markinore

Some people have tried to give Bush the benefit of the doubt regarding the "wrong" intelligence about Iraq and WMD. They should read the following (very lengthy) article from the October 3 New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?oref=login To summarize, when Iraq purchased its now famous aluminum tubes, a single CIA analyst believed they were going to be used in a centrifuge for the purposing of enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. That view was rebutted by multiple other experts who demonstrated that the tubes in question were 1) the wrong dimensions for such a centrifuge, 2) the right dimensions for conventional arms, and 3) anodized, making them prone to damage when used in a uranium-enriching centrifuge. Despite the preponderance of evidence that the tubes were not a sign of a nuclear weapons program, that evidence was suppressed by the administration. Thus, when Bush said in the debate, "My opponent saw the same intelligence I did," he is doubly duplicitous. This is an excellent example that shows Bush was NOT misled by the intelligence community. Rather, he and his henchmen selected what information to hype to justify what they were going to do anyway.

My favorite part was when Bush was asked the question about pre-emptive war and he said, "The enemy attacked us." Kerry then rebutted, "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us." Bush snapped back, "I know Osama bin Laden attacked us." He sounded like the C- student who was pissed off at the Mr. Smarty Pants A student who shouts out the answer in class. The bad news is that this country has a lot of C- students who resent the smart kid.

In related news, Tom Ridge announced today that all mediocre rock acts from the '70s would from here on out be considered "enemy combatants" and sent to Guatanamo immediately following their capture. Golden Earing, ZZ Top, Duran Duran, and Starship were unavailable for comment and believed to be heading for the Canadian border. Mr. Ridge pointed out that this was another example of the superb leadership of President Bush, without whom our eardrums would be exposed to the potentially terrorizing effects of crappy music.

Some people are sick and tired of arguing about Vietnam. Others will never have enough of it. For both groups, I make this modest proposal: Let's fight the war in Vietnam again--with this one proviso: You have to be over 50 years old to be eligible. Sort of like the senior golf tour--only for war. None of you youngsters are allowed. But for those of us more than halfway to death, y'all come. You can sign up to fight, you can be one of the politicians, or you can be one of the protesters. Your choice. You can adopt the same role you played 30 years ago, or you can change your tune. Feeling regret for having enlisted? March around the White House this time! Feeling guilty for that student deferment? Here's your M-16! And the cool thing is everybody gets to choose! George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, John Kerry, and Tom Hayden! Who wants to slog through the rice paddies? Who wants to pilot a swift boat! Who wants to demonstrate on the Kent State campus? Who wants to just get high and play Hendrix on their 8-track tape player? Whether you spent the '60s and '70s as a POW, a politician, or a folk singer, whether you dropped bombs or acid, whether you hid out in the National Guard in Alabama (or not); Vietnam is the war you can't get enough of and can't wait to fight again! Now, the Vietnamese may not be too cooperative, so it may take a little convincing. I suggest a financial incentive. This whole idea is tailor made for reality TV, so maybe we can get the Fox Network to pony up the bucks, pay off the right people in Saigon, and make it up in the advertising revenues. Fox would naturally expect some editorial control, so they get to follow around the hot MILF army nurse and the hunky Green Beret. They would set up weekly challenges for the contestants/combatants. Can the Marines flush out the Viet Cong in the village? Can the VC slip out under cover of darkness? The show pulls younger viewers because of the extreme sport aspects and the older demographic because of the nostalgia angle. The ratings go through the roof! Vietnam--the girls are pretty, the cuisine is outstanding, and the surf is terrific!

If he needs any help, Saddam is the one on the right. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

From Donald Rumsfeld’s remarks to the National Press Club on September 10, 2004, it’s pretty obvious that he has, in his own mind, thoroughly confused Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden. http://www.dod.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040910-secdef1286.html Subsequently, other comments by Rumsfeld: “Did I think ‘Killer’ was one of the greatest albums of all time? Sure. Did I think the Moon Walk was a great innovation? Of course. But Saddam Hussein should never have molested that 10 year old boy at his Neverland ranch.” “Of course he’s a great home run hitter. And because of him, the Giants have a great chance at making the playoffs. But mark my words. Saddam Hussein takes steroids.” “They may not be able to prove it, even after taping his phone calls with his mistress, Amber—who I agree is hot. But we all know that Saddam Hussein killed his wife Laci.”

I am not an expert on some of the topics that underly Crichton's other fanciful, inflated, and outrageous assertions. But I do something about smoking, the damage that it does, and epidemiology. First of all, the EPA never has made second hand smoke one of its main priorities, and it is far less active in this area than are other public health organizations. That aside, there is compelling evidence that second hand smoke does have consequences for people's health. The best evidence came from Helena, Montana. In Helena, there was a smoking ban imposed that included all public places. After six months, a legal challenge overturned the ban. Investigators studied the frequency of heart attacks before, during, and after the six month period. Because there is only one hospital in Helena that takes care of heart attack patients, there was no possibility that referral patterns could affect the observations. The results showed that during the six month period when smoking was banned, heart attacks fell by almost 50%! Then they went back up when smoking was again legal. (Reference: Sargent, Richard P.; Shepard, Robert M.; Glantz, Stanton A., "Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study," British Medical Journal 328: 977-980, April 24, 2004.) Therefore, Crichton is just plain wrong when he says that second hand smoke is not a health hazard. Such an assertion does nothing but undermine the credibility of his other statements.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the expiring law didn't forbid the sale or possession of large magazines, only their manufacture and import, correct? My local gun shop has never been out of large magazines, but the price of them has gone up. To respond to your original questions, Gowans, yes, I don't see anything wrong with civilians having firepower equal to that of the police. I admit to having reservations about whether civilians should have the ability to own grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles, or other more advanced weaponry. I also admit that the abundance of firearms in this country facilitates their possession and use by criminals, terrorists, and others. I guess I feel that the balance is best struck when people can defend themselves against any sort of evildoer--whether ordinary criminals, Al Qaeda, or governmental actors who are behaving criminally.

Here's a good link. I have found these exercises helpful. http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=5FF3325ADA41B52A7F59AB993E651915.ba13?id=495189

I agree with rbw. The worst thing about the law was the effect it had on prices. This is the same effect that the "war on drugs" has--it increases the price, not the availability. Having said that, I am thrilled! Thank you, George Bush. You have given us a growing federal deficit, an unnecessary war, declining job numbers, and a worse environment. But now weapons prices will fall. So finally, something for me!

Good luck, GD. Stay safe. Make it back to climb (and post) some more.

New York Times, September 8, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946240/ MSNBC, September 9, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946240/ Based on the above reports, it seems reasonable to conclude two things: 1) There are not enough U.S. troops to achieve military control. 2) There does not appear to be a reasonable prospect of establishing an Iraqi army capable of achieving military control. Does anyone disagree? If those conclusions are correct, there may be only two alternatives: pulling out, or getting stuck in the quagmire.

The definitions of "terrorism" and "guerilla" are a little fuzzy and highly dependent on one's political views. Perhaps another common feature of all the examples you cite (Algeria is another) is that they are/were all nationalist liberation struggles on some level. That is important to recognize because it can help to explain why some Iraqis who are glad to be rid of Saddam and who aren't Islamic fanatics and who don't support Al Qaeda are nevertheless willing to fight U.S. troops. It also helps us to understand why it would be a grave mistake to regard all opponents of U.S. occupation as terrorists or fundamentalists. Ultimately, Iraq will be controlled by Iraqis, and it is in the best interest of the U.S. if those controlling it are least hostile to America. Achieving that will be harder if we tar all those who oppose our presence with the terrorist brush.

I didn't know much about Chechnya and what the beef with Russia was all about. Apparently, things started shortly after WW II. During that war, Stalin believed that the Cechens assisted Hitler. I couldn't find out much to confirm or refute that. In any event, Stalin sent some 500,000 Cechens to Siberia. About half died during the trip. By virtue of being Stalin's enemies, the Cechens would probably be considered "good guys." Then in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union was falling apart, Cechnya, like some of the other former republics, tried to become independent. Again, by resisting the Soviet Union most of us would consider them a side that we would support. Cechnya has a lot of oil, natural gas, and other resources, so their independence was not acceptable to Russia. When they tried to overcome the Russians, they were invaded. Over the last 10-12 years, about 200,000 Cechens have been killed. That is about 20% of the population. The city of Grozny has been essentially leveled. I am hardly going to defend attacks on innocent children. That is beneath contempt. I just wanted to ask some of the above posters whether they think the statements are true, and if so, how they view the larger picture. Is Russia now a benevolent country that we should support in its actions toward Cechnya? Do the Cechen people have a legitimate case for their independence? Given the overwhelming military advantage that Russia has, what tactics are morally defensible? If you support Russia, to what degree is this a function of Islam being the predominant religion in Cechnya?

So would you call what Israel has a "victory"? I would not. I have been there a few times over the last 20 years, and I think things are demonstrably worse. I don't mean just the cycle of bombings, retaliations, more bombings, more retaliations. I refer to the state of siege mentality that people have, the sense of fear, the devotion of resources to military uses rather than other things to improve people's lives, the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, the imposition of conservative religious laws that limit ordinary activities. I don't want that for this country, and I don't think most people do. I think we would all like to see bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda captured or killed. The issue, however, is not what should be our short term tactics but our longer term strategy. You apparently believe that America can kill its way out its problem in Iraq and the Middle East as a whole. And we now come full circle to the start of this thread, because the idea of killing 'em all is eerily reminiscent of Vietnam. Anybody remember body counts? That was how we kept score back in the '60s. Military commanders were forced by the politicians to produce tangible evidence of progress, so some genius came up with the idea of body counts. Inevitably, that led to manipulation of the numbers and overreliance on a ridiculous statistic that really meant nothing. Want to go back to that? How many Muslims should we kill today to show progress? How many deaths will make a victory? And in the end, how much killing will make us secure?

Greg, did you really think about this statement before writing it down? When you reflect, doesn't the idea of "eradication" seem a bit absurd? To paraphrase a potato chip commercial, "Eradicate all you want, THEY'LL MAKE MORE." It seems even stranger that you describe this eradication process as the "first step" to achieving security. Why wouldn't eradication of enemies result in total security? You know the answer. We'll make more enemies! Now, you may say that these enemies will arise because "they hate our freedom" or some similar stretch of logic. I would argue that these enemies arise as a natural consequence of our foreign policy, most notably our excessive support of Israel vs. the Palestinians, our propping up of repressive regimes in the Middle East, and our willingness to overlook injustice in order to maintain our oil addiction. Regardless of what one sees as the "cause" of anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, it should be pretty obvious that extermination is impossible even if it could be justified.

Thank you, Greg, for helping to make the point. Scientists, whatever their personal ideology, have to demonstrate in a clear and convincing manner to their peers that they have used proper methods, data collection, and analysis to support their conclusions. No one can continue to keep his credibility otherwise. This doesn't mean that scientists are always correct in every one of their studies, but it does mean that errors have a way of being found out, and if you make too many of them, you're found out as well. Therefore, "infiltrating" the scientific community is ultimately self-defeating if the science that one produces is fraudulent. Most scientists that I know are resistant to the idea of "worshipping" much of anything. I guess that's another beef that some people have with us. And most of us do care about whether people are put out of work. Whether people are put out of work because of some scientific discovery is something that matters deeply, but that is an honest debate that should be held. It is NOT honest to deny the scientific evidence. It is that intellectual dishonesty of the Bush team that is so infuriating.

Oh, really? What "radically-environmental" side has the money to provide significant financial support to ANY research? Greenpeace? The Sierra Club? The research that this administration refuses to accept is funded by "radicals" such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and other highly respected agencies that do not have a specific political agenda.

From Salon: The hilarious thing about that is up to then, the Republicans had done such a great job of keeping the extra-chromosome types out of view. Instead, they had been so disciplined about giving more air time to the Giulianis, Schwartzeneggers, and McCains in an effort to appear centrist. Miller, no doubt, was allowed off leash to toss a little red meat to the far right. As extreme as his speech was, there was no way any of the Republicans could have expected him to go off on Chris Matthews the way he did. Please, if there is a God, let Him put Zell on Hardball tonight. Now that I think of it, I wonder if Zell doesn't post here every once in a while.

Thanks for posting that, Jim. For those of you who wonder why some of us "hate" Bush, this is another example. The Bush administration has relentlessly falsified scientific data to justify its ulterior motives. It is this lack of respect for objective facts that engenders contempt. It would be one thing if Bush's people said, "Well, yeah, the marbled murrelet is engangered, but we think the lumber industry is more important," or "Sure, stem cell research could help treat disease, but we don't want to alienate the right to life bloc," or "Yes, drilling for oil in ANWR will screw up the environment somewhat, but it's worth it." Instead, they try to deny reality. It is reminiscent of the story of man who is in bed with another woman. His wife comes home, catches them, and starts screaming at him. While the other woman calmly dresses and leaves, the man sits there, saying nothing. When his wife asks him what he has to say for himself, he denies everything. The wife is flabbergasted by his arrogance, and asks him what did she just see. He replies, "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

Tough guys don't worry about a million jobs lost in the last four years. Real men don't sweat it when median incomes adjusted for inflation has fallen. So the number AND the percentage of Americans without health insurance is up? Macho guys laugh it off. The bill for Iraq is approaching $150 billion, while Homeland Security remains underfunded? So what's the problem? You want to give that money to those pussy firemen? The real heroes in this country are the brave executives of Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and the newest on the scene, Hollinger. They don't need no stinkin' "economic responsibility." They just take what they want! They're men!

That's not quite true. We don't sacrifice endangered species.

Undermining "proper authority" IS the goal. I am flattered that you think that purpose is being served. You're makin' me blush.

Oh, yeah, make fun of the guy. Like that never happened to you.

Damon Stoudamire. At least he would legalize pot.