msfe probably thinks the the 94% were right - if not too hard on the Germans. He gives the distinct impression in his posts that he considers the US (then and now) and Nazi Germany to be equivalent. Speaking of polls, those Die Zeit polls on Germans' thoughts about 9/11 that have gotten so much buzz utilize techniques designed to get as dramatic a set of results as possible. First, you have to consider the "why the Hell am I being asked this?" factor. The mere fact that a pollster is asking questions that imply uncertainty about 9/11 is already likely to stimulate whatever suspicions might be held by the respondent. The questions themselves - one implying doubts about press and TV reports, the other raising questions about the US government - are phrased in such a way that the "interesting" responses are obvious, and that the numbers willing to affirm them would be augmented by those who insist on responding literally and those who are willing to respond politically. The results are as meaningless as those in that idiotic TIME-Europe poll that msfe used to love to post - the one that asked during the run-up to the Iraq war which country was "the greatest threat to world peace." You'd think traders would generally be more sensitive to such obvious curve-fitting. In the TIME-Europe and Die Zeit polls, the fact that journalists would be asking such questions and actively seeking the predictable responses is more telling than the particular conclusions they succeed in manufacturing.
http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml ______________________________ This is a link to a long but excellent overview of the war on terror. It goes into the reasons, the strategies, and where we are. Just an excellent overview.IMHO
[ Won't get fooled again? In general, a fool is always already fooled, whatever the subject - as when, before the war, Tisdall was urgently quoting predictions of "10 million" Iraqis going hungry, "up to 100,000 Iraqis [becoming] casualties, and "another 400,000 being affected by disease and displacement." (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897101,00.html.) Tisdall was also predicting that the Kurds would be endangered: "In the event of war, their hard-won autonomy will be under direct threat from a US-sanctioned, Turkish military incursion." Nothing like that happened - or really was likely - of course, and there's little need now to ask the Kurds now how they feel about Saddam's downfall and the US's role in it: They were among the war's most ardent backers at the time Tisdall was writing, and the effusive greetings given to Americans and the 4th of July observations in Kurdish Iraq offer testimony about their current feelings. The Tisdalls of the world rarely take responsibility for their past mistakes. It's always right on to the next set. I'll resist the temptation to take apart his entire, flagrantly dishonest and distorted summary of the current situation in Iraq or the state of intelligence about Iraq-Al Qaeda connections. I'll just to say that in my opinion it's all about on the level of his pathetically naive characterization of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations as "all-out wars," and cut to the chase: Many Iranians and North Koreans would probably love to be "victimised" in the same way the Iraqis have been. As for threats from AQ, Bush never promised that they would never again "successfully mount another large-scale attack within the US." Of course, any open acknowledgment of the continuing threat is as likely to be denounced by the likes of Tisdall as fearmongering - a supposed excuse for, in Tisdall's disgustingly hysterical formulation, "faith-led" subversion of the Constitution, etc., etc. If, however, there's any fairness at all in Tisdall's test of Bush's effectiveness, then shouldn't the inability, to this date, of AQ to mount another large-scale attack within the US offer proof that Bush's policy has been working? If, by November of next year, there hasn't been another such attack, should Bush rightfully expect a 50-state landslide? Of course, there isn't any fairness in Tisdall's test. If there isn't another such attack by November 2004, the Tisdalls of the world will never credit the Bush strategy, just as, if there is an attack, they will blame Bush - and the arguments will be equally meaningless in either case.
Yeah, den Beste is good, but I think that he seizes upon his 'interesting" idea - that the Bush Administration couldn't share its "real" strategy with the public and the world - and overdoes it. The strategy and the larger goal of turning the Arab world upside down have been out there for everyone to see - and for critics and opponents to attack as overly ambitious or naive - in speech after speech by Bush and by Administration officials and allies. Den Beste is right, however, that it wouldn't make any sense for Bush, or for any war leader, to tell the world "everything," especially since plans and goals have to shift with uncertain contingencies, may depend on operational secrecy or the enemy's uncertainty, and may, if loudly proclaimed, engender or augment opposition. Den Beste and others have lately been focusing on a looming confrontation with Saudi Arabia, for instance, but it's just not in the US interest to precipitate a major crisis, just as it hasn't been for years, and probably won't be for several more years. Nor is it in the US interest to reveal exactly how it would respond to such a crisis: Imagine how the world would react if Bush said, "Oh, we'll just seize the oil fields if push comes to shove" or "Oh, we'll just engineer a coup" - though either or both may very well be the policy. Nor is it in the US interest to admit officially that, in the meantime, it's still subject to effective blackmail. Nor is it in the US interest to name its main allies, enemies, and fence-sitters within SA.
How does Russert maintain even a shred of a reputation for even handedness and objectivity? Because he asked ultra lightweight John Edwards a couple of tough questions once? Even that was designed to promote the real liberals in the race. I watched parts of his show this morning. He interviewed Wolfowitz for what seemed like 2 hours and all he ever did was ask him every way imaginable " Aren't you a liar? Isn't the President a liar? Isn't this all a failure? Isn't anyone who criticizes the President correct?" Then they had the roundtable, two hardcore lib's, Graham and Pelosi, and two fumbling inarticulate republicans. Again, every question was some formulation of "Isn't Bush a liar? Why is the administration trying to cover up their mistakes? Why can't they tell the American people they are incompetent? Isn't the CIA incompetent? Should Bush be impeached?" The deomcrats of course hit these softball tosses out of the park while the republicans sat there and ocassionally commented they thought things were not that bad. Pathetic. Thankfully no one watches this garbage anyway.
Bush playing his cards right in Iraq July 27, 2003 BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Timing is everything. On Tuesday--that would be Qusai Odai Tuesday--Dick Gephardt made a speech in San Francisco and gave us the benefit of his take on Bush's war: ''He chose the wrong backdrop for his photo-op,'' declared the Democratic presidential candidate. ''If you ask me, if he really wanted to show us the state of affairs in Iraq, he should have landed on a patch of quicksand--This looming quagmire is on our shoulders alone.'' ''There's A Quagmire Round My Shoulder''? Wasn't that Al Jolson accompanied by Ukulele Ike in Hollywood Parade Of 1929? But no, the Democrats' downbeat chin-up song is all their own work, and they're determined to make it their every-hour-on-the-hour theme tune for Campaign 2004. Technically speaking, can a quagmire be on your shoulders? Isn't it usually at your feet, so you can sink into it? And, if the quagmire really appears to be looming at your shoulders, might that not be because you're looking at the world upside down? Not to worry. There are plenty of other folks standing on their heads along with 'em. At the BBC, they're fending off so much Pentagon spin the quote key on the Beeb's typewriter seems to have jammed. Here's how the BBC Web site reported Tuesday's exciting news: "Saddam sons 'dead' " "Iraq 'deaths' will have huge effect" "U.S. celebrates 'good' Iraq news" The ''BBC'' is currently locked in a battle with Tony ''Blair,'' over whether ''or'' not the British government ''sexed up'' its pre-war intelligence reports. It's heartening to see that the Beeb is doing such a sterling job of sexing down any good news from Iraq. Meanwhile, in Canada, the CBC's main national news found time to give its viewers just one ''typical'' reaction from an ordinary Iraqi to the demise of Saddam's kids. This lone representative of public opinion was outraged at the vicious cruelty meted out to two respectable upstanding mass-murdering torturing psychopath rapists. The CBC had to get its microphone pretty close in to its sole man in the street in order to hear him above all the cheers and celebratory volleys from his fellow Iraqis. But if he's out of step with his Baghdad neighbors he's on the same page as Howard Dean. The leading Democratic presidential candidate, having declined in April to regard the fall of Saddam as a good thing, was even less impressed by the dispatch of Saddam's progeny: ''The ends do not justify the means,'' he sniffed. Who's the odd one out here? The BBC, CBC and most of the European media have constructed an alternative universe and are content to frolic on its wilder shores. Time stands still in this world: Even though the confidently predicted civilian death tolls and humanitarian catastrophes never arrive, nobody minds. There's no reason why reality should ever intrude. Unfortunately, Dean, Gephardt and about half the other Democratic candidates still live in the real world--or, more to the point, their would-be constituents do. These candidates are obliged to be, in Bill Clinton's words, ''politically viable.'' At the BBC and Le Monde and the Sydney Morning Herald, anti-Americanism is the New Universal Theory: It explains everything; it's the prism through which every event is viewed. But it's an unlikely strategy for American electioneering. One anti-Bush Democrat at a protest the other day carried a sign reading ''FRANCE WAS RIGHT!'' That's not a winning slogan, even in Vermont. What happened this week is a foretaste of what the party can expect in the next 15 months: Reality will keep intruding, and if the Dems keep moving the goalposts ever more frantically, pretty soon they'll be campaigning from Planet Zongo. This week, Tom Daschle insisted that Odai and Qusai were all very well, but where was the Big Guy? Why hadn't that slacker Bush caught him yet? Well, yes, Saddam's gone the Osama route, releasing audio cassettes every couple of weeks. Why is that? These days, a compact camcorder's as easy to smuggle in as a Walkman, and video would have far more impact. Could it be that Saddam isn't in such great shape for the cameras? Not quite ready for his close-up? Wherever he is, he's dependent on a dwindling band of aides and, after the way his sons were sold out, he's gonna be a bit twitchy if Ahmed's trip to the 7-Eleven seems to be taking a little too long. So suppose there's another firefight and they pull his mustache from the rubble? What's Tom Daschle going to say then? Right now, of the 55 faces on the Iraq's Most Wanted playing cards, the Americans have killed or captured 37. Democrats, by contrast, have yoked their fate to bad news. So they need to ask themselves, realistically, how much is likely to show up. Will significant numbers of Iraqi moppets die from cholera? No. Will the Kurds secede, thereby provoking Turkish intervention? No. Will Iranian-backed Islamists seize Iran? No. Will small numbers of Iraqi moppets die from cholera? No. OK, very very small numbers? Not enough. On the other hand, will the Niger uranium story be proved true? Quite possibly, but who cares? Will Saddam be tracked down as his sons were? Very possibly. Will the military nab another 10 playing card dudes? That's almost certain. You got to know when to fold. This week, Bush's two aces beat the Dems' Niger joker. That's the way it's always going to go. Bill Clinton got it right. Democrats need to move on. If they're still droning on about Niger on the day Rummy's passing out souvenir vials of Saddam's DNA, they'll be heading for oblivion. Clinton's approach is all the more lethal because it doesn't seem so: You can't beat Bush on the war, so you neutralize his advantage on the issue by taking it out of contention. You'll appear sympathetic, generous, bipartisan, and mature; the war will be bored off the front pages; and you can fight the election on more favorable terrain on which the public's never really cared for Bush. Whether or not the Clinton tack would work, the Dean-Chomsky-BBC-French strategy never will. When the last Baghdad supporter of Odai and Qusai sounds like Howard Dean's running mate, you know you're off the map. http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn27.html
Computer Voting is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say By John Schwartz The New York Times Thursday 24 July 2003 The software that runs many high-tech voting machines contains serious flaws that would allow voters to cast extra votes and permit poll workers to alter ballots without being detected, computer security researchers said yesterday. "We found some stunning, stunning flaws," said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines operating in the United States. The systems, in which voters are given computer-chip-bearing smart cards to operate the machines, could be tricked by anyone with $100 worth of computer equipment, said Adam Stubblefield, a co-author of the paper. "With what we found, practically anyone in the country â from a teenager on up â could produce these smart cards that could allow someone to vote as many times as they like," Mr. Stubblefield said. The software was initially obtained by critics of electronic voting, who discovered it on a Diebold Internet site in January. This is the first review of the software by recognized computer security experts. A spokesman for Diebold, Joe Richardson, said the company could not comment in detail until it had seen the full report. He said that the software on the site was "about a year old" and that "if there were problems with it, the code could have been rectified or changed" since then. The company, he said, puts its software through rigorous testing. "We're constantly improving it so the technology we have 10 years from now will be better than what we have today," Mr. Richardson said. "We're always open to anything that can improve our systems." Another co-author of the paper, Tadayoshi Kohno, said it was unlikely that the company had plugged all of the holes they discovered. "There is no easy fix," Mr. Kohno said. The move to electronic voting â which intensified after the troubled Florida presidential balloting in 2000 â has been a source of controversy among security researchers. They argue that the companies should open their software to public review to be sure it operates properly. Mr. Richardson of Diebold said the company's voting-machine source code, the basis of its computer program, had been certified by an independent testing group. Outsiders might want more access, he said, but "we don't feel it's necessary to turn it over to everyone who asks to see it, because it is proprietary." Diebold is one of the most successful companies in this field. Georgia and Maryland are among its clients, as are many counties around the country. The Maryland contract, announced this month, is worth $56 million. Diebold, based in North Canton, Ohio, is best known as a maker of automated teller machines. The company acquired Global Election Systems last year and renamed it Diebold Election Systems. Last year the election unit contributed more than $110 million in sales to the company's $2 billion in revenue. As an industry leader, Diebold has been the focus of much of the controversy over high-tech voting. Some people, in comments widely circulated on the Internet, contend that the company's software has been designed to allow voter fraud. Mr. Rubin called such assertions "ludicrous" and said the software's flaws showed the hallmarks of poor design, not subterfuge. The list of flaws in the Diebold software is long, according to the paper, which is online at avirubin .com/vote.pdf. Among other things, the researchers said, ballots could be altered by anyone with access to a machine, so that a voter might think he is casting a ballot for one candidate while the vote is recorded for an opponent. The kind of scrutiny that the researchers applied to the Diebold software would turn up flaws in all but the most rigorously produced software, Mr. Stubblefield said. But the standards must be as high as the stakes, he said. "This isn't the code for a vending machine," he said. "This is the code that protects our democracy." Still, things that seem troubling in coding may not be as big a problem in the real world, Mr. Richardson said. For example, counties restrict access to the voting machines before and after elections, he said. While the researchers "are all experts at writing code, they may not have a full understanding of how elections are run," he said. But Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, said he was shocked to discover flaws cited in Mr. Rubin's paper that he had mentioned to the system's developers about five years ago as a state elections official. "To find that such flaws have not been corrected in half a decade is awful," Professor Jones said. Peter G. Neumann, an expert in computer security at SRI International, said the Diebold code was "just the tip of the iceberg" of problems with electronic voting systems. "This is an iceberg that needs to be hacked at a good bit," Mr. Neumann said, "so this is a step forward."
Wow, how can you simply mouth the words "move on" in light of all the innocent civilians and US troops that were killed as a result of Bush's fraud....? I'm glad that I am unable to shrug off death as easily as mr bush and his brain, mr cheney. Especially considering all of them except rumsfeld were draft dodgers. Cowards who can send other men off to their deaths without a second thought. God help us all.
First of all they weren't my words, they were Mark Steyn's, not that I have any trouble with them as political advice. Second of all, you still haven't responded to the last several times your false accusations were taken apart. You keep on saying "fraud" or "liar," but you're the fraud and the liar, and you prove it over and over again. SH and pals were good for around two thousand Iraqi deaths a month - state-organized murder - over the course of the last 12 years. The containment policy you favor would have ensured the same thing in perpetuity, even setting aside the direct victims of the sanctions policy or indirect victims of the Baathists' systematic larceny of Iraqi assets and mismanagement of every aspect of Iraqi life - and that's assuming that sometime down the road they didn't get involved in another war. The rest of your post is just the same old juvenile posturing, this time glossed over with a coating of sanctimony. Now, why don't you run away again just like you have every other time you've been confronted with the facts about the policies you supported?
Of course. boys like you don't care how many were slaughtered under Hussein and his ilk. Pathetic. God help you. The rest of us are doing okay.