So, the deed is done. I can’t say I feel sorry for the guy. If anyone deserved to go out like this, it was him. But I did find something interesting sort of buried in this New York Times story. On the timing of Hussein’s execution;

“According to the law, no execution can be carried out during the holidays” said another official, “After all the hard work we have done, why would we break the law and ruin what we have built?”

The Muslim holiday of Id al-Adha begins Saturday for Sunnis and Sunday for Shiites, who now control the government.

Iraqi law seemed to indicate that executions were forbidden on the holiday.

But Judge Haddad was dismissive of those concerns, injecting some of the sectarian split that is pervading the country. “The official Id in Iraq is Sunday,” he said.

Cold-blooded. Where is Karl Rove and what has he done with our freedom-loving Shiite overlords? What ever happened to “Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy” anyway?

For the truly sadistic, you might want to check out this Wikipedia entry on Eid-ul-Adha, or as it translates to English, The Festival of Sacrifice. This is the day that Muslims around the world will sacrifice an animal, usually a sheep, and deliver its meat to family and the less fortunate. It’s a symbol of God’s generosity to the Prophet Abraham, allowing him to sacrifice a sheep in the place of his son.

So on a day that represents one of the most altruistic acts in human history, one worthless turd knocks off another, and we call it justice. Hearts and minds, baby. Hearts and minds.

Update: For more, see Riverbend and Raed. Hat tip to Steve Gilliard.

Apparently, standing on the bodies of the victims of 9/11 has lost its appeal. Perhaps its the smell. The troops no longer make for an effective backdrop either…the blank, idolizing stares of 2003 transformed long ago into the grimace of fatigue and hopelessness. Maybe there just weren’t enough of them to fill our widescreen TV’s. 16:9 can be a bitch.

But its time to turn another fake corner in Iraq and the pickings are slim. According to CNN, via Josh Marshall, it seems that Saddam Hussein, and his well-timed hanging, are going to serve as the latest prop for Bush’s New, New Way Forward in Iraq.

While I share Josh’s embarrassment, and the sense that Bush’s complete failure in Iraq has been laid bare for all to see by this pathetic farce, I can’t help but feel that it is particularly humiliating for Iraqis and the Middle East more generally.

Most Iraqis were willing to overlook “Shock n’ Awe” in 2003 because we were able to remove them from the deadly embrace of Hussein. Now, the Bush administration has decided that it needs a win, and the Iraqis are going to have to give up their one true victory in this god-forsaken war, so that the President can continue to put lipstick on a pig.

As long as we deny the people of the Middle East a victory of their own, they will continue to settle for finding them in places like here, here, and here.

There lies a thin line between loftiness and outright madness. Sometimes the best ideas blossom from the most dysfunctional of minds. In the case of Iraq, we are clearly getting the short end of the stick. Mark Danner, in The New York Review of Books, has written, in my opinion, the definitive essay on the disastrous thinking that brought us the Iraq war. It’s about a month old, but I highly recommend it nonetheless.

While he thoroughly documents the horrible decisions that landed us where we are today, what caught my eye was the utterly flawed and self-serving thought process that was the driving force behind them (via War and Piece).

If the sober consideration of history and facts stood in the way of bold action then it would be the history and the facts that would be discarded. The risk of doing nothing, the risk, that is, of the status quo, justified acting. Given the grim facts on the ground—the likelihood of a future terrorist attack from the “malignant” Middle East, the impossibility of entirely protecting the country from it—better to embrace the unknown. Better, that is, to act in the cause of “constructive instability”

Now back up for a second. Take this concept out of the context of the Iraq war and look at it on its own. This, in a nutshell, is George Bush’s year 2000 admonition of the Baby Boomer generation turned on its head. Apply it to any of the of the conscious-shocking events that have been carried out in the name of national security over the last six years. False arrest, torture, indefinite detention, humiliation, lies, murder, defamation, bigotry.

Many of the people that have proposed, exalted and defended these bad acts have claimed that they do so for the good of the country. But as the quote above clearly illustrates, the real desire driving these policies is a personal one. A need to do something, right or wrong, in order to reclaim some sense of stolen pride. They’ve flipped over the Monopoly board and now tell us they did it for our own good.

As 2006 comes to a close, we find ourselves at a crossroads. The country is clearly dissatisfied with the results of this new “If it feels good, do it” approach to national security, but have we fully absorbed the perniciousness of the childish thinking that has brought us to this point? Will we recognize it, and reject it as its proponents find themselves increasingly boxed in by reality?

2006 may well be remembered as judgment day for Bush and his administration. Will 2007 be our own? And are we ready to face it?

So, the Right seems to have finally coalesced around a single, if convoluted, argument regarding the “Flying Imams”. It is either (A) That these were truly dangerous people, perhaps even linked to Hamas, and that getting them kicked off the airline was justified. One can only assume that if it they had raised enough suspicion with the authorities to warrant further detention (they didn’t), that other courses of action, perhaps even “alternative interrogation techniques” might be on the table. Or it’s (B) That this was all just a ruse by a bunch of ACLU pansies attempting to make a constitutional civil rights case by trying to get kicked off of a plane.

Actually, the correct answer is (C) The Right is always the victim. We called it. No take backs.

Over at the Washington Monthly, there was a lively discussion on Newt Gingrich’s response to a story that I initially found too predictable to bother looking into; the story of the “Flying Imams”. Long story short, six Muslims arouse suspicion from a passenger by praying in public. He follows them around the gate, eavesdrops in on their conversations, and takes note of what he believes to be suspicious activity. He sends a note to the pilot, the Imams are escorted off the plane, arrested, and released shortly thereafter. Yawn, right? But listen to the Newtster’s takeaway:

“If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” Gingrich said.

Over in the comment section at WM, the typical rightwing response was to point to the police report of the incident in an effort to prove that the actions of the passenger, flight crew, and airline were not just prudent, but patriotic and totally understandable. I won’t go into the specifics of the report, but for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that everything the Imams did after coming under scrutiny was, shall we say, a little “weird”. But how did they come under scrutiny in the first place?

Grewenow and I boarded the aircraft and met the reporting party, who identified himself with his photo California driver’s license as [redacted], date of birth [redacted] told me the following: He witnessed six Middle Eastern males in the gate area praying and chanting in an Arabic dialect. They chanted the words Allah, Allah, Allah. He then eavesdropped into their conversation and overheard them mention Sadam and heard them curse about the U.S. involvement.

Praying in public is now considered suspicious terrorist activity in America 2.0. Forget the fact that Muslims are encouraged to pray in groups, “out loud”, using words in “Arabic”. Forget the fact the Muslims are required to pray at certain times of the day, and can’t always keep their “suspicious” activities out of earshot of anyone that might find it threatening. Forget the fact that real terrorists don’t fucking pray in public before getting on a fucking plane. That’s for the liberal elite in their ivory towers to debate. Real Americans don’t let things like reality and information get in the way when stupidity beckons us to spring into action.

Most Muslims in this country have learned to live with this stupidity. It comes with the territory. But it’s worth noting that this mentality, and its abuse by people like Newt Gingrich and the Bush administration, is the real reason we are languishing in Iraq today. The blurring of the lines between Muslims and terrorists, Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the absence of proof versus the proof of absence. These lies, cultivated and propagated by people who really do know better, are the reason that Joe Six-pack supported, and now scratches his head over, the war in Iraq.

The truly dangerous people in this country are those that seek a nation where the average American is kept in the dark, chasing shadows. Whatever it takes to convince the public to support the “right” course. Secure in the knowledge that an ignorant foot soldier is just as good, if not better, than an informed one. These people are truly enemies of this country.

Hamas says Abbas seeks war:

GAZA (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Abbas’s security forces fired on a Hamas rally in West Bank and gunnbattles between the Palestinian factions erupted in Gaza on Friday, prompting a top Hamas leader to accuse Abbas of starting a war.

People arguing for the “Tilt” in Iraq or more generally pondering the possible benefits of regional conflagration between Sunnis and Shiites, need to answer a question; Does Israel benefit from open war between Hamas and Fatah? Multiply that conflict by a power of ten and you get a clearer picture of what all out war between Sunnis and Shias would look like.

Clearer too, is that our leaders are soulless fools. I know, I know… The Arab mind only understands violence, so it’s totally different. Totally.

I have a confession. In early 2005, February 1 to be specific, I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. There were purple fingers all over the TV, and talk of elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The Cedar Revolution was just weeks away, and a question was burning my inside’s worse than an Ozzy Spicy Dog, at Pink’s; I asked myself, “Is it possible that Bush was right?”

To make things worse, I couldn’t tell whether I felt sick at the thought that he might be right, or whether I thought it was more important that he be proved wrong, than it was for the people in his charge to have a better life. In short, I was confused and guilt-stricken.

Today I can thank Jonah Goldberg for helping me put a name to that feeling. It’s called a conscience; something he’s done nicely without. Kevin starts the ball rolling by pointing us to this horrible column by Goldberg in the L.A. Times:

“I THINK ALL intelligent, patriotic and informed people can agree: It would be great if the U.S. could find an Iraqi Augusto Pinochet. In fact, an Iraqi Pinochet would be even better than an Iraqi Castro.”

With most things Goldberg, when the words “I think” come off the page our out of his mouth, the best course of action is to step away briskly, but calmly, and to check on your disaster preparedness kit. So don’t click the link unless you have at least five gallons of drinking water and a healthy supply of duct tape.

The only reason I bring up Goldberg’s recent disdain for Iraq’s democratic future is this little nugget of his dredged up by Atrios (Via Lawyers, Guns and Money), from back in the days when I was feeling guilty about my lack of enthusiasm for purple fingers. Here he is, smacking a Mr. Goodbar-stained glove across the face of that four-eyed waif, Juan Cole:

“Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn’t want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let’s make a bet. I predict that Iraq won’t have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I’ll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there’s another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I’m all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc. One caveat: Because I don’t think it’s right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I’ll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is.”

Labeling your opponents as traitors is so 2002. Although it is comforting to note that Goldberg continues to be wrong about everything. And fat.

Update: And stupid.