JayB

At the risk of sounding like a fool, here are my thoughts concerning the real issue, which I see as not about media, but about our conduct during war: The question is whether these actions were part of a concerted effort to humiliate and degrade in order to compel the prisoners to break down and yield. Or, were these actions simply a cruel and unusual punishment, sadistic in nature? With regard to the former, the issue arises whether the means was justified by the end goal. I personally don’t know the value of the information obtained under mental and physical duress, but it seems the larger repercussion of a negative global image is of a greater consequence to the security of our nation and to our interests around the world. I’m sure there are some who would argue this is really an issue of the control of information. However, if it is the latter case, which has been provided as the official line, then it appears that the ‘dogs’ just got out of control. Lower level soldiers were the only ones convicted of unlawful conduct with the lone exception of a commissioned National Guard officer who was reprimanded for not being fully aware of the situation. ..... Is this what Sun Tzu (The Art of War) refers to when he discusses the importance of moral influence in overcoming an adversary, which I actually believe, in this case to be a war between elements of ‘Progressive Modernity’ and ‘Regressive Religious Fundamentalism’? Good post. My own take is that the information that you get from forced confessions and/or detention centers isn't worth the PR hit that the US takes in the process of doing so, which in turn makes it more difficult to accomplish the larger strategic goal, which is containing and neutralizing a regressive religious fundamentalism which has the anhillation of the West in general and the US in particular as one of its stated purposes.

HOME >> NEWS What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JANUARY 30, 2004 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Well - that's better. I seem to recall the effects that the sanctions were having on the Iraqi population having similar effects to those attributed to the invasion. The suffering induced seemed to play a significant role in making the US less popular in the Arab world, was oft menitioned as a potent recruting tool for Al-Queda - as was the presence of significant numbers of American troops in Saudi Arabia - and - seemed to be enabling Hussein to further consolidate his control over the state, to the further detriment of the Iraqi people, and of course there's the fact that he would still be in power. If you think that's better - that's a defensible position, but its not without its downsides and complications - some of which you've acknowledged. I'm also not sure how this has benefitted the Iranians or the North Koreans, unless one accepts that we would seriously contemplate a land-invasion of either country rather than selective bombing of nuclear weapons sites - which are still well within our capabilities - seeing as the Air Force and Navy are not unduly engaged in Iraq. Also not sure how the situation benefits the Saudis, but I'd be interested in hearing that argument.

I think that Chuck is largely correct concerning why this story hasn't generated much of a response from anyone. I have already stated my case here ad infinitum - which essentially boiled down to the removal of Hussein and his regime by force as the least of many evils, the remainder of which were a variation on either mantaining the embargo/inspections indefinitely or dropping the matter and leaving the regime to go about its business without serious interference. Most serious people seemed to agree that all of the options had serious potential downsides, and made their choices in light of the potential consequences that would flow from them. I would have likely disagreed with someone who was arguing for something else as the least of many evils, but the very fact that they were willing to undertake a sober analysis of the situation and make their judgement in light of the fact that there was no cost-free solution to the problems posed by the regime - but if their argument was solid and sincere I would respect their opinion quite a bit more than that of someone who hadn't bothered to do so. Ditto for those who are campaigning for an immediate removal of American troops from Iraq without acknowledging the likely consequences of such a move. What I have never seen on this board, as far as I can recall, is much in the way of serious considerations of the implications of maintaining the inspections/embargo or, essentially abandoning both and seeing what happens by the people opposing the invasion, who were thereby endorsing one of the other two options by default. The same goes for a hasty removal of the American troops. In this particular case - the implicit argument is that since the regime did not have a stockpile of WMD's in 2001, then simply maintaining the embargo/inspections and the oil for food program or essentially abandoning both would have obviated any threat from the regime in the future. Given what is now known about the oil for food progam and what has long been known about the regime, that might not be a terribly easy position to defend, but if that's your take on things, why not say so outright? That kind of a discussion would be interesting and worth participating in. Being subjected to the usual rehash of tired one-liners and articles of faith along the lines of "No blood for oil!" etc isn't.

Zee car ees full. If you were considering Tieton - please climb elsewhere.

Heading to Tieton tomorrow, most likely concentrating on routes at "The Bend," but may also spend some time at Royal Columns. We'll be meeting at 6:45AM, and heading out at 7:00AM, most likely climbing until it gets too dark to continue. There's three of us going - and we're looking for one more. We'll supply the racks and the ropes, so all you would need is a harness, shoes, and the ability to belay safely. Send PM or give me a ring at two zero six nine two zero nine four three four.

http://www.freeride.nu/content/643/

When you've got skis on...bdump chink. What about the straight-line-to-lincoln-loop-over-the-cliff sequence at the beginning... Last video clip - best of them all for sure. http://videos.skipass.com/ci2005/day-hi.mov

Some dope-ass jib action from the same site.... http://www.freeride.nu/content/571/

My take is that if his trajectory had been slightly different he'd be dead but trajectory/Faith-In-The-Lord/whatever - insane. Next time you're about to do a 50 meter rap think about what it would take to peer over the edge and jump off of something that high with skis on . Puts this video into perspective, I think.

http://www.freeride.nu/content/517

The adoption or rejection of this law? You guys still accept paying for the privilege of having someone pump your gas and buy the notion that it leads to a net increase in jobs in the state so...

If the legislature is ever misguided enough to attempt to pass it into law. Soak the Green Oregon mulls a new tax that environmentalists and privacy advocates will hate. BY BRENDAN MINITER Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT As gas prices continue to top $2 a gallon, all those drivers of fuel-efficient cars may not have reason to gloat for much longer. Oregon is worried that too many Honda Insights and Toyota Priuses hitting the roads will rob it of the cash it expects out of its 24-cent-a-gallon tax. So the Beaver State is studying ways to ensure that "hybrid" car owners pay their "fair share" of taxes for the miles they drive. That means allowing the taxman to catch up to hybrid owners just as often as he catches up to gas guzzling SUV drivers. And if Oregon goes ahead, it won't be long before other states follow. Oregon won't complete its study until 2007. But it's already clear the state is looking to influence behavior in addition to raising revenue by implementing a "vehicle mileage tax." Under a VMT a motorist would pay a tax for each mile driven, probably around 1.25 cents. To administer this tax, a global positioning system would be mounted in each car. As a driver fuels up, the device would relay mileage information to the gas pump, which would calculate the VMT. A simple electronic odometer-reading device would do the trick, but Oregon is looking at GPS devices because they would also allow for charging higher VMT rates for miles driven in "congested" areas during rush hour or to exempt miles driven out of state....

Definately a "Scarlet Letter" for the 21st century. When I saw the headline on the Seattle PI this afternoon I thought a new band with an ironic name played a sucessful concert in Spokane.

Word.

I think in order geographically correct variant of the question what you should be asking is did she "CTR?"

Thanks for the photos, Luke. Looks like an amazing trip so far.

i don't understand this. on the one hand you regularly castigate environmentalists as "backward nincompoops against progress", and on the other hand you seem to have no ability to foresee that science would sooner than later provide sound technological alternatives to fossil fuels if we gave ourselves the means to reach such goals (and we'd easily have at least 200billion dollars to sink into it if our choices were different). i certainly don't have ready made solutions (although it is obvious that investing in infrastructure would allow to use already existing technologies to our advantage), but would you have asked what percentage of information exchange was fulfilled by fiber-optic cable 20years ago? nuclear has many problems: dangerous, not flexible, demands quantities of water to cool down the core, waste disposal is unresolved, etc ... so i don't see why it should be favored over hydrogen technology for example. Must be those pesky thermo, physics, and chem courses I took during the course of my nonscientific education. Generating the energy necessary to produce the hydrogen also requires energy and produces waste. Moreover, every time you convert energy from one form to another you lose quite a bit of efficiency. Presently - the only two economically feasible methods for producing hydrogen gas involve electrolysis or the conversion of methane and water to hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. The latter can be forced to react with H20 to form carbon dioxide and water - but the net result is still one unit of C02 per four units H2 produced. The portability of hydrogen is a point in its favor, but looking at hydrogen as an energy source without considering the the processes necessary to produce it is sort of like touting the enironmental benefits of an electric car that you charge with a diesel generator. Neat stuff but no panacea.

Exploratory mining in the Rockies, Sierras, et al didn't seem to have much of an effect on people's opinions concerning gold, silver, lead, molybdenum, copper, or gemstone consumption. All in all - oil drilling would probably have a far less significant impact than timber harvests. This hypothesis would really get interesting if the tax revenue generated by the said drilling was slated to fund social and environmental programs...

Ever looked at the maximum percent demand that could be satisfied by wind, solar, and "other?" Low single digits at best. Neat stuff but hardly sufficient to satisfy global demand. Increased efficiency and nuclear generation are probably the two areas that will see the greatest increase in funding/interest as a result of any fossil fuel shortage or desire to curtail CO2 emissions.

"the usual portrayal of environmentalists as stupid hippies. basically, it is indeed "too easy" to show that apart from a limbaughesque ability to insult people by association and following closely the rightwing book on "how to not discuss the environment and how to demonize environmentalists", I am clearly trashing the very notion that conservation has any benefits at all here: "Conservation is great, and there are plenty of good reasons to live as efficiently as possible, but I think it'd be more effective to point out the tangible benefits of doing so - such as the fact that changing your habits so that you consume less energy is generally healthier and less expensive - rather than pointing to oneself as the sin-quo-non of eco-righteousness and condemning those who fail to reach the dizzying heights of eco-perfection that you have attained by consuming 3% fewer BTU's than the family next door and scrupulously recycling the bottles left over from the six pack of organic wheat-beer that you bought at the post-consumer harvest collective - aka upscale grocery store - down the street. If the guy next door with the F350 double-cab and massive gut and skyrocketing trigliceride count learns that he can fend off the heart attack, the gallstones, the ulcer, and the collection agency by changing his habits a bit that will be much more effective than any left-wing-tent-revival style denunciations from the dude in the Volvo-X Country" I think you are conflating my mental picture and verbal depictions of you* in particular with my general impressions of people who are concerned about the environment. How's the mileage on the X-Country anyways? *Probably completely inaccurate but still personally amusing.

Increasing cafe standards will certainly lower C02 emissions in the US, but where it gets tricky is trying to figure the extent to which a given increase in CAFE standards will actually reduce trend C02 emissions on a global basis, and how much this trend reduction will actually affect global temperatures - and that's assuming other factors affecting the climate cycle stay constant over the duration of the interval under consideration. Increasing the fuel efficiency of the car that the average American drives will certainly decrease CO2 emissions - but when Xing Mi and Pradeep start commuting home to the ranch style home with the AC and the plasma screen TV the net effect on the atmospheric C02 concentrations brought about by this change in the US may not be as significant as some are suggesting. Step in the right direction - yes. Panacea. No.

Just too easy. I rode my bike to work today, like I have for 80% of my adult life - the net BTU savings from which allow me to increase the sanctimony with no net increase in the BTU-to-sanctimony ratio - thereby keeping it a safe distance below your own....

"just frikin classic! the only ones sanctimonious in this thread are those who attack folks for their choice of vacation and issue the usual blanket demonizations of the order of "environmentalists are stupid hippies" that JayB is now famous for. Do you always have to dumb down a discussion when you feel you are not getting any traction with your arguments?"

Check Craig's list, www.professorpaddle.com, www.boatertalk.com, or the WKC message board. Craig's list usually has the best deals out of all of these - friends have managed to score full set-ups: boat, paddle, spray-skirt, drytop, and PFD for $400-450.