STEVEN DEN BESTE looks at the wider implications of Saddam’s capture. His analysis is generally consistent with Austin Bay’s.

THIS IS SURELY some sort of trademark violation.

STEPHEN POLLARD: “This is the week I changed my mind about hanging.”

UPDATE: Here, by the way, is Pollard’s blog.

“CANADIANS MARVEL AT KABUL’S TRANSFORMATION:”

KABUL – As Afghanistan wrestles to adopt a new constitution, and the United Nations strengthens its call for more soldiers outside Kabul, Canadian soldiers are noticing dramatic changes in the security and economic well-being of the Afghan capital.

“You can see buildings that weren’t there a couple of months ago,” said Lt.-Col. Don Denne, the commanding officer at Camp Julien, the largest Canadian Forces base in Afghanistan, as he toured Kabul on Saturday.

“I’m beginning to see new shops everywhere. Some pretty nice houses too.”

Even some of Canada’s hockey greats, in Kabul to boost the morale of Canadian troops, have recognized the impact the soldiers have had on security in the capital.

“I just talked to my Afghan interpreter, and asked him ‘Do you want the Canadian soldiers here?'” Former NHL tough guy Dave (Tiger) Williams said Sunday.

“He said ‘They have to stay, they have to stay.’ Every day, he says, they’re saving thousands of lives.”

Can we offset those thousands against the millions that Chomsky predicted we’d kill?

WESLEY CLARK’S National Health Plan gets a bad review.

INTERESTING STRATFOR ANALYSIS:

The importance of Hussein’s capture is not only its symbolism — although that certainly should not be underestimated. Its importance is that it happened, that U.S. intelligence was able to turn a debacle into a success by identifying the core weakness of the enemy force and using it for the rapid penetration and exploitation of the guerrilla infrastructure.

The guerrillas understand precisely what happened to Hussein: Someone betrayed him for money. They also understand that even though attacks on U.S. troops can be purchased for dollars, the Americans have far more dollars than they do. That is why, in the week prior to Hussein’s capture, the guerrillas twice attacked banks: They desperately needed to replenish their cash reserves. In one case, they even went so far as to engage in a pitched battle with U.S. armor, a battle they couldn’t possibly win.

The threat to the guerrillas is snowballing betrayal. The guerrillas must be increasingly paranoid. At the prices the Americans are paying, the probability of betrayal is rising. As this probability rises, paranoia not only eats away at the guerrillas’ effectiveness, it also raises the temptation to betray. Better to betray than to be betrayed.

Read the whole thing. (Via Volokh).

UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis has an Iraqi bloggers roundup.

HOW MANY IRAQIS MUST DIE before the peace advocates are satisfied?

RALPH NADER IS THINKING OF RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT and he’s asking for your advice.

WILL BAUDE EXPLAINS why premarital sex is morally virtuous.

OSAMA BIN BOGUS — the latest tape, is, anyway:

Al-Arabiya gave no reason for pulling the tape, but a rival channel claimed it aired the tape two months ago. Al-Jazeera says it broadcast the same material in October.

Busted! And screw this audiotape business anyway. Where’s the video, Osama? What”s the matter, you don’t read InstaPundit for advice on doing inexpensive video for the web? All you need is this. Or even this. You can’t afford a lousy digital camera?

Loser.

SUBSTANCE, YES. Style, well. . . I’m not so sure.

JEFF JARVIS comments on New York Times public editor Daniel Okrent’s maiden column. Jeff’s commenters find it a far more disappointing effort than Jeff does.

I had the same experience with Okrent’s email, below, where my readers were harder on Okrent than I was. Interestingly, I think it’s because my expectations for Okrent are so low, while the readers’ are high. I want to see some sign of progress at the Times, while they want to see actual, honest and competent journalism, and they want to see Okrent take the Times to task the way a blogger would, when it fails to deliver.

I think the readers are right, and that I’ve been expecting too little.

HERE’S AN INTERESTING SURVEY of what Clinton thought about Iraq / Al Qaeda ties back in 1998. It’s a useful antidote to the “Bush lied” fantasies.

THE TERROR THREAT LEVEL is reportedly going to be raised this afternoon.

UPDATE: Here’s a story now. We’re at “high.”

TIM BLAIR SCOOPS TIME on the identity of Time Magazine’s “person of the year.”

Heh. Sure looks like he’s caught ’em out.

YEAH, blogging started late today. It snowed last night (we nearly got stuck at the Metro Pulse Christmas party downtown, where the snow melted then refroze, producing major slickness — to the right you can see an intrepid partygoer making snowangels outside the club) and we went sledding this morning — then to the mall. Back later.

NEW YORK TIMES: “BUSH WAS RIGHT!”

Over the past five years, by turning over two suspects for trial, acknowledging its complicity in the Lockerbie bombing and paying compensation to victims’ families, Libya finally managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to lift the international sanctions that had shadowed its economy and its international reputation for more than a decade. Those sanctions were lifted in September. This page recommended lifting American sanctions as well, but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya’s decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended.

It’s another Festivus miracle!

Meanwhile Winds of Change looks at the contrasts between Bush and Dean on foreign policy.

And, though not really related, don’t miss their roundup of China news, either. And don’t miss Tim Blair’s roundup of gullible, plastic-turkey-swallowing journalists. Gobble, gobble.

UPDATE: Wow, here’s an Iranian connection to the Libyan WMD program — did I hear someone say “axis of evil?”

The team was made up of North Korean scientists, engineers and technicians, as well as some Iranian and Libyan nuclear scientists.

North Korea and Iran, originally dubbed by Bush as the axis of evil along with Iraq, avoided detection by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) inspectors by each member farming out vital sections of its projects to its fellow members.

Iran, which is now in the final stages of uranium enrichment for its program, is badly hit, having counted on fitting into place key parts of its WMD project made in Libya. North Korea may also be forced to scale back the production of nuclear devices as well as counting the loss of a lucrative source of income for its Scuds and nuclear technology.

Yeah, I thought so. And this seems to be quite the military/diplomatic success for the Administration, proving once again that you get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.

More on Libya here and here: “I guess a ‘spider hole’ didn’t sound all that good to Mr. Gadhafi.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: And here’s more:

Libya’s promise to surrender its weapons of mass destruction was forced by Britain and America’s seizure of physical evidence of Col Muammar Gaddafi’s illegal weapons programme, the Telegraph can reveal.

United States officials say that America’s hand was strengthened in negotiations with Col Gaddafi after a successful operation, previously undisclosed, to intercept transport suspected of carrying banned weapons. . . .

One Cabinet minister said: “It demonstrates that change can be brought about by standing tough. There is no question that this change of heart by Gaddafi was brought about by the fact that the US and Britain were seen to be standing up to and called Saddam Hussein’s bluff.”

Indeed.

UPDATE: Charles Paul Freund observes:

In that context, it may be worth recalling this story from earlier this year. It appeared in Britain’s Telegraph on April 9 (which, according to the reported timeline, is shortly after Gaddafi approached Britain) and quotes an Italian official on the Libyan leader’s response to the Iraq war.

“A spokesman for Mr Berlusconi said the prime minister had been telephoned recently by Col Gaddafi of Libya, who said: ‘I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.'”

Indeed, again. Meanwhile this is interesting:

Saddam Hussein was personally directing the post-war insurgency inside Iraq, playing a far more active role than previously thought, American intelligence officers have concluded since his capture.

Despite the bewildered appearance of the deposed dictator when he was hauled from his hiding-hole last weekend, he is believed to have been issuing regular instructions on targets and tactics through five trusted lieutenants.

This conclusion could have serious implications for his status in United States custody. American officials have made clear that he will lose his rights as a prisoner of war if he was involved in the post-war violence.

Hmm. Stay tuned.

MORE: Colby Cosh has some observations, including this one: “Saddam is dragged out of a living grave and told that the president sends his regards, and within a week, Gadhafi, one of the most comparable figures in the World Atlas of Thuggery, is voluntarily installing red carpet for a weapons inspectorate. Talk about a wacky coincidence, eh?”

IRAQI BLOGGERS REPORT FROM BASRA, here and here. Both are worth reading.

(Via Jeff Jarvis).

THE VATICAN IS DISTANCING ITSELF FROM CARDINAL RENATO MARTINO’S DUMB COMMENTS. As well it might.

Of course, the Vatican shouldn’t have opposed the war to begin with, and it still has a lot to apologize for.

MORE ON LIBYA: Roger Simon observes that Libya got missiles from North Korea (hey, it’s almost like it’s part of an axis of evil or something), but that nobody’s saying where it got its centrifuges from. Meanwhile Prof. Bainbridge writes: “I’ve been a skeptic of the Iraq war on prudential grounds, but in light of the developments with Libya I have to admit that the war’s supporters were right to claim that attacking Iraq would deter other rogue states from pursuing WMDs.”

Heh. Indeed.

IN THE PAST, I’ve compared the blogosphere to the network of European coffeehouses in the 17th and 18th centuries. Here’s an article from The Economist that does more or less the same thing with far more erudition. (Via Dave Winer).

AUSTIN BAY EMAILS that the Libya WMD announcement is more proof of the “cascading effects” of Saddam’s capture:

Qadaffi turns in his WMD — it’s a cascading effect of knocking off the Baath dictatorship, demonstrating terrorism doesn’t pay, and capturing Saddam. You linked to the cascading effects column. Knocking the strong man myth is a huge dividend. FWIW, I had a commentary on NPR this morning discussing how the “tongue depressor video” is an Oscar winner for video short promoting justice and the rule of law.

Here’s a link to Bay’s NPR piece. And here’s a link to the cascading effects piece that I mentioned earlier, in case you missed it.

VIRGINIA POSTREL WRITES on what Christmas lights tell us about the economy.

WIDENING RIPPLES:

Libya’s leader Colonel Gaddafi has tonight promised to dismantle his country’s secret weapons of mass destruction programme, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced.

I guess that whole “war will destabilize the region” stuff was, er, right. And a good thing, too!

UPDATE: More here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Rick Horvath emails:

Have you noticed that Libya took its first steps nine months ago? That would place Qhadafi’s move around our initial attack on Iraq. Thus, it would seem like this is a victory for unilateralism. You think the Bush critics will acknowledge that?

Not likely.

Reportedly, the BBC is playing it as a victory for multilateral internationalism.

IF YOU SCREW UP, THEY WILL BYPASS YOU:

News executives of most Boston television stations are decidedly unenthusiastic about a Bush administration plan to transmit news footage from Iraq for local TV outlets in an attempt to supplement media coverage from that war-torn country.

The satellite link, dubbed “C-SPAN Baghdad,” is designed to put a more positive spin on events and circumvent the major networks by making it possible for press conferences, interviews with troops and dignitaries, and even footage from the field to be transmitted from Iraq for use by regional and local media outlets, according to news accounts.

“I’m kind of appalled by it. I think it’s very troubling,” said Charles Kravetz, vice president of news at the regional cable news outlet NECN. “I think the government has no business being in the news business.”

Tell it to the folks at NPR and PBS — and the BBC– Chuck! But, really, I’d be happy if the news business were in the news business, instead of letting itself be embarrassingly scooped by Iraqi dentists with digicams and blogs. After dropping that ball, it takes a lot of chutzpah to complain.

Reader Ian Sollars thinks the problem with the Pentagon’s approach is that it’s not going far enough:

The Pentagon should REALLY make this (a) available streamed live over the ‘Net (Quicktime for preference) and (b) archived on the Web (DivX or MPEG2, and they might as well use BitTorrent while they’re at it). Take the disintermediation the whole way. There are bloggers left and right who will troll the feeds for news and scoop big media time after time.

Sounds like a terrific idea to me. I wonder if that’s what Kravetz is worried about? (More here.) Hey, here’s another reason why this war isn’t Vietnam — this time around, it’s the news media who don’t want the real story to get out. . . .

UPDATE: Hey, just got this email from Daniel Okrent:

I’ve been in touch with the Times’s Baghdad bureau and the paper’s foreign desk, who attribute the failure to cover the story in detail (a three-column picture did appear in the paper) to two things: The organizers of the demonstration failed to alert the Times in advance. And, more crucially, the responsible parties at the Times dropped the ball. As you might imagine, life can be difficult and work terribly complicated for journalists in a war zone. Still, the story should have received more thorough coverage.

I am sending a copy of this explanation to newsroom management.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Okrent
Public Editor

Nice. Hope it’ll make Okrent’s column. I didn’t see the picture — I guess it was only in the print edition, which interestingly now has fewer readers than the Times on the Web.

ANOTHER UPDATE: I’m quite happy with Okrent’s letter, and agree with a reader who emails “maybe this paper can be saved after all.” On the other hand, reader Julie Berry is less impressed:

The Baghdad bureau of the New York Times didn’t know the demonstration was scheduled? I’m a suburban housewife sitting in Washington State, and I knew the demonstration was scheduled.

My eleven year-old comes up with *much* better excuses than that for failing to do his homework. Dropped the ball, indeed.

Well, a couple of times I’ve found out about events on my own campus from reading West Coast blogs. On the other hand, nobody’s, you know, paying me to cover the University of Tennessee. . . . Heather MacFarlane emails:

I live in the Yukon Canada, way up in Northern Canada, and I don’t work for a newspaper and I do not have broadband, etc., etc., AND I KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DEMONSTRATION IN BAGHDAD ON THE 10TH OF DECEMBER. Really. Those ‘reporters’ in Baghdad are losers.

Perhaps the Times should send them to the Yukon. . . .

MORE: Reader email is skeptical of the Baghdad Bureau’s story. John Schedler writes:

I’m just a poor country lawyer in semi-rural Washington State — and I saw it coming. I think the Baghdad bureau is putting a con-job on Okrent. Okrent buys this kind of garbage/spin? Is he that credulous?

Tom Brosz emails:

The demonstrations on the 10th had been telegraphed by bloggers from Iraq almost three weeks ahead of time, and had been discussed across the internet. Zeyad said there were “reporters from every station in the world” there.

This story was well and truly spiked by editors who thought we didn’t really need to know this, and they aren’t kidding anybody.

And Prof. Cori Dauber emails:

I notice the nyt public editor is still using the argument “but we published a photo of them.” aside from the fact that if they got someone there to take the picture, then they clearly had enough advance warning to, you know, GET PEOPLE THERE there’s a bit of difficulty with their hiding behind the argument that the picture provided adequate coverage.

She has more on her blog, where she observes:

How could I have missed a picture of the demonstrations?

I had to page through the paper twice to find it. There’s a picture alright (I don’t have the capacity to scan from hardcopy, so you will have to settle for my description.) There’s a reason I missed it. It’s a beautiful picture, very “arty,” but it hardly works to convey the information needed. . . .

This image could not be better crafted to not attract the eye, and it could not be better crafted to not tell the narrative story of a demonstration involving thousands of people.

But at least they’re responding. Maybe next we’ll hear something in response to reports of thuggish behavior by the security forces of the Times’ Baghdad bureau.

Finally, Jeff Jarvis comments:

Loveya, Dan, but I don’t buy it. And though I think your response is direct and candid, I also don’t buy that this is necessarily an ombudsman issue. It is an executive-editor issue of bad news judgment.

This is also an issue of the future vs. the past of journalism. . . .

I do not think it’s an issue of principles or bias. It’s simply an issue of competence. The Times muffed the story. Plain and simple

Read the whole thing. And read Roger Simon’s comments, too: “Okrent is doing his job, but the Times people in Baghdad have not given a satisfactory answer, certainly not remotely like one they would accept from a government spokesmen or politician without follow up.”