December 15, 2003
THE PERILS OF BA'ATHISM:
Candidates Celebrate First and Worry Second (ADAM NAGOURNEY, 12/15/03, NY Times)
The news about Saddam Hussein fulfills what many Americans have long viewed as a crucial test for measuring success in the war in Iraq and thus could rob Democrats of an issue they have increasingly challenged President Bush on, Democrats said on Sunday.But its impact could fall particularly heavily on the candidacy of Howard Dean, the Democrat who most party leaders view as the leading contender for the nomination. It could force Dr. Dean, Democrats said, to deal with a stronger incumbent in next year's general election, should the capture prove the turning point Mr. Bush has sought in the war. It could also lead to challenges from newly emboldened Democratic candidates who supported the war, who see an opportunity to attack Dr. Dean on his antiwar stance, the issue on which he has built his candidacy. [...]
"If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a much more dangerous place," Mr. Lieberman said. "The American people would have a lot more to fear." [...]
Even though it had been anticipated to some extent, the early morning news from Iraq seemed to shock the candidates and their aides, and left several expressing grudging admiration at what one described as Mr. Bush's continued good luck. They spent the day trying to applaud the capture while trying not to abandon their criticism of Mr. Bush's management of the war in Iraq as well as their attacks upon one another.
Lucky? Did they think our military wouldn't hunt him down eventually? Mr. Bush is most lucky in the low quality of his critics.
MORE:
Mohammed Atta's Iraqi Connection (Con Coughlin, December 15, 2003, London Telegraph)
Certainly the memo's detail concerning Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal fits in with the known movements of the two terrorists in the summer of 2001. Abu Nidal, the renegade Palestinian terrorist responsible for a wave of outrages in the 1980s, such as the 1985 bomb attacks on Rome and Vienna airports, was based in Baghdad, under Saddam's personal protection, for most of his career.Having briefly relocated to Libya, Abu Nidal returned to Baghdad at some point in early 2001. At the time it was assumed that Saddam had lured the Palestinian terrorist back to help the Iraqi leader plan a number of terrorist attacks aimed at destabilising American plans to remove him.
In particular, Saddam wanted Abu Nidal to revive his network of "sleeper cells" in Europe and the Middle East to carry out a new wave of attacks. During 2001 Abu Nidal lived in a number of houses in the Baghdad area, including a spacious home in the al-Dora district where he is reported to have met Atta.
The relationship between Abu Nidal and Saddam, however, quickly turned sour, mainly because - as the Telegraph reported at the time - the ageing Palestinian leader was reluctant to accede to Saddam's request to train al-Qaeda fighters in sophisticated terrorist techniques.
Abu Nidal was murdered in August 2001, although the Iraqis tried to claim that he had committed suicide. Habbush appeared at a hastily arranged press conference in Baghdad in an attempt to persuade the sceptical Arab media that Abu Nidal had taken his own life after Iraqi investigators had uncovered a plot to assassinate Saddam.
Posted by Orrin Judd at December 15, 2003 08:53 AM
Mr. Bush is most lucky in the low quality of his critics.
Does it take intelligence to appreciate intelligence? Or wisdom to appreciate wisdom? It puzzles me how some of those who are against Mr. Bush continue to stigmatize his intellect, when he has an Ivy League MBA and has been a good President overall. I begin to think some of Mr. Bush's critics really DO render him fortunate. I refer primarily to those for whom all of politics, perhaps even all of life, is rendered in the simple equation "Bush = Hitler".
Southerner
Posted by: Southerner at December 15, 2003 09:05 AMSo the candidates are expressing grudging admiration "at President Bush's continued good luck." !?
Is that what they think is bringing this all about?
Posted by: John J. Coupal at December 15, 2003 10:14 AMUm, er, well, splutter, it's the only possible rational explanation....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 15, 2003 10:28 AMOn Thanksgiving I had a discussion with my left-leaning inlaws in which I praised Tony Blair's silver tongue. Even spitting mad in parliament he was able to make profound statements, something W, I readily admit, is unable to do.
They agreed wholeheartedly and declared that Blair was the only one who could make any sense of this "Iraq nonsense" for them.
I bit my tongue and did not point out that Bush and Blair were saying the same things. It was the holidays after all and I didn't want to shine a spotlight on their prejudice when there was turkey to eat.
The president's critics simply hate him and refuse to believe anything positive about him. It's as simple as being a bigot.
Posted by: NKR at December 15, 2003 10:46 AMThey agreed wholeheartedly and declared that Blair was the only one who could make any sense of this "Iraq nonsense" for them.
I am frequently amazed at how otherwise educated and normal (and even smart) people claim to "not understand" why we are fighting in Iraq, saying they see no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. My response: What was the connection between Pearl Harbor in 1941 and our attack against North Africa in 1942 to fight the Vichy French, Italians, and Germans? After all, none of them attacked Pearl Harbor.
Of course, the answer back then was that Japan, Germany, Italy, etc. were all part of a worldwide fascist plot to take over the world. For practical/strategic/diplomatic reasons, we had to deal with Germany before Japan, Italy before Germany, and Vichy French North Africa first of all. Similarly, we are now dealing with the Islamic fascists of Al Qaeda et. al. in an order and manner that might seem superficially odd, but makes sense if you think about it.
Posted by: PapayaSF at December 15, 2003 03:41 PMActually, oj, Abu Nidal was murdered in August 2002 (not 2001).
Posted by: Barry Meislin at December 15, 2003 04:47 PMDoes anyone edit The Telegraph?
Posted by: oj at December 15, 2003 05:07 PM