Saddam Bluffed, Didn’t Have But Wanted WMD

George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate Saddam after his capture, will appear in his first television interview Sunday, 27 Jan at 7:00 PM ET on 60 Minutes. Some of what Piro had to say:

Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam’s sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

“He told me he initially miscalculated… President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998…a four-day aerial attack,” says Piro. “He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack.” “He didn’t believe the U.S. would invade?” asks Pelley, “No, not initially,” answers Piro.

[…]

Saddam still wouldn’t admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, “For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. “Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” says Piro. “He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program.” This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

Also see, “Spies, Lies, and Weapons: What Went Wrong,” (PDF) by Kenneth Pollack, on this topic in general.

Where France is Right - Nuclear Power

I’ve long been a fan of nuclear power over wasting petroleum energy on electric (hydroelectric and wind are fine, but don’t come anywhere close to meeting America’s power needs). This is not base on global warming concerns, but the fact that someday – despite new technologies for find and extracting it – oil will simply been too difficult or expensive to extract. So it’s not surprising that I agree with what Roger Cohen has to say about France and nuclear power:

It’s not often that I find myself recommending a French state-owned industry as the answer to major U.S. problems, but I guess there’s an exception to every rule.

In this case the exception is the French nuclear energy company Areva, which provides about 80 percent of the country’s electricity from 58 nuclear power plants. . .

Contrast that with the United States, where just 20 percent of electricity comes from nuclear plants, no commercial reactor has come on line since 1996, no new reactor has been ordered for decades, and debate about nuclear power remains paralyzing. . .

[. . .]

Nuclear power has proved safe in both France and America — not one radiation-related death has occurred in the history of U.S. commercial nuclear power. It constitutes a vital alternative to the greenhouse-gas spewing coal-power plants that account for over 50 percent of U.S. electricity generation. Thousands of people die annually breathing the noxious particles of coal-fire installations.

[. . .]

“Nuclear power is the most efficient energy source we have,” said Gwyneth Cravens, author of “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Power.” “Uranium is energy-dense. If you got all your electricity from nuclear for your lifetime, your share of the waste would fit in a soda can.”

America needs to start building nuclear power plant, in large numbers and soon.

Gmail vs. Yahoo Mail

Probably most email users today have multiple email accounts, the need to check email at different locations, and have tried various web email solutions like Yahoo Mail, Gmail, Hotmail, etc. (there are others most of us haven’t heard of).

But the big two are Yahoo Mail and Gmail. Long time provider Yahoo Mail (not sure when it was launched, but I got my account in late 1998) currently has about three times as many users as Gmail, which came about in April 2004. Yahoo Mail has in the past few months added (or re-added) many features that originally drew users to Gmail, so most comparisons of the two are outdated.

I’ve been using the new Gmail and the new Yahoo Mail, both of which are based on Ajax and have fairly simple interfaces. Both have pros and cons:

Sending from other accounts: Since I have a few email addresses from my own domains, and often take extended business trips, the most important feature I’m interested is being able to “send as” those other accounts. Both let you do this (e.g., send from username@areastudies.org, etc.). You can use a pull-down menu to select which account to send from, including the @gmail or @yahoo account. However, Gmail has a fatal flaw in this area; some versions of MS Outlook will display:

From: username@gmail.com [mailto:username@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of username@your_domain

This reveals your Gmail address to those you send to, something I’d prefer not occur, and Gmail does not seem to be interested in fixing it. Yahoo Mail does not do this; if you “send as” that is exactly how the mail will be delivered. After I discovered this, I found myself manually switching from Gmail to Yahoo Mail to reply to some emails in order to protect my Gmail username. For me this was the last straw in giving up Gmail for Yahoo Mail.

Continue reading ‘Gmail vs. Yahoo Mail’

Surprise! (not really) Guns Don’t Equal Crime

The Michigan experiment offers for surprises for those who favor permits to carry:

Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased more than six-fold.

But dire predictions about increased violence and bloodshed have largely gone unfulfilled, according to law enforcement officials and, to the extent they can be measured, crime statistics.

The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined.

[. . .]

“I think the general consensus out there from law enforcement is that things were not as bad as we expected,” said Woodhaven Police Chief Michael Martin, cochair of the legislative committee for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police. “There are problems with gun violence. But … I think we can breathe a sigh of relief that what we anticipated didn’t happen.”

John Lott, a visiting professor at the University of Maryland who has done extensive research on the role of firearms in American society, said the results in Michigan since the law changed don’t surprise him.

Academic studies of concealed weapons laws that generally allow citizens to obtain permits have shown different results, Lott said. About two-thirds of the studies suggest the laws reduce crime; the rest show no net effect, he said.

But no peer-reviewed study has ever shown that crime increases when jurisdictions enact changes like those put in place by the Legislature and then-Gov. John Engler in 2000, Lott said.

The NYT Still Doesn’t Get It

From the NYT:

The anguished relationship between the military and the news media appears to be on the mend as battlefield successes from the troop increase in Iraq are reflected in more upbeat news coverage.

This implies that, due to the recent successes of the surge and related positive reporting by the media about it, the military is now reducing hostility towards the media.

This highlights the fundamental misunderstanding (or another one) by the media in general, more specifically the media on the left, on this topic; the focus on the negative for the past several years at the cost of very little reporting on all the successes and other positive stories. The NYT article does finally acknowledge this, though there was almost no reporting on Gen. Sanchez’s (ret.) media related comments at the time:

“The death knell of [the media’s] ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas,” General Sanchez said in comments that earned far less coverage than his equally harsh statement that the Bush administration had mismanaged the war.

“What is clear to me,” General Sanchez told a media group, Military Reporters and Editors, “is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our service members who are at war.”

The military is not looking for preferential treatment and the recent positive response from the DoD is not for positive reporting concerning the surge; it is for fair reporting rather than the ideologically based (i.e., opposed to the war) reporting that has been standard fare since 2003.

New Study: CO2 Not Causing Global Warming

For those paying attention, this is the trend in new studies and research on global climate change:

Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes (”fingerprints”) over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

The conclusion is that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

[. . .]

And the third co-author, Dr. S. Fred Singer, said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals.

[. . .]

“Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly.”

Ironic Hypocrisy: Atheists Angry Over Christian Movie Trailer

After years of ramming their agenda down the throats of Christians, some are now angry that their children were exposed to a movie trailer with Christian overtones:

Parents at a 12:50 showing of “The Golden Compass” in Fort Worth’s Eastchase district were both shocked and appalled to find that the movie was preceded by a trailer for the upcoming big-screen adaptation of the novel “Prince Caspian”, which some parents fear may cause their children to read a series that promotes spiritual belief and “denigrates Atheism.”

“I just can’t believe this,” said Leah Jones, mother of three and proud atheist. “I can’t believe that they would allow children to be exposed to this kind of thing without warning!” (emphasis added)

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, the irony is entertaining; it could be from an article at The Onion, but it’s real life. Read the rest here.

Crazy Like a Fox

Vial Gallup: “Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent… This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.”

Bill Clinton Lies About Iraq War Stance

It’s amazing that Bill Clinton can lie through his teeth and nearly all Democrats don’t seem to care. We’ll see if this is yet another case of wrangling over what the definition of “is” is:

During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.

[. . .]

Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.

And in 2004:

I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,” Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book “My Life.”

[. . .]

Noting that . . . Bush’s first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.”

That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for,” Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

“So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks,” Clinton said.

Bill Clinton has been a confirmed liar for years; this attempt at revisionism is merely the latest public example, in support of his wife’s campaign.

It’s worth noting Hillary voted in favor of the Senate resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 2002, and now claims she was misled by President Bush, which is another lie; the Congress had access to the same intelligence reporting the White House did, and made their decisions accordingly.

Revisionism is the worst sort of dishonesty and cowardice, and both Clintons are tainted.

The Myth of Reagan’s Racism

New York Times op-ed contributors Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert have recently done a couple of hack job articles on Ronald Reagan that probably knowingly eject the proper context in order to imply he was a racist. The only thing I can say for the times is that they allowed a bit of reality and context to be injected into the debate by Lou Cannon, author of five books on President Reagan:

The core of this myth is the claim that Mr. Reagan scored a political masterstroke when he spoke on Aug. 3, 1980, at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi. At the fair, Mr. Reagan told a cheering and mostly white audience, “I believe in states’ rights” and that as president he would do all he could to “restore to states and local governments the power that properly belongs to them.”

He had been talking this way for two decades as part of his pitch that the federal government had become too powerful. What was different this day was not Mr. Reagan’s words but where he said them: Nearby Philadelphia, Miss., was notorious for the murders in 1964 of three civil-rights workers, killed in cold blood with police complicity.

[. . .]

The mythology of Neshoba is wrong in two distinct ways. First, Ronald Reagan was not a racist. Second, his Neshoba speech was not an effective symbolic appeal to white voters. Instead, it was a political misstep that cost him support.

[. . .]

Far from being a masterstroke… The Neshoba appearance hurt Mr. Reagan with these voters in the target states of Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania without bolstering his standing among conservative Southern whites.(emphasis added)

Mr. Cannon backs up his assertion with several examples going back into the 1930s demonstrating that if Reagan was a racist, he was the only one I’ve heard of the support the equal treatment of black (and Jews) for nearly five decades before his 1980 speech in Mississippi.

Krugman and Herbert are a best willfully ignorant and irresponsible, at worst liars.

Climate Change Hysteria

The UN has a new report describing the dangers of unmitigated global warming, including the warning (as summarized by the NYT) that, “melting ice sheets that could lead to a rapid rise in sea levels and the extinction of large numbers of species brought about by even moderate amounts of warming.”

Well that sounds pretty serious and raises a few questions, such as has the Earth ever been this warm or warmer? And if so, what were the effects? What is the long-term history of global temperatures? How much carbon dioxide (CO2) are humans putting into the atmosphere as a percentage? And what could be the likely result of reducing our CO2 emissions?

As it turns out, the Earth has several cycles of global warming and cooling and, historically speaking, it’s rather bizarre to expect the climate to remain static. For example, in relatively recent time, the Earth was warmer in 1300 A.D. and 1100 B.C. than it is right now:

Did a third of species die out either of those times? Did industrialization cause those “global warming” periods? No, I don’t think so. There appears to be some evidence that variations solar radiation (i.e., solar winds) has a direct link to global temperature variations:

Rather than rehash what others have done, I will point to what they’ve done, the excellent, very readable, and well documented paper, “Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective,” by Monte Hieb and Harrison Hieb in particular.

The paper by Hieb and Hieb is not without criticism. This site attacks their credentials while refusing to point out any errors, while this one focuses on semantics and is wholly unconvincing.

I urge you to read the paper by Hieb and Hieb and check their sources to see if they have been taken out of context; I don’t think they have, and their argument is very convincing. Decide for yourself, but do read it before condemning it.

Is the Earth warming? Yes, it is! But it’s nothing new, and when the evidence is weighed it really does not appear that humans are the primary cause, and our ability to slow or reverse such warming is less than negligible. But some people have found a cause or religion in the issue, and that’s the tone of climate change hysterics.

Update: NASA on Artic Ocean circulation:

A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

[…]

“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.

Update 2: Yes, it is a religion, of sorts.

Harvard Report: Media Biased Against Right, For Left

Update: This post attempts to discredit the conclusions reported by the IDB article linked to below, and ironically points to “noncomprehensia” on the part of conservatives. Perhaps the author of that post just didn’t read the entire report. At any rate, the conclusions of the actual report by Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy are quite clear; the media has been biased in favor of Democratic candidates and against Republicans.

The fact remains that not only do Democrats/liberals receive more coverage (i.e. free advertising), they receive more favorable coverage than Republicans/conservatives, something obvious to those who’ve been paying attention. Read the entire report here, use the table of contents on the right side to navigate.

Original post: A joint survey by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard and the Project for Excellence in Journalism has concluded that:

Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which “produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans.”

The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.

This should not be news to anyone who pays attention to the news and issues. In fact, I recently posted on this concerning NPR. It should be slightly interesting, or at least entertaining, to see how apologists for leftist media attempt to frame and discredit this report.

USinKorea often comments on this as well, andForward Deployed often makes lengthy corrections to military related news.

No Sympathy for Whining U.S. Foreign Service Officers

Having worked for the State Department as a contractor in the recent past and been to about 25 embassies and consulates worldwide, I have a fairly good understanding of the Foreign Service Officer (FSO) mentality. Which is why the backlash to directed assignments to Iraq – for the anticipated shortfall of only 48 billets, currently – comes as no surprise:

At a town hall meeting in the department’s main auditorium attended by hundreds of Foreign Service officers, some of them criticized fundamental aspects of State’s personnel policies in Iraq.

[. . .]

Service in Iraq is “a potential death sentence,” said one man who identified himself as a 46-year Foreign Service veteran. “Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now,” he said to sustained applause.

[. . .]

Foreign Service officers swear an oath to serve wherever the secretary of state sends them, but no directed assignments have been ordered since the late 1960s, during the Vietnam War.

[. . .]

At least three department employees have been killed in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

No one familiar with the average FSO should be surprised. As noted in the article, FSOs all take an oath to serve overseas where needed. In reality many try to homestead in Europe and the nicer spots in Asia and shun tours in most other places, especially Africa and the Middle East. While they can’t be blamed for wanting to live and work in a more comfortable environment, they are shirking part of what is built into the job description.

Someone with a bitterly ironic sense of humor might call forced deployments a bit of poetic justice for failed diplomacy, but I don’t think any amount of diplomacy would have helped with Iraq (nor will it with North Korea or Iran – the “Axis of Evil” was a far more apt description than most are willing to admit).

I have not (yet) served in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I know that it’s only a matter of time – I’m a reservist. While I won’t like it, I’m not going to complain. FSOs should buck up, or resign, but they should not be whining.

Another Example of UN Uselessness

It’ll take a mushroom cloud in the West for us to stop allowing China and Russia to threaten global security:

Russia and China have been blocking tough U.N. sanctions against Iran, the United States said on Thursday, adding there would be a push to impose them if Iran did not halt nuclear activity within two weeks.





Recent Comments

  • Paleo guy: I lived in Colorado and the seashells are not from when the ice...
  • Javar: So much of this mess going i just found http://www.clintonlies.info Jav
  • Personal: lol. That’s simply amazing. Rather than allow their children...
  • Richard Payne: Col. Daughtry is my great uncle. He did take time to share...
  • Janus: I want one.
  • John Morris: Interesting find. Bill Clinton certainly has his way of using...
  • Richardson: Yes, it is! What are they afraid of?
  • usinkorea: That’s delicious in so many ways…

Asides

RSS
» 

Two officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, W. Michael Cox (the senior vice president and chief economist), and Richard Alm (the senior economics writer) show how consumption rather than income is a more accurate measure of wealth in today’s economy.

 # 0
» 

We can’t build the nuclear plants fast enough: “At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Shell’s CEO announced the world demand for oil would outstrip supply within seven years.”

 # 0
» 

From Military.com: “…BAE Systems has delivered a functional, 32-megajoule Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun (32-MJ LRG) to the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., is exciting. Installation of the laboratory launcher is currently under way, and according to BAE, this is the first step toward the Navy’s goal of developing a tactical 64-megajoule ship-mounted weapon.”

 # 1

Recent Posts


Reassessing Rich and Poor
Seven Years
Saddam Bluffed, Didn't Have But Wanted WMD
Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to U.S. Navy
Where France is Right - Nuclear Power
Gmail vs. Yahoo Mail
Surprise! (not really) Guns Don't Equal Crime
The NYT Still Doesn't Get It





    Security, Politics, Etc.


    Best of the Web
    Black Five
    Counterterrorism Blog
    DPRK Studies
    Forward Deployed
    Gypsy Scholar
    MilBlogs
    Peaktalk
    Proliferation Press
    Real Clear Politics Blog
    The Long War Journal
    USinKorea's Journal

    Survival


    How To Be a Survivor
    Nuclear Survival by State
    Pragmatic Survivalist
    Survival Blog
    Survivalism

    Technology


    Engadget
    Gizmodo
    Lifehacker

    Think Tanks, Etc.


    American Enterprise Institute
    Brookings Institution
    CATO Institute
    Center for Defense Information
    Center for Strategic and Intl Studies
    Council on Foreign Relations
    Federation of American Scientists
    Global Security
    Heritage Foundation
    Middle East Media Research Institute
    RAND Corporation



    All Rights Reserved. © 2000-2007 DPRK Studies (dprkstudies.org).

    Bad Behavior has blocked 141 access attempts in the last 7 days.