(Minor updates to fix typos)

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Beyond all hope—what a joy it is to see Saddam Hussein, one of recent history’s most ghastly tyrants, captured and awaiting punishment for his crimes. What is, perhaps, most appropriate is that this self-styled King of Babylon was found out and captured in stuck in a hole he had dug in the ground in his efforts to flee. If a bit of Scripture is in order, I would like to suggest:

4. That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
5. The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
6. He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
7. The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. …
12. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13. For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

(Isaiah 14, King James Version)

For the people of Iraq — who are wary of claims from The Officials but celebrating in the streets in the hope that it’s true — I can only offer my hope that it is true, and add my voice to the celebration.

But like the Iraqi people, I am wary. Not so much that what the officials are saying about the capture is false. Although I’m sure that a predictable cast of conspiracy theorists will trot out a predictable micro-analysis of one crucial photograph that they are sure must be fake, I don’t think there is that much reason to doubt the reports. It’s not that I don’t think the people presently in power aren’t capable of just making shit up for their own political ends, but rather that the consistent body of evidence here seems to be pretty clear.

But what we will no doubt see, thundering down the echoing halls of television punditry, and coming forth from the bully pulpit that the President is going to assume in an hour or so, is very likely to be a threefold disaster.

First, we are likely to see the same sort of hollow triumphalism with which Caesar celebrated his defeat of Pompey. If any man is prepared to gloat over the stench of carrion that his putative victory cost, it is this man.

Second, and closely connected, we are likely to be told that the capture of Saddam Hussein is proof positive that we were justified in this gruesome joke of a war. Of course it doesn’t — but unfortunately this tacitc may go over well for a while. If there’s anything that the American people love, it’s a winner — and sometimes this blanks out important truths.

Third, the warhawks have already begun to take this (as the neo-conservatives, in particular, take everything) as proof positive of their fanciful dreams. That’s what happens when you confuse your own PR echo chamber for reality; and it’s already on display. For example, consider the fanciful dreams of the U.S. military establishment and their sympathetic commentariat:

Hussein’s capture will be an immediate and devastating body blow to the anti-American resistance in Iraq. …

Within Iraq, the American commanders and their allies hope that the capture of Hussein will break the back of the anti-American resistance. Most of that resistance has come from former forces of Hussein located in the so-called Sunni Triangle in the middle of Iraq, around Baghdad.

So let’s take a moment to review the facts as we know them.

In spite of the Defense Department spin, the insurgency against American troops is not all burned-out Ba’athists. Ordinary Iraqis are mad as hell at the increasingly draconian occupation. And as renewed terrorist activity all around the world indicates, international jihadis have taken up Mr. Bush’s war on Arabs as their own cause celebre. Ba’athist remnants may have reason to be discouraged, but those who revile both Saddam and the Americans (whether from the just aspirations of the Iraqi people, or from the insane fantasies of radical Islamism) are still going strong. As General Sanchez admits (even military commanders have to have more contact with reality than chickenhawk commentators), the deaths will continue – indeed, retaliation may even increase.

Further, Saddam’s capture does not invalidate a single one of the many arguments against the war. No-one doubted that the war would mean a dramatic end to the Ba’athist reign of terror, and that Iraq would be better off for that. What we doubted was that the ends could justify the means–that it was likely or even possible for a U.S. bombing, invasion, and occupation to bring peace and freedom to Iraq. We pointed out that the administration’s evidence for WMD and connections to terrorism was awfully flimsy at best; we predicted massacres of civilians; we predicted a humanitarian and cultural catastrophe; we predicted a hopeless and bloody occupation; we predicted gruesome urban warfare with guerillas. The warhawks said the administration was telling us the Gospel truth, predicted a bloodless victory, where American troops would be greeted with flowers. And here are the facts as we know them: the administration distorted and knowingly lied about pre-war intelligence; civilians were needlessly murdered during the war; the infrastructure and historical heritage of Iraq suffered appalling destruction; the anger and hatred of the occupation is not about to go away; and terrorist attacks continue to kill American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Be that as it may, realism is no excuse for cynicism. Take some time today to be at peace, and to to sing with the people of Iraq. Then take some time to think about how we can make this day sweeter for them. The whole world should rejoice that Saddam Hussein, like the old kings of Babylon the Great, has fallen into ruin. But we also should not forget that Babylon was conquered by the Persians — in the course of creating a mighty empire that was no less tyrannical and no less bloodsoaked than old Chaldaea. It might profit us a bit if we said to ourselves: Rejoice that Balshazzar has fallen! … Now what are we going to do about Cyrus?

This turkey is fake.

If you believe the corporate newsmedia, we are supposed to feel warm fuzzies about President Bush’s surprise visit to Baghdad. Why are we supposed to feel good about it? Because he made a very public and very scripted show of supporting the troops which consisted of a whopping three hours with 600 (no doubt carefully selected) troops? Or perhaps because his conduct of a bloody, senseless war and a bloody, pointless occupation has turned the Iraqi people against him so much that he has to sneak into Baghdad like a thief in the night?

Or, perhaps, that it turns out that the White House lied about it in an attempt to spice up the story – and when called on it, they lied about it again?

You might think that my cynicism about George Bush’s personality is getting the better of me: these lies, for example, are ultimately quite inconsequential bits of venality on the White House story-tellers. Isn’t it kind of petty to harp on them, especially when Bush’s bigger lies led us into an unjustified and illegal war?

Well, in one sense this sort of thing is venal and inconsequential. But in another sense, it goes right to the rotten heart of the Bush administration—that is, a man who is essentially petty and venal at his own core. Bush is, after all, the same man who evidently delights in hollow Caesarian triumphs like the landing on the U.S.S. Lincoln back in May, parades around in the bomber jacket that he earned by going AWOL on a cushy Air National Guard post during Vietnam, and who continues to set new standards for contemptuous official secrecy and scripting of press conferences. It has become common on the Left to see George Bush as the diabolical figurehead of a neferious Right-wing conspiracy against truth, justice, and the American way, with resources bordering on the limitless and motives bordering on the Satanic. But he is nowhere near as grandiose in his wickedness as all that (very few evil people actually are — Dante was closer to the truth about the Devil than Milton). Bush is, ultimately, a sad little man with sad little pretensions to the alleged glory of power. If the Bush administration seems like a political Leviathan at the moment, it’s only because it is bloated up with a lot of gas: the best way to deal with it is not to assail it with apocalyptic rhetoric but rather to deflate it, and show it up for the sorry mistake that it is.

I’ve already posted my thoughts for Veteran’s Day in this space; President Bush, meanwhile, got an early start on his Veteran’s Day festivities by refusing to use Saddam Hussein’s seized assets to compensate 17 Gulf War I P.O.W.s who were tortured by Saddam Hussein. Federal law allowed them to sue the regime and to access its seized assets, but here’s what White House Press flack Scott McClellan had to say about that:

(link courtesy of Tom Tomorrow , who got it from The Homeless Guy)

Q Scott, there are 17 former POWs from the first Gulf War who were tortured and filed suit against the regime of Saddam Hussein. And a judge has ordered that they are entitled to substantial financial damages. What is the administration’s position on that? Is it the view of this White House that that money would be better spent rebuilding Iraq rather than going to these former POWs?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t know that I view it in those terms, David. I think that the United States — first of all, the United States condemns in the strongest terms the brutal torture to which these Americans were subjected. They bravely and heroically served our nation and made sacrifices during the Gulf War in 1991, and there is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. That’s what our view is.

Q But, so — but isn’t it true that this White House —

Q They think they’re is an —

Q Excuse me, Helen — that this White House is standing in the way of them getting those awards, those financial awards, because it views it that money better spent on rebuilding Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there’s simply no amount of money that can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering —

Q Why won’t you spell out what your position is?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

Q Just one more. Why would you stand in the way of at least letting them get some of that money?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with the way you characterize it.

Q But if the law that Congress passed entitles them to access frozen assets of the former regime, then why isn’t that money, per a judge’s order, available to these victims?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s why I pointed out that that was an issue that was addressed earlier this year. But make no mistake about it, we condemn in the strongest possible terms the torture that these brave individuals went through —

Q — you don’t think they should get money?

MR. McCLELLAN: — at the hands of Saddam Hussein. There is simply no amount of money that can truly compensate those men and women who heroically served —

Q That’s not the issue —

MR. McCLELLAN: — who heroically served our nation.

Q Are you opposed to them getting some of the money?

MR. McCLELLAN: And, again, I just said that that had been addressed earlier this year.

Q No, but it hasn’t been addressed. They’re entitled to the money under the law. The question is, is this administration blocking their effort to access some of that money, and why?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t view it that way at all. I view it the way that I stated it, that this issue was —

Q But you are opposed to them getting the money.

MR. McCLELLAN: This issue was addressed earlier this year, and we believe that there’s simply no amount of money that could truly compensate these brave men and women for what they went through and for the suffering that they went through at the hands of Saddam Hussein —

Q So no money.

MR. McCLELLAN: — and that’s my answer.

Read the rest of White House Press Flack Tells All …

I think it is high time that we took a minute to consider how history will remember the present administration and how it treated the men and women who it sent to fight and die overseas. Many people have publicized the Bush administration’s callous assaults on veterans’ benefits and pay–and it’s very important to keep that in mind. But what about the simple fact that the Bush administration has simply left hundreds of thousands of soldiers to die, one by one in terror attacks, so that he could unleash an illegal, pointless war, and a disastrous, hated occupation?

Conventional wisdom is finally starting to come around; even mainstream media and Democratic Presidential hopefuls are now daring to utter mild criticisms of the senseless bloodbath into which King George has led us. But they still don’t quite get it. The standard story that keeps being repeated from the liberal side is now: O.K., so the war was wrong and we never should have blundered into Iraq. But now that we’re there, we have to stick it out and continue the occupation until some unspecified date in the future, when we’re satisfied with how Iraq looks and can finally cut out.

John Kerry, for example, has this to say:

(from Iraq – Winning the Peace on the John Kerry Campaign Website)

We can and should protect our troops and we can and should meet our obligations in Iraq. But America can and must do better.

. . .

John Kerry’s plan will show that we understand real partnership by reaching out to our allies, rebuilding international good will, and asking the UN to do what it has done well from Kosovo to East Timor by putting Iraqi governance and reconstruction under UN authority. It’s not necessary for the U.S. to go it alone on rebuilding Iraq’s institutions and meeting humanitarian needs – and we shouldn’t have to.

And so on, and so forth. The idea is that Iraqis are basically imbeciles who cannot be trusted to establish a prosperous and free society unless the United States miliary and U.N. forces (of all people!) hang around to lecture them about how to do it. The idea is also that we have to leave our soldiers to die and leave the Iraqis under the jackboots of military occupation until we can claim that we’ve managed to win the peace. That way, we won’t ever have to admit that we made a mistake, and that it cost the lives and freedom of many, many innocent Iraqis, as well as the senseless death of hundreds (perhaps thousands, by the time this is over) of U.S. troops.

It’s a bunch of damned rubbish, of course, it’s a bunch of damned rubbish that we ought to have the wisdom and the historical memory by now to recognize. Here’s how the view was skewered by–well–John Kerry, when he was younger and wiser:

(from Modern History Sourcebook: Vietnam Veterans Against the War Statement by John Kerry, 1971)

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can’t say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won’t be, and these are his words, the first President to lose a war.

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

Happy Veteran’s Day.

Last Friday L. and I met up with some friends to go see Michael Moore, who was giving a talk in Ypsilanti. It was hilarious of course–with a protesting delegation of the Young Americans for Freedom providing spreading some unintentional extra humor outside. One of the best points that Mike made during the night was his briefly mentioning how Al Franken had succeeded where so many other liberal and Leftist commentators had failed: taking down FOX News. It didn’t happen through a bunch of whining and accusations of bias; it happened by telling the truth, making it funny, and then using their own public belligerence to reveal what collosal asses they are. Now, FOX News is just a national joke. (Albeit still a very rich and high-rated national joke.)

Of course, that doesn’t mean that there’s no role for a bit of whining and hectoring from time to time; dour pedantry provides a necessary base of information for uncovering the simple truths that wittier people tell. At least, that’s what I tell myself to help justify my own project. In that spirit, I’d like to note the following:

The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there – as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox – including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America – did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn’t warning me to be careful how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan (You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him.), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean (You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don’t get the last word.)

. . .

But the roots of FNC’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.

The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration’s point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious – information on who is where and what they’ll be covering – there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors’ copy. For instance, from the March 20th memo: There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan’s remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are with the Iraqi people. One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought. Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only food for thought, but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General’s remarks as utterly incomprehensible?

The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox’s newsroom personnel into action – or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be whining about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent’s report on the day’s fighting – simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.

These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management’s politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management’s point of view, and, in case they’re not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.

Let me repeat a bit of that again:

They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel’s daytime programming, The Memo is the bible.

There is a story that, when Nixon made his historic trip to China in 1972, he and Kissinger watched as Zhou Enlai was presented with a folderful of papers, which he leafed through, and handed back with a nod. When Kissinger asked what had happened, the translator told him that Zhou had just approved the layout of the next day’s People’s Daily. Nixon, it is said, muttered, I’d like to rearrange a front page now and then.

Need I make the obvious point? Don’t let anyone tell you that there’s been no political progress in the past 30 years.