Debating Bush Debating a Straw Man.
Dana Milbank accuses Our President of debating straw men, for example when The President said
"Some say, 'Well, maybe the recession should have been deeper. That bothers me when people say that. You see, a deeper recession would have meant more families would have been out of work." It takes one to know one. I mean how Can Mr Milbank accuse President Bush of debating with absurd idiots when he himself is debating with President Bush.
Although you know, I'm not sure Bush did that well against the recession supporters. I mean generally families refer to people who are out of work not families. I mean is our president in favor of child labor ? Or does he assume that work is a family activity, because his dad kept finding people to bail him out when he messed up at whatever job he was supposed to be doing ?
Maybe President Bush should stick to debating Depression supporters.
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Plan B might work out for Iraq
But only because the B-team was just over-ruled.
Batting 200. I tend to avoid making predictions, but I couldn't resist trying to guess the Iraqi interim government. I hedged a bit by making 5 guesses for 4 positions. Looks like I get 1 out of 5 Ibrahim al-Jaafari is a vice president. My last chance for a decent batting average was that the B team (Brahimi, Blackwill,Bremer and Bush) was trying to impose as President Adnan Pachachi (main qualification he is a Sunni and he doesn't hate Bush). In its last act the IGC insisted on Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar who is very critical of the occupation.
I think this is very good news, because the interim government has to appear to be independent from the USA to get the support of Iraqis, since the vast majority of Iraqis are very angry at the USA. Also the fact that the IGC which is, at least made up of Iraqis, got its way, might partly mollify Iraqis who are angry over the repeated offences (some inevitable some criminal and stupid) against Iraqi national pride.
Ghazi al-Yawar sue doesn't look pleased (that is he is not crazy).
The Sheik is about my age, so I can take some comfort in the fact that, although I have gotten myself into some bad situations, I've never gotten myself elected president of Iraq.
And what about Ibrahim al-Jaafari. He appeared in an old poll as the most trusted man in Iraq. More recently he came in third making him the man in Iraq with the most support who is actually Iraqi (unlike Sistani) and sane (unlike al Sadr). He gets the vice presidency in a proto parliamentary system in which the prime minister has the real power. If, as cactus Jack Garner said, the US vice presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm s*it" what is the Iraqi interim vice presidency worth ?
But only because the B-team was just over-ruled.
Batting 200. I tend to avoid making predictions, but I couldn't resist trying to guess the Iraqi interim government. I hedged a bit by making 5 guesses for 4 positions. Looks like I get 1 out of 5 Ibrahim al-Jaafari is a vice president. My last chance for a decent batting average was that the B team (Brahimi, Blackwill,Bremer and Bush) was trying to impose as President Adnan Pachachi (main qualification he is a Sunni and he doesn't hate Bush). In its last act the IGC insisted on Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawar who is very critical of the occupation.
I think this is very good news, because the interim government has to appear to be independent from the USA to get the support of Iraqis, since the vast majority of Iraqis are very angry at the USA. Also the fact that the IGC which is, at least made up of Iraqis, got its way, might partly mollify Iraqis who are angry over the repeated offences (some inevitable some criminal and stupid) against Iraqi national pride.
Ghazi al-Yawar sue doesn't look pleased (that is he is not crazy).
The Sheik is about my age, so I can take some comfort in the fact that, although I have gotten myself into some bad situations, I've never gotten myself elected president of Iraq.
And what about Ibrahim al-Jaafari. He appeared in an old poll as the most trusted man in Iraq. More recently he came in third making him the man in Iraq with the most support who is actually Iraqi (unlike Sistani) and sane (unlike al Sadr). He gets the vice presidency in a proto parliamentary system in which the prime minister has the real power. If, as cactus Jack Garner said, the US vice presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm s*it" what is the Iraqi interim vice presidency worth ?
Billmon's Whiskey Bar is open again ! I might have missed the re-opening but, I admit, that the temprorary closure drove me to Jack Daniel's for comfort. His memorial day post is beautiful.
Monday, May 31, 2004
Memories
In the may 31 New York Times web page
Stephanie Rosenbloom quotes Bush in a very brief article
"Debt to Veterans Is 'Beyond Our Power to Repay,' Bush Says"
I suppose it would be unprofessional or something to note that Bush (like Robrt Waldmann) isn't in favor of doing all we can
to repay it, as noted in the Washington Post and uhm the New York Times. Certainly it would be improper to note how unwise it is for President Bush to use phrases like "beyond our power to repay" when investors who might take them literally are listening.
In the may 31 New York Times web page
Stephanie Rosenbloom quotes Bush in a very brief article
"Debt to Veterans Is 'Beyond Our Power to Repay,' Bush Says"
I suppose it would be unprofessional or something to note that Bush (like Robrt Waldmann) isn't in favor of doing all we can
to repay it, as noted in the Washington Post and uhm the New York Times. Certainly it would be improper to note how unwise it is for President Bush to use phrases like "beyond our power to repay" when investors who might take them literally are listening.
Hmmm Chalabi needed money so he decided to atack Clinton
Jane Mayer's excellent and important article in the New Yorker includes this very interesting passage.
All very clear. Chalabi has alienated his patrons at the CIA and so he decides to get into the Clinton bashing biz. The Clinton bashers are totally cynical so they get along fine.
There is one odd bit. What exactly does this have to do with money ? Is it just that the Iraq Liberation Act was payment for Clinton bashing services rendered ? Or did some rich Clinton haters pay up front ?
I stress that I am in no way hinting that I suspect that Richard Mellon Scaife is a friend of Iranian spies.
Jane Mayer's excellent and important article in the New Yorker includes this very interesting passage.
Chalabi was running out of money, however, and he needed new patrons. Brooke said that he and Chalabi hit upon a notion that, he admitted, was “naked politics”: the I.N.C.’s disastrous history of foiled C.I.A. operations under the Clinton Administration could be turned into a partisan weapon for the Republicans. “Clinton gave us a huge opportunity,” Brooke said. “We took a Republican Congress and pitted it against a Democratic White House. We really hurt and embarrassed the President.” The Republican leadership in Congress, he conceded, “didn’t care that much about the ammunition. They just wanted to beat up the President.” Nonetheless, he said, senior Republican senators, including Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, “were very receptive, right away.”
All very clear. Chalabi has alienated his patrons at the CIA and so he decides to get into the Clinton bashing biz. The Clinton bashers are totally cynical so they get along fine.
There is one odd bit. What exactly does this have to do with money ? Is it just that the Iraq Liberation Act was payment for Clinton bashing services rendered ? Or did some rich Clinton haters pay up front ?
I stress that I am in no way hinting that I suspect that Richard Mellon Scaife is a friend of Iranian spies.
It's official The Washington Post editorial board writes
"Mr. Kerry is in the process of setting out what looks like a sober and substantial alternative to Mr. Bush's foreign policy, one that correctly identifies the incumbent's greatest failing"
and closes
"Mr. Kerry's argument is that he has a better chance of making it work. It's not a bold offer to voters -- but it's probably the right one."
So it looks like the are endorsing Kerry.
I wonder if Charles Krauthammer finds the new tone agreable. This is a matter of great urgency to me, because I suffer from neurotic leftiness and I think that Dr Krauthammer is the only psychiatrist who can help me.
I have an offer Dr Kruathammer, quit the Post and practice psychoanalysis. I am willing to pay you to analyse my neurotic inability to understand that you are always right about anything.
Let no one say that I am not willing to suffer a fate worse than death for the cause.
"Mr. Kerry is in the process of setting out what looks like a sober and substantial alternative to Mr. Bush's foreign policy, one that correctly identifies the incumbent's greatest failing"
and closes
"Mr. Kerry's argument is that he has a better chance of making it work. It's not a bold offer to voters -- but it's probably the right one."
So it looks like the are endorsing Kerry.
I wonder if Charles Krauthammer finds the new tone agreable. This is a matter of great urgency to me, because I suffer from neurotic leftiness and I think that Dr Krauthammer is the only psychiatrist who can help me.
I have an offer Dr Kruathammer, quit the Post and practice psychoanalysis. I am willing to pay you to analyse my neurotic inability to understand that you are always right about anything.
Let no one say that I am not willing to suffer a fate worse than death for the cause.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Spencer Ackerman's excellent article on the Iyad Alawi's "zipless coup" contains a very odd assertion which caught my picky picky eye.
"An ABC News poll from March found that the number of Iraqis who trust Allawi above other leaders was statistically insignificant."
This could only mean statistically insignicantly different from 0. In fact, even one such response rejects the null that the true number is zero at any confidence interval. This is obvious. Since at least one Iraqi who was polled said Allawi, then out of all Iraqis at least one would answer Allawi. The reported result * should be interpreted as more than zero but less that 0.5%.
Pollsters tend to report "sampling standard error" as if it is constant, but, in fact, it depends on the fraction of the population which would respond positively. The sampling error as reported is useful for testing the null that the fraction of the population which would respond positively is 0.5. In general the sampling standard error is proportional to the square root of p*(1-p)/n where n is the number interviewed and p is the fraction of the poopulation. Thus if the true fraction of Iraqis who trusted Allawi most was zero, the sampling standard error would be zero.
In contrast, since the fraction of respondents who report trusting George W. Bush most is exactly 0, the null that the true fraction of Iraqis who trust Bush most is zero can not be rejected.
"An ABC News poll from March found that the number of Iraqis who trust Allawi above other leaders was statistically insignificant."
This could only mean statistically insignicantly different from 0. In fact, even one such response rejects the null that the true number is zero at any confidence interval. This is obvious. Since at least one Iraqi who was polled said Allawi, then out of all Iraqis at least one would answer Allawi. The reported result * should be interpreted as more than zero but less that 0.5%.
Pollsters tend to report "sampling standard error" as if it is constant, but, in fact, it depends on the fraction of the population which would respond positively. The sampling error as reported is useful for testing the null that the fraction of the population which would respond positively is 0.5. In general the sampling standard error is proportional to the square root of p*(1-p)/n where n is the number interviewed and p is the fraction of the poopulation. Thus if the true fraction of Iraqis who trusted Allawi most was zero, the sampling standard error would be zero.
In contrast, since the fraction of respondents who report trusting George W. Bush most is exactly 0, the null that the true fraction of Iraqis who trust Bush most is zero can not be rejected.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Everyone is dumping on the New York Times. Peter Johnson at USA Today complains that the editors' apology for hyping bogus Iraqi WMD stories is insufficient writing that
" its message was obtuse at best.
"The Times' exercise would leave any less-than-knowledgeable reader wondering what the hell they were talking about," says former Newsweek chief Osborn Elliot."
Uh Mr Johnson, you have a point, but if you are criticizing the New York Times it is very obtuse to confuse "obtuse" and "abstruse."
More seriously Johnson quotes a very dubious claim without mentioning the possibility that it might be false
Goodman's assertion is that Miller lied, that is that she knew that the claims she was repeating were false. This is not proven. There is a difference between being credulous and lying, as there is a difference between repeating dubious claims and lying. The comparison with Blaire who knew his invented stories were invented makes it clear that this is not a slip of the tongue or my misunderstanding.
Goodman must understand this distinction and either has evidence that Miller knew the claims she repeated were false or she is lying. However, Johnson is certainly not lying when he quotes her (assuming he is quoting her correctly).
The difference between an error and a lie is not abstruse like the distinction between obtuse and abstruse.
" its message was obtuse at best.
"The Times' exercise would leave any less-than-knowledgeable reader wondering what the hell they were talking about," says former Newsweek chief Osborn Elliot."
Uh Mr Johnson, you have a point, but if you are criticizing the New York Times it is very obtuse to confuse "obtuse" and "abstruse."
More seriously Johnson quotes a very dubious claim without mentioning the possibility that it might be false
"Unlike Blair's deceptions, Miller's lies provided the pretext for war. Her lies cost lives. If only the Times had done the same kind of investigation of Miller's reports as it had with Blair," says Amy Goodman, author of The Exception to the Rulers, which takes Miller to task for her stories. "It's outrageous to have a simple editor's note buried on page A10, while their repetition of the administrations' lies was consistently given top billing on the front pages of the paper."
Goodman's assertion is that Miller lied, that is that she knew that the claims she was repeating were false. This is not proven. There is a difference between being credulous and lying, as there is a difference between repeating dubious claims and lying. The comparison with Blaire who knew his invented stories were invented makes it clear that this is not a slip of the tongue or my misunderstanding.
Goodman must understand this distinction and either has evidence that Miller knew the claims she repeated were false or she is lying. However, Johnson is certainly not lying when he quotes her (assuming he is quoting her correctly).
The difference between an error and a lie is not abstruse like the distinction between obtuse and abstruse.
Second Google test of the claim by DOUGLAS JEHL and ANDREA ELLIOTT
on the New York Times web page that "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo. Most of the criticisms have generally focused on the lack of legal rights and due process and the indefinite nature of the detentions."
After the first proof that this claim is false from the first hit of my first google search for "release guantanamo british" (see below)other hits were so and so demands release of British prisoners in Guantanamo. This time I googled "released guantanamo british " and got google results which clearly proves DOUGLAS JEHL and ANDREA ELLIOTT's simple assertion of facct false one two three
four five six seven eight
nine ten
times.
I admit that I am lazy. The only reason it took me 45 minutes to prove 11 times that a claim in the New York Times is definitely false is that I took a long coffee break and type slowly.
update: On the other hand DOUGLAS JEHL, ANDREA ELLIOTT , Eric Schmitt and Leslie Wayne clealry did a lot of work on the article and managed to get a quote from "one member of the 377th [Military Police] Company" who had been ordered not to talk to reporters while 6 followed the order and refused to talk. Since you can't get phone numbers for memberrs for members of the famous 377th Military Police Company they are clearly more hard working than I am (that is saying very little make it much much much more hard working). I guess the false claim was a slip. I will update the NY Times page to see if it is corrected.
update: 18:19 Rome time the New York Times still claims "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo."
update: 19:19 Rome time the New York Times still claims "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo." and Douglas Jehl haw written another article, this time with Kate Zernike. The econd article is really important. I like your stuff Mr Jehl but, you know, don't let quantity of sentences come at the cost of quality control. It would be a shame if all the excellent work were undermined by one silly sentence, not that there is much chance of that given how few people read this blog.
Update: 0:22 AM Sunday May 30th Rome time. Still no change the article still reports "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo. " I guess by now it is a matter of permanent record in our Newspaper of record. Sigh
on the New York Times web page that "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo. Most of the criticisms have generally focused on the lack of legal rights and due process and the indefinite nature of the detentions."
After the first proof that this claim is false from the first hit of my first google search for "release guantanamo british" (see below)other hits were so and so demands release of British prisoners in Guantanamo. This time I googled "released guantanamo british " and got google results which clearly proves DOUGLAS JEHL and ANDREA ELLIOTT's simple assertion of facct false one two three
four five six seven eight
nine ten
times.
I admit that I am lazy. The only reason it took me 45 minutes to prove 11 times that a claim in the New York Times is definitely false is that I took a long coffee break and type slowly.
update: On the other hand DOUGLAS JEHL, ANDREA ELLIOTT , Eric Schmitt and Leslie Wayne clealry did a lot of work on the article and managed to get a quote from "one member of the 377th [Military Police] Company" who had been ordered not to talk to reporters while 6 followed the order and refused to talk. Since you can't get phone numbers for memberrs for members of the famous 377th Military Police Company they are clearly more hard working than I am (that is saying very little make it much much much more hard working). I guess the false claim was a slip. I will update the NY Times page to see if it is corrected.
update: 18:19 Rome time the New York Times still claims "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo."
update: 19:19 Rome time the New York Times still claims "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo." and Douglas Jehl haw written another article, this time with Kate Zernike. The econd article is really important. I like your stuff Mr Jehl but, you know, don't let quantity of sentences come at the cost of quality control. It would be a shame if all the excellent work were undermined by one silly sentence, not that there is much chance of that given how few people read this blog.
Update: 0:22 AM Sunday May 30th Rome time. Still no change the article still reports "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo. " I guess by now it is a matter of permanent record in our Newspaper of record. Sigh
On the NY Times Web page DOUGLAS JEHL and ANDREA ELLIOTT
write "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo. Most of the criticisms have generally focused on the lack of legal rights and due process and the indefinite nature of the detentions."
This is a very clear and firm statement. They do not write that there have been no accusations demonstrated valid without doubt by photographic evidence. They do not even write that there have been no credible accusations, they write there have been no accusations.
This claim does not pass the Google test. I recalled that British prisoners alleged abuse after they had been relesed and googled "release guantanamo british "
The first hit was an al Jazeera webb article which contains the assertion
Two former British detainees released from Guantanomo Bay have told Australian television about Habib's treatment.
Theses are clearly "accusation] of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo"
The simple assertion of fact made by DOUGLAS JEHL and ANDREA ELLIOTT is demonstrably false.
Elapsed time to prove a blatent falsehood was published by the New York times less than 3 minutes. Slow typing means this was posted 15 minutes after I read the claim in the New York Times.
This is supposed to be our newspaper of record. Shouldn't it take more than 3 minutes to prove that it publishes falsehoods ?
update: Dear reader. You almost certainly came here clicking on a link on Eschaton. Thanks Atrios. I am grateful but greedy so I would like to try to get you to look at more than one page. Atrides might also be interested in main, my follow up, a commenter asked where I got the phrase "sleep depravation" I reply in comments but I forgot this, my definition of subliminable,
, The suprising scoops that Bush decided not to attack Ansar al Islam dated 2002, 2003 and 2004, The Gallup likely voter anomaly, Blogging against excesses in the war on terror with one hand tied behind my back
Mark Kleiman liked this comment on his views of preventing torture, If I am right this might be a scoop if we can trust Chalabi, important news on lung cancer plus some statistical innumeracy in the NY Times I agree with Ahmad Chalabi, I wonder when Safire will denounce the accretion of acrimonious acronyms
the left blogosphere, weird headlines
.
write "To date, there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo. Most of the criticisms have generally focused on the lack of legal rights and due process and the indefinite nature of the detentions."
This is a very clear and firm statement. They do not write that there have been no accusations demonstrated valid without doubt by photographic evidence. They do not even write that there have been no credible accusations, they write there have been no accusations.
This claim does not pass the Google test. I recalled that British prisoners alleged abuse after they had been relesed and googled "release guantanamo british "
The first hit was an al Jazeera webb article which contains the assertion
Two former British detainees released from Guantanomo Bay have told Australian television about Habib's treatment.
Jamal al-Harith told the Seven Network that Habib had been subjected to beatings and four days of sleep depravation..
"Blood was coming out of his nose and out of his ears," al-Harith said.
"They were moving him out back and forth, cell to cell every two hours and he wasn't allowed to sleep. He was very tired and sometimes he complained he couldn't walk, but they'd drag him."
Al-Harith, who said he was held in a cell near Habib in Guantanamo claimed that prostitutes were used to humiliate prisoners during interrogations.
Another British former Guantanamo Bay detainee said Habib was abused by his captors.
"I could see him being dragged by chains that were attached to his feet and him screaming in agony," Tariq Dergul told Channel Seven.
Theses are clearly "accusation] of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo"
The simple assertion of fact made by DOUGLAS JEHL and ANDREA ELLIOTT is demonstrably false.
Elapsed time to prove a blatent falsehood was published by the New York times less than 3 minutes. Slow typing means this was posted 15 minutes after I read the claim in the New York Times.
This is supposed to be our newspaper of record. Shouldn't it take more than 3 minutes to prove that it publishes falsehoods ?
update: Dear reader. You almost certainly came here clicking on a link on Eschaton. Thanks Atrios. I am grateful but greedy so I would like to try to get you to look at more than one page. Atrides might also be interested in main, my follow up, a commenter asked where I got the phrase "sleep depravation" I reply in comments but I forgot this, my definition of subliminable,
, The suprising scoops that Bush decided not to attack Ansar al Islam dated 2002, 2003 and 2004, The Gallup likely voter anomaly, Blogging against excesses in the war on terror with one hand tied behind my back
Mark Kleiman liked this comment on his views of preventing torture, If I am right this might be a scoop if we can trust Chalabi, important news on lung cancer plus some statistical innumeracy in the NY Times I agree with Ahmad Chalabi, I wonder when Safire will denounce the accretion of acrimonious acronyms
the left blogosphere, weird headlines
.
You probably didn't read it here first, but the theory that Michael Ledeen is an Iranian spy has been winning a lot of converts lately, including Matthew Yglesias (who might actually conceivably not be completely joking), Jim Henley (who is clearly joking perhaps because he has a heavier hand with the irony than Matt), and Atrios (who claims he isn't sure we are all joking anymore, not that he knows who I am).
Seriously has anyone else reported that we know that Chalabi told the Iranians we had broken their code ? If true this should be kept secret so they think they can trick us by using a broken code. I have seen the claim reported only by Ledeen (twice).
And have you noticed that Michael Ledeen looks Iranian ?
I mean so do I, and I am not an Iranian OR an Iranian spy, but, I mean, where did he get that tan ?
Update: Michale Ledeen is no longer alone (if he ever was) Jane Mayer writes in the New Yorker that "According to a Chalabi aide, the I.N.C. has heard that it will be accused of telling Iran’s intelligence service that the U.S. had cracked one of its internal codes."
I suppose the cat is well out of the bag, but I wonder how the US found out about this. I assume that Michael Ledeens straw man who thinks that the Iranians used the broken code to report that Chalabi had told them that the code was broken is not only nonexistent but also wrong. Iranian intelligence take note, I don't know squat, but if the US found out via a source in Iran that source is likely to be rather peeved with Ledeen and Mayer.
I'm sure they are delighted to have their names linked given how highly they probably think of each other. I only regret that they don't know or care what I think of them.
There is an interesting twist as each tries to determine who will be blamed for revealing the secret to journalists. Neither mentions the possibilityu of not reporting what they knew, but they present very different stories as to how they found out. Ledeen puts the blame on un-named intel officials writing "some intel officials in town are saying two things to the journalists: 1) We broke the Iranians' communication codes, so we were reading their mail. Chalabi found out about this, and told the Iranian intelligence chief in Baghdad."
while Mayer quotes an un-named Chalabi aid. Now, what is the chance that Mayer had better contacts close to Chalabi while researching "THE MANIPULATOR :Ahmad Chalabi pushed a tainted case for war. Can he survive the occupation?" than Ledeen. I think it is clear that Ledeen got the information from Chalabi associates and is trying to shift the blame for the leak to un-named intel officials who told numerous un-named journalists.
Seriously has anyone else reported that we know that Chalabi told the Iranians we had broken their code ? If true this should be kept secret so they think they can trick us by using a broken code. I have seen the claim reported only by Ledeen (twice).
And have you noticed that Michael Ledeen looks Iranian ?
I mean so do I, and I am not an Iranian OR an Iranian spy, but, I mean, where did he get that tan ?
Update: Michale Ledeen is no longer alone (if he ever was) Jane Mayer writes in the New Yorker that "According to a Chalabi aide, the I.N.C. has heard that it will be accused of telling Iran’s intelligence service that the U.S. had cracked one of its internal codes."
I suppose the cat is well out of the bag, but I wonder how the US found out about this. I assume that Michael Ledeens straw man who thinks that the Iranians used the broken code to report that Chalabi had told them that the code was broken is not only nonexistent but also wrong. Iranian intelligence take note, I don't know squat, but if the US found out via a source in Iran that source is likely to be rather peeved with Ledeen and Mayer.
I'm sure they are delighted to have their names linked given how highly they probably think of each other. I only regret that they don't know or care what I think of them.
There is an interesting twist as each tries to determine who will be blamed for revealing the secret to journalists. Neither mentions the possibilityu of not reporting what they knew, but they present very different stories as to how they found out. Ledeen puts the blame on un-named intel officials writing "some intel officials in town are saying two things to the journalists: 1) We broke the Iranians' communication codes, so we were reading their mail. Chalabi found out about this, and told the Iranian intelligence chief in Baghdad."
while Mayer quotes an un-named Chalabi aid. Now, what is the chance that Mayer had better contacts close to Chalabi while researching "THE MANIPULATOR :Ahmad Chalabi pushed a tainted case for war. Can he survive the occupation?" than Ledeen. I think it is clear that Ledeen got the information from Chalabi associates and is trying to shift the blame for the leak to un-named intel officials who told numerous un-named journalists.
The Bush administration never misses a chance to miss a chance.
The New York Times reports that they have chosen Dr Dr. Iyad (Bay of Goats) Allawi as interim prime minister of Iraq. The article makes it very clear that this decision was imposed on the UN
and
In plain English "the Iraqis" are the unpopular US nominated IGC which just chose to name a member who is a long-time exile close to the CIA. The Bush administration went along, although it had previously said the IGC would not have authority to choose without reaching agreement with the coalition and the UN. The UN then had to go along but they are diplomatically making it clear that they are angry.
I can't believe that I let myself be disappointed by the Bush administration. I thought they had made it clear that they had given Brahimi power to choose the interim prime minister provided he consulted with Robert D. Blackwill and that they agreed on Hussain Shahristani. I let myself hope.
In fact I became irrationally optimistic, irrationally because Bush is still president.
The least of the matter is that this ruins my unfunny by erudite joke
"What the Iraqi interim government needs is to avoid exclusion focus like a laser beam and achieve strength through coherence. As a physicist, Shahristani knows that all of these things depend on Spin."
The Pauli exclusion principal applies to fermions which have spin an odd multiple of hbar/2. In contrast, Bozons which have spin a multiple of hbar can be identical. In fact, because of the coherant supposition of wave states bozons such as photons can make powerful beams as occurs in a laser.
Also Lakhdar Brahimi found out about Shahristani when Shahristani wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and the thought that the cure of Iraq's woes was found in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal was so sureally weird as to be wonderful.
The New York Times reports that they have chosen Dr Dr. Iyad (Bay of Goats) Allawi as interim prime minister of Iraq. The article makes it very clear that this decision was imposed on the UN
At United Nations headquarters in New York, officials contended that they were caught unawares by the announcement but said that they endorsed the choice.
"Mr. Brahimi respects the decision and says he can work with this person," said Fred Eckhard, the spokesman for Secretary General Kofi Annan. Asked what Mr. Annan's view was, Mr. Eckhard said, "The Secretary General respects the decision, as I said Mr. Brahimi does. `Respect' is a very carefully chosen word."
and
Mr. Eckhard said, "This is not the way we expected this to happen, no, but the Iraqis seem to agree on this name, and if they do, Mr. Brahimi is ready to work with him."
In plain English "the Iraqis" are the unpopular US nominated IGC which just chose to name a member who is a long-time exile close to the CIA. The Bush administration went along, although it had previously said the IGC would not have authority to choose without reaching agreement with the coalition and the UN. The UN then had to go along but they are diplomatically making it clear that they are angry.
I can't believe that I let myself be disappointed by the Bush administration. I thought they had made it clear that they had given Brahimi power to choose the interim prime minister provided he consulted with Robert D. Blackwill and that they agreed on Hussain Shahristani. I let myself hope.
In fact I became irrationally optimistic, irrationally because Bush is still president.
The least of the matter is that this ruins my unfunny by erudite joke
"What the Iraqi interim government needs is to avoid exclusion focus like a laser beam and achieve strength through coherence. As a physicist, Shahristani knows that all of these things depend on Spin."
The Pauli exclusion principal applies to fermions which have spin an odd multiple of hbar/2. In contrast, Bozons which have spin a multiple of hbar can be identical. In fact, because of the coherant supposition of wave states bozons such as photons can make powerful beams as occurs in a laser.
Also Lakhdar Brahimi found out about Shahristani when Shahristani wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and the thought that the cure of Iraq's woes was found in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal was so sureally weird as to be wonderful.
Friday, May 28, 2004
If Bush has lost the Pasadena police department he's lost the country.
From the Washington Post
"I support our troops, but I certainly don't agree with what we're trying to do by trying to Americanize and westernize a culture that doesn't want to be Americanized," said Janet Pope, a management analyst for the Pasadena Police Department. "I'm worried and borderline disgusted that many of our young people will die in this war when we truly don't know the reasons behind it."
Trying for balance the Post sent reporters to Orange county (I know it's not the hive of wingnuts it used to be) and Ogallala Nebraska. They found one guy who blames Iraqis and doesn't blame Bush and published his photo. Hell maybe he was just trying to get his photo in the Post.
If it keeps going like this, you think maybe Bush will have to ask Chirac for political asylum ?
Update Eliabetta Addis asks "Why Chirac". Reply "The French will take anyone."
France is, after all, the country that gave asylum to Ayatollah Khomeini and various Red Brigades suspects.
From the Washington Post
"I support our troops, but I certainly don't agree with what we're trying to do by trying to Americanize and westernize a culture that doesn't want to be Americanized," said Janet Pope, a management analyst for the Pasadena Police Department. "I'm worried and borderline disgusted that many of our young people will die in this war when we truly don't know the reasons behind it."
Trying for balance the Post sent reporters to Orange county (I know it's not the hive of wingnuts it used to be) and Ogallala Nebraska. They found one guy who blames Iraqis and doesn't blame Bush and published his photo. Hell maybe he was just trying to get his photo in the Post.
If it keeps going like this, you think maybe Bush will have to ask Chirac for political asylum ?
Update Eliabetta Addis asks "Why Chirac". Reply "The French will take anyone."
France is, after all, the country that gave asylum to Ayatollah Khomeini and various Red Brigades suspects.
Shorter Paul Krugman
I told you so.
Krugman actually maintains his dignity while being forced to admit that the majority (55%) of American mainstream journalists are admitting that the vast majority of mainstream American journalists were not as good at their main job as Paul Krugman is at his hobby.
The story is familiar, for one thing Krugman has indeed been writing it for years. I was interested in an economists view of the first of Krugman's explanations for the press being too soft on Bush
"So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief."
I see this as reporters deciding that, given the emergency, it was necessary for them to suppress their combative inclinations and their desire to gain fame by scoring points against the administration. That is, reporters typically balance the fun and advantages of aggressive reporting and their sense of guilt for undermining national unity.
If so, what we see, except from 9/11 till about now, is the action of the invisible hand. Each individual reporter aims to gain fame, score points and scare people with real power by aggressive reporting. That is each acts from nasty or selfish motives. However, theinvisible hand of the marketplace of ideas fashions truth and rational debate from the struggle between spin and hostile reporting. When reporters decide that the nation's interest requires them to act according to their better natures, ignorance, confusion and an unnecessary war result.
I told you so.
Krugman actually maintains his dignity while being forced to admit that the majority (55%) of American mainstream journalists are admitting that the vast majority of mainstream American journalists were not as good at their main job as Paul Krugman is at his hobby.
The story is familiar, for one thing Krugman has indeed been writing it for years. I was interested in an economists view of the first of Krugman's explanations for the press being too soft on Bush
"So why did the press credit Mr. Bush with virtues that reporters knew he didn't possess? One answer is misplaced patriotism. After 9/11 much of the press seemed to reach a collective decision that it was necessary, in the interests of national unity, to suppress criticism of the commander in chief."
I see this as reporters deciding that, given the emergency, it was necessary for them to suppress their combative inclinations and their desire to gain fame by scoring points against the administration. That is, reporters typically balance the fun and advantages of aggressive reporting and their sense of guilt for undermining national unity.
If so, what we see, except from 9/11 till about now, is the action of the invisible hand. Each individual reporter aims to gain fame, score points and scare people with real power by aggressive reporting. That is each acts from nasty or selfish motives. However, theinvisible hand of the marketplace of ideas fashions truth and rational debate from the struggle between spin and hostile reporting. When reporters decide that the nation's interest requires them to act according to their better natures, ignorance, confusion and an unnecessary war result.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Silly me I began looking up the articles mentioned in the NY Times apology for letting Chalabi and the Bush administration trick them before finishing the artilce. It contains a link to a page of links to the stories.
Not only was this pointless, it was also difficult since the apology refers to the dateline of articles and the searchable Times by the date of publication which is sometimes a day later.
I was impressed by the classy apology and especially the unwillingness to look for a scapegoat. The authors of the apology are right that, when a newspaper errs, the blame must always be shared among reporters and editors.
To bad I have no class at all so I wanted names.
Judith Miller was an author or co author of 7 of the 9 criticized articles, which is, all of them published after Dec 20 2001. Two of her 7 articles do not seem to me to communicate dubious claims about weapons.
She was an author or co author of 2 out of 5 articles which follow up and cast doubt on the criticized articles. Finally she was author or co-author of 0 out of 12 articles presented because they " cast doubt on key claims about Iraq's weapons programs, and on the reliability of some defectors."
In other words, the classy folks at the Times are not saying in so many words that Judith Miller was the problem, because the information to which they link makes the case for them.
Czechs Confirm Iraqi Agent Met With Terror Ringleader
By PATRICK E. TYLER with JOHN TAGLIABUE
Published: October 27, 2001
November 8, 2001, Thursday $
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SCHOOL; Defectors Cite Iraqi Training For Terrorism
By CHRIS HEDGES (NYT) 1427 words
December 20, 2001, Thursday $
A NATION CHALLENGED: SECRET SITES; Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites For Chemical and Nuclear Arms
By JUDITH MILLER (NYT) 1870 words
Snowed by Bush administration hiding DOE dissent.
September 8, 2002, Sunday
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE IRAQIS; U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JUDITH MILLER (NYT) 3603 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 1 , Page 1 , Column 6
Challenges to above article buried on page A-13
September 13, 2002, Friday $
THREATS AND RESPONSES: BAGHDAD'S ARSENAL; White House Lists Iraq Steps To Build Banned Weapons
By JUDITH MILLER and MICHAEL R. GORDON (NYT) 853 words
Further Callenge on page A-10 published Jan 10 although dateline Jan 9
Agency Challenges Evidence Against Iraq Cited by Bush
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9
Quote without challenging a scientist who later claims to be an
April 21, 2003, Monday $
AFTEREFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
By JUDITH MILLER (NYT) 1403 words
No Weapons found yet. Spin that this is no big deal quoted at length
THE SEARCH
Focus Shifts From Weapons to the People Behind Them
By JUDITH MILLER
SOUTH OF BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 22
Headline "Chemical Agents" no subtitle "Remember di Hydrogen Oxide is a Chemical Agent"
U.S-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical Agents
By JUDITH MILLER
WITH MET ALPHA, in Baghdad, Iraq, April 23
The Trailor with a fermenter
May 21, 2003
U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms
By JUDITH MILLER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Qualified
June 7, 2003
Some Analysts of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use
By JUDITH MILLER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
and
June 26, 2003:
Agency Disputes C.I.A. View of Trailers as Iraqi Weapons Labs
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, June 25
Not only was this pointless, it was also difficult since the apology refers to the dateline of articles and the searchable Times by the date of publication which is sometimes a day later.
I was impressed by the classy apology and especially the unwillingness to look for a scapegoat. The authors of the apology are right that, when a newspaper errs, the blame must always be shared among reporters and editors.
To bad I have no class at all so I wanted names.
Judith Miller was an author or co author of 7 of the 9 criticized articles, which is, all of them published after Dec 20 2001. Two of her 7 articles do not seem to me to communicate dubious claims about weapons.
She was an author or co author of 2 out of 5 articles which follow up and cast doubt on the criticized articles. Finally she was author or co-author of 0 out of 12 articles presented because they " cast doubt on key claims about Iraq's weapons programs, and on the reliability of some defectors."
In other words, the classy folks at the Times are not saying in so many words that Judith Miller was the problem, because the information to which they link makes the case for them.
Czechs Confirm Iraqi Agent Met With Terror Ringleader
By PATRICK E. TYLER with JOHN TAGLIABUE
Published: October 27, 2001
November 8, 2001, Thursday $
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SCHOOL; Defectors Cite Iraqi Training For Terrorism
By CHRIS HEDGES (NYT) 1427 words
December 20, 2001, Thursday $
A NATION CHALLENGED: SECRET SITES; Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites For Chemical and Nuclear Arms
By JUDITH MILLER (NYT) 1870 words
Snowed by Bush administration hiding DOE dissent.
September 8, 2002, Sunday
THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE IRAQIS; U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JUDITH MILLER (NYT) 3603 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 1 , Page 1 , Column 6
Challenges to above article buried on page A-13
September 13, 2002, Friday $
THREATS AND RESPONSES: BAGHDAD'S ARSENAL; White House Lists Iraq Steps To Build Banned Weapons
By JUDITH MILLER and MICHAEL R. GORDON (NYT) 853 words
Further Callenge on page A-10 published Jan 10 although dateline Jan 9
Agency Challenges Evidence Against Iraq Cited by Bush
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Jan. 9
Quote without challenging a scientist who later claims to be an
April 21, 2003, Monday $
AFTEREFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert
By JUDITH MILLER (NYT) 1403 words
No Weapons found yet. Spin that this is no big deal quoted at length
THE SEARCH
Focus Shifts From Weapons to the People Behind Them
By JUDITH MILLER
SOUTH OF BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 22
Headline "Chemical Agents" no subtitle "Remember di Hydrogen Oxide is a Chemical Agent"
U.S-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical Agents
By JUDITH MILLER
WITH MET ALPHA, in Baghdad, Iraq, April 23
The Trailor with a fermenter
May 21, 2003
U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms
By JUDITH MILLER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
Qualified
June 7, 2003
Some Analysts of Iraq Trailers Reject Germ Use
By JUDITH MILLER and WILLIAM J. BROAD
and
June 26, 2003:
Agency Disputes C.I.A. View of Trailers as Iraqi Weapons Labs
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, June 25
Clarke part XLVIII
Kevin Drum writes
"AIR BIN LADEN....Remember those flights shortly after 9/11 that gathered up members of the bin Laden family and spirited them quickly out of the country? Who authorized those flights, anyway?
A few weeks ago, Richard Clarke testified to Congress about this:"
Here I give a longer quote from the 9/11 commission hearings than Drum did, since this is (to say the least) a lower volume blog, pixels are less precious.
"CLARKE: You're absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight against terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, it didn't really cooperate until after bombs blew up in Riyadh.
Now, as to this controversy about the Saudi evacuation aircraft, let me tell you everything I know, which is that in the days following 9/11 -- whether it was on 9/12 or 9/15, I can't tell you -- we were in a constant crisis management meeting that had started the morning of 9/11 and ran for days on end. We were making lots of decisions, but we were coordinating them with all the agencies through the video teleconference procedure.
The Saudi embassy therefore asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans.
The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it -- or not.
I spoke with at that time the number two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue.
The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight.
Now, what degree of review the FBI did of those names, I cannot tell you. How many people there are on the plane, I cannot tell you.
But I have asked since: Were there any individuals on that flight that in retrospect the FBI wishes they could have interviewed in this country. And the answer I've been given is no, that there was no one who left on that flight who the FBI now wants to interview. "
back to Kevin Drum
"Today, Alexander Bolton reports in The Hill that Clarke has, um, clarified his previous statement:"
Back to more extensive quotes, this time from The Hill
"In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”
[snip]
But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.
“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”
[snip]
This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.
[see testimony above]
“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday."
The testimony is a little different from saying 'I claim sole responsibility for it now,' which might be why Clarke has never said that he takes sole responsibility.
Back to The Hill
"However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.
FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”
“We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”"
Doesn't "We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest." confirm Clarke's version ? Or is the FBI claim that they "interviewed anyone we thought we needed to" and "didn't think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest," but that they kept their lack of interest a secret and thus "haven't had anything to do with ... clearing the flight."
Kevin Drum is not totally willing to be convinced that Clarke, the FBI and no one else are responsible. A commenter, however, writes that this "doesn't speak too well to Clarke's credibility". I strongly disagree with the commenter's assesment.
To me the testimony a few weeks ago and the clarification are essentially identical. In the testimony Clarke defends the decision underlining his acceptance of responsibility.
Clarke's story is, and consistently has been, he got the request. He did not approve it immediately but asked the FBI if it was OK by them. Someone at the FBI said it was ok. Clarke approved the flight. The testimony and the clarification are perfectly consistent extracts from this account.
It seems to me that Clarke has acceped responsibility for an unpopular decision. If that doesn't "doesn't speak too well to Clarke's credibility" what could possible speak well to Clarke's credibility.
Quick pop quiz. There are a lot of people with a lot of credibility. Name one who has ever earned more credibility by saying something than Clarke has by taking responsibility repeatedly for the air Bin Laden flight.
[Edit: The post has been edited to remove the claim, which I can not support, that Clarke wrote something similar in "Against All Enemies". I thought I read it there, but I can't find the passage if, indeed, it is in the book]
[More edit: I also added some quotes from "The Hill"]
Kevin Drum writes
"AIR BIN LADEN....Remember those flights shortly after 9/11 that gathered up members of the bin Laden family and spirited them quickly out of the country? Who authorized those flights, anyway?
A few weeks ago, Richard Clarke testified to Congress about this:"
Here I give a longer quote from the 9/11 commission hearings than Drum did, since this is (to say the least) a lower volume blog, pixels are less precious.
"CLARKE: You're absolutely right that the Saudi Arabian government did not cooperate with us significantly in the fight against terrorism prior to 9/11. Indeed, it didn't really cooperate until after bombs blew up in Riyadh.
Now, as to this controversy about the Saudi evacuation aircraft, let me tell you everything I know, which is that in the days following 9/11 -- whether it was on 9/12 or 9/15, I can't tell you -- we were in a constant crisis management meeting that had started the morning of 9/11 and ran for days on end. We were making lots of decisions, but we were coordinating them with all the agencies through the video teleconference procedure.
The Saudi embassy therefore asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans.
The request came to me and I refused to approve it. I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it -- or not.
I spoke with at that time the number two person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue.
The FBI then approved -- after some period of time, and I can't tell you how long -- approved the flight.
Now, what degree of review the FBI did of those names, I cannot tell you. How many people there are on the plane, I cannot tell you.
But I have asked since: Were there any individuals on that flight that in retrospect the FBI wishes they could have interviewed in this country. And the answer I've been given is no, that there was no one who left on that flight who the FBI now wants to interview. "
back to Kevin Drum
"Today, Alexander Bolton reports in The Hill that Clarke has, um, clarified his previous statement:"
Back to more extensive quotes, this time from The Hill
"In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, “I take responsibility for it. I don’t think it was a mistake, and I’d do it again.”
[snip]
But Clarke yesterday appeared to put an end to the mystery.
“It didn’t get any higher than me,” he said. “On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn’t get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI.”
[snip]
This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.
[see testimony above]
“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday."
The testimony is a little different from saying 'I claim sole responsibility for it now,' which might be why Clarke has never said that he takes sole responsibility.
Back to The Hill
"However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.
FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”
“We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”"
Doesn't "We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest." confirm Clarke's version ? Or is the FBI claim that they "interviewed anyone we thought we needed to" and "didn't think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest," but that they kept their lack of interest a secret and thus "haven't had anything to do with ... clearing the flight."
Kevin Drum is not totally willing to be convinced that Clarke, the FBI and no one else are responsible. A commenter, however, writes that this "doesn't speak too well to Clarke's credibility". I strongly disagree with the commenter's assesment.
To me the testimony a few weeks ago and the clarification are essentially identical. In the testimony Clarke defends the decision underlining his acceptance of responsibility.
Clarke's story is, and consistently has been, he got the request. He did not approve it immediately but asked the FBI if it was OK by them. Someone at the FBI said it was ok. Clarke approved the flight. The testimony and the clarification are perfectly consistent extracts from this account.
It seems to me that Clarke has acceped responsibility for an unpopular decision. If that doesn't "doesn't speak too well to Clarke's credibility" what could possible speak well to Clarke's credibility.
Quick pop quiz. There are a lot of people with a lot of credibility. Name one who has ever earned more credibility by saying something than Clarke has by taking responsibility repeatedly for the air Bin Laden flight.
[Edit: The post has been edited to remove the claim, which I can not support, that Clarke wrote something similar in "Against All Enemies". I thought I read it there, but I can't find the passage if, indeed, it is in the book]
[More edit: I also added some quotes from "The Hill"]
Hussain Shahristani sounds great.
U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and U.S. presidential envoy to Iraq Robert D. Blackwill appear to have found an excellent interim prime minister. I was wrong (as usual) guessing that it would be a politician.
Shahristani is a nuclear physicist who spent a decade in Abu Ghraib because he refused to try to make a bomb for Saddam Hussein. As an exile, "he was not active in opposition political parties, choosing instead to focus his energies on humanitarian aid projects." And I love his campaign slogan
"If they consider my participation essential, I'll try to convince them otherwise."
Of course things will go wrong, they always do, but for the moment I have some hope again.
I also note that the CPA has decided to demolish Abu Ghraib. I wonder if Dr Sharistani, given his memories of the place, would be willing to detonate the charge.
What the Iraqi interim government needs is to avoid exclusion focus like a laser beam and achieve strength through coherence. As a physicist, Shahristani knows that all of these things depend on
Spin.
U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and U.S. presidential envoy to Iraq Robert D. Blackwill appear to have found an excellent interim prime minister. I was wrong (as usual) guessing that it would be a politician.
Shahristani is a nuclear physicist who spent a decade in Abu Ghraib because he refused to try to make a bomb for Saddam Hussein. As an exile, "he was not active in opposition political parties, choosing instead to focus his energies on humanitarian aid projects." And I love his campaign slogan
"If they consider my participation essential, I'll try to convince them otherwise."
Of course things will go wrong, they always do, but for the moment I have some hope again.
I also note that the CPA has decided to demolish Abu Ghraib. I wonder if Dr Sharistani, given his memories of the place, would be willing to detonate the charge.
What the Iraqi interim government needs is to avoid exclusion focus like a laser beam and achieve strength through coherence. As a physicist, Shahristani knows that all of these things depend on
Spin.
How about Subliminable ?
JIM RUTENBERG
From Jim Rutenberg's New York Times article about how, even if people don't think they have been misled by campaign adds, they have been.
"Even people who don't think there is much information in these ads and say they don't learn anything from them tell us they believe factoids they could only have gotten from these ads, and they're wrong," said Brooks Jackson, director of Factcheck.org, an Annenberg Public Policy Center Web site that vets political advertisements for accuracy. "It's beyond subliminal — it's something else I haven't come up with a name for.""
I like the article, but Rutenberg does choose to struggle for "balance" by being more than fair to Bush
Contrast
"More than half of those surveyed also said they believed Mr. Kerry had "voted for higher taxes 350 times." That idea, Annenberg researchers concluded, is based on a commercial for Mr. Bush in which an announcer said, "Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times.""
in which a Bush add is quoted making a deliberately misleading claim
and
"In a survey ... 72 percent said they believed that three million jobs had been lost during Mr. Bush's presidency. Mr. Kerry made that claim in a spot in late February,...(Mr. Kerry's figures did not include government jobs.)"
in which the Kerry add is not quoted. I haven't seen the add. If it said "3 millino jobs have been lost during Mr Bush's Presidency" it would be a lie. If it said " 3 million private sector jobs ahve been lost during the Bush presidency" it would be accurate, precise and clear. Rutenberg can not blame Kerry if people hear "jobs" when his add says "private sector jobs".
Furthermore the Kerry campaign is not slicing and dicing the numbers. Bush claims he is against big government so the increase in public sector employment is bad news for him. Private sector employment growth has been the standard thing for politicians to brag about at least since Clinton's 1992 campaign.
Also consider "In an advertisement for Mr. Kerry, an announcer said, "George Bush says sending jobs overseas makes sense for America." Mr. Bush never said that. A report to Congress by his top economic adviser said cheaper production of goods overseas had long-term benefits but did not make the plain case that domestic job losses were a good thing."
The distinction between Bush and Mankiw is certainly valid (I would give my right hand to replace Bush with Mankiw). However, the Kerry campaign's paraphrase of Mankiw is reasonable, while Rutemberg's para-paraphrase is completely unreasonable.
Journalist cure thyself if it's not too much bother. But in any case keep writing good articles.
JIM RUTENBERG
From Jim Rutenberg's New York Times article about how, even if people don't think they have been misled by campaign adds, they have been.
"Even people who don't think there is much information in these ads and say they don't learn anything from them tell us they believe factoids they could only have gotten from these ads, and they're wrong," said Brooks Jackson, director of Factcheck.org, an Annenberg Public Policy Center Web site that vets political advertisements for accuracy. "It's beyond subliminal — it's something else I haven't come up with a name for.""
I like the article, but Rutenberg does choose to struggle for "balance" by being more than fair to Bush
Contrast
"More than half of those surveyed also said they believed Mr. Kerry had "voted for higher taxes 350 times." That idea, Annenberg researchers concluded, is based on a commercial for Mr. Bush in which an announcer said, "Kerry supported higher taxes over 350 times.""
in which a Bush add is quoted making a deliberately misleading claim
and
"In a survey ... 72 percent said they believed that three million jobs had been lost during Mr. Bush's presidency. Mr. Kerry made that claim in a spot in late February,...(Mr. Kerry's figures did not include government jobs.)"
in which the Kerry add is not quoted. I haven't seen the add. If it said "3 millino jobs have been lost during Mr Bush's Presidency" it would be a lie. If it said " 3 million private sector jobs ahve been lost during the Bush presidency" it would be accurate, precise and clear. Rutenberg can not blame Kerry if people hear "jobs" when his add says "private sector jobs".
Furthermore the Kerry campaign is not slicing and dicing the numbers. Bush claims he is against big government so the increase in public sector employment is bad news for him. Private sector employment growth has been the standard thing for politicians to brag about at least since Clinton's 1992 campaign.
Also consider "In an advertisement for Mr. Kerry, an announcer said, "George Bush says sending jobs overseas makes sense for America." Mr. Bush never said that. A report to Congress by his top economic adviser said cheaper production of goods overseas had long-term benefits but did not make the plain case that domestic job losses were a good thing."
The distinction between Bush and Mankiw is certainly valid (I would give my right hand to replace Bush with Mankiw). However, the Kerry campaign's paraphrase of Mankiw is reasonable, while Rutemberg's para-paraphrase is completely unreasonable.
Journalist cure thyself if it's not too much bother. But in any case keep writing good articles.
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Is Michael Ledeen a traitor or a spy ?
via Kevin Drum
In his recent article on Ahmed Chalabi, Michale Ledeen writes two very interesting things. The piece is presented as a ouigi board conversation with James Jesus Angleton (JJA).
A) "ML: It's fascinating to watch the anti-Chalabi campaign in Washington. You probably can't keep up with it, but some intel officials in town are saying two things to the journalists: 1) We broke the Iranians' communication codes, so we were reading their mail. Chalabi found out about this, and told the Iranian intelligence chief in Baghdad. 2) The Iranian immediately contacted Tehran to tell them that we had broken the code. Then they said to journalists, "you can't write about this because it would jeopardize our people.""
I am not well informed, but Kevin Drum is and this is the first he has heard of it. The journalists are un-named, why would they not be named if they had published the story. The "intel officials" are quoted as asking that the journalists not write about it. It seems to me clear that Ledeen is publically writing about something that "intel officals" asked to be kept secret.
B) "JJA: Furthermore, using the same logic, if we knew that Chalabi had told the Iranians, we would never go public with the accusations."
Who went public with the accusation ? It seems to me Michael Ledeen went public with the accusation. 9 lines later he has JJA write that it would be crazy to go public with the accusation because that would obviously hurt the USA.
Mr Ledeen maybe thats why the intelligence officials asked the reporters not to write about it.
It is obvious to Ledeen that, if this story is true, then it must not be discussed publicly. Ledeen discusses it publicly.
Is this treason ? No we are not at war with Iran. Helping Iran is not treason.
Is this espionage ? Well typically it's not considered espionage if you do it openly. I mean freedom of the press is for everyone even for people who choose to use that freedom to hurt the USA.
James Jesus Angleton also turns out to be a bleeding heart who explains that, if Chalabi was an Iranian spy, it was the CIA that made him do it.
"JJA: If anything, the United States pushed him toward the Iranians, and it's laughable that the intelligence community should now blame him for their previous actions."
then considerablly later
"JJA: ... In fact, you can make a fairly convincing case that the "raid" on Chalabi's house was probably an effort to get him killed.
ML: Killed? They were going to shoot him?
JJA: Not "they," even though it does seem there were CIA people on the scene. No, they're smarter than that. They sent Iraqi police to do the dirty work. The police were armed. It was reasonable to assume that at least one of Chalabi's bodyguards would shoot at the intruders, and then a gunfire would ensue, in which...well, people do get hurt at such times, don't they?"
I conclude that the legal reasoning above was a waste of time. Whatever he did or didn't do, Michael Ledeen is innocent, because he is insane.
via Kevin Drum
In his recent article on Ahmed Chalabi, Michale Ledeen writes two very interesting things. The piece is presented as a ouigi board conversation with James Jesus Angleton (JJA).
A) "ML: It's fascinating to watch the anti-Chalabi campaign in Washington. You probably can't keep up with it, but some intel officials in town are saying two things to the journalists: 1) We broke the Iranians' communication codes, so we were reading their mail. Chalabi found out about this, and told the Iranian intelligence chief in Baghdad. 2) The Iranian immediately contacted Tehran to tell them that we had broken the code. Then they said to journalists, "you can't write about this because it would jeopardize our people.""
I am not well informed, but Kevin Drum is and this is the first he has heard of it. The journalists are un-named, why would they not be named if they had published the story. The "intel officials" are quoted as asking that the journalists not write about it. It seems to me clear that Ledeen is publically writing about something that "intel officals" asked to be kept secret.
B) "JJA: Furthermore, using the same logic, if we knew that Chalabi had told the Iranians, we would never go public with the accusations."
Who went public with the accusation ? It seems to me Michael Ledeen went public with the accusation. 9 lines later he has JJA write that it would be crazy to go public with the accusation because that would obviously hurt the USA.
Mr Ledeen maybe thats why the intelligence officials asked the reporters not to write about it.
It is obvious to Ledeen that, if this story is true, then it must not be discussed publicly. Ledeen discusses it publicly.
Is this treason ? No we are not at war with Iran. Helping Iran is not treason.
Is this espionage ? Well typically it's not considered espionage if you do it openly. I mean freedom of the press is for everyone even for people who choose to use that freedom to hurt the USA.
James Jesus Angleton also turns out to be a bleeding heart who explains that, if Chalabi was an Iranian spy, it was the CIA that made him do it.
"JJA: If anything, the United States pushed him toward the Iranians, and it's laughable that the intelligence community should now blame him for their previous actions."
then considerablly later
"JJA: ... In fact, you can make a fairly convincing case that the "raid" on Chalabi's house was probably an effort to get him killed.
ML: Killed? They were going to shoot him?
JJA: Not "they," even though it does seem there were CIA people on the scene. No, they're smarter than that. They sent Iraqi police to do the dirty work. The police were armed. It was reasonable to assume that at least one of Chalabi's bodyguards would shoot at the intruders, and then a gunfire would ensue, in which...well, people do get hurt at such times, don't they?"
I conclude that the legal reasoning above was a waste of time. Whatever he did or didn't do, Michael Ledeen is innocent, because he is insane.
Newsweek magazine has a special place in my mind, because it played an important role in my intellectual development from age 15 to 17.9 (when I went to college and had to pay for subscriptions myself).
Now, slightly older, I condescendingly consider it very main stream and middle brow. My idea of a Newsweek journalist is a very smart and well informed person who wonders how nearly he or she dare write the article that he or she would write for the New York Review of Books or the Economist. That is, when Newsweek gets into the game it means that people who know a lot more then I do about such matters feel they can speak frankly with middle America.
Thus I am struck by the non news reported (well asserted in Newsweek) in the cover story on Chalabi
"the neocons in the Bush cabinet, led by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, were ready to march on Baghdad before the World Trade Center stopped smoldering. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld were all itching to show off American strength. The rest of the government and the American people needed some persuading."
Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball feel free to glibly suggest that Bush invaded Iraq to scratch an itch, that is to show he was macho not in a blog but in Newsweek.
I feel like I just received a formal engraved invitation to a feeding frenzy.
My
Now, slightly older, I condescendingly consider it very main stream and middle brow. My idea of a Newsweek journalist is a very smart and well informed person who wonders how nearly he or she dare write the article that he or she would write for the New York Review of Books or the Economist. That is, when Newsweek gets into the game it means that people who know a lot more then I do about such matters feel they can speak frankly with middle America.
Thus I am struck by the non news reported (well asserted in Newsweek) in the cover story on Chalabi
"the neocons in the Bush cabinet, led by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz, were ready to march on Baghdad before the World Trade Center stopped smoldering. President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld were all itching to show off American strength. The rest of the government and the American people needed some persuading."
Evan Thomas and Mark Hosenball feel free to glibly suggest that Bush invaded Iraq to scratch an itch, that is to show he was macho not in a blog but in Newsweek.
I feel like I just received a formal engraved invitation to a feeding frenzy.
My
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)