The Washington Post editorial from today is not a fluke. Yesterday, they dissected the goings-on in the UN Security Council. My previous comments were based on reading the words of the proposed resolution and the counter memorandum. But apparently, in the UN, words mean different things than they do here in the real world. While the Franco-Russo-Deutch memorandum looks tougher than what we propose to say with the new resolution, in fact, the 120 day deadline would relieve Iraq of sanctions, not be a trigger for military action. The perfidy of our "friends" the French is apparently without measure. When SNL got on France's case, I thought that was significant. But when the WaPo is on them, it's definitely piling on.

Saddam Hussein this time was to be offered a stark choice between immediate voluntary disarmament and "serious consequences," which all understood to mean war. This was a sound strategy, and it might have succeeded had the forceful message not been quickly undermined by the French and their allies. The most damaging contradiction in their position is this: They would insist that the United States act through multilateral institutions such as the Security Council; but they themselves will not support those institutions if the outcome is a sanctioned exercise of U.S. power. That's because their priority is not disarming rogue states, or strengthening world government, or even preventing war per se. It is, rather, to neutralize what the French call the American "hyperpower." When its security is threatened, there is no reason for the United States to accept such paralysis -- especially when it has the unambiguous terms of U.N. resolutions on its side.

The Washington Post has been establishing itself during this time as the anti-NYT - not as an opposition newspaper, but as a clearly American newspaper. Certainly it is not a cheerleader for the President or the Republican party. But it is definitely taking a stand for the United States. In today's editorial, they clearly address the anti-war crowd, who are somewhat upset that the Washington Post has taken such a stand. The whole thing is an outstanding piece of advocacy - doubly so given that this is the Washington Post:

In 1997 and 1998, we strongly backed President Clinton when he vowed that Iraq must finally honor its commitments to the United Nations to give up its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- and we strongly criticized him when he retreated from those vows. Mr. Clinton understood the stakes. Iraq, he said, was a "rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."

When we cite Mr. Clinton's perceptive but ultimately empty comments, it is in part to chide him and other Democrats who take a different view now that a Republican is in charge. But it has a more serious purpose too. Mr. Clinton could not muster the will, or the domestic or international support, to force Saddam Hussein to live up to the promises he had made in 1991, though even then the danger was well understood. Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused him of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries. Through the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure and the first year of Mr. Bush's presidency, Saddam Hussein built up his power, beat back sanctions and found new space to rearm -- all with the support of France and Russia and the acquiescence of the United States.

After Sept. 11, 2001, many people of both parties said -- and we certainly hoped -- that the country had moved beyond such failures of will and politicization of deadly foreign threats. An outlaw dictator, in open defiance of U.N. resolutions, unquestionably possessing and pursuing biological and chemical weapons, expressing support for the Sept. 11 attacks: Surely the nation would no longer dither in the face of such a menace. Now it seems again an open question. To us, risks that were clear before seem even clearer now.

Maybe we aren't going to surrender to the French after all. In today's Washington Post:

PARIS/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States fired a warning shot Tuesday across the bows of France, the leading critic of its Iraq policy, saying it would view any French veto of a new U.N. resolution authorizing force as "very unfriendly."

Don't make us angry, Mr. Chiraq. You wouldn't like us when we're angry.

The Russians are off of my good guy list. Now from the text of the French, German, and Russian proposal:

-- While suspicions remain, no evidence has been given that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction or capabilities in this field;

-- Inspections have just reached their full pace; they are functioning without hindrance; they have already produced results;

-- While not yet fully satisfactory, Iraqi cooperation is improving, as mentioned by the chief inspectors in their last report.

Huh? The world has gone mad.

Another good read goes off the air. Rachel Lucas is going on hiatus.

That's the only explanation. The British propose a UNSC Resolution that does not call for military action. The French and Germans and Chinese take exception to even that. The UN says he is out of compliance with UN resolutions - not 1441, but 687, the original post Gulf War resolution. Saddam's answers the UN by saying, umm, no I'm not. And in the same interview, he proposes a televised debate with President Bush:

"I am ready," said the Iraqi president, "to conduct a direct dialogue with your president. I will say what I want and he will say what he wants."

"This will be an opportunity for him, if he's committed to war, this will be an opportunity to convince the world."

Iraqi officials have repeatedly noted the size and strength of the anti-war demonstrations that occurred ten days ago. They are certain they have an audience for the proposed debate.

"This is something proposed in earnest," Saddam said, "out of my respect for the people of the United States and my respect for the people of Iraq and the people of the world. I call for this because war is not a joke."

The full text of the proposed new UNSC resolution is available, and here is the key part:

Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,

Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002).

Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The rest of the world is a very unserious place.

As if we needed a reminder of that.

Britain will submit a second resolution to the U.N. Security Council Monday afternoon declaring Iraq in "further military breach" of U.N. resolutions ordering Baghdad to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction.

I guess we won't know until the delivery of the new resolution (postponed yet again to 3:30 today), but word is it doesn't say much:

Western diplomats said the draft resolution is expected to contain a reference to Iraq being in "material breach" and threaten "serious consequences" as a result of that breach. The draft is expected to contain no deadlines, they said.

French, Russian and German diplomats were discussing a counter-proposal Monday that could outline steps Baghdad must take to demonstrate its compliance with weapons inspectors. The counter-proposal was unlikely to take the form of a Security Council resolution, diplomats said.

At least all the answers on why we should be going to war with Iraq. Patrick Ruffini has 'em.

They're "deploying."

My thoughts: Two birds, one stone.

Update: Just saw this (via LGF):

Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base.

Since the shields' first visit to examine their new quarters, sandbags and unmanned check points had been erected around the plant. Asked about the neighbouring Rasheed military base, an Iraqi official said: "Don't worry, it is a small army camp."

Even the Iranians. Spotted via Andrew Sullivan, this article in the LA Times (link requires registration), regarding Iranian's who want the US to put Hussein out of business:

When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in.

"Are they changing their mind?" Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. "Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?"

Saw on Fox News this morning 2 interesting full-gong news alerts. The first was that Germany's Schroeder said that France and Germany did not believe there was a need for a second UNSC Resolution to authorize military action on Iraq. It was not clear from the alert whether they had suddenly changed their mind on 1441, or just were opposing a new resolution that would be absolutely clear on the matter.

The second alert, a few minutes later, was that the UK would be submitting the new resolution today.

Hmmm.

Well, now that I've gone and looked it up on the Fox News site, its pretty clear:

Britain will be submitting a second resolution authorizing military action against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council Monday, Fox News has learned.

[...]

The French government, which has led the opposition to military action, reaffirmed Monday that a second resolution was "neither useful nor necessary" and called instead for strengthened weapons inspections.

Well, despite the tough talk lately, I don't see us ignoring the UN Security Council. The semi-triumphant notes about rope-a-dope proving the UN to be irrelevant were way too premature. The UN is going to make us irrelevant.

Tom Ridge gets no respect. He has a deadly serious job. People really are trying to kill Americans. All of us, if they can. But just enough to make the rest cower in fear will do. So while he and the Department of Homeland Security were first lambasted for their secrecy, and their failure to tell people what to do beyond "live your lives as normal." Then they made some suggestions on emergency preparedness, and people made fun of that. And then they launched Ready.gov, with good instructions and people(people people) are having a field day with it.

The one with Peter Gabriel and Midnight Oil is pretty funny though.

But I have received 2 offers to get several million dollars from Nigeria in the blog mailbox - I don't get those in my personal email box at all.

Two offers - looks like I will be collecting about $10 million soon. Who would have thought this would have been so easy?

Don't ever use a running laptop as a coffee serving tray when you are going down stairs.

Update: Dried out, and it works now. Whew!

With John Derbyshire at NRO, who now thinks it is quite possible that there will be war in Iraq:

Yes, I now believe the administration is willing to make war. Yes, I think it could happen — I'd put current odds at around 50-50, with one of those 50s given over to a palace coup in Baghdad, which the White House (not to mention the Saudis and sundry other players) is probably doing its best to bring about.

I'm listening to Sean Hannity yesterday, and Senator McCain is talking about Presidents Carter and Clinton and their escapades, running down the US around the world, and he says: "I just have two words: Shut up!" Here's an account over at NewsMax.

Of course, this still doesn't change my hard and fast rule - never vote for a Naval Academy graduate!

Maybe he should be President.

War is always the answer to war if war is brought down upon you. Evil requires resistance. If a man in a crowd grabs your child from your arms, you do not wonder what brought him to this moment, or petition the city council for a resolution requiring him to hand over the skeletons of his previous victims. You stab him in the eyeball with your car keys.

The despair meter is still high, but no longer at 11. Maybe 9.5.

So now it's the United States offereing yet another final chance for Saddam. According to the Washington Post, at least another 2 weeks:

President Bush plans at least two more weeks of diplomacy before deciding whether to attack Iraq and may support a deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to visibly destroy his chemical and biological weapons, administration officials said yesterday.

My average daily unique visitor count over the past 15 days is 122. So I should be grateful that unlike Glenn, and Michele, and Megan, and Andrea, I don't get hatemail. Hooray!

The EU says Hussein has a last chance:

European leaders, trying to end their bitter dispute over Iraq, warned Saddam Hussein on Monday he faces a "last chance" to disarm, but gave no deadline and said U.N. weapons inspectors must have more time to finish their work.

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

But I am not feeling very hopeful today. I have been a booster of Bush rope-a-dopery, that when both the right and left, hawk and dove, are critical of his policies, he will pull it out with an outstanding win. But all of this in Europe, fumbling about in the UN (arguing diplomacy with the French is like that wrestling with a pig thing - everybody gets dirty, and the pig likes it. We should be busy killing terrorists, not arguing with the French.), the large scale turnouts at the anti-American rallies around the world - tells me we might as well just pack it in. Not only on Iraq, but we should be folding the tents on the war on terror, too. Because in this clash of cultures, the West doesn't want to play. It isn't interested in defending itself. And if it won't fight for its own survival, then it doesn't deserve to survive.

Maybe its being snowed in, maybe its my piece of crap car being broken, maybe its the change of jobs, maybe its the Orange alert, but the reset on my despair meter has worn off. Even Colin Powell's presentation couldn't convince the West to save itself. The meter now reads "11".

Now pardon me while I go study up on the Koran. Gotta prepare for the future.

Rachel Lucas did a redesign. Check it.

Over at BlogsOfWar, the best entry in Michele's Civil Defense Poster contest. And I haven't seen any other entries but mine.

My first day at the new job, and the blizzard has me working from home. That gives me time to get to something I meant to get to earlier, but the whole transition thing has taken its toll. One of the things I meant to get to was the "cross blog" event from NZ Bear and the No-war Blog. Basically, the deal is 5 questions to be answered by the anti-war and pro-war sides. I guess, as sides go, I am pro-war, so here are my answers:

1. Attacking Iraq has been publicly called a "pre-emption" of a threat from Saddam Hussein's regime, whose sins include launching regional wars of aggression. Do you think there is a clear and reliable difference between pre-emptive and aggressive warfare, and if so, what is it?

Yes, there is a clear difference, but it is not necessarily reliable. That is because diplomacy and statecraft are mostly functions of words, spoken and written. And people can manipulate words, and those who deal dishonestly with the world will use words dishonestly.

In an honest world, the existence of a threat and intent to make good on that threat, and that threat cannot be prevented or defeated through non-miltary means would be justification for preemption that is not simple aggression.

Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was quite clearly a “war of aggression.” Kuwait posed no threat, express or implied, on the country of Iraq. Hussein, though, might have made such a claim – as his election by 100% of the Iraqi electorate shows, he does not place any value in the truthfulness of his pronouncements. In countries where the tyrannies in charge lie regularly, it is no surprise that the citizens expect that the words of the US government are similarly lies.

But it is important to not make the mistake that just because in this case we must pursue a pre-emptive war, that in every case we must pursue it.

2. What do you feel are the prospects that an invasion of Iraq will succeed in a) maintaining it as a stable entity and b) in turning it into a democracy? Are there any precedents in the past 50 years that influence your answer?

a) Well, if as a stable entity, you mean one nation as a single geographic boundary, in the short term (5 years or so), I suspect that there will be no changes. However, like Yugoslavia, a few years after the removal of a strongman, self-determination may lead to disintegration into its component parts.

b) I think that we will have success in turning it into a democracy. Afghanistan is an example of that success. Latin America is an example, also. The US did not occupy countries in Latin America, but we have supported democracy there over communism and other autocracies, and we have been hugely successful. The last time the US forced a regime change followed by military occupation (and we didn’t even do that in Afghanistan) was Japan and Germany in WWII, outside the 50 year window, but that is the last time we did it. Both of those have been hugely successful – we do not fear having to go to war with either.

3. How successful do you think the military operations and "regime change" in Afghanistan have been in achieving their stated objectives? Does this example affect your feelings about war in Iraq in any way?

The campaign in Afghanistan has achieved the primary goals of disrupting the core of al Qaida and its state sponsors, the Taliban. Yes, there are still al Qaida, and there are still Taliban, but AQ is not operating open training camps, doesn’t operate with the national support of Afghanistan.

The “anti-war” folks claimed that Afghanistan would be a quagmire, and lead to more terrorism and hatred of America in the Arab world. All of these predictions were wrong. I don’t know that our success in Afghanistan makes that much of a difference on my opinion on Iraq, though if we were in a quagmire there, it would have an effect on our ability to take on Iraq.

4. As a basis for war, the Bush Administration accuses Iraq of trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear), supporting terrorism, and brutalizing their own people. Since Iraq is not the only country engaged in these actions, under what circumstances should the US go to war with other such nations, in addition to going to war with Iraq?

The President has identified, in the National Security Strategy, the most dangerous thing America currently faces – the intersection of radicalism and technology. In short, terrorists with nuclear weapons are the single most destabilizing situation we face. Nations that are supporting terrorists and trying to achieve nuclear weapons are approaching an unacceptable danger level. That’s why Iraq, which has yet to acquire nuclear weapons, is a greater danger than North Korea, which has, probably. Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, would move to the front of the list if Musharraf hadn’t gotten smart. I expressed this in graphical format in this post.

Here is the chart:

Generally, in a “War on Terror,” we will have to confront every state actor who supports terrorism – yes, including Saudi Arabia. But Iraq is at the front of the list because they are closest to the nexus.

5. The Bush Administration has issued numerous allegations about the threat represented by Iraq, many of which have been criticized in some quarters as hearsay, speculation or misstatements. Which of the Administration's allegations do you feel stand up best to those criticisms?

1) Iraqi involvement with terrorists of global scope. Iraq makes no secret of its support of terrorists. It is quite proud of its support of Hamas (which is a fundamentalist Islamic organization, which puts the lie to the idea that the fundamentalists and Hussein are natural enemies). Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, terrorists who attacked US interests in the 80’s, found homes in Baghdad. So did Abdul Rahman Yasin, who participated in the 1993 bombing of the WTC.

2) Iraqi involvement with WMD, particularly nuclear weapons. Read this interview with Khidir Hamza. That’s really all you need to know.

But Hans Blix was quite clear, also – Hussein has not accounted for WMD that we know that he has produced. To think that he does not currently possess them is to believe that he destroyed those weapons, but chose not to tell the UN, despite the fact that this most likely would have led to the elimination of the UN sanctions against Iraq. I don’t see this as very likely. Plus, many anti-war arguments recognize that Iraq does have WMD – they warn that war will force Hussein to use them.

Over in the left-hand nav bar you'll note a new box with a graphic for The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Dean Esmay is trying to get this graphic on as many sites as possible. Joe Katzman at Winds of Change alerted me to it.

Promoting democracy is the only sensible position for the defense of the United States. For many years, we accepted a kind of realpolitik, where we would support SOB's - our SOB's. In the short run, this can advance our national interests, in the long run, it turns out badly. Changing our policy from support of strongmen to support of democracy in Latin America under President Reagan has resulted in fantastic success - practically every country in Latin America is a democracy today, and they do not war on each other. Sure, it isn't paradise, as economic troubles in Argentina and Venezuela's issues and narco-terrorism in Colombia demonstrate. But overall, its a darn sight better than it was.

President Bush has recognized that support of democracy in the world is the surest path to US national security. It is the core of our National Security Strategy.

The United States will stand beside any nation determined to build a better future by seeking the rewards of liberty for its people. Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole societies out of poverty—so the United States will work with individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows in prosperity. The United States will deliver greater development assistance through the New Millennium Challenge Account to nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom.We will also continue to lead the world in efforts to reduce the terrible toll of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases.

[...]

Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person—in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission.

Democratic nations do not war on each other. If you want peace, promote democracy.

Just a radiological dispersion device. What people call a "dirty bomb."

Brink Lindsey tells us why the costs are literally incalculable.

Just try to imagine what it would be like if D.C. or New York were turned into a ghost town. The economic costs would be horrendous, to be sure. But I'm afraid that the dollar figures are just too vast to process mentally. What I focus on -- what I'm having trouble not thinking about since yesterday -- is the image of a great American city sealed off and abandoned. Think about the outrage you feel because the Twin Towers are gone. Now think about the unbearable obscenity of a whole city gone. Worse than gone, maybe. Dead but unburied. Mummified. A gigantic, haunting monument to the destructive power of evil.

You know, in our consumer culture, you just do what the big corporations want you to do. You have no personal choice or anything like that.

Well, big corporations want you to buy these. Go. Consume. Oppress.

George Will:

Increasingly virulent anti-Americanism there--in a nation which would not exist had not 33,667 Americans died to preserve it--raises this question: Why are 37,000 American military personnel still stationed there? They are far too few if North Korea's army, the world's third largest, attacks, and they are far more than necessary to serve as a ``trip wire.''

In Munich last week, Germany's foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, impertinently lectured Rumsfeld that America might have to stay in postwar Iraq for several years, and wondered whether America has the staying power. Someone should tell Fischer that U.S. troops have been in Fischer's country 58 years--not quite as long as Rome's legions were, but long enough to prove staying power.

I think I need to put this thing up permanently, like over at Cold Fury.

This is the radio edit version. Click on it to get the unexpurgated one.

In Northern Virginia, the shelves are bare. You can't get bulk water in a grocery store. Haven't even been by the Home Depot, but the news says they are all out of duct tape and plastic sheeting.

Which is bad news for me - I drive an old Subaru, and duct tape is an important part of keeping it going.

Something's up. Everyone is on edge. Winds of Change is (are?) tracking it through the blogosphere.

Anti-aircraft missiles positioned in Washington, DC. Thank God we have them, and that they are there. But damn the people who are responsible for us needing them.

Spotted in The Corner on NRO:

From Washington Post: "I was at a celebration of India's Independence Day," he told reporters, "and a Frenchman came walking up to me and started talking to me about Iraq, and it was obvious we were not going to agree. And I said, 'Wait a minute. Do you speak German?' And he looked at me kind of funny and said, 'No, I don't speak German.' And I said, 'You're welcome,' turned around and walked off."

Bring it.

I've got my stuff packed already. You'll need a lot more t