it’s bound to turn out disastrously: the good news will prove to be bad news, if we just wait long enough.

There was an interesting example of group (b)-think last week. A couple of days after Saddam’s lice inspection, Colonel Gaddafi threw in the towel on his WMD programme – chemical, biological, nuclear, the works. Why was this? Well, according to the chaps at Reuters, it was because “segments of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] have become very concerned about Libya”. Hmm. When the IAEA starts showing “concern”, you know you’ve only got another two or three decades to fall into line or they’ll report you to the Security Council. But make no mistake: Gaddafi’s surrender definitely isn’t anything to do with Bush, Blair, the toppling of Saddam, stuff like that, no sir, don’t you believe it.

Here’s an intriguing tidbit from an interview Silvio Berlusconi gave to The Spectator in September:

“I cannot say which country he was from, but someone telephoned me the other day and said, ‘I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.’”

Interesting. Who on earth could Mr Berlusconi be talking about?

Colonel Gaddafi is merely the latest example of what one might call trickle-down destabilization. As I wrote in early May, “You don’t invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don’t have to invade everywhere else.”

Meanwhile, in group (c) are all those who acknowledge that America has won swift victories in Afghanistan and Iraq but that they’re meddling with ancient, complex cultural forces which will come back to bite them in the butt. Whatever gets you through the night, boys. One can’t help noticing that, despite innumerable warnings from these western defeatists about the folly of provoking the incendiary “Arab street”, the Arab street is now in the third year of its deep slumber. It may be that Osama is just very cunningly “lying low”, but, with each passing month, the reason he’s lying low is more and more likely to be due to an inability to get up again. Taliban gone, Saddam gone, Gaddafi retired, Osama “resting”. “Message: America wins” is as accurate a summation of the last two years as any. Whether or not you think American victory is a good thing is another matter. But a smart anti-American ought to recognize that generally things are going America’s way, and the only argument worth having is about the speed at which they’re doing so.

---

Yep, Charlie, whatever gets you through the night. You have at least 5 years of miserable days and nights as your buddies, those who would kill all of us, are killed instead!

[tbpiper]

conservatives defending that President

Why would a conservative want to defend Clinton for initiating that Balkan Cluster f?

[Redcloak]

Charley's little choo-choo continues to go chugging around the bend.

[SW6906]

No, we're not being inconsistent re: Kosovo and Iraq.

In Kosovo, there was NO threat to the security of the United States. None whatsoever. That is why I opposed that war. With Iraq, there was a threat to our national security in the form of Saddam's harboring of - and direct financial support of - terrorists (Abu Nidal, Salman Pak, Ansar Al Islam, paying families of Pali homocide bombers, etc, etc, etc). The intent of attacking Iraq and getting rid of Saddam is to start to dismantle that hornets nest of terrorists and crap in the Middle East and to eventually make the free world safer from terrorists and those who support them.

Kosovo was nothing but a humanitarian "meals on wheels" action that should have and could have been handled completely by the Europeans who were concerned about it destabilizing their back yard. It was their problem, not ours.

[BlueLancer]

"...which included among others Gerald R. Ford, Jr., Kingman Brewster, R. Sargent Shriver, and Charles A. Lindbergh."

Don't you mean Henry Ford, Jr.?

[dighton]

Parodies invited.

Once upon a time there was an engineer
Choo Choo Charlie was his name, we hear.
He had an engine and he sure had fun
He used Good & Plenty candy to make his train run.
Charlie says “Love my Good & Plenty!”
Charlie says “Really rings my bell!”
Charlie says “Love my Good & Plenty!”
Don’t know any other candy that I love so well!

[Bob Mc]

Yeah I know. But I seriously doubt anyone but the new Iraqis and the US will have any say on Saddam's fate. In my opinion, soon as we think he is no longer useful for information, he'll be turned over to the Iraqis and then he's toast!

Jordian attorneys? entire bar association? U.N.? Gonna rescue Saddam? HA!

[Theodore R.]

Well, I seem to recall that a young Gerald R. Ford, Jr., 26, was also a part of the group. I do not specifically remember Henry Ford in America First.

[arasina]

From the Bethlehem Association's July convention in Orlando:

The guest speaker at Friday evening's hafleh was Charley Reese, a Southern columnist, just retired from the Orlando Sentinel. After an eloquent and enthusiastic introduction by MC Muna Handal who also knows his work, he gave a very sympathetic and outspoken speech on the need to tell the truth about what Israel and her supporters have been getting away with regard to the Palestinians. We first read Charley Reese's article through various e-mails sent us by others so we felt extremely lucky to have him as our guest speaker. It is cheering to hear an American speak so forcefully and persuasively on the whole issue. He urged us to keep writing to the media who will listen in the end.

What Israel "gets away with?" Sorry, Charlie. You took the Pali bait hook, line and sinker.

[Conspiracy Guy]

No time for parodies today but I wrote these two sweet poems about dear Saddam.

Saddam

They found him in a spider hole,
Just like we knew they would.
Though we are glad I'm sure the Dems,
Feel this is not too good.
I'm sure they all are saddened now,
For Saddam's in our hand.
The French, the Germans, chant along,
The Russians lead the band.
They want the contracts to rebuild,
The Dems want Bush to fail.
Death for Saddam is too swift,
Let’s let him rot in jail.
Congratulations to our troops,
And to our leader here.
George Bush is still the man to lead,
He gets my vote next year.

Conspiracy Guy 12/14/03


Cowards

They recently found Saddam,
Hiding in his pit.
I hope this is a warning,
Cowards are not fit.
They do not lead but threaten,
Their people to obey.
They rape and kill their people,
All to get their way.
But take away that power base,
Watch the roaches slide.
Death is for their underlings,
Cowards, they just hide.

Conspiracy Guy 12/15/03

[metesky]

Charley is consistent -- he opposes U.S. warmaking abroad and is a true "isolationist" before that word acquire its negative connotation.

I knew Reese was an old fool, but not that old, as the word "isolationist" aquired it's negative connotation in 1939.

[Tunehead54]

I used to read and enjoy Charlie Reese. Then one day I found out he supported the pallies.

---

I used to as well - thanks for 'splaining the likely cause for his change.

[familyofman]

"...there were reports that Saddam did at one time have a connection with Osama bin Laden."

Sgt Joe Friday check needed here - the facts, just the facts. There have been reports on almost eveything imaginable in the world; ufos, life on Mars, angels dancing on pinheads... The question is & always will be - where are the facts that support the report.

[Theodore R.]

I did not remember the source of "the reports" but do recall reading them.

[Theodore R.]

It may be that Gerald R. Ford, Jr., has been forgiven of his membership in "America First" as a "youthful discretion."

[familyofman]

"I did not remember the source of "the reports" but do recall reading them."

Again, reports do not, do not = facts. Almost anything can be reported & that isn't limited to facts - a lot of opinion & speculation gets reported. That doesn't mean all reports are factual. There have been reports of the earth being flat.