POLITE COUGH: We wouldn't presume to suggest that the Washington Post's Sharon Waxman hasn't thought her article on Saddam's sons through, but...:

"Saddam Hussein had good reason for his paranoia. People were trying to kill him all the time. If he had food tasters and a special chef who traveled with him, it was because there were others trying to poison him. His bloodthirsty behavior usually had a purpose behind it, to terrorize his people into submission, and to intimidate his enemies. No such logic could explain the behavior of Uday Saddam Hussein."

Can anyone think any reason why the powerful and hated son of a powerful and hated father - a father who'd happily kill members of his own family, if he saw them as a threat; a son who had already been the subject of an assassination attempt might himself be paranoid and attempt to terrorize those around him? Anyone?

 
LYNCH AGAIN: She's now back home with her family, and probably wondering where the movie deal with Sarah Michelle Gellar to play her has gotten to. But there's still a lot of cross-firing blogs over what exactly happened with her rescue. What's especially fascinating is the extent to which wilbursblog is in love with its own myth-debunking.

To us, what the story boils down to is:
the official line of the US story was that Lynch and her buddies were ambushed, and had to be rescued from an Iraqi-held hospital.

The counter strike was that, actually, she was in an automobile accident, the 'rescue' was staged; the Americans had actually refused to accept an attempt to hand her back the day before; they were only firing blanks when they stormed the hospital and then the whole thing was served up for prime time news bulletins as a daring rescue.

The bloggy-back to this was that it was ridiculous to suggest the americans knew the hospital was safe; it was odious to say that she'd been in a crash rather than an ambush, its nonesense to suggest that they'd tried to hand her back the day before and of course they were firing real guns.

Now, of course, we know that it was a road traffic accident, that the Pentagon was hugely selective with the footage it released and allowed a false impression to be promoted through the media, and that the aborted ambulance handover had happened the day before. Further, we know that the supposed 'good Iraqi' who was meant to have told the troops about Lynch's whereabouts has been spirited off to the US and given a plum job.

And the righty-blogs? Are they saying "yeah, so most of the story that we spent so much energy 'fisking' as we like to call it turns out to have been right; sorry about that?" - nope, they still yammer on about how they're sure the troops couldn't have fired blanks.

Patriotism is great, except when your stars and stripes hat starts to get in the way of your views.

 
THE SINS OF THE FATHERS: Of course, Saddam's sons were scum and it's hard to think of anyone shedding any tears for them. But Jack Straw on Today this morning prefaced his comments with the observation that he mourns all death, which is true of anyone with a shred of humanity - ask John Donne. You'll note the famously Christian Tony Blair didn't seem to have any sense that there was something other than great about burning your enemies to death:
"This is a great day for the new Iraq. These two particular people were at the head of a regime, there wasn't just a security threat because of its weapons programme, but was responsible, as we can see from the mass graves, for the torture and killing of thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis. And the celebrations that are taking place are an indication of just how evil they were. And I think what is so important is that people understand that if we are able to make the progress that we want to make in Iraq, that is going to open up not just new opportunities for Iraqi people, it is going to increase the stability of that country, of the region, and therefore the security of the whole of the world. So I think it is a very, very important move forward and I think it is great news."
Can you spot where the ends were used to justify the means there? "the celebrations indicate how evil they were." No, Tony, they indicate how unpopular they were. Apparently Uday and Quasay would think nothing of killing people they believed to be in the wrong, without any thought for due process or trials beforehand, you know. And then they'd revel in those deaths. That sort of thing can make you deeply unloved, Tony.

Just as a side question: how did the Americans manage to positively identify the two so quickly? And why on earth did two people so important to the Saddam regime hole up in the same place?

 
WHAT IRAQIS THINK: Of course, as with all opinion polls, you have to take it with a pinch of salt, but Channel 4 News actually asked Iraqis what they think about what's happened to them. Just about three quarters believe Iraq is more dangerous; half have been affected by water shortages. Nearly half think the war was about oil. Of course, the Americans could find out for themselves by introducing democracy to the country, couldn't they...?