It was a long and successful campaign (hey, I didn’t finish in last place), but Resonance apparently came up short in its bid for a 2003 Weblog Award. There’s a rumor going around that Diebold tallied the votes. But I’ve magnanimously decided not to challenge the results in court.
Congratulations to Busy Mom Blog for being voted best Flappy Bird.

It took less than one day for the fertile grounds of speculation–talk radio–to come up with alternative theories on Saddam’s capture. One of them is that Saddam was being held by a third party–perhaps in the spider hole–prior to being turned over to U.S. custody. Someone may have caught him earlier and made a deal to turn him over.
I have no idea what actually happened leading up to the capture–only the people directly involved do. But you may recall this curious story I linked to a week ago (via BuzzFlash):

“LaHood: Hussein’s Capture Imminent”
U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood held his thumb and forefinger slightly apart and said, “We’re this close” to catching Saddam Hussein.
Once that’s accomplished, Iraqi resistance will fall apart, said the five-term Republican congressman from Peoria who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.
A member of The Pantagraph editorial board — not really expecting an answer — asked LaHood for more details, saying, “Do you know something we don’t?”
“Yes I do,” replied LaHood.

I wonder what that was.

God reveals his will to David Frum on Mount Sinai:

For now, let�s say that while the President�s opponents have made much sport of the idea that God called George Bush to the presidency, it�s becoming increasingy [sic] difficult to doubt that God wants President Bush re-elected.

Of course if we get another major terrorist attack, the market tanks, and everything else heads south the line will be God has sent Bush to lead us through our time of trouble. Either way, Bush is God’s chosen one.

Iraq’s Ambassador Representative to the U.S. Rend Al-Rehim–who, incidentally, hasn’t actually lived in Iraq since 1978–was on CNN’s “Late Edition” yesterday and gave this indication of her relative standing on the totem pole:

BLITZER: When were you personally informed what was going on [Saddam’s capture]?
AL-RAHIM: 6:00 a.m. this morning.
BLITZER: Who called you?
AL-RAHIM: I got a call from my mother in Beirut, who said that she has been sitting by the phone for three hours, waiting to call me. And soon after that, I started getting calls from Baghdad, as well, and from around the U.S., people — Iraqis mostly — calling to congratulate.

Good thing this prominent Iraqi figure has her Lebanese mom to, you know, keep her abreast of what’s going on in Iraq. Sounds like she must be a major player.
An autonomous Iraqi government is just around the corner.

In an effort to marginalize opponents of the Iraq war, many hawks have attempted to make the war a referendum on Saddam Hussein. That is, they’ve attempted to frame the debate in such a way that one’s position on the war translates into one’s position on Saddam: if you oppose the war, you’re in favor of Saddam ruling Iraq; if you support the war, you’re anti-Saddam.
Predictably, many have been using yesterday’s capture of Saddam Hussein as another opportunity to pull out the pro-dictator card. Even Senator Lieberman got in on the action:

This news also makes clear the choice the Democrats face next year. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison, and the world would be a more dangerous place.

The insinuation behind these remarks–that Dean wants Saddam in power–is absurd. As Dean stated yesterday, it’s great that Saddam is out of power. The issue for serious doves has never been whether or not it’s good for Saddam to be in power. Clearly it’s not.
The issue has been whether cost of conquering Iraq (both in American lives and money) is worth the benefits to America. Thus far the costs have been evident, while the benefits haven’t been.
Let’s take this logic to its natural conclusion. Earlier this year David Wallechinsky had a feature in Parade magazine listing “The 10 Worst Living Dictators“:

1. Kim Jong Il�North Korea (Age 61, in power since 1994)
2. King Fahd & Crown Prince Abdullah�Saudi Arabia (Ages 80 & 79, inpower since 1982 & 1995, respectively)
3. Saddam Hussein�Iraq (Age 65, in power since 1979)
4. Charles Taylor�Liberia (Age 55, in power since 1977)
5. Than Shwe�Burma (Age 70, in power since 1992)
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema�Equatorial Guinea (Age 60, in power since 1979)
7. Saparmurad Niyazov�Turkmenistan (Age 62, in power since 1990)
8. Muammar al-Qaddafi�Libya (Age 60, in power since 1969)
9. Fidel Castro�Cuba (Age 76, in power since 1959)
10. Alexander Lukashenko�Belarus (Age 48, in power since 1994)

To date President Bush has gone after one of these dictators. Should we infer from this that if Bush has his way, nine of these dictators would be in power? Of course not.
Message to hawks: just because a person isn’t in favor of marching around the globe invading countries doesn’t mean that he or she supports the conduct of their tyrants.