I was on vacation most of last week, and lacking phone access, but I did make one entry during that time so I could get it posted upon my return.

April 9, 2003, 7:18pm

I’ve been watching all day what’s been going on in Iraq today; namely the symbolic fall of Saddam Hussein, as the people of Baghdad, with a helping hand from coalition forces, took down a relatively new statue of the man. It ain’t over ’til it’s over, as an embedded Yogi Berra might say, but the pictures today coming from all over Iraq certainly aren’t what Bush’s nay-sayers had in mind when they were saying their nays 3 weeks ago (and for many, as recent as 1 week ago).

On the O’Reilly Factor this evening, Bill and two others (Dick Morris and Douglas Brinkley, PhD) were discussing winners and losers in this. Losers included network media, the UN, the Democrats in general (and vocal anti-war ones in particular), and Vladamir Putin. Winners included the president of Spain (who stuck his neck out in publicly standing with the coalition), Tony Blair, and Hillary Clinton. Hillary was a winner because she voted for the “use of force” resolution, and then completely shut up on the issue while fellow Democrats dug their holes deeper with every nay. However, I wonder how long the attention span of the Democrat base will be. Will they realize that these folks just don’t understand the world as it is today, and that they have no idea how silly predictions of World War III sound (so soon after making the same predictions before Afghanistan)? I hope they remember, but I’m not holding my breath.

My pick as a big loser in all this would be the alleged “peace” movement. The longer the war went, and the more they protested, the bigger Bush’s numbers got. I think they were hoping to create another Vietnam-era groundswell, but they failed in a huge way. Some in the “peace” movement that went to Iraq as human shields were directly exposed to the most potent remedy for their idealism: reality. Once they saw the real Iraq, and real people telling them about their real suffering, they realized the folly of promoting a “peace” that merely meant continued killing and rape and torture. They realized that real peace, in these situations, comes from victory, not simply a lack of fighting.

Here’s hoping it’s over soon, and the people of Iraq can get to the business of self-government.

With all the global warming going on, are today’s average temperatures the highest in 1000 years, as some environmentalists claim?

Nope, not according to the latest review of 240 scientific studies on global temperature:

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather – in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

So when could it have possibly been warmer than now, with all the greenhouse gases man produces?

The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.

They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again – but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.

Must’ve been all the exhaust from the horses.

The Army’s stumbled into nerve gas stashed in an Iraqi military complex and, of all places, an agricultural warehouse.

And NPR is reporting that a cache of medium-range missiles with sarin and mustard gas were found, ready to fire.

Hans Blix (and anti-war protestors), call your offices. You’ve missed a lot of messages.

DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe is concerned by infighting among Democrat presidential candidates. Now, it’s bad enough when politicians in the same party start making personal attacks on each other, but when McAuliffe realizes it, and actually says something about it, it must really be getting rough.

After all, this is the guy who painted such a rosy picture of last November’s election outcome even when the Republicans made so many historic gains and wins. If he recognizes a problem, it must really be awful.

Bob Beckel was a deputy secretary of State in the Carter administration, and national campaign manager for Walter Mondale. He’s also in favor of the war in Iraq. Best part:

Having had several painful discussions with some of my closest friends, many of whom I’ve worked with for 30 years, I come away with the crux of the problem with their argument against this war. They all agree that Saddam Hussein is evil, but believe that thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed by our troops and bombs. I don’t know how many civilians have already died or surely will in the weeks ahead, not to mention our own troops.

There is only one certainty in this whole miserable situation. If Hussein is left in power, thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians will be killed

But anti-war protesters call that “peace”, don’t ya’ know?

In the US, perhaps there still is hope for the peace movement. None other that Nat Hentoff, writing for the Village Voice, says that, even if you don’t buy the WMD reasons for going into Iraq, or if you do believe that it’s all about oil, there is still at least one very, very good reason to take out Saddam anyway:

As I told The New York Sun in its March 14-16 roundup of New Yorkers for and against the war:

“There was the disclosure . . . when the prisons were briefly opened of the gouging of eyes of prisoners and the raping of women in front of their husbands, from whom the torturers wanted to extract information. . . . So if people want to talk about containing [Saddam Hussein] and don’t want to go in forcefully and remove him, how do they propose doing something about the horrors he is inflicting on his people who live in such fear of him?”

Hentoff admits his lack of admiration for Bush (no real revelation there), but he goes on to savage the UN and Bill Clinton for not acting. And he lauds Tony Blair for his speech to the House of Commons laying out the humanitarian case for taking out Hussein.

What’s most heartening to me about this article is that it’s not a conservative piece preaching to a conservative choir in a conservative magazine. It’s a Vietnam protestor who understands what the term “peace” really means writing to an audience many of whom need to learn it. This is cause for hope.

The London Times is reporting some very disturbing news from that bastion of European sophistication, France:

• British war graves were desecrated in northern France, painted with, among other things, “May Saddam prevail and spill your blood”.
• This is apparently not an isolated case of French extremism. A poll in Le Monde says that a third of the French are hoping for a victory by Saddam Hussein.

The French anti-war movement has been exposed to be as much a pro-Saddam movement as anything else. If they’re really for peace, why would they prefer a murderous dictator be left in power? That’s not peace! That may be the absence of a fighting war involving an outside country, but it’s by no means peace.

It’s about time the “peace” protestors defined their terms. There’s been war going on in Iraq for decades. But it’s all been internal, and apparently this doesn’t fit the definition of “war” for far too many. But, as has been noted, as many, or more, people have died every year in Iraq since the Gulf War than died in the Gulf war itself! Allowing that to continue, and in fact hoping it does, is the height of hypocrisy and contradicts any supposed peaceful intentions on the part of those who wish for that.

And this from an alleged “ally”. The next question is; how much of that sentiment has permeated the US “peace” movement?

What a week to have been away from the blog! So much went on:

• The top sellers of arms to Iraq have been Russia, France and China. Imagine that. The US, by the way, ranks way down in the list (1% of Iraq’s purchases vs. Russia’s 57%, France’s 13% and China’s 12%). Hopefully this will quiet those who seem to think America was the prime, if not only, seller of weapons to Hussein. We didn’t hold a candle to the Axis of Weasels.
• Another human shield admits how wrong he was. He posted a very detailed desciption of his time in Iraq. Best quote: “I had been demonstrating against the war thinking I had been doing it for the very people I was here with now and yet I had not ever bothered to ask them what they wanted.”
• The anti-war crowd has been saying for months that Saddam didn’t pose a threat to anyone, and now they’re saying (as exemplified by this weekend’s Peter Arnett Gestapo Iraq TV interview) that Iraq is a more formidable force than they’d ever imagined. Can’t have it both ways.
• Looks like Iraq has at least some Al-Qaeda backing. Does this surprise anyone? (Yes, yes, I mean “except the anti-war crowd”.)

…and a bunch more, but you get the idea. It’s been quite a ride.

I’m learning the Java computer language this week, so entries will be minimal.

A (former) human shield for the country of Iraq got a serious upside-the-head wake-up call while he was in Baghdad. It’s definitely worth the free registration to read the London Telegraph. Best portion:

It hit me on visceral and emotional levels: this was a real portrayal of Iraq life. After the first conversation, I completely rethought my view of the Iraqi situation. My understanding changed on intellectual, emotional, psychological levels. I remembered the experience of seeing Saddam’s egomaniacal portraits everywhere for the past two weeks and tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who had been subjected to seeing them every day for the last 20 or so years.

Last Thursday night I went to photograph the anti-war rally in Parliament Square. Thousands of people were shouting “No war” but without thinking about the implications for Iraqis. Some of them were drinking, dancing to Samba music and sparring with the police. It was as if the protesters were talking about a different country where the ruling government is perfectly acceptable. It really upset me.

Reality. What a concept.