SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20437)12/19/2003 2:02:31 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793698
 
Boy, do I agree with Krauthammer! BTW, he had a great line on Fox today. Said he knew a lot of guys like Dean in Medical School. Know it alls who thought they were superior to everyone else.



Killing Him Softly

By Charles Krauthammer

washingtonpost.com
Friday, December 19, 2003; Page A37

The race is over. The Oscar for Best Documentary, Short Subject, goes to . . . "Saddam's Dental Exam."

Screenplay: 1st Brigade, U.S. 4th Infantry Division.

Producer: P. Bremer Enterprises, Baghdad.

Director: The anonymous genius at U.S. headquarters who chose this clip as the world's first view of Saddam Hussein in captivity.

In the old days the conquered tyrant was dragged through the streets behind the Roman general's chariot. Or paraded shackled before a jeering crowd. Or, when more finality was required, had his head placed on a spike on the tower wall.

Iraq has its own ways. In the revolution of 1958, Prime Minister Nuri Said was caught by a crowd and murdered, and his body was dragged behind a car through the streets of Baghdad until there was nothing left but half a leg.

We Americans don't do it that way. Instead, we show Saddam Hussein -- King of Kings, Lion of the Tigris, Saladin of the Arabs -- compliantly opening his mouth like a child to the universal indignity of an oral (and head lice!) exam. Docility wrapped in banality. Brilliant. Nothing could have been better calculated to demystify the all-powerful tyrant.

It was a beautiful sight. But it was more than that. It was a deeply important historical moment. More than the fate of a man is at stake here. At stake is the fate of an idea, an idea of singular malignancy that has cost the Arabs not just countless innocent lives but a half-century of progress.

Hussein was the most aggressive and enduring exemplar of a particular kind of deformed Arabism, a kind that arose in the post-colonial era, appealed to the greater glory of the Arab nation and promised a great restoration. Ironically, its methods and ideology were imported from the West, the worst of the West. The Baath Party was modeled on the fascist parties in early 20th-century Europe. Its economics were Western socialism at its most stifling and corrupt. Hussein then created the perfect fusion of the two, producing a totalitarianism of surpassing cruelty modeled consciously on Stalin's.

Hussein's destiny is important because he was the last and the greatest of these pan-Arab pretenders, though he gave it a psychotically sadistic character unmatched anywhere in the Arab world. This stream of Arab nationalism brought nothing but poverty, corruption, despair, torture and ruin to large swaths of the Arab world. The mass graves of Iraq are its permanent monument.

This is why it was important not just to capture Hussein but to demystify him -- and with him, the half-century spell that radical pan-Arabism had cast over the entire Middle East. It was important that the god-king of pan-Arabism be shown as the pathetic coward he was. It was important to finally shatter what Fouad Ajami called "the dream palace of the Arabs." And to banish the grotesque fantasy, perpetrated by Hussein and his acolytes in the Arab intelligentsia, that Arab greatness -- once built on a magnificent civilization of science, culture and tolerance -- is to be rebuilt upon blood, power and cruelty.

It seemed as if that fantasy had been dealt a fatal blow when Baghdad fell so suddenly on April 9. Instead of the promised Battle of Baghdad, confronting and perhaps even stopping the Americans in heroic street-by-street combat, there was nothing. Just ignominious collapse. The Arab media, particularly the al-Jazeeras that had long lionized Hussein and promoted "Baghdad Bob's" comical claims of Iraqi war victories, were shocked and humiliated. They themselves had to admit that this was the greatest psychological blow to Arab nationalist pretensions since the similarly vainglorious Gamal Abdel Nasser was routed by Israel in six days in June 1967.

But then came the Iraqi insurgency: the bloodying of the Americans, the doubts at home, the charges of "quagmire," the visions of Vietnam, the notion that the United States might in the end be defeated -- tire and leave the field once again to Hussein.

On the run, Hussein enjoyed one final moment of myth: the ever-resourceful, undaunted resistance fighter. Perhaps, it was thought, he had it all calculated in advance, fading silently from Baghdad like the Russians withdrawing from Moscow before Napoleon, to suck in the Americans only to strike back later on his own terms in a brilliant guerrilla campaign masterminded by the great one himself.

And then they find him cowering in a hole, disheveled, disoriented and dishonored. After making those underground tapes exhorting others to give their blood for Iraq and for him, his instantaneous reaction to discovery was hands-up surrender.

End of the myth. It is not just that he did not resist the soldiers with the guns. He did not even resist the medic with the tongue depressor.
washingtonpost.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20437)12/19/2003 5:16:42 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793698
 
Sullivan is "right on" on O'Reilly.

The Weekly Dish

By Andrew Sullivan

DRUDGE AND O'REILLY
You've got to love it when the holiday spirit rises anew among your favorite media mavens. Last week, Matt Drudge of the online Drudge Report did the unthinkable and published the latest rankings for best-seller books in 2003, recorded by Nielsen's BookScan. Mr. Drudge wasbeinga little naughty, as is his custom. On Monday, Fox News star Bill O'Reilly had bragged to NBC's Today Show that "We've outsoldthatguy [Franken] all over the place. We're running against Hillary for most copies of non-fiction books sold this year!" The results, alas, showed that Bill O'Reilly's oeuvre, "Who's Looking Out For You," was easily bested by Al Franken's screed "Lying Liars" and way behind Senator Clinton's largely unreadable account of meeting lots of African prime ministers, "Personal History." What was Mr. O'Reilly's response to being caught out in an inaccuracy? He called Mr. Drudge "a threat to democracy." But he didn't deny the facts because he can't. I never used to understand the appeal of Mr O'Reilly. Then last week, I finally got cable. Yeah, I know. How did I do without it? Quite well, actually. I read more; got all the info I needed from the web; but I missed those VH1 list shows, "South Park" re-runs and "Queer Eye." So, now I get to see O'Reilly consistently for the first time as well. Suddenly, you see why he reacts so obtusely to simple criticism. He's unhinged! Alarmingly, I find myself agreeing with him on many issues. But he is so obnoxious, so transparently phony, so gung-ho in a crude populist know-nothing kind of way that I'm almost embarrassed to be on the same side much of the time. Does anyone say "I may be wrong" more disingenuously? Is there anyone more aggressively watchable because he is so awful? Okay, there's CNN's Bob Novak and Paul Begala. And, in the old days, John McLaughlin. But Bill O'Reilly is so compellingly odious you almost can't take your eyes off him. I wonder how much of his ratings are based on 'hathos' — the enjoyment you get from hating someone, the same delicious feeling you get reading a Paul Krugman column or listening to Joe Biden.
washtimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (20437)12/19/2003 6:55:20 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793698
 
Here is what the "Head Heeb" thinks.

Disappointment
So Sharon's Herzliya speech (full text here)http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=373673&contrassID=1&subContrassID=7&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y didn't present a withdrawal plan after all:

Settlements which will be relocated are those which will not be included in the territory of the State of Israel in the framework of any possible future permanent agreement. At the same time, in the framework of the "Disengagement Plan", Israel will strengthen its control over those same areas in the Land of Israel which will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement. I know you would like to hear names, but we should leave something for later.

The trouble is that without naming the settlements to be evacuated or the IDF redeployment lines, nobody can tell whether there really is a "Disengagement Plan." There are no concrete proposals for the Israeli public and the Knesset to debate, nor has a bottom line been presented to the Palestinians.

The goal expressed by Sharon in his speech - to "reduce as much as possible the number of Israelis located in the heart of the Palestinian population" - is not equivalent to peace but, if properly carried out, might reduce tensions enough to allow final status negotiations to succeed. Without specifics, though, it's impossible to determine whether Sharon's plan will accomplish this goal. The Herzliya speech was just a speech - a groundbreaking speech for Sharon, certainly, but in the end one more of far too many speeches that have been made about resolving this conflict.

I've sometimes seen Sharon's vagueness justified on the ground that a wise negotiator doesn't reveal his position before talks begin. These, however, aren't ordinary negotiations. Most of the time, the parties to negotiations start by agreeing to come to the table and then decide the outcome. Between Israelis and Palestinians, the sequence is precisely the reverse - everyone knows more or less what the outcome will be, but the parties have never managed to stay at the table long enough to finish. One of the purposes of unilateral withdrawal is to create an environment in which negotiations can happen in the first place, and a concrete signal could begin creating that environment even before it is implemented.

In addition, if the settlements to be evacuated "will not be included in the territory of the State of Israel in the framework of any possible future permanent agreement," then what's the harm in naming them or even beginning to dismantle them? If there are no circumstances under which Israel will keep these settlements, then proposing to leave them is like making a $500,000 offer on a million-dollar case. It wouldn't be equivalent to giving the store away or even making a major pre-negotiation concession, but it would be a strong sign of seriousness and good faith.

An evacuation of settlements is also not something that can be done on the spur of the moment. The planning for evacuation needs to begin now, with a focus on preparing the settler leadership, confronting the resistance of those who will not be persuaded, finding alternative housing for the settlers and managing the logistics of relocation. The more advance notice is given, the more smoothly a unilateral withdrawal can be debated, planned and managed. Hopefully Sharon will soon lay out his contingency proposals in more concrete terms so that actual preparation can begin.

headheeb.blogmosis.com