Lieberman hinted at it today, when he reminded viewers (on NBC I think) that Dean's policies would have kept Saddam in power. This is the new mantra against Dean - to be used mainly by Gephardt and Lieberman: Dean's policies would have kept him in power.

And, if Dean win the nomination, he will need to defend his position during Saddam's trial (hopefully).

It's all about Duck, M.D.'s exit strategy. Dean opposed the Iraq War and wants to internationalize it to get U.S. troops out. Saying what he said now is just an good time considering the events. How pro-Duck webloggers like Oliver Willis will take this (since he's been bashing Bush because he thinks they want to cut-and-run) I don't know. I suspect their knee-jerk anti-Bush feelings will trump everything else.

What? You guys think everything is over because we got Saddam? I certainly hope this changes things, but what if they don't? I remember the reaction from the RWAP when they killed his kids. We have yet to find out anything from Saddam, and it'll be interesting to hear what he has to say.

But geesh. You guys really are icon-based. There's still a lot of others out there to coordinate the attacks n' such. Let's hope we get them soon.

And the rest of the situation. The Iraqi economy, the lack of power. The lack of gas with the winter coming up...

Geesh. You would think that the guy was single handedly responsible for all that and it will magically disapear now that he is captured.

Something about chickens and counting them before they are hatched.

no one is saying that it is all over. Indeed, everyone has ben saying quite the opposite.

Hal,

Sometimes I think that you react to what you think the other side is saying, rather than what they are saying...

Indeed, Hal, a challenge: tell me one person of significance who thinks that this means it's over.

Also, explain to me why this means, a la Howard, that this is the perfect time to hand things over to the UN?

You asked: "Could someone explain the logic of that to me, please?"

I answered: Nothing has changed. The logic of internationalization remains the same. Saddam's capture changed absolutely nothing of that.

Where's the logic in asking your question if you thought otherwise?

As to the "perfect timing", why not? We got the symbol, why not use it to leverage internationalization? The capture will have short legs if nothing else changes, so why not use the jubilation as leverage in the effort?

What's so hard to understand about this?

The logic I wanted explained is why the captureof Saddam should automatically equal the idea that the time is now riper for the UN, et al., to take over.

But weren't you the one saying a few posts ago that "us guys" are too "iconic"? Now you seem to be arguing that this the symbol of Saddam should result in a radical shift in policy.

I think this is a huge step forward, but not one that radically changes the transition process. I see nothing about today's events that would increase my confidence that the UN would be a better stewart of Iraq than the US as we make the move to turn the country over to Iraqi rule.

No, I don't think it will be a sea change in policy from this administration. I'm merely saying that it could be used as such. What's the problem with suggesting it could be used in this way? Yes, the icons do have power, but what kind of power? Can Saddam's capture be used for much else? The use seems to be merely a political plus for the Administration and not much else. I don't think this will have an effect on the insurgent groups. It won't change the situation of the average Iraqi one whit.

But I do think it could have had some leverage on the international community if done right. Slight, but every little bit helps. Instead, it's just going to become another campaign issue.

I disagree-I think this alleviates much of the fear of the average Iraqi, which will make the insurgency less effective over the long haul and aid the reconstruction effort. Prior to today there was always the chance the Saddam could return. That is now off the table.

That's a two edged sword. As Juan Cole points out.

My wife, Shahin Cole, suggested to me an ironic possibility with regard to the Shiites. She said that many Shiites in East Baghdad, Basra, and elsewhere may have been timid about opposing the US presence, because they feared the return of Saddam. Saddam was in their nightmares, and the reprisals of the Fedayee Saddam are still a factor in Iraqi politics. Now that it is perfectly clear that he is finished, she suggested, the Shiites may be emboldened. Those who dislike US policies or who are opposed to the idea of occupation no longer need be apprehensive that the US will suddenly leave and allow Saddam to come back to power. They may therefore now gradually throw off their political timidity, and come out more forcefully into the streets when they disagree with the US. As with many of her insights, this one seems to me likely correct.

Wow. I just see on ABC news that not only are the democrats calling for using this capture as an opportunity to internationalize the effort, but so is Santorum - in his own way.

"With Saddam gone, maybe there will be another opportunity to re-look at the situation and understand that it is in everybody's best interest to participate in this process," Santorum said in a conference call with reporters.

The logic is quite simple, Dr. Poliblogger. If you child wants dessert, you tell him that he must eat a good dinner, including some foods that are good for him but that he may not particularly like (e.g., squash, green beans). If he refuses to eat those foods and instead throws a temper tantrum, you simply give him a large chocolate chip cookie and pat him on the back saying, "What a good boy you are."

Now, is anybody wondering why Dean's son was arrested recently?

But Hal, John, JC, JohnC, Huey, Duey, Doc, Sleepy, Grump, Dopey or what ever name you are using today, you miss Santorum's point. (I kinda like Dopey)

"With Saddam gone, maybe there will be another opportunity to re-look at the situation and understand that it is in everybody's best interest to participate in this process," Santorum said in a conference call with reporters.

While you goofball liberals think that Saddam's capture is somehow a sign and failure and we need to get France to save our ass, (as if!) Santorum is saying that now the FRENCH and the GERMANS have the opportunity to quit supporting a dictator that is no longer in power and work on the side of liberty and freedom.

While the liberals think this is the time for Bush to go begging, in reality it is an opportunity for France and Germany to get with the program.

Hal,

I am nt oppossed to the concept of increased internationalization (note my posts in opposition to the Bush administration's policy on contracts), but I simply don't see the Saddam capture as an entre to turn over the reigns to the UN.

Forget "logic" in any discussion with a reality-challenged liberal. NOTHING matters to them! Certainly not "logic." Why waste time arguing with them? Liberals aren't going to accept ANY facts, or even listen to them. They don't CARE about logic! For them, facts don't play into this AT ALL. Liberals are now simply 100% reactionaries. They do not use logic they way normal people do. They simply REACT to Bush -- negatively. They know only one creed in life: "If Bush does it, it's wrong." How pathetic!