I have Paul Craddick's view of the value of civility in political discourse . . . until I lose my temper.
Ginmar is still in Iraq and still writing about it.
Peter and I are still going back and forth on the Osirak strike. I think it might be time to call in Chomsky to explain himself, but in the meantime let me explain why I think Peter and Chomsky are just wrong about the main causes of Iraq's nuclear program. Peter writes:
As I understand it, Iraq in the early 80s had a lot of reasons to think they could win and maybe even win easily against Iran. If nothing else, a country rarely starts a war unless it has a fair bit of confidence about it chances. As far as I know such predictions of success were born out for a few years into the war. Furthermore, Iraq enjoyed significantly more diplomatic support both regionally and internationally than did Iran at that time. Remember, this is just after the Shah was send packing. Europe, Russia and the US all favoured Iraq. So, at the time of the Osirak attack, I have little doubt that Israel probabely looked like a much bigger threat to Iraq. Israel had superior military abilities than Iran. It enjoyed a far better political and military relationship with the US than any other country in the region. Also it had proven itself even before Osirak to be aggressive and eager to establish itself as a regional hegemon by fair, foul or military means. So, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to posit that Israel was of more longterm concern to Hussein in the early 80s than was Iran. Thus, if Hussain decided to accelerate his nuclear program in the early 80s, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the Osirik attack had a lot to do with it. Did Iraq accelerate its program in the early 80s? Or was it always a priority? Well, I've read that top emigre Iraqi nuclear scientists have asserted that that this was indeed the case. And their assertions have some credibility behind them. Prior to Osirak, Iraq was in full compliance with both IAEA guidelines and the nuclear weapons treaty whose formal name escapes me. Or so I understand. At any event, compliance ceased in the 80s. Why? Okay, there was a war going on between Iran and Iraq. But before that war soured for Iraq, there was the Osirak attack. So, it seems to me that Chomsky's using the verb 'to set off' is not entirely unreasonable. Particularly, when he is making a point in parenthesis.Obviously Israel is going to be a security consideration for any country in the Middle East, but I think Iran loomed much larger for Iraq than anything else, and especially before the Osirak strike. Here is why: Iran is three times as large as Iraq, with a much larger population, and a capital which is conveniently much harder to hit from Iraq than Baghdad is to hit from Iran. When Iran had its revolution, and royally pissed off the U.S., Saddam Hussein saw a chance to strike when Iran was momentarily weak and internationally isolated.A few other points. You find it questionable that Hussein would have Osirak built considering his oil reserves. Okay. But neither of us are experts on nuclear engineering and if I read that the reactor was specifically built so that it could not produce plutonium I feel sort of compelled to think building Osirak is not evidence of evil intent. Particularly when oil is so useful in the international market place and when a regime might want to maximize its foreign earnings or even its leverage in the market. Or maybe I'm missing your point here.
I also think Hussein probabely always dreamed of having nukes. But the question may well be, when did he decide to seriously pursue them as something more than a cautiously pursued longterm goal? And, again, if I read that Iraqi scientists say Osirak was the key moment, I'm not sure I immediately see a reason for doubt.
Of all the times to attack Iran, the period right after the revolution was the smartest, but the move was still a monumental blunder of Saddam Hussein's part, since even with all its internal strife Iran managed to pull together reasonably quickly and counter-attack. It's true that Iraq enjoyed a fair bit of early success when the war started, but after a surprisingly short time things were going very badly for Iraq indeed. So contrary to what Peter writes, it didn't take long for it to become clear that Iraq was in a pinch, and moreover, that the Iranian regime, scenting victory, was in no mood for any kind of compromise (indeed, they wanted Saddam Hussein's head on a platter). At least, this is according to everything I've ever read on the history of the Iraq/Iran war.
Peter says "a country rarely starts a war unless it has a fair bit of confidence about it chances" - except that it wasn't a country that started the war, it was Saddam Hussein. To describe Saddam Hussein as a man who always bet on the lame horse would be a bit of an understatement. Try one hooked up to a respirator.
Even without the war, Iraq would have had plenty to fear from Iran, especially with a newly energized Shi'ite regime inspiring a restless and long-marginalized Shi'ite majority within Iraq. The cultural and religious affinity between Iran and Southern Iraq shouldn't be overestimated, but it was quite enough to make a secular Sunni regime more than a bit skittish. And there were territorial disputes between the countries (the original pretext for the actual war). These were exactly the kind of people I would want to keep at bay with nuclear weapons if I were running a secular Sunni regime, and this is one issue we don't need to explain by appealing to Saddam Hussein's evil. (Probable uses of such weapons, yes - but not the forces driving their development.) Who wouldn't want nuclear weapons in such a situation?
Now when I add all that together, it seems to me, as I've said before, that Israel may have been a factor in the development of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, but that a) the development of that program was causally overdetermined; and b) entirely rational fear of Iran surely played a larger role.
Now does Israel have a rational or constructive foreign policy? No. But that wasn't the question. The question was what role Israel played in the development of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. My contention is that the main role it played was in teaching Saddam Hussein to hide the program better. As for the program itself, it surely had many causes, but if we're talking about the stumulus of rational fear, I think Israel's contribution was insignificant compared to Iran's.
Peter seems to think that I'm being overly fussy about all this. And of course Chomsky makes this remark in an aside. But if I'm right then Chomsky is wrong about something important. It's not like he's just botched a date or something. We're talking about the causes of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, something that seems especially important to get a clear view of.
Today's new content is in the comments section of this post.
The proper steps are:
1. Tape the bottom of the enormous box.
2. Fill the enormous box.
3. Hoist the enormous box high.
Step one is essential. Forget step one and you are back where you started. Don't forget step one.
This actually made me angry, and so I wrote up a little rebuke that was fairly nasty (by my standards). But it's not worth it. Let me just say that after four years of supporting, excusing, apologizing and rationalizing for Bush, and after supporting his goddamn war in Iraq, Mr. Adesnik has no right to that snark. He has no right at all.
Commentator, friend, and former roommate, Peter, has been savaging me in the comments section for pooping on Chomsky. In order to placate him, let me say that this post seems to me a perfectly cogent analysis of the situation in Iraq. The only quibble I have is that Chomsky appears to think that a full-scale civil war is less probable than I do. I reproduce the entire post below the fold. Let the Chomsky-lovin' begin.
For what it's worth, polls in Iraq reveal very considerable and apparently growing support for withdrawal of the US occupying army, apart from the Kurdish regions.There, now the anti-Chomsky forces can flay me in the comments section.That doesn't mean withdrawal tomorrow. No one is talking about that, and it isn't even technically feasible. But expeditious withdrawal, with a clear deadline, and an authentic rather than merely nominal transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis. That isn't in the cards, but not because of concerns that the region will be left in chaos; rather, because it would mean abandoning the primary and quite crucial war aim of establishing the first stable military bases in a dependent client state at the heart of the energy-producing regions, a major lever of world control, as has long been understood. The US isn't about to do that.
There are other reasons. An independent Iraq would probably take steps to gain a leading position in the Arab world, which would mean confronting the main enemy, US-backed Israel. hat would mean rearming, probably with WMD, to counter Israel's. It might also lead to improving relations with Iran. Not impossible is a Shi'ite alliance with Iran and a majority-run Iraq, which might further stimulate moves towards independence in the nearby Shi'te areas of Saudi Arabia, where the oil is. That would lead to domination of the world's energy resources by an independent Shi'ite alliance. Nothing inevitable about any of this of course, but hardly impossible. Can you imagine
the US tolerating anything like this? These are among the reasons why permitting democracy in Iraq, even if the rhetoric were meant seriously by Washington and Western commentators, is hardly a likely prospect.Suppose that internal pressures in the US, and whatever pressures exist elsewhere, led to abandonment of the major war aims, so that there could be plans for expeditious withdrawal of the occupying army and transfer of authentic sovereignty. Would that lead to chaos in the region? Or would it reduce tensions and conflicts in the region? We cannot say much with confidence, of course, any more than
we could have said anything with confidence about withdrawal of Japanese armies from much of Asia in the early 1940s, or of Russian forces from Afghanistan, and many other cases. But that lack of confidence is not much of an argument for military occupation.
I'm not especially happy now. I'm a bit under the weather, and busy grading papers, moving this week, and fretting about my unfinished thesis. But then there is this, from a student paper, to brighten my day. Savour it while I cut blogging to an absolute minimum for a few days:
[The author in question] shows us the wrongness of this judgment in terms of logical reasoning and claims that argumentation must shift from target in order to find a fertile territory where argument reasoning is free from stumbling upon established assumptions.Ah yes, a clear image forms in my mind . . .
Did Kerry flip-flop on the Iraq War? Rodger A. Payne attempts to defend Kerry with the novel tactic of actually examining his speech before the war vote in the Senate.
Does Payne succeed in this effort? In a word, no. If speeches were anything to go on, Bush would be the greatest force for democracy in the entire world. Kerry's speech is a nice effort, and it places all kinds of sensible qualification and restrictions on his support for Bush. But Kerry had to have known that Bush would disregard those qualifications and restrictions, and he had to have known that by then it would be too late for Kerry to do anything about it. A vote for Bush at the time really was a vote allowing Bush to wage war if he deemed fit, and by that point, it was clear Bush deemed fit.
Kerry said in October 2002:
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.Yada yada yada. Except that Bush was obviously lying about the practical effect of the resolution. There is simply no way that Bush would have built up that many troops in the middle of the dessert and then sent them home. There was going to be a war, come hell or high water. Kerry's speech was an agonized response to the agonizing position which Bush deliberately placed Congress (and the country) in: Either support Bush (thereby essentially granting him the right to wage war) or support a humiliating climbdown before the entire world. That's a tough spot to be in, but let's be clear that no amount of fine speechifying changes the fact that Kerry knowingly chose the first horn of the dilemma.As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."
Now, I agree with Payne that Kerry didn't want a war, and would have preferred to let inspectors continue their job. But that wasn't what the vote was really about, and Kerry either knew it or he doesn't deserve to be president.
Ah, Jimmy . . . perpetually associated with impotence, in contrast with manly, manly Ronny. Like most comic book history (no offence to comic books - just a turn of phrase) this picture is open to dispute.
A very nice story at Batgirl about last night's Twins-White Sox game in which Corey Koskie (who is Canadian) got hit by pitches 3 times. Worth looking at even if you aren't a baseball fan.
It helps to know that Spiderman is the nickname of the Twins' centerfielder, Torii Hunter.
It's true. Fafnir and Giblets have the details.
Update: Whoops! Fixed link.
Since I had a go at old Noam yesterday, I thought I would clarify the spirit in which I intended my criticism. For the record, I actually think that many Israeli policies are morally repugnant and deeply counterproductive. I've also learned quite a bit from reading Noam Chomsky. I just also happen to think that Chomsky gets it wrong sometimes. One thing he gets wrong is a kind of inconsistency in tone and language when describing different actors in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. [Update: Obviously, I should have written "Middle East," since the original target of my comments was Israeli's strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor. My bad.] I learned to watch for that sort of thing . . . by reading Noam Chomsky.
But, as I've noted before, it is a mystery to me why Chomsky is regarded as somehow beyond the pale within American politics. There is something deeply wrong about a political culture that sees, for example, Charles Krauthammer as fit for an editorial page, but refuses, without debate, to consider a point because Noam Chomsky makes it.
I criticize the Bush administration a lot on this site because I think it's important to dissent from very bad policies. But frankly, while there is room to quibble about details, an intellectually serious defence of the Bush administration is no longer possible, and hasn't been for some time. We're no longer having a real debate anymore. And so these days the more interesting project, as far as I'm concerned, is to mark out those areas in which I disagree with people who are in many respects in ideological sympathy with me. Look out, Noam et. al. I'ma comin' to getcha!
That's the spirit in which I intend my Noam bashing below. I hope that distinguishes me from that brand of liberal who tries to score "reasonable points" by bashing Noam Chomsky whenever he can.
Noam Chomsky writes:
Not reported but quite important is the dispatch to Israel of 100 F16-I's, advanced jet bombers, with the very specific announcement that they can reach Iran and return, are updated versions of the F-16s that Israel used to attack the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (thereby setting off Iraq's nuclear weapons program, though that part of the story, though pretty well confirmed, is avoided), and are equipped with "special weapons" (according to the Israeli Hebrew press).Uhhhhhh, pardon? I've read a bit about the Israeli strike against that nuclear reactor and this is the first time I've seen anyone claim that the strike set off Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Chomsky is new to the blogging game, so I'll forgive him for failing to link to confirmation. But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that he is basically wrong about this. Reason: If I was a nutty dictator living in a dangerous part of the world and locked in a vicious war with a stronger rival to my East, I would be pretty darn interested in nuclear weapons. And Chomsky has to know that the history of nuclear proliferation is essentially a long story of one country after another developing nuclear weapons programs under the cover of peaceful nuclear power generation - until it is too late to do anything about it.
Now, I'm actually a big fan of the idea that you can make crazy people crazier than they already are by provoking them. (E.g., it wouldn't surprise me much to discover that North Korea stepped up its nuclear weapons program after Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me to discover that it hadn't.) So it's possible that the Israeli strike convinced Saddam Hussein to get a move on with the whole nuclear weapons project. But the main effect appears to be that it convinced Iraq that it needed to be a lot more savvy about hiding its nuclear program than anything else.
Does anyone know otherwise? I would be delighted to hear from you.
And by the way, note the neutral language: "setting off Iraq's nuclear weapons program," which almost manages to transform the Israelis into the main actors in the story of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Reader challenge: Find me one instance in which Chomsky describes the Arab states as "setting off" Israel's nuclear weapons program. If you can do it, you win . . . I don't know, 15 smug points to be redeemed in the comments section of any post.*
*Offer valid only until Dec. 31st, 2004. Some restrictions may apply.
From a piece in the New York Times:
The demonstrators included many of the almost 240,000 settlers of the West Bank and Gaza, and also secular and Orthodox Israelis from around the country. Many dismissed Mr. Sharon's argument that it is foolish to send hundreds of Israeli troops to protect 7,500 Jewish settlers living among 1.3 million Palestinians.Mr. Hatuel makes a very good point, a very good point indeed. One wonders, though, if Mrs. Schwartz is teaching Shira to dream of a day when they can set the Torah aside."If we give up the Gaza Strip, by the same token we can give up Israel," said Chaim Markuza, a 62-year-old retired businessman who was standing near the Latrun junction about 15 miles outside Jerusalem.
Ayelet Schwartz, a 24-year-old teacher from the northern West Bank settlement of Dumim who had her 2 ½-year-old daughter, Shira, in a stroller, said, "If we believe in the Torah, then we believe that all of the land of Israel belongs to us."
. . .
One of the people at the wall was David Hatuel, whose pregnant wife and four daughters were killed last May in a roadside ambush by two Palestinian gunmen in Gaza. "Peace should be made with people who want peace," he said. "The Palestinians don't educate their children to want peace, and you can't have a peace with someone who doesn't dream about peace."
If you read one thing this month about Darfur, let it be this piece in the New York Review of Books. An excerpt below the fold:
What is to be done about a regime that visits such evils on its citizens? In the short term international aid agencies must be given free access to all areas of Darfur, across the lines between government and rebel-controlled zones. This should be the immediate focus of donor and UN pressure. Beyond this, it is essential to establish an effective international monitoring regime, in order to ensure the protection of civilians and unimpeded access to them. A team of military observers from the newly born African Union is being deployed in Darfur, but their number is too small and their mandate too limited. To prevent more killing-and the concealment of crimes already committed- the international presence in Sudan requires an information network in the field that can match that of the Sudan government's own security forces. Short of a serious threat of external military intervention, it will be difficult to achieve this. Even now, with evidence of war crimes mounting by the day, there is no international unanimity in condemning the government of Sudan. A general UN arms embargo would be opposed, for example, by China, which, in return for oil from fields in southern Sudan, has, in recent years, provided the Sudanese government with three new arms factories.[9] An embargo would, in any case, do little to stem the flow of weapons within Sudan. An international tribunal on the Rwandan model is something to be pursued, but this is a long-term project that will not resolve the immediate crisis.The United States and the European Union have both demanded the disarmament of the Janjawiid and said that they will impose sanctions and travel restrictions on militia leaders and the government military officers who control them. In the case of the Janjawiid, though, as a former governor of Darfur, Ahmed Diraige, has pointed out, an international travel ban is meaningless: these are not people who have cause to leave Sudan.[10] And in the case of the Sudanese military, where does responsibility stop? The government of Sudan, purged of hard-line Islamists, is now in thrall to its security forces. The proxy militias that are used to devastate civilian lives have become the means by which the government remains in power.
The ruthlessness of the government's response to the Darfur insurgency is a sign of fear: any hint of weakness is liable to encourage other insurgencies in the east, where rebels already control an enclave on the Eritrean frontier. To limit responsibility for military strategy in Darfur or the south to specific officials in the internal security agencies or military intelligence is not plausible. If anyone is guilty it must be the highest authority, the commander in chief, the head of state himself.
In 2002, in northern Bahr-el-Ghazal, the state to the south of Darfur, after years of international condemnation of the abduction and enslavement of local people by Murahaliin militia-and years of denial of government involvement-raids on villages ceased when the United States stepped up diplomatic pressure on the Sudanese government. Claims that the Janjawiid are outside government control are similarly unconvincing. It is clear that, when it wants, the government can call off the dogs of war. And it appears to be discreetly reining in the Janjawiid (and clandestinely incorporating them into regular military forces). As of this writing, aerial attacks on villages in Darfur have diminished, though they have not ceased. Barring a major offensive on the part of the rebels, it seems likely that the scale of abuses will be reduced, leaving a long aftermath of displacement and famine, affecting a million people or more, to be dealt with by yet another international emergency relief operation. In this way the government may yet manage to evade international condemnation, resume its deceptive engagement with donor countries, and, if the Naivasha Agreement holds, benefit from US, EC, and World Bank funding for the reconstruction of the country. While the militias remain, though, there is no guarantee that they will not be redeployed-and there will be no safety for the people of Darfur.
Ben Hammersley informs us that the winners of the 2004 Bulwer-Lytton Prize (for bad writing) have been announced. The honourable mention Hammersley quotes is awfully funny, in a completely disgusting sort of way.
I'm not very keen about spiders. That's why this story really creeped me out.
Ew. Ew, ew, ew.
From Slashdot (minus the hyperlinks):
RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement - by michael (27% noise) cosyne writes “Part of the music industry’s recent price fixing settlement involves giving free CDs to public libraries. Although they are technically complying with the the letter of the law, they’re abusing the spirit by giving the libraries large piles of crud. According to the Stevens Point Journal, ’[the] Milwaukee Public Library received 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston’s 1991 recording of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” 188 copies of Michael Bolton’s “Timeless,” 375 of “Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971,” and 104 copies of Will Smith’s “Willennium.”’ The recording industry obviously wouldn’t want to have libraries loaning out music that people might otherwise buy.” See also a related story about shipments to another state.I am a peaceful man, but if anyone has the nerve to bring a Michael Bolton CD within 10 feet of me I will be sorely tempted to bloody his nose.
Whatever you thought of the Iraq War, there's no getting around the fact that Uday Hussein was one sick fuck.
I've finished Butler's The Way of All Flesh and am now 200 pages into George Eliot's Middlemarch. The following is from the latter:
" . . . I don't like Casaubon." This was Sir James's strongest way of implying that he thought ill of a man's character.Sir James is not alone in this, I think."Why? what do you know against him?" said the Rector, laying down his reels, and putting his thumbs into his arm-holes with an air of attention.
Sir James paused. He did not usually find it easy to give his reasons: it seemed to him strange that people should not know them without being told, since he only felt what was reasonable.
Obviously, blogging about Victor Bout is a niche thing. But if you're a Bout enthusiast (in the sense that you're enthusiastic about the idea of his facing justice some time soon), you're going to want to keep tabs on the following blogs:
-- Douglas Farah (Alas, with no RSS feed. WTF?)
-- Laura Rozen
Bout, for those of you who aren't enthusiasts, is an arms trader with a very, very sordid past. Alas, it seems that Bout is also an arms trader with very, very powerful friends.
Tune in next week to find out what happens when a shadowy underworld arms trader with very very powerful friends collides with the righteous fury of a small rag-tag band of Victor Bout niche bloggers! Bout has battled international law enforcement for years, but is he a match for the blogosophere? We shall see. We shall see.
I would be tempted to sacrifice yet another fatted calf to the internet gods, but I've been sacrificing so many fatted calves to the internet gods lately that my stock is dwindling faster than I can replenish it, prices for fatted calves being what they are these days. Let me simply say that if I have to live in a world with people like Victor Bout, I am very glad that it is also a world which contains the above mentioned bloggers, and an internet that helps them work together with the long term goal of royally fucking up Bout's life and plans.
He's right about this, you know. A sample, below the fold, so I have a record of it:
But what some CT commentators seem to me to be saying is this: Politics is a dirty, hard business, and we have to play dirty to win. They're saying, don’t come in here with your effete intellectualism, your Marquis-of-Queensbury rules, your naïve pomposity. Moore works, he’s down with the people, he’s telling it like the American people need to hear it.This is precisely what I took up in my Cliopatria essay: is Moore effective, and effective at what? So I don’t disagree with the CT commentators who say that you have to play politics to win, and that if Moore is effective, that’s a countervailing virtue that outweighs any pedantry one might unload at him. What I think is the CT commentators are actually revealing, however, is why the American left is on a persistent losing streak in the tough game of political struggle (not to mention a nasty little streak of intellectualized anti-intellectualism that is another classic kind of left-wing panic button).
They assume that fairness and intellectual discipline are somehow antithetical to the crafting of effective political argument and rhetoric and they assume rather than demonstrate that Fahrenheit is positively influencing the constituencies whose mobilization against the Iraq War and the Bush Administration is useful or needed at this point.
Fairness and open-mindedness is a pretty crucial part of my own political and intellectual voice. That’s first because I assume that it is a positive good, an ethical position, and to adopt an ethical mode of acting in the world is itself a political strategy. It is a commitment to the dispensation that one hopes to build. I assume, very deeply and I hope not unreasonably, that there would be enormous social good that would come to pass if the American public sphere was everywhere authentically marked by fairness, open-mindedness, and mutually agreed-upon standards for rational argument and use of meaningful evidence.
This the critics would be right to say is an insufficient reason to criticize anyone failing to reach that standard. By itself, it is a luxurious high-mindedness. However, fairness also works as politics in the operational sense. An operatic, performative commitment to decency, an over-the-top acknowledging of the legitimacy of potentially legitimate arguments, an attempt to reduce cheap shots, a showy constraint for saying only that which can be said based on strong evidence: these all function as powerful tools in political struggle within the American public sphere.
Who brought Joe McCarthy down in the end? Not somebody playing “dirty”, down in the same gutter with McCarthy, but someone who waited for their moment and caught McCarthy in a decency trap, who revealed the man’s fundamental unfairness and viciousness in part by being scrupulously decent themselves. How did Archibald Cox defeat Richard Nixon? By walking the straight and narrow. Being decent and fair and meticulous isn’t intellectual wankery: it’s hardball.
It’s especially important in the context of the metapolitics of weblogs as a subdomain of the public sphere. Crooked Timber’s contributors regularly take other webloggers to task for the inconsistency of present arguments with past positions, or for their contradictory use of evidentiary standards. That kind of critique only has political influence, e.g., the capacity to alter the way that others think and act, inasmuch as it is a performative, demonstrated constraint on those who offer it. This is what I understand John Holbo to be talking about most centrally in his own comments. If you hold someone else accountable to standards that you do not maintain when you're talking in the public sphere about someone on your "home team", you've shot your wad, you've blown your credibility, you've lost political capital.
That’s the league that Michael Moore is in: the public sphere, weblog and otherwise. Within that league, there are or ought to be rules. Playing by the rules earns you political capital—and if you have political capital, and spend it wisely, you’re effective in influencing other players in the public sphere, even sometimes those who may pretend not to care about those rules. If you have none, you never get the chance.
From the United Nations Environmental Program:
For information only. Not an official record.Restoring Iraqi Marshlands Project Launched by UN Environment Programme
Hope Offered to the Marsh Arabs and Their 5,000 Year-Old Culture in Garden of Eden
Nairobi/Paris, 23 July 2004 ? A multi-million dollar project to restore the environment and provide clean drinking water in the Marshlands of Mesopotamia was announced today by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
The project, funded by the Government of Japan, will support the sustainable development and restoration of the Iraqi Marshlands through implementation of environmentally sounds technologies. Drinking water and sanitation systems will be installed in key communities and pilot wetlands restoration undertaken for the benefit of people and wildlife.
The Marshlands, considered by some to be the location of the Biblical Garden of Eden, were massively damaged in the late 20th Century, partly as a result of new dams on the Tigris and Eurphrates river systems and partly as a result of massive drainage operations by the previous Iraqi regime.
In 2001, UNEP alerted the world to their plight when it released satellite images showing that 90 per cent of these fabled wetlands, home to rare and unique species like the Sacred Ibis and African darter, and a spawning ground for Gulf fisheries, had been lost.
Further studies, released in 2003, showed that an additional three per cent or 325 square kilometres had gone. Experts feared that the entire wetlands, home to a 5,000 year-old civilization who are the heirs of the Babylonians and Sumerians, could disappear entirely by 2008.
With the collapse of the former Iraqi regime in mid-2003, local residents began opening floodgates and breaching embankments in order to bring water back into the marshlands.
Satellite images indicate that, by April this year, around a fifth or some 3,000 square kilometres of the marshes had been re-flooded.
The challenge now is to restore the environment and provide clean water and sanitation services to the up to 85,000 people living there.
A recent United Nations inter-agency assessment and public health survey found that most of the Marsh Arabs are collecting water directly from the marshlands.
Many of the settlements in the area lack basic sanitation services with waste water draining into the street or nearest stream. As a result, water-borne diseases have become commonplace.
The $11 million project, approved in the framework of the UN Iraq Trust Fund, will initially target around a dozen settlements with small-scale water treatment systems some of which are likely to be solar powered.
Reed beds and other marshland habitats which act as natural, water-filtration systems, will be restored which will benefit not only local residents but also provide new habitats for birds and other key wildlife.
Other activities will include the setting up of a Marshland Information Network, an Internet-based system that will allow those with an interest in the region to share their ideas and strategies.
Satellite images, documenting how restoration work is faring and chronicling changes in vegetation and the progress of re-flooding, will be
posted on the site almost daily.Some of the funds will support public awareness schemes, both locally and internationally.
The project will also help train the Iraqi authorities, both at national government and local levels. It will train experts in wetland management
and restoration, remote sensing analysis and community-based resource management.Several other governments and non-governmental organizations are involved in the Iraqi Marshlands. The UNEP project aims to strengthen the coordination of these various efforts to ensure maximum benefit for the people and wildlife there. It is envisaged that this coordinated approach will be applied to the future development of a wider Marshlands strategy in the region.
Klaus Toepfer, UNEP's Executive Director, said: " The Marshlands of Mesopotamia constitute the largest wetland ecosystem in the Middle East and Western Eurasia. They are also culturally significant. UNEP has taken a keen interest in their fate, documenting their destruction and alerting the world to their demise".
"I am therefore delighted that the Japanese government has stepped in to support a new beginning for the Marshlands and the Marsh Arabs. Half the world's wetlands have been lost in the past 100 years. I am sure that the lessons learnt during this project will provide important clues on how to resuscitate other lost and degraded wetlands elsewhere on the globe," he said.
Monique Barbut, Director of UNEP's Division of Technology, Industry and Economics which will be carrying out the project, said:" We will be putting together, in close cooperation with the relevant Iraqi ministries, a ten-person team of local and international experts. The project starts today and we hope to begin field studies and pilot water treatment projects towards the end of the year".
"Nobody fully knows how much of the Marshlands can be recovered," she said. "The future of the Iraqi Marshlands will be tied to the eventual
development of a master plan covering regional cooperation with those countries upstream and downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates river basin," she said.Notes to Editors
For pervious press releases, reports and satellite images on the Marshlands
of Mesopotamia please go to
http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/sustainable/tigris/index.phpFor More Information Please Contact: Eric Falt, Spokesperson/Director of
UNEP's Division of Communications and Public Information, on Tel: 254 2
623292, Mobile: 254 (0) 733 682656, E-mail: eric.falt@unep.org or Nick
Nuttall, UNEP Head of Media, on Tel: 254 2 623084, Mobile: 0733 632755;
E-mail: nick.nuttall@unep.org, or Robert Bisset, Spokesperson for Europe,
on Tel: 33 1 4437 7613, Mobile: 33 6 2272 5842, E-mail:
robert.bisset@unep.frUNEP News Release 2004/34
Mellab Shiluli
Public Information Assistant
Division of Communications and Public Information (DCPI)
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30551
NAIROBI, KENYA
Tel: (254 2) 623089
Fax: (254 2) 623692
Email: Mellab Shiluli@unep.org
Web: www.unep.org
I've spent almost three years now arguing that Pakistan ought to be a top foreign policy priority for the U.S. Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, had - alas, "has" is really more accurate - extensive ties with the Taliban and militant Islamic groups, including A.Q. The ISI is an extremely powerful and not completely controlled force within Pakistan, which itself has a highly dysfunctional political system. And the country is a nuclear power locked in a multi-generational dispute with a neighbouring nuclear power. If you think Iraq was more dangerous than that explosive combination, or even that it was rational to think that Iraq was more dangerous than that explosive combination, I give up on you. I think it's also fair to say that the U.S. has not made Pakistan a top foreign policy priority, and rather that it has tended to downplay some of the more serious concerns about the country.
So I was predisposed to look favourably on a recent piece in the Guardian by Michael Meacher arguing that the U.S. was looking the other way when it came to Pakistan's ties with A.Q. And it isn't a completely bad piece. But then I ran smack into one of the stupider paragraphs I've read in a while:
It has been rumoured that Pearl was especially interested in any role played by the US in training or backing the ISI. Daniel Ellsberg, the former US defence department whistleblower who has accompanied Edmonds in court, has stated: "It seems to me quite plausible that Pakistan was quite involved in this ... To say Pakistan is, to me, to say CIA because ... it's hard to say that the ISI knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of." Ahmed's close relations with the CIA would seem to confirm this. For years the CIA used the ISI as a conduit to pump billions of dollars into militant Islamist groups in Afghanistan, both before and after the Soviet invasion of 1979.Oh, it is rumoured, is it? Well then. What more could we need? How about some speculation about the rumours? And in comes Ellsberg with the speculation. Ellsberg may have hidden wisdom behind those ellipses, but his remarks as presented here are nonsense.
I set the following exercise for the reader: Try and think of a major event during the 90s involving Pakistan which caught the CIA completely off guard. Got it? Now ask yourself: Did the CIA look monstrously stupid for failing to know about it beforehand? Did the ISI manage - somehow - to keep the secret from the CIA? What light might that shed on Ellsberg's claim (as it is presented by the Guardian writer)?
Oy vey.
Moving on, the writer points to the CIA's twisted relationship with the ISI over the years. There is indeed much in that relationship to lament, and I am all in favour of setting the record straight on the long-term damage done to Pakistan (and the rest of the region) as a result of its pawn-status during the Cold War. But if Meacher checks his history books, he will find that the the Soviets withdrew its troops from Afghanistan in 1989. Pakistan's geopolitical significance to the U.S. diminished considerably with their departure. Over the 90s, the United States tilted increasingly towards India. The tit-for-tat nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in 1998 prompted the U.S. to impose trade sanctions on both countries, but reflecting long-term interests, the U.S. was decidedly icier towards Pakistan. (The tit-for-tat nuclear tests caught the CIA completely by surprise. That, of course, is the answer to the exercise above.) And the coup which brought Musharraf to power sealed its status as a semi-pariah state. The drift was only reversed by 9/11 which forced both parties to quickly reevaluate their usefulness to one another, and to reforge old ties.
Now, throughout all this, the CIA no doubt maintained contacts with the ISI - institutional contacts of this sort can be awfully stubborn, and they are also useful. Still, the general trend for the last decade and a half has been decidedly in the other direction, and reaching back over that decade and a half to ground claims about the CIA's omniscience is, I think, simply dishonest.
All the same, I would not be at all surprised if the U.S. really was looking the other way as Pakistan covered up some deeply embarrassing pre-911 connections to A.Q. What, in that case, would the motive be?
I think it's obvious: The U.S. has decided that Pakistan's ongoing cooperation - or rather, grudging semi-cooperation - is preferable, all things considered, to a rift brought on by forcing Musharraf to come clean about everything. We can quibble about the terms of the deal (I would). But that does seem to be the deal, and we don't need to play games with highly dubious inferences to explain it.
This kind of silliness drives me nuts, precisely because I desperately want a full and public airing of the history of the U.S.'s relationship with Pakistan. It's a sordid tale, but it is full of lessons about the limits of realpolitik and the law of unintended consequences in foreign policy. What it does not require is embellishment and irresponsible speculation. That only makes it harder to get at the truth, and to convince other people that you've got it, once you have.
There's no point in paying for software when perfectly good alternatives are free. Below is a list of free, reliable software. Most of it is open source, too (meaning that the code the program uses is also distributed publicly, for anyone to inspect). Some of the programs have Mac and Linux versions, but I'll focus on PC software for now.
-- Keynote is a wonderful little note organizer. Here is a bit on the program cribbed from the help file:
Keynote is a flexible, multi-featured tabbed notebook, based on Windows standard RichEdit control. It's always accessible with a single keypress, even if you work in another application. It's certainly more fun to use than pen and paper! A large number of text formatting functions allows you to create very readable, clear, and well-organized notes.All Explananda posts are written on Keynote, in case you cared to know.The basic idea in KeyNote is that you can have many separate notes within a single file. This means that you do not need to open several files - for most purposes it is enough to create only one file and several notes inside it. With the addition of the tree-type notes, you now have a three-dimensional notebook: many notes within one file and a multi-level, nested pages within a single note. (Read more about KeyNote files)
-- By the same programmer, Oubliette is a great password manager. It encrypts all your passwords into a single, uncrackable file. Up until recently, I was in the habit of storing all my passwords in a single plaintext file. So . . . this is an improvement.
-- Thunderbird is a great email client (from the same people who brought you Firefox) which I use for Explananda-related email. I have about a hundred hits a day, and if one out of every 10,000 hits results in an email, well, you get the picture: It's a veritable torrent of electronic communication. Thunderbird is up to that job.
-- For word processing documents, I use OpenOffice. Why? Well, I can't afford Microsoft Word, and I can't be bothered to pirate it. And really, what excuse would I have, when the existence of a perfectly good alternative undermines any possible claim to necessity? OpenOffice is very intuitive for anyone used to Microsoft Word. It can read and store documents in word format, so document sharing with the rest of the Microsoft-lovin' world is not an issue (unless, I imagine, the documents have an awful lot of fancy-schmancy formatting). And it has a nifty little PDF button that Microsoft Word doesn't have yet. (And if you shelled out $90 for Adobe Acrobat just to produce PDFs, I can only say: Sucks to be you!) My thesis is currently being procrastinated on in OpenOffice.
-- I don't need to do much with graphics, so I can easily get by with Gimp, which is a free, open-source alternative to Adobe Photoshop.
-- For archiving files, I use Saintly Folder Zipper. This works for little jobs, but if something better came along, I might dump it. Anyone?
-- Finally, I use Notepad++ as my HTML editor, since it's better than the one you get with OpenOffice.
(If you're interested in free security-related software, see this earlier post.)
How in the world would someone find out about these? Lots of ways, but here are two. First, Pricelessware.org has a great selection of high-quality, free, open-source programs. The other thing to do is just go browsing through Sourceforge, which plays an invaluable role coordinating a kazillion different open-source projects, at every stage of development. The number of projects at Sourceforge is enormous, but each search allows you to add filters in order to narrow down what you're looking for fairly quickly.
Happy software hunting!
(Disclaimer: It should be obvious that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Take my advice at your own risk.)
Last week I finally got around to watching the entire first season of the BBC's comedy show The Office. I thought it was very funny. My enjoyment was marred only by the fact that I had to turn up the volume really high since the sound quality is poor and I can't understand British people when they talk quickly.
I confess that I might have enjoyed the episodes even more if I had watched them over a longer period of time, but I rented the DVD and so felt an (idiotic) urge to watch them all over the course of 24 hours when I had other things to be doing. I thought the first season peaked at the fourth episode, which contained one of the funniest scenes I've seen anywhere in a long time. (The scene is the one in which David and the visiting staff trainer role-play a customer's interaction with a rude hotel clerk.) Episodes 5 and 6 were either weaker, or I was, from so much watching.
My wife was less enthusiastic about the show, and I had to pout a bit in the video store to clinch its selection. She enjoyed the first two episodes, but then her patience wore thin. By the final episode, she was well and truly ticked. (We didn't watch them all in a row, but we've got a small Brooklyn apartment, and she was sort of involuntarily along for the ride.) She's also has the same feeling about the show Curb Your Enthusiasm, for which I have a boundless appetite. I find the socially uncomfortable scenes in Curb Your Enthusiasm painful, but in a good way. The first time my wife saw Curb Your Enthusiasm, she found the socially uncomfortable scenes painful, but that was because she got a migraine from watching it.
Thanks, by the way, to all you Brits (roughly 20% of my readership, according to my site meter) for paying for "The Office" through your BBC dues (or whatever they are).
I'm looking for a roommate in Brooklyn starting as early as August 1st. Tell all your friends! Tell the whole bunch! Details below the fold.
The apartment: A three bedroom duplex with two living rooms, located on the F line (Fort Hamilton Parkway stop), about a minute walk from the subway station. Quiet, safe neighborhood, close to two laundry mats, a grocery story, etc. etc. 3 minute walk to Prospect Park. It takes about a half hour to get into town by subway.
The room: The room is on the second floor of the duplex (fourth floor of the house). It's a bit dark (though it has a window), and is not the largest room around. But it's certainly livable.
The price: $525 plus utilities. (And each member of the house chips in $15/month for basic amenities like toilet paper, dish soap, cleaning stuff, etc. etc. etc.)
Roommates: My wife (a jazz singer and music teacher) lives there full time, as does Vincent (a jazz drummer). I am a graduate student in upstate New York and spend about half my time away from the city. So you would really have two and a half roommates. It is actually a pretty quiet house, and both musicians are sensitive about disturbing others with noise. We're pleasant people, too. Oh yes, we have a beagle, who is adorable, but also a bit thieving, so food must be guarded very carefully.
Duration: We've signed a lease until the end of August, 2005, but we've told the landlord that we would actually prefer to move out at the end of May, 2005. Obviously, the views of all roommates would be relevant to this decision.
Available: As early as August 1st.
What we're looking for: A quiet, responsible, mature person who isn't a complete slob. We would strongly prefer a woman, if only so that my wife isn't stuck dealing with three men.
If you have any questions, by all means email me!
Chris
Helena Cobban has a long and thoughtful post up about Yasser Arafat.
Arafat has been a nightmare for Palestinians. If the Israelis assassinated him I would be outraged. If, on the other hand, he were to drop dead of a heart attack, it would be a toss up for me between relief and annoyance that it took him so long.
Now this is giggle-worthy:
We're sort of befuddled that our jab at the prospects for Libertarian sex-for-votes trading didn't generate more indignant email from outraged Reason subscribers. These are people who can get a lively debate going about Schumpter versus von Mieses, but accuse them of not getting any and they're suspiciously silent. Sure, they talk a good free love game, but where are the swinging Chicago school devotees when push comes to, uhm, shove? We're not the only ones wondering. Noting that a special on A&E this week blares that "There may be as many as 50,000 people involved in polygamous relationships in Utah," a libertarian livejournaler responds, "And you poly Objectivists think you're all kinky and shit! Ha! You guys are being outfucked by MORMONS!"
The latest fuss is about Tony Blair's claim that 400,000 mass graves have already been uncovered in Iraq, when in fact "only" about 5000 have been so far uncovered. Kevin Drum has this to say:
I suppose the politically correct stance is that murder is murder, and quibbling over numbers doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a monster. Which is true enough.It's important to be fussy in demanding that politicians stick to the truth when they make claims of this sort and of this importance. Failure to complain makes it that much easier to stray from the truth the next time around. But I really wish that Drum had meditated a bit more on this post before he hit "publish". Indeed, it's almost surreal to watch Drum go from this point to raising the possibility that "even the humanitarian case wasn't as clear cut as they suggested."But the fact is that, yes, it does matter, in at least two ways. First, it matters because part of the humanitarian case against Saddam was that he was not merely a garden variety nasty dictator, he was arguably the #1 nastiest dictator on the planet. If he wasn't, it does weaken the emotional case for intervention, just as very high numbers strengthen the case for intervention in the proto-genocide currently taking place in Darfur.
Second, and perhaps more important, is the question of whether Tony Blair (and apparently the U.S. government as well) flatly lied about this. This was not a case of intelligence estimates, after all, it was a categorical statement that 400,000 bodies had actually been found by actual troops digging up actual graves. How could he have been off by a factor of 80x?
Needless to say, this wouldn't matter if it were the only exaggeration surrounding the war. But it's not. There was no WMD, no collaboration with al-Qaeda, no 45-minute missiles, no mobile bioweapons labs, no regional military threat, and now it turns out that even the humanitarian case wasn't as clear cut as they suggested.
Is there anything left that these guys told the truth about?
There is abundant evidence that tens of thousands, and perhaps even hundreds of thousands died during (or as a result of) the uprisings in the South at the end of the Gulf War. U.S. fighter pilots watched overhead as Iraqi helicopters poured napalm over large groups of people. The carnage was documented well enough that we don't need the confirmation of bodies dug up from mass graves to know that many people died. See, for example, the documents on human rights watch's website, the testimony of survivors, or simply observe the condition of the South by the time the U.S. military invaded. The South had been brutalized, and Saddam Hussein had almost achieved his goal of draining the Southern marshes in order to forever deny his enemies in the South a sanctuary if the fighting resumed.
All this has been established, and moreover established by human rights groups which are extremely critical of the Bush and Blair administrations, and so don't have the ideological axe to grind which might lead them to inflate their estimates.
Also, there's an easy explanation for how Blair might have been so wrong. It's entirely possible that 400,000 people were killed by the regime since the Gulf War. The mass graves that have been so far discovered provide some further evidence for those killings. Blair might simply have mixed these up. I don't have a high opinion of Blair's personal integrity, but that doesn't mean that everything that comes out of his mouth is a nasty lie.
The humanitarian argument for the Iraq War fails - or so I have argued repeatedly. But it doesn't fail because Saddam Hussein has turned out to be a sadly misunderstood guy. That judgment isn't up for revision simply because Blair misdescribed one piece of evidence, or even if he lied.
Ugh.
I'm officially confused about the 16 words debate (that is, the debate about Bush's claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger). As far as I can tell, either Josh Marshall is a biased hack or Gregory Djerejian is.
The back and forth is dizzying. Check out this post from Gregory Djerejian, for an example of the kind of criticism Marshall is getting.
Innocent question from the sidelines of this debate: Does Djerejian expect me to keep a straight face when he ends a post slagging Marshall for inaccuracy and partisanship by approvingly linking to a column of William Safire's which is, typically, riddled with errors?
I've been suffering a bit of blogger burnout lately, and haven't really had the stomach for some of the more repulsive pundits lately. But Laura Rozen pretty clearly isn't burned out, and she has an interesting post up on William Safire's latest:
Bill Safire didn't do his research. And misspeaks, numerous times:Now, as I say, I haven't had the stomach for this stuff lately, so I'm not keeping track of the details as well as I used to. What interests me here is that Safire can't even get the gender of the Italian journalist right. I suppose it could be a typo. And for all I know, Safire might have written it correctly, and then had it botched by a copy editor. Still, this error - along with the others in this column, and many other columns - is good circumstantial evidence that Safire won't let a fact-checker within 100 yards of his column. After all, outside of advanced graduate seminars on gender theory, few think that gender is simply a matter of opinion.. . .State Department intelligence also was dubious, reports the Senate, more so in October when an Italian journalist brought in a bunch of phony documents somebody was trying to sell him about a Niger uranium transaction. This outweighed the report of a top security official in the French Foreign Ministry, who told U.S. diplomats in November 2002 that "France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger."What did Safire get wrong here?Two months later, with no objection from C.I.A., the famous 16 words went into Bush's 2003 State of the Union.
But when word leaked about the fake documents — which were not the basis of the previous reporting by our allies — Wilson launched his publicity campaign, acting as if he had known earlier about the forgeries.
-- The Italian journalist was not a "he."
-- The forged Niger docs were indeed the chief basis for Italy's reporting to the US on the Niger uranium claims.
-- The French report was based on the forged Niger uranium docs.
-- Reports from the fake documents were the chief source of the previous reporting to the US by the Italians, and partly by the British as well, on the Niger uranium issue.
Either one of two things must have happened at the NYT for things to get this silly. Either Safire has had a confrontation with his editors, and they lost, or they have not found it prudent or desirable to have that confrontation. In either case, I imagine the rationale, or the consolation, is that no one with any sense is paying attention to Safire any more anyway (for any kind of insight, that is), and that is better to just wait for him to retire than to turn him into a martyr by firing or antagonizing him.
If I believed in sinister liberal plots, I would suspect the NYT of keeping around a token conservative of such poor quality in order to blunt the appeal of conservatism. There is also the thought that the fact checkers are mutinying and letting errors like this one slip through in order to embarrass Safire - the only problem with this hypothesis being that Safire is apparently incapable of embarrassment. But it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that people have just decided to grit their teeth and let crazy Bill do whatever he likes, on the assumption that he won't be around much longer anyway.
For a while now I've been meaning to read a bit about the Dreyfus affair. Are there any knowledgeable readers out there who can steer me to one or two good books on the subject? Many thanks, in advance.
I may need to refer to this in the future, so into the electronic scrapbook it goes:
Taken Questions Office of the Spokesman Washington, DC July 15, 2004 Question Taken at July 15, 2004 Daily Briefing
Egypt: Military And Economic Aid (Taken Question)
Question: What is U.S. policy on military and economic aid to Egypt? Can you comment on the Secretary's letter to Representative Jim Kolbe [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related programs of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives]?Answer: Our policy approach toward Egypt is strategic and focused on advancing U.S. political, economic, and military objectives, justifying our annual assistance program of just under $1.9 billion in FY 2004.
Our bilateral military relations with Egypt are comprised of joint exercises, broad coordination on regional issues, and a $1.3 billion annual military assistance budget. Foreign Military Financing and International Military Education and Training assistance have helped to modernize the Egyptian military through training and weapons sales that have created a sound defensive force. We also maintain open lines of communication with the Egyptian military about the variety of challenges that it faces, from international peacekeeping operations to co-production of certain weapons systems. Virtually all of the 1.3 billion is spent in the United States for US military equipment, which greatly benefits US firms. Additionally, use of US equipment ensures that Egyptian forces are interoperable with ours, allowing us to work closely in joint deployments, as we have in Bosnia and the first Gulf War.
Our bilateral economic relationship, a $571 million dollar budget, is focused on delivering assistance through three main programs: programmatic assistance (including aid projects and technical assistance in health, education and infrastructure); the Commodity Import Program, which funds private sector imports of American products; and the Development Support Program, which provides direct budgetary support to the Government of Egypt in return for achievement of specific agreed-upon economic benchmarks. These programs have helped improve Egypt's basic infrastructure, improve the country's standard of living, and assisted its emerging transition to a more market-oriented economy.
Secretary Powell sent a letter dated July 14 to the Honorable Jim Kolbe, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related programs of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. The letter focused on the importance of our annual military assistance budget to Egypt by outlining Egypt's crucial role in our efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East and its contribution to regional stability.
I'm still working away on my monumental Mother of all Iraq War Posts, which aims to be so exquisitely evenhanded that it will bring concord to the blogosophere on this vexed issue. Indeed, I hope to persuade even the doubters among us to doff their hats and swear that my momma raised her first born to be a fair and balanced blogger. Why years from now, I imagine, other bloggers will point me out on the street and whisper reverentially to their blogger children, "Do you know who that is? That's the scallywag-in-chief of explananda. He settled the Iraq War debate back in '04. I never thought I'd see the Instapundit make up with Atrios. But they did, by golly, and I swear both of them had tears in their eyes."
OK, perhaps that's a bit ambitious. But I am trying to sum things up, and there's some value in that.
Just a few more days . . .
. . . about his sordid past fabricating intelligence:
Sexing-up the dossierA few years ago, when I was a computer programmer at Edinburgh University, I went to a meeting where two members of the SPGB were putting the case for socialism to a student society called, I think, Third World First, and dedicated, as far as I could see, to the promoting the kind of delusions (trade bad, aid good) that have done so much to keep the Third World third.
After Brian and Matt, the two Socialists, had put their case for the immediate global abolition of the market, some Frequently Asked Questions came up. One of them was: 'Who will do the dirty work?'
Some well-meaning sap in the audience - it may have been me - gave an earnest exposition of the Frequently Delivered Answer: that lots of the dirty work could be automated, that the objectionable thing about dirty work wasn't the dirt but the social stigma, etc. (You can find the rest of it in Bebel.)
'Ah,' said Brian, sounding disappointed. 'I've always thought it would be Matt.'
In the same spirit, I can now exclusively answer the question of who was responsible for distorting the intelligence from Iraq. It was me.
At least, I started it. I set the ball rolling.
Many years ago, when I was a postgrad at Brunel University, I and a Kurdish exile and an Irishman drafted an article for the student paper, Le Nurb. Control of Le Nurb rested on who had seized the means of its production - a golf-ball typewriter, some sheets of Letraset, an X-acto knife and a jar of paste - that week, so its editorial line fluctuated wildly from Tory to Trot to Anarchist to Young Liberal.
That week, it was Trot. The article I was drafting was based on a telephoned report from Iraqi Kurdistan to our Kurdish exile friend. (The Kurds, then as now, needed all the friends they could get.) An official demonstration in Sulimaniyah, under the slogan 'The Kurds are Ba'athist!' had turned into an angry anti-regime demonstration, under the slogan 'The Kurds are hungry!' (It was a pun in Kurdish.)
I transcribed all this.
'"... which could only be put down by the use of troops,"' added my Irish friend.
'You can't say that,' said the Kurdish guy. 'I have no information about the use of troops.'
'Oh come on,' said the Irish guy. 'You think there could be a demonstration like that, in Sulimaniyah, and it wouldn't be put down by troops?'
'Well ...' said the Kurdish guy, 'perhaps ...'
'There you go,' said the Irishman.
Reader, I wrote it, and Le Nurb published it. A couple of weeks later that article was lifted, with permission, by the much more widely read Militant, and shortly thereafter Militant's article was excerpted - imaginary troops and all - in the even more widely read Intercontinental Press. I don't know how many people who are now Labour MPs read either of these journals in their youth, but I'd hazard more than a few. How many minds were changed, how many opinions hardened, by that fictitious fusillade?
None, in all probability. But the lie still makes me blush.
You've probably already heard the charge against Allawi. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be part of a smear campaign against him, since the man does have an enemy or two. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true, since the man does have a history which fails to inspire much confidence.
It's all so depressing, which is one reason I've been posting less and less about Iraq lately. I'm working now on a long post which tries to sum up a year and a half of writing on Iraq, but beyond that I'm just burnt out. That doesn't mean I'll stop caring (or reading), of course, but I will probably continue to write less about Iraq for the next little while. (I even skipped a Safire column the other day! What's happening to me?)
As for that long post, I promise it'll be a doozy. I may need a few days to whip it into shape, though.
Well, for starters, we both consider 4,500 calories a day to be "fasting."
Gotta give him this: No one ever sounded like Shooby Taylor.
(The link is to an MP3, which is very much worth hearing. The complete page is here.)
I think it's correct to say that Joe Wilson's credibility is irrelevant to the Plame investigation, or what anyone makes of the Plame investigation. There isn't anything exculpatory for the Bush administration in the fact, if it is one, that Wilson lied about whether his wife recommended him for his little jaunt to Niger or not. And if it turns out that the CIA never passed along Wilson's conclusions, as he supposed, that ought to influence our view of the way that the CIA handled information in interacting with the administration. But it is, again, irrelevant to the question of whether anyone in the administration acted badly in outing Wilson's wife.
Fine. That's true. But after reading and reviewing Wilson's books, and interviewing him, it's a bit much for people to turn around and say that Joe Wilson is not an issue at all. For a time, he was an issue, and his credibility was drawn on to bolster criticisms of the administration. The fact that the administration deserved the criticisms is also irrelevant, since much was made, once upon a time, of the fact that it was Wilson, a credible man, who was making them.
I didn't have a chance yesterday to note that the State Department has refused to certify Uzbekistan, citing concerns about human rights and democratization. Since almost day one of my blogging career I have been urging this as the correct policy, absent significant changes in the country's regime. But the issue is not an easy one, and I've come to see that some ambivalence is in order. I owe some of my ambivalence to the well-informed and intelligent criticism of decertification coming from The Argus, an excellent site devoted to all things Central Asian. And so, as soon as I get get the time to sort my thoughts out, I will try to explain why I think the folks at The Argus have got decertification, and indeed, the general thrust of U.S. "democracy building" wrong.
Rodger Payne, a professor of international relations at the University of Louisville, has an interesting series at his blog in which he contrasts the emails he writes to reporters with the use the reporters (actually, he focuses on one reporter) make of them. It's a great lesson in journalistic spin. Here's the most recent post.
By the way, I notice from snooping around in his site meter that Payne doesn't get many hits on his blog. That strikes me as odd, since he has excellent judgement and posts regularly. He's certainly worth a read, if you're looking for yet another blog to piddle your day away on.
The other day I mentioned a web site offering many, many different versions of the jazz standard, Body and Soul. In the meantime, I have discovered one drawback to listening to that many versions of the same song: Afterwards, it's awfully hard to get the damn tune out of your head.
Buh buh-buh buh buh buh-buh, buh buh-buh buh buh buh buh buh. Buh buh-buh buh buh. Buh buh-buh-buh, buh-buh buh buh.
Good lord. Did you catch the Fox memos posted by Wonkette yesterday? For those of you who missed this story, the memos are all from John Moody, the Fox News chief, to his staff.
I've cut and pasted the whole bunch below the fold. I think Noam Chomksy had a nightmare something like this once:
2003-05-09, John MoodyFrom: John Moody
Date: 5/9/2003We'll have to devote some time to the tornadoes, simply out of respect to the magnitude of damage they did. Fortunately there were no known deaths from last night's touch downs. But a lot of people have no homes.
Let's spend a good deal of time on the battle over judicial nominations, which the President will address this morning. Nominees who both sides admit are qualified are being held up because of their POSSIBLE, not demonstrated, views on one issue -- abortion. This should be a trademark issue for FNC today and in the days to come.
We'll take the Rumsfeld Franks briefing, as we did in the days before Franks opened his office in Baghdad.
At the UN, Catherine Herridge will follow the US sponsored resolution calling for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. Not surprisingly, we're facing resistance from our erstwhile European buddies, the French and Germans.
2003-05-22, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 5/22/2003The terror alert continues to affect the way Americans live their lives, both as consumers, participants in public events and citizens. Let's explain to viewers that while prudent precautions need to be taken, the disruption of the American way of life is in itself a terrorist goal and should not be conceded to our enemies.
one obvious and visible example is the no fly zone over two disney theme parks, which la jeunesse will do live.
The tax cut passed last night by the Senate, though less than half what Bush originally proposed, contains some important victories for the administration. The DC crew will parse the bill and explain how it will fatten -- marginally -- your wallet.
In ever treacherous Iraq, there was gunplay between US troops and iraqi attacks who paid the price.
The Yale explosion looks like less than first imagined. We'll do some lives and see if any new info comes out.
2003-05-29, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 5/29/2003A word about Laci Peterson revelations: we need to be extra careful that we know from WHOM we are getting our information. There is no doubt that Mark Geragos is a skillful manipulator. That doesn't mean that he's wrong or deceitful. But everything he tells us, or anyone else, will be to benefit his client. The same is true of prosecutors and Ms. Allred. We don't need to discount what they say, but we need to be aware that it comes with attitude.
bush's G-8 trip is actually less important than his fledgling efforts to knock together the Israeli and Palestinian PMs' heads. Let's keep in mind that the G-8 contains the most obstreperous dissidents against the war on terror. Bush has a long memory and new friends in Poland the rest of Eastern Europe. FYI: the city where he's landing is pronounced KRAK-ov, not KRAK-cow. Let's see how this goes.
We should make use of Amy Kellogg's access to the newly refurbished St. Petersburg, celebrating its 300th anniversary. The pix should be pretty, even if it's not hard news.
2003-06-02, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 6/2/2003Heads of state don't leave G-8 meetings early unless they have good reasons. President Bush has two: he has to get to Egypt, and he doesn't like the French. Let's explain to viewers that despite the tepid handshake, Bush and Chirac are far from reconciled, as are the US and Germany. The early departure from Evian should take the sparkle out of the bottled water spa.
We have good perp walk video of Eric Rudolph which we should use. We should NOT assume that anyone who supported or helped Eric Rudolph is a racist. No one's in favor of murder or bombing of public places. But feelings in North Carolina may just be more complicated than the NY Times can conceive. Two style notes: Rudolph is charged with bombing an abortion clinic, not a "health clinic." and
TODAY'S HEARING IS NOT AN ARRAIGNMENT. IT IS AN INITIAL HEARING.We have FCC Chairman Michael Powell on Cavuto today (hosted by Brenda). Let's do a few hits on the commission's vote about media ownership rules.
2003-06-03, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 6/3/2003Lots of courtroom action today: the Moussaoui case hits a crucial question today: does a terror defendant have the right to communicate -- albeit by video -- with another terrorist in order to substantiate his innocence. Herridge and Emanuel will run back and forth to cover us.
Scott Peterson has an evidence hearing.
And Eric Rudolph will be arraigned (unlike yesterday) in Alabama in preparation for his death penalty murder trial.
The president is doing something that few of his predecessors dared undertake: putting the US case for mideast peace to an Arab summit. It's a distinctly skeptical crowd that Bush faces. His political courage and tactical cunning are worth noting in our reporting through the day.
The La Jeunesse lives should be used. The national forest as pot field story is pure Fox.
2004-03-12, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 3/12/2004For our purposes, as a story, it's very important to know whether ETA or Al Qaeda was responsible for the Madrid bombings. For the victims the distinction is minimal. Terrorism is international, and the United States is the leader of the coalition to stamp it out. That's the tone we want to impart throughout the day. We are beefing up our staffing there and will stay with the story through the weekend.
Scary thought of the day: what if it's a consortium of terrorist groups working together?
Spain's neighbor, the ever-superior France, had its own spate of railway terrorist warnings last week, though it's not clear that those were in any way related to the Madrid bombings.
The President is on the stump, this time for women's rights. His remarks may be worth dipping into and then getting out.
John Kerry may wish he'd taken off his microphone before trashing the GOP. Though he insists he meant republican "attack squads," his coarse description of his opponents has cast a lurid glow over the campaign.
There's a court hearing for Susan Lindauer, accused of selling out her country to Iraq for handful of silver. For the record, Lindauer worked at Fox News (among several other news organizations) in the 90s and was terminated.
Should the border with Mexico be subject to environmental standards, or is its main purpose to keep the nation secure? It's a question the California coastal commision is forcing to a head. Adam Housley looks at book sides.
Kofi Annan always defended the UN's oil for food program in the runup to the Iraq war. Now it appears his son may have had a role in the company that ran the program, which as we now know was used by Saddam to buy cooperation from influential people. Eric Shawn is pieces together the puzzle.
2004-03-16, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 3/16/2004What makes police think Charles McCoy is the Ohio Turnpike shooter? Where is he and is he still a danger? This and more needs to be answered, whcih is why Goldblatt is outside the Columbus sherriff's department.
Gas prices are at all time highs in the US. There are reasons for the surge, some economic, some mere business tactics. Remember: US prices, while they seem high tot\ us, are a half or less the cost of gasoline elsewhere.
ERic Shawn will take us through the labyrinth of the UN oil for food program, which is beginning to shine light on the role of SecGen Kofi Annan's son. Can the UN reach a consensus on a scandal in its midst?
The president meets the PM of the Netherlands and talks about healthcare. \
Kerry, starting to feel the heat for his flip-flop voting record, is in West Virginia. There's a near-meaningless primary in Illinois.
2004-03-18, Ken LaCorte
From: Ken LaCorte
Date: 3/18/2004Resist the urge to make any assumption about the potential Al Zawahiri story. Pakistani reports are often confused, especially when they come to us secondhand. Report only what we know and attribute it.
2004-03-19, Ken LaCorte
From: Ken LaCorte
Date: 3/19/2004For us, at least, it's spelled and pronounced Al Zawahiri.
The potential capture of al Qaeda's #2 is still the story of the day, but it's still the "potential capture." Stick with what we know, whether it's in reports, teasers or chyrons.
2004-03-23, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 3/23/2004TUESDAY UPDATE: (With thanks to Michelle Novy in DC) SHEIKH YASSIN WAS NOT A "SPIRITUAL LEADER" OF HAMAS. HE WAS THE FOUNDER OF HAMAS, OR ITS IDEOLOGICAL LEADER.
Attention mice: the cat is back.
(My thanks to Ken and David for filling in.)ON AIR TALENT: COULD WE MAKE AN EFFORT TO CUT DOWN ON MOUTH CANDY WHEN GETTING OUT OF GUEST SEGMENTS, SUCH AS, "WE APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE."
We will be on full alert for Hamas retaliation for Yassin's precipitious departure, both in Israel and the US. Hamas's vow of vengeance must be taken seriously.
The so-called 9/11 commission has already been meeting. In fact, this is the eighth session. The fact that former Clinton and both frmer and current Bush administration officials are testifying gives it a certain tension, but this is not "what did he know and when did he know it" stuff. Do not turn this into Watergate. Remember the fleeting sense of national unity that emerged from this tragedy. Let's not desecrate that.
Yassin's assassination took the spotlight off Pakistan, but operations there continue. We'll make full use of Palkot and Harrigan from Afghansitan.
And there's the Kobe hearing, which we'll preview. The accuser, whose personal past is now a matter of public conjecture, is likely to testify this week.
2004-03-24, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 3/24/2004Wednesday update: If there are any questions about the information that Jim Angle reported today, please let me know. for the record, when Clarke gave the background briefing on government security two years ago, his remarks were on background, meaning his name could not be used. Jim ANgle got a copy of the audio. Today, the White House lifted the restriction, thus taking the two year old briefing off background. Neither Jim nor Fox did anything wrong, except accomplish some good reporting.
For everyone's information, the hotel where our Baghdad bureau is housed was hit by some kind of explosive device overnight. ALL FOX PERSONNEL ARE OK. The incident is a reminder of the danger our colleagues in Baghdad face, day in and day out. Please offer a prayer of thanks for their safety to whatever God you revere (and let the ACLU stick it where the sun don't shine).
As the witness list indicates, today is likely to be the apex of the so-called 9/11 commission hearings. Tenet, Clarke, and Clinton NSC advisor Berger all testify. We will carry their statements, along with he Q&A, live. Remember that while there are obvious political implications for Bush, the commission is looking at eight years of the Clinton Administration versus eight months (the time prior to 9/11 that Bush was in office) for the incumbent.
We also have an interview with chief of staff Andrew Card from Fox and Friends, where he makes the administration's case on the hearings and other things.
The Kobe Bryant case is also hotting up. The NBA star's accuser is expected to testify today, where her past may be discussed. The accuser, whose name we are not using, may pass before TV cameras on her way to the courtroom. While it's OK to show her as she enters the courthouse, let's make every effort not to show her face. Denis King is in contact with the control room and will warn us off any shots that portay the accuser's face.
SCOTUS considers if students can be required to say the pledge of allegiance, including the words "under God." The case is on of the more significant ones the court will have before it this session.
2004-03-25, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 3/25/2004There can be no proof more compelling and visual of what Palestinian suicide bombers are all about than the pitiful sight of a teenager frantically cutting away the bomb vest he was wearing in order to save his life. "I don't want to die" he said. Without willing dupes, this barbaric practice can't continue. Let's not overlook that story today, even if the tape has been out there for awhile.
As is often the case, the real news is Iraq is being obscured by temporary tragedy. The creation of a defense ministry, which will be run by Iraqis, is a major step forward in the country's redevelopment. Let's look at that, as well as the deaths of a US soldier in a roadside bombing.
The rummy news conference will be worth dipping into, though full coverage may be too much. Give it a chance.
We'll keep a watch on the Tyco trial, where jury deliberation seems to be dragging a bit.
2004-03-26, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 3/26/2004We have competing speeches from the candidates for president. George Bush speaks on home ownership in New Mexico. John Kerry gives an economic policy address in Detroit. We'll take whichever one starts first, time how long we stay with it, then give the same time to the other. Try not to get caught in the ritual "thank you's" that usually precede the meat of the speech.
We expect demos in the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinians vent about the death of Sheikh Yassin. Today is a likely day for retaliatory violence. Be first on it.
Kofi Annan will announce a top level investigation into the oil for food scandal in which his son is a player. How can the investigation get anywhere when it's run by the father of one of the probe's targets?
The LAci and Conner Act passed the Senate and the Prez will sign it. What does this mean for law enforcement and what does it say about the status of the unborn?
2004-03-31, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 3/31/2004WEDNESDAY UPDATE: PLEASE BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR APRIL 1 HOAXES. IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, TAKE A BREATH AND THINK IT THROUGH. (with gratitude to Rev. Jackson)
Five American GIs killed in Iraq in a bomb and an attack represent one of the grimmest days there in months. There is also footage of a mutilated body being dragged down a road which WE WILL NOT AIR UNTIL IT HAS BEEN CLEARED.
March is the anniversary of the Kosovo conflict. What lessons can we learn from the UN handling of that troubled region as we look at its potential effect on Iraq.
The INTl Court of Justice ruling against the US is something that many americans might find offensive. We'll take a look at just what this court is, and what gives it the right to tell US courts what to do with death row prisoners.
We'll do another day of lives on the missing Wisconsin woman who's missing in suspicious circumstances.
Day 10 of the Tyco trial deliberations. What does the jury think the gold shower rings were for?
And, as if the country wasn't in enough trouble, folks in California are poaching bees so they can pollinate. No stinging or buzz puns, please.
2004-04-01, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/1/2004Again, and especially today, BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR HOAXES, FRAUDS AND OTHER APRIL FOOL'S STUFF.
The Wisconsin student found yesterday appears to be in good condition. Her captor is still at large. We'll keep Jeff Goldblatt on the story.
The pictures show in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom.
The US military has said its response to the Fallujah massacre will be measured but forceful. Be prepared to get on this when it happens.
Majorie Alexander, the girlfriend of Peter Gotti of mob fame, was found dead with a plastic bag fastened around her head. Our own button man, Eric Shawn, tells the tale of the duct tape.
The President signs the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also know as the Laci and Conner law. We'll take the ceremony and POTUS's remarks.
Kerry is out of action today because of his shoulder surgery.
Why does it take so long for military absentee votes to be mailed and are they being counted in national elections. Jim Angle has looked into this and has an interesting take on what could be a crucial segment of the electorate.
2004-04-04, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/4/2004MONDAY UPDATE: Into Fallujah: It's called Operation Vigilant Resolve and it began Monday morning (NY time) with the US and Iraqi military surrounding Fallujah. We will cover this hour by hour today, explaining repeatedly why it is happening. It won't be long before some people start to decry the use of "excessive force." We won't be among that group.
The continuing carnage in Iraq -- mostly the deaths of seven US troops in Sadr City -- is leaving the American military little choice but to punish perpetrators. When this happens, we should be ready to put in context the events that led to it. More than 600 US military dead, attacks on the UN headquarters last year, assassination of Irai officials who work with the coalition, the deaths of Spanish troops last fall, the outrage in Fallujah: whatever happens, it is richly deserved.
The Sharon interview with Israeli Army radio leaves little doubt that Yasser Arafat should not buy any green bananas. It's going to be a tricky road for Sharon who has previously promised not to harm the Palestinian figurehead
By the way, Israel will also be extra vigilant today as Passover begins. To all our collegues about to celebrate it, Zissen Pesach.
The President goes to Charlotte to talk about job training. Buoyed by the 300K job figure last week, he can boast his policies are working.
John Kerry has committed to selecting a running mate in the next two months, well before the Dem convention. He's back on the campaign trail after recovering from shoulder surgery.
2004-04-05, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/5/04More Americans dead in Iraq, as the military pursues Operation Vigilant Resolve in Fallujah and elsewhere. In Najaf, the anti-American cleric is hold up in a mosque with fighters around him.
The oil for food story being fronted by Eric Shawn is potentially a huge development. We have to be sure of each step, but if it works out, it will be a lede story after Iraq.
Air America, featuring Al Franken and other liberals, got on the air last week, but at what cost? Well, in New York, it took the place of an ethnic show. In LA, it knocked off a Korean program. And in CHicago,a spanish language broadcast was replaced. None of these people are happy.
2004-04-06, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/6/2004The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers.
For consistency, the town is Ramadi, not Al Ramadi.
"Fierce" is a good word, but let's find a few synonyms.
We'll start to preview Dr. Rice's testimony before congress on Thursday. Angle is the point man for this story.
Kerry's speech on the economy at Georgetown is likely to move onto the topic of Iraq. We should take the beginning of KErry's speech, see if it contains new information (aside from a promise to create 10 million jobs) and see if other news at the time is more compelling. It is not required to take it start to finish.
The hearing on Rush Limbaugh's medical records could be a death blow to the case against him. If the 3 judge panel rules that his doctor's records cannot be used bythe prosecution, the case is likely to go away. Orlando Salinas will be available for lives all day.
Eric Shawn will have another day of Oil for Food lives, to coincide with congressional hearings on the topic. It's possible Kofi Annan will offer some additional information on what was going on at the UN. Either way, Eric will have new, and possibly exclusive information.
fyi, and thanks to the DC bureau, here's part of what senate foreign affairs committee chairman richard lugar will say:
THIS CORRUPTION WAS NOT SOLELY A PRODUCT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN'S MACHINATIONS. HE REQUIRED MEMBERS OF THE U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL WHO WERE WILLING TO BE COMPLICIT IN HIS ACTIVITIES, AND HE REQUIRED U.N. OFFICIALS AND CONTRACTORS WHO WERE DISHONEST, INATTENTIVE, OR WILLING TO MAKE DAMAGING COMPROMISES IN PURSUIT OF A COMPASSIONATE MISSION.
2004-04-08, Ken LaCorte
From: Ken LaCorte
Date: 4/8/2004The day's main stories are Condoleezza Rice's testimony and the continued fighting in Iraq.
First reports coming out of battlefield are always suspect, especially when on the ground "witnesses" invent things, as often happens in Iraq. Early reports of the "Mosque bombing" were quite different from later ones. When fighters shoot at US troops from Mosque compounds, it shouldn't be surprising that we shoot back.
American deaths in this renewed fighting are an important element, but not the only element of the conflict. A battle is more than a macabre statistics report.
Army troops are "soldiers." Marines are not; they're "Marines."
2004-04-09, Ken LaCorte
From: Ken LaCorte
Date: 4/9/2004UPDATE: The NY Times this morning has an unnamed source citing a "general mood" that anti-Americanism is rising and the insurgence is getting broader. However, the majority of other report from the region (AP, Reuters and our competitors) state the opposite. Stick with what we know.
US fighting, or the suspension of fighting, in Fallujah is still the story of the day. The kidnapping and threatened execution of Japanese aid workers and a journalist is also noteworthy, as is that government's reaction to the "cowardly threats."
Today is Good Friday and the beginning of a holy week for Christians. Let's not lose sight of the fact that to millions of people, Easter is more than colored eggs and chocolate bunnies.
The religious significance of this week is also not lost on terrorists. Be ready if they're successful.
Condoleeza Rice's testimony will still be picked apart by those looking to blame someone, whether it's Bush or Clinton, for September 11. Let's not forget UBL's share of that blame.
With hearings and bureaucrats getting a lot of air time, don't slip into their language, e.g. a person is given or assigned a project, not "tasked" with one.
2004-04-19, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/19/2004Today is Patriots' Day. Let's be very alert to the events that have occurred on this day in past years: Ruby Ridge, OKC, Waco, and, one day later, Columbine.
There's also a lot of tension in the Middle East with the weekend killing of Rantisi. Hamas has selected a new leader but is not revealing the name, for obvious reasons.
2004-04-20, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/20/2004TUESDAY UPDATE: Please say a prayer or offer a kind thought for Gen. Paul Vallely, our valued military contributor and colleague. Gen. Vallely's son, Scott, has died. Until the circumstances become clear, we should not make mention of this on the air, both out of respect for our colleague, Paul and his wife, and until we know what happened.
The inconsistencies in the Woodward book are beginning to mount to the point of questioning the accuracy of the Watergate hero's latest tome. Brian Wilson is looking through the book, what was said, and what's been denied and what's just plain wrong.
Rumsfeld briefing: let's take it.
The time for talking in Fallujah is nearly up. Let's follow this as long as possible before talk turns to a new firefight.
It should be obvious that we are working hard on the oil for food scandal story at the UN. Please be disposed to use stories on this topic, rather than not.
2004-04-21, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/21/2004The attacks in the south of Iraq have killed a lot of Iraqis, mostly civilians, who have no direct involvement inthe war on terror. The question can be asked: who's in favor of saving lives, and who's trying to take them.
The bombings in SAudi Arabia are one of the kinds of terror in the Kingdom that we've been hearing warnings about for more than a week. We'll pick up whatever info we can, given that we can't get into Saudi Arabia.
The Oil for Food hearings are a turning point in a story that Fox has been pursuing diligently for weeks. Claudia Rossett, a former WSJ writer who has become a paid contributor to Fox, is among the witnesses testifying today. Label her just that way: Former Wall Street Journal reporter/Fox News Contributor.
If Michael Jackson is indicted on sex charges, it's a big story for us, but PLEASE don't turn it into a nonstop circus. Please also remember that an indictment is NOT the same thing as a conviction. We've staffed the Santa Monica courthouse but let's not overdo it.
2004-04-22, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/22/2004THURSDAY UPDATE: let's rock n roll with the korean train explosion. korean websites are speculating freely that it was a mistimed hit on kim. that gives us the right to quote them, and let guests etc speculate. it is eerie that it happened just hours after the dear leader finished his business in china and pointedly took the train home.
for all the fun i make of the Jackson story, it is competitive and needs to be covered aggressively. With that in mind, we've pulled out the stops for the day after indictment. Jacko will probably plead not guilty when he formally appears in court at the end of the month.
More serious and more important is the US military's end of waiting game for Fallujah. If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance.
John Kerry will hold an Earth Day event in Houston. If we know that he's going to speak, we should take some of it.'
'
Similarly, if the president speaks about the environment, we'll take a similar amount of his remarks.The National Education Association -- the NEA -- is supposedly neutral on the topic of abortion. Why then is it a co sponsor of Saturday's pro choice march in DC. Herridge has lives.
The CBS airing of a still picture of Diana dying in her car in Paris is causing a stir in England. We will not air the still. We can talk about it, describe it, analyze it. But we will NOT air the picture.
2004-04-23, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/23/2004As we worried yesterday, the death toll in the N Korean train wreck looks like it's being drastically revised downward. that doesn't mean we won't follow the story, to the exten we can get information from the Hermit Kingdom. The chance that it was an assassination against Kim is slim ( i took a poetry class to do this stuff). But it's not impossible.
Oil For Food, a story Fox News and the WSJ alone have kept front and center, may be approaching a new critical stage. Benon Sevan, the former head of the program, has returned to New York from his travels. Jonathan Hunt will track the story and Mr. Sevan's movements. Be careful what we say here. He hasn't been convicted yet, but he is a central figure in a mysterious set of circumstances.
The Moussaoui trial will proceed, a major victory for federal prosecutors and a boost for the judicial arm of the war on terror.
How does Hamas operate in the US? It buys apartment buildings for one thing. Catherine Herridge has the tale of Hamas Heights.
John Kerry has positioned himself squarely on the fight over abortion. He attends a pro-choice rally in DC, then addresses newspaper editors. We'll take the latter live.
The president goes to Florida to continue his Earth day remarks.
At the Vatican, which operates behind closed doors, Catholic theologians are discussing the moral responsibility of lawmakers who claim to be Catholics. While John Kerry's name will probably never be mentioned specifically, the debate includes is candidacy.
2004-04-26, John Moody
From: John Moody
Date: 4/26/2004The military action in Fallujah appears NOT to be the much anticipated US offensive to take the town. It may be terrorist activity to improve position before the push takes place. The coalition has said it will give people a chance to leave Fallujah before the offensive.
There was also an explosion at a factory near Baghdad. The factory's purpose is unclear.
Cheney will deliver a speech at Westminster college in Fulton Missouri. This is where, on March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his historic remarks and coining the term "The Iron Curtain." It's doubtful Cheney will forget to mention that.
Ribbons or medals? Which did John Kerry throw away after he returned from Vietnam. This may become an issue for him today. His perceived disrespect for the military could be more damaging to the candidate than questions about his actions in uniform.
The President is in Minnesota, where he speaks ot community colleges before returning to the White House. It's a day to make sure we take approximately equivalent live remarks from both candidates.
MONDAY UPDATE: THE BRITISH AUTHORITIES LOOKING INTO PRINCESS DIANA'S DEATH ARE TAKING A "CORONOR'S' TOUR" OF PARIS. NOT A CORONARY TOUR.
Michael Jackson's change of attorney was probably inevitable.We'll await the release of his statement top see if it means anything aside from fewer Mark Geragos pressers.
This is the week Kobe Bryant's accuser has her own seual past dissected. A Judge must decide whether the accuser's amorous history is relevant to her accusations.
Closing arguments in the Jayson Williams trial begin. There have been several delays which now appear at an end.
We'll do some lives about the San Francisco District Attorney who refuses t