Letters to the Editor
-
Greetings from Neverland!
Transcript of Osama bin-Forgotten's post-9/11 meeting with Saddam Hussein, late Sept. 2001. Location: Saddam's palace inside what would later become The Green Zone.
Osama: "Our ongoing operational relationship has succeeded in smashing the infidels!"
Saddam: "Yes, comrade! Whoever said your fanatical Islamist fundamentalism and my secular Baathist fascism could not mutually cooperate to destroy the Western powers?"
Osama: "Our second wave of attacks must strike further fear and terror in their hearts!"
Saddam: "Our intelligence sources tell us that according to America's most popular radio propagandist the two most powerful infidel leaders are named "Daschle" and "Leahy".
Osama: "Good work, Saddam. But let us also strike at their liberal media, which will then sap the infidels' will to fight back. And while we're at it, let's hit the publisher of those Britney Spears photos that torment me so. The [expletive deleted] National Enquirer."
Saddam: "[expletive deleted] right! You will please issue the order to proceed to one of your many sleeper cells in middle Anerica. Because we are two wild and crazy guys!"
-
Ok, Now I get it ( I think).
For those, like me who haven't had the benefit of the full thread of this argument from previous stories, I will attempt to restate GG's position.
- ABC News, led by Brian Ross reported that the strain of anthrax used in the Daschle attack most likely came from Saddam Hussein's weapons arsenal as demonstated by the the presence of bentonite in the samples
- The report was much quoted and became a recurring touchstone for entrance into the war in Iraq.
- The report was wrong as evidenced by the fact that DNA sequencing of the anthrax showed that it came from a U.S. Military laboratory or that of an antibiotics producer, both of which were known to have used the “Ames” strain of anthrax.
- ABC News has never retracted the bentonite story, although all now agree it was false.
- ABC News (Brian Ross) is now whipping up hysteria with relation to Iran's nuclear weapons program, again based upon anonymous sources.
- Why should we believe them when they “cried wolf” in the case of Iraq?
- Does ABC News have an obligation to fess-up?
-
Arms Control Wonk : how and why Ahmadinejad lied today
Jeffrey :
http://armscontrolwonk.com/1457/iran-enriching-on-industrial-scale
Last week the neocons correctly observed that Ahmadinejad wasn't a credible source, about the British prisoners.
This week: Presto! Change-o! Ahmadinejad is suddenly a credible source!
-
Here is Ahmedinejad on NYT saying 3000 centrifuges
Sorry for the Times select:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/middleeast/09cnd-iran.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I heard David Albright on the radio say he thought the number of operational centrifuges was closer to 1000, but then said it could be anywhere between the two numbers because we don't have very good information about Iran's nuclear program.
He also said he didn't expect Iran to actually start enriching anything, just test it, because they don't want retribution from Europe in the short term.
Just thought you'd like to know.
-
History, the new revised version
MSNBC on-line slide show of USA-Iranian relations. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16491417/displaymode/1107/s/2
No mention of the name, "Mossadegh" in slide 2.
No mention of U.S. support for Iraq, in slide 6.
I know it's just a short, simplified slide show, but this revision of history is disturbing in its implications.
-
Re: History, the new revised version
Wow. That is truly weird. Can you get an award for that that begins with a P? (Pulitzer, Polk, Peabody,...Propaganda)?
-
[ot] A conservative general who is pleased with DOJ's new direction
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com
-
U-235 and centrifuges
No one seems to notice that Iran needs to purify Uranium to have fuel for their power reactor to make electricity.
You see, U-235 needs to be at about 4% purity for a power plant, but it occurs in nature at only about 0.72 percent. Hence, you need those centrifuges to purify the Uranium.
Now if you want to make a weapon --- you need to go to over 90 percent pure U-235. And then you need a way to deliver it to the target --- say a swimming camel or something.
But, is it illegal for an Arab to make electrify out of a nuclear power plant? Looks like that may be so these days.
-
More on Iran and Centrifuges
There are reason to doubt that Iran has yet centrifuged *any* UF6 gas.
Paul Kerr :
http://totalwonkerr.com/1400/more-on-iran-and-centrifuges -
BAM!!!
Ari is the source to use. No anonymous sources, straight from the White House spokesperson's mouth. It even has a built in critique of unnamed sourcing. Much better than Beecher. Makes your post and subsequent pressure on ABC for a correction bulletproof.
I wish the process to get here wasn't akin to pulling teeth but I guess it is better than Marathon Man.
Believe it or not Glenn, I think this a very important article you have written and I just wanted it to be as strong as it could be. A little less defensiveness and I might have been the one to do your leg work for you:) Oh well...Back to lurk mode.
-
We have an unfortunate habit . . .
As seen on the ABC NEWS web site
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3022550. . . Iran Says It Has Expanded Uranium Enrichment
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
NATANZ, Iran Apr 9, 2007 (AP)— Iran announced a dramatic expansion of uranium enrichment Monday . . .
. . . "We have an unfortunate habit to take Iran at its word when they make scary announcements." . . .
. . . 3,000 centrifuges could not produce enough fuel to keep a single reactor going . . .
. . . Iran would need approximately 25,000 of its centrifuges operating at one time to produce enough fuel for a single light water reactor . . . -
thelastnamechosen:
Believe it or not Glenn, I think this a very important article you have written and I just wanted it to be as strong as it could be. A little less defensiveness and I might have been the one to do your leg work for you:) Oh well...Back to lurk mode.
There's this odd dynamic in comments which I've noticed. Sometimes, when commenters here criticize what I wrote, and I respond - especially when I do at length - I get accused of being "defensive" or thin-skinned, as though I'm angry at the criticism.
The opposite is almost always true. Typically, the only criticims in comments that I respond to are the ones that I think make substantive objections to what I wrote and that merit a full response. I didn't respond to your arguments at such length because I thought they were outrageous or because I felt unfairly attacked or was being "defensive." The opposite is true - I thought you raised a strong and rational (though ultimately invalid) objection to what I wrote and I wanted to respond for that reason.
You're a reader of my blog so you know that my style of debating points is fairly unrestrained - not uncivil or insulting, but I believe in the truth-finding process where two people with opposing views advocate and debate those views as strongly as possible and the truth usually emerges from it. My responses were in that spirit (and in the last post, I even conceded that the point you were criticizing was one that I was not as attentive to in the post as I could have been).
Many times, people here mistake that for being "defensive" or even angry that what I wrote is being criticized. It's actually the opposite. I tend (as a general rule - with some exceptions) to respond to criticisms that I believe merit the most respect and I ignore the ones I think merit the least respect. But the fact that I disagree with the objections and even do so aggressively isn't a sign of "defensiveness."