While the government of Iran reels under the continuing pressures of a popular uprising, whose character is inexorably changing from protest at a rigged election, contrived by the ambitious and obscurantist Revolutionary Guard, into a challenge to the Islamic government itself, the American-backed campaign for further sanctions on the economy, and inevitably the people, continues, to punish Iran’s resistance to further international inspection of its nuclear facilities.
The Israeli threat of military intervention also has been intensified, despite the public uprising against the Tehran regime and the perfectly real possibilities of a government upheaval that could prove of great and even pacific significance in the country’s relationship with its neighbors, the U.S., and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
It should be understood that there are two reasons why Iran’s rivals would wish to attack that country. The first is to destroy a supposed nuclear threat to other countries. The other would be simply to cripple Iran as an industrial economy and major actor in the affairs of the region, as has happened to Iraq.
In this respect, supposedly official documents demonstrating the military nature of the Iranian nuclear program continue to be distributed by unidentified sources. The latest, published in the Times of London on Dec. 14, purports to show that Tehran has worked upon or is working on a “nuclear initiator,” a component in a nuclear weapon. The document is challenged by some independent intelligence sources because of its lack of an identifiable source, implausibility in the document itself, and because of its suspicious dating.
American intelligence officials say that the document “has yet to be authenticated.” Its claimed date, later than November 2007, would be consistent with an effort to undermine the conclusion that Iranian work on nuclear weapons has ceased, which was the finding of the United States intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimate in 2007, which Washington has never repudiated.
If this were not cheer enough for New Year’s Eve 2010, we have news of a new American military intervention into an Arab country of which Americans know next to nothing, the land of the Queen of Sheba, Yemen.
The young son of a prominent Nigerian banker and former official, who studied engineering at the distinguished University College London, seems to have passed by Yemen in the peregrinations that on Christmas Eve took him to Amsterdam and Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit, which he attempted to blow up. This drew attention to Yemen, where a terrorist group has claimed that he is indeed one of their agents.
This was no surprise to American security specialists, who have had their eye on Yemen for some time, with special forces operators reportedly active in a $70 million plan to train counterterrorism forces, while unofficially assisting in certain operations against this group, which calls itself “al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman and other officials visited Yemen in August, and Lieberman declared that “Yemen now becomes one of the centers” of the fight against lawlessness. Gen. David H. Petraeus had been there earlier in the summer.
U.S. officials are quoted by the New York Times as saying that the country could become “al-Qaeda’s next operational and training hub, rivaling the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan,” which suggests that the American “surge” in Afghanistan may soon find a rival claim on American resources from Yemen, a country engaged in regional civil war until 1990.
That year, Arab League mediation culminated in a constitutional agreement between Yemen’s rival republics, the nationalist and Marxist People’s Democratic Republic and the nationalist and Nasserist Yemen Arab Republic, mainly identifiable as representing, respectively, northerners and southerners. Yemen also enjoys the anxious regard of its large and not particularly friendly neighbor, Saudi Arabia.
In the time of the Queen of Sheba, in the first millennium B.C., Yemen was known for its rich and prosperous trade in spices and incense. Today its exportable resources are cotton, salt, gypsum and stone. It had some oil, but this reportedly is running out. There are possibly exploitable natural gas resources. The estimated population is 24 million, with a per capita annual individual income with a purchasing power equivalent to $870.
The reliable Statesman’s Yearbook reports that Yemen possesses an estimated four firearms for every person in its population and is therefore “arguably the world’s most heavily-armed country.” The United States and Israel will be relieved to know that it is a signatory to the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) has announced that the world’s biggest laser is ready to start blasting away after 12 years in the making. The $3.5-billion stadium-size National Ignition Facility (NIF), housed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, Calif., consists of 192 separate beams, each of which stands as the most energetic ever built, says LLNL spokesperson Bob Hirschfeld.
Very much like the Death Star, the gigantic space station in the movie series Star Wars (“That’s no moon,” speaketh Obi Wan Kenobi), the beams will focus on a single point to unleash their full, joint potential. The target: a BB-size pellet of frozen hydrogen in the center of a 33-foot- (10-meter-) diameter chamber. The ultraviolet lasers should heat the pellet to hundreds of millions of degrees, forcing nuclear fusion to occur—the same superhigh heat and pressure atomic reaction that fuels the stars.
Scientists have long hailed fusion as the ultimate clean energy source—hydrogen is abundant, though producing and storing it remains economically unattractive. Unit for unit, though, the amount of energy that could be generated via fusion with even a tiny bit of hydrogen fuel is astronomical (think: E=mc2) compared to any other power-making scheme in operation today.
Crucially, the lab expects to generate a net amount of energy, reaching the milestone that has plagued other laboratory attempts at developing fusion as a future energy source, according to Hirschfeld. A fusion reaction requires an immense amount of energy to get going, robbing its potential power output, and harvesting and storing that energy is another task altogether. Currently, NIF’s lasers cannot fire anywhere near quickly enough to sustainedly produce energy, Hirschfeld says, noting that not one watt of energy for commercial purposes will come out of NIF, which stands as a proof of principle experiment.
———-
“the amount of energy that could be generated via fusion with even a tiny bit of hydrogen fuel is astronomical (think: E=mc2) compared to any other power-making scheme in operation today.” <— costly to i bet..who pays?
fascinating article i thought..and looks plenty dangerous as well..lots of power..fusion energy..mmm
Abroad, it’s a bit difficult for me to go to midnight Mass like I normally do in the States, over the last couple of years, I’ve kinda gotten used to the disappointment of not experiencing midnight Mass. If you’ve never been to a Catholic midnight Mass, tag along with a friend, although I’m a bit biased. ^^
Christmas altar at Myeong Dong Cathedral
After Mass, the people who usually attend and help out at the English Mass had tea together, while we waited for the meal (turkey, stuffing, potatoes, gravy, veggies, cranberries, and pumpkin pie) to arrive from Camp Casey. As soon as the turkey (and ham ewww) arrived, the guys went to work carving the meat
the guys of Myeong Dong Seung Dang hard at work
After a gift exchange and the usual gift drawing, I went to get some hot chocolate from Leonidas, unfortunately for me Myeong Dong was the most crowded that I have ever seen it in my life and so I ended up wearing a good portion of my chocolate
We are visiting Boston, Massachusetts, and looking around the center of the city.
Faneuil Hall is an impressive building that was constructed in 1742 by Peter Faneuil as a meeting place and as Boston’s central market place for crops and livestock.
It’s provided a forum for public debate in Boston and during the Revolutionary era it was the seat of local government.
On the second floor, members discussed issues of the day.
The ground floor below has housed a market place for over 250 years.
Charles Bulfinch, the well known Boston architect, expanded Faneuil Hall in 1805-06 and his most dramatic contribution was the Great Hall, designed to accommodate public meetings, ceremonies and special events.
The Global Peace Index is a project of the Institute for Economics and Peace. It represents a ground-breaking milestone in the study of peace. It is the first time that an Index has been created that ranks the nations of the world by their peacefulness and identifies some of the drivers of peace.
140 countries have been ranked by their ‘absence of violence’, using metrics that combine both internal and external factors. Most people understand the absence of violence as an indicator of peace. This definition also allows for the measuring of peacefulness within, as well as between, nations.
The Institute for Economics and Peace, in conjunction with the Economist Intelligence Unit and with the guidance of an international team of academics and peace experts, has compiled the Global Peace Index (GPI). The Index is composed of 24 indicators, ranging from a nation’s level of military expenditure to its relations with neighbouring countries and the level of respect for human rights. The index has been tested against a range of potential “drivers” or determinants of peace—including levels of democracy and transparency, education and material wellbeing. The team has used the latest available figures from a wide range of respected sources, including the International Institute of Strategic Studies, The World Bank, various UN offices and Peace Institutes and the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Global Peace Index is intended to contribute significantly to the public debate on peace.
The project’s ambition is to go beyond a crude measure of wars—and systematically explore the texture of peace. The hope is that it will provide a quantitative measure of peacefulness, comparable over time that will provide a greater understanding of the mechanisms that nurture and sustain peace. This, in turn will provide a new platform for further study and discussion, which will hopefully inspire and influence world leaders and governments to further action.
via Global Peace Index – Our Initiaitives – Vision of Humanity.
The New York Times said on Wednesday that the Obama administration may not be able to close the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba and transfer terrorism suspects held there until 2011 at the earliest.
The administration announced plans last week to acquire an under-utilized state prison in the Midwest state of Illinois to house up to 100 Guantánamo detainees. However, The Times says the United States Bureau of Prisons does not have enough money to pay the state for the facility, which would cost about $150 million.
The report says the White House approached lawmakers on the United States House of Representatives Appropriations Committee several weeks ago about adding $200 million to the 2010 military spending bill for the project. Democratic leaders refused, defeating the request due to the project’s controversial nature.
The administration wants to buy the prison as part of efforts to fulfill President Obama’s order to close Guantánamo Bay. The president has acknowledged that the January 2010 deadline for closing the prison will not be met. The plan to close the prison and house the terror suspects in the U.S. has been met with fierce opposition by some members of Congress. Republicans say the closure of the prison and moving of inmates to American soil will make the country a greater target for terrorists.
The White House contends that the current prison at Guantánamo has become a terrorist recruiting symbol. It also pointed out that it would save taxpayers money as the Department of Defense currently pays $150 million to run the Guantánamo prison, while it will only cost $75 million to run the prison in Illinois.
However, some moderate Democrats have also raised concerns, Representative Loretta Sanchez, Democrat from California cited security concerns saying “[p]articularly making something on U.S. soil an attraction for Al Qaeda and terrorists to go after — inciting them to attack something on U.S. soil — that’s a problem, and we need to think it through.”
Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia recently stated that suspects of terrorism “[d]o not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.”
Guantánamo, which now has some 200 inmates, has been harshly criticized by human rights advocates for the alleged abuse and mistreatment of detainees.
The Times says the Obama administration will not have another opportunity to secure funding for the Thomson Correctional Center until Congress takes up a supplemental appropriations bill for the war in Afghanistan. The bill is expected to be finished in March or April.
However, the newspaper says the administration is more focused on securing funding for the Illinois facility in appropriations bills for the 2011 fiscal year, which will not be debated until late 2010. Officials told the Times it could take eight to 10 months to install new fencing, towers, cameras and other security upgrades to the Thomson Correctional Center before any transfers take place.
(New York) – Many governments’ policies toward migrants worldwide expose them to human rights abuses including labor exploitation, inadequate access to health care, and prolonged detention in poor, overcrowded conditions, Human Rights Watch said today in advance of International Migrants Day, on December 18, 2009.
A 25-page roundup of Human Rights Watch reporting on violations of migrants’ rights this year, “Slow Movement: Protection of Migrants’ Rights in 2009,” includes coverage of China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States.
“Governments seem to forget that when men, women, and children migrate, they don’t leave their rights at home,” said Nisha Varia, senior researcher in the Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch. “Instead of protecting people who already are at special risk of abuse, many governments further marginalize migrants, punish them, or push access to services out of reach.”
Research in Greece, Italy, Libya, Egypt, and Israel showed harsh policies toward arriving migrants, including lack of adequate screening to determine who is a refugee, arbitrary and indefinite detention, returning persons to countries where they risk abuse, and detention of children with adults. Aggressive policies to thwart migrants when they try to cross borders can be lethal. Since May, Egyptian border guards have killed at least 17 migrants trying to cross into Israel.
Both documented and undocumented migrants may face abuse or discrimination in their host cities and countries. Human Rights Watch has investigated pervasive mistreatment of migrant domestic workers and construction workers in the Middle East and Russia. Cheated by unscrupulous brokers and employers, these workers often told of excessive hours, unpaid wages, and confiscation of passports. In the worst cases, their situations amounted to forced labor and trafficking.
“Migrants form the backbone of many economies, performing the labor and services that people in their host countries depend on but won’t do themselves,” Varia said. “Instead of getting respect and the freedom and wages they are owed, they are treated as security threats, and in general, as undesirables to be pushed out of sight.”
Those apprehended for immigration offenses often face disproportionate punishments or prolonged detention in poor conditions. Human Rights Watch showed how the United States deports large numbers of documented migrants for nonviolent offenses with serious consequences for family unity and fails to provide adequate health care to migrants in detention. Immigration violations are sometimes treated as serious crimes, as in Malaysia, where punishments include imprisonment and caning. The fear of arrest and deportation also means that migrants may endure exploitative work conditions or avoid approaching authorities to report abuse.
“Governments have a right to control their borders, but they need to do so in a way that protects human rights,” Varia said. “Migrants who are abused are supposed to have access to legal remedies, regardless of their immigration status.”
Government attempts to control migrant populations within their territory often include discriminatory policies that broadly restrict migrants’ freedom of movement for no legitimate purpose, Human Rights Watch said. For example, several provinces in Thailand require migrant workers be confined to their workplaces or homes at night and prohibit them from traveling within the province. In Malaysia, the government has condoned vigilante-style monitoring of migrants by a civilian group. Migration can increase the risk of infection with HIV, tuberculosis (TB) or flu, but discrimination against migrants can impede their access to care.
Human Rights Watch called on governments to make stronger commitments to migrants’ rights in 2010, including ratifying the International Covenant on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families. The group also urged governments to:
Reform immigration policies to facilitate documented migration that protects migrants’ rights, and to clamp down on intermediaries who deceive migrants or charge unlawful fees that leave migrants indebted and more vulnerable to exploitation;
Screen interdicted migrants, new arrivals, and migrants in detention in accordance with international standards, including identifying asylum seekers, trafficking victims, and other vulnerable people, and ensuring that unaccompanied children are treated according to their best interests;
Ensure access to a core minimum of health services regardless of citizenship or social origin, and repeal discriminatory provisions mandating automatic deportation of migrants living with HIV;
Improve labor standards and enforcement in accordance with international standards, including equal protection of domestic workers, and strengthen inspection mechanisms to ensure regular payment of wages and decent working conditions for migrants;
Investigate abuse and killings of migrants, whether by private citizens or government authorities, and prosecute fully through the relevant national laws while ensuring protection for migrants against retaliation. Investigations into abuse should be carried out irrespective of migrants’ immigration or contractual status.
The Register has a story on how Verizon unilaterally decided to snuff out all search engines with the exception of Bing as the default one.
Verizon has unilaterally updated user Storm 2 BlackBerries and other smartphones so that their browser search boxes can only be used with Microsoft Bing.
The move is part of the five-year search and advertising deal Verizon signed with Microsoft in January for a rumored $500m.
Wow. I guess Microsoft really doesn’t want to give up on its search engine wars.
Verizon says that they’re a “proud supporter” of the Bing search engine. I’m sure they are: with $500 million in my pocket, I’d be, too. This doesn’t mean other search engines, like Google, are not available. It means they can’t be made the default one, though.
(Actually, there are reports that some users can’t access any other search engines…but it could just be people who just don’t know how to use some other search engine…you know what I mean?)
Senate votes to give green light to health care bill December 21, 2009 1:50 a.m. EST ’s Ted Barrett, Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report
Washington (CNN) — Democrats won a major victory in their push for health care reform early Monday morning as the Senate voted to end debate on a package of controversial proposals to a sweeping $871 billion bill.
The 60 to 40 party-line vote, cast shortly after 1 a.m., kept Senate Democrats on track to pass the bill on Christmas Eve. If it passes, the measure will then have to be merged with a roughly $1 trillion plan passed by House of Representatives in November. The Senate went into recess until noon Monday shortly after the vote.
The vote left President Obama on the cusp of claiming victory on his top domestic priority and enacting the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid over four decades ago.
“Today, the Senate took another historic step toward our goal of delivering access to quality, affordable health care to all Americans,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said in a statement.
The bill will help “promote choice and competition to drive down skyrocketing health care costs for families … all across America.”
Republicans ripped the majority for passing the measure in the middle of the night and accused Democrats of ramming the bill through despite growing public opposition.
“Make no mistake: If the people who wrote this bill were proud of it, they wouldn’t be forcing this vote in the dead of night,” argued Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.
“Mark my words: this legislation will reshape our nation. And Americans have already issued their verdict. They don’t want it. They don’t like this bill, and they don’t like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it.”
The unusual timing of the vote was a consequence of Senate rules, Democrats’ determination to pass the bill before adjourning for the holidays, and the GOP’s willingness to use every possible legislative tactic to slow the bill’s progress.
The vote was the first of three this week requiring Democrats to win the backing of 60 members — enough to break a GOP filibuster. Final passage of the measure, in the contrast, will require a bare majority in the 100-member chamber.
Many political observers believe Monday’s outcome indicates a likely Democratic win on the remaining procedural hurdles and the final vote.
In a CNN Exclusive, Nebraska Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson explains his health care negotiations on ‘State of the Union.’
Unanimous Republican opposition has forced Reid to win the support of all 60 members of his traditionally fractious Democratic caucus. Compromises made to win the backing of more conservative members, such as Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, have enraged many liberal Democrats and threatened to undermine support for the bill.
Liberal Democrats are particularly upset with Reid’s decision to abandon a government-run public health insurance option and an expansion of Medicare to Americans as young as age 55 — ideas strongly opposed by Lieberman and other centrists.
Top Democrats, however, argue that the Senate bill as written would still constitute a positive change of historic proportions. The legislation, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would extent health insurance coverage to over 30 million Americans while reducing the federal deficit by $132 billion over the next decade.
The deficit would drop by another $1.3 trillion between the years 2019 and 2029.
Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have now reached agreement on a broad range of changes that could effect every American’s coverage.
Among other things, they have agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
They have also agreed to create health insurance exchanges designed to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage. Both the House plan the Senate bill would eventually limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history.
Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals. The House bill would extend coverage to individuals earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $33,000 for a family of four; the Senate plan ensures coverage to those earning up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or just over $29,000 for a family of four.
There are, however, major differences between the Senate measure and the more expansive — and hence expensive — House bill.
One of the biggest divides is over how to pay for the plans. The House package is financed through a combination of a tax surcharge on wealthy Americans and new Medicare spending reductions.
Specifically, individuals with annual incomes over $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.
The Senate bill also cuts Medicare by roughly $500 billion. It does not include a tax surcharge on the wealthy, however. It would instead impose a 40 percent tax on so-called “Cadillac” health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.
Proponents of the tax on high-end plans argue it’s one of the most effective ways to curb medical inflation. House Democrats are adamantly opposed to taxing such policies, arguing that such a move would hurt union members who traded higher salaries for more generous benefits.
The Senate bill would also hike Medicare payroll taxes on families making over $250,000; the House bill does not.
Another key sticking point: the dispute over a public option. The House plan includes a public option; the more conservative Senate plan would instead create new nonprofit private plans overseen by the federal government.
iReport.com: Give your thoughts on the Senate health care bill
Individuals under both plans would be required to purchase coverage, but the House bill includes more stringent penalties for most of those who fail to comply. The House bill would impose a fine of up to 2.5 percent of an individual’s income. The Senate plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine of up to $750 or 2 percent of his or her income — whichever is greater.
Both versions include a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.
Employers face a much stricter mandate under the House legislation, which would require companies with a payroll of more than $500,000 to provide insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.
The Senate bill would require companies with more than 50 employees to pay a fee of up to $750 per worker if any of its employees relies on government subsidies to purchase coverage.
Abortion has also been a sticking point for both chambers. A late compromise with Catholic and other conservatives in the House led to the adoption of an amendment banning most abortion coverage from the public option.
It would also prohibit abortion coverage in private policies available in the exchange to people receiving federal subsidies.
Senate provisions, made more conservative than initially drafted in order to satisfy Sen. Nelson, would allow states to choose whether to ban abortion coverage in plans offered in the exchanges. Individuals purchasing plans through the exchanges would have to pay for abortion coverage out of their own funds.
Many observers expect the final bill will conform largely to the measure now moving through the Senate.
“Reid had to make a lot of concessions to get his entire caucus behind the Senate bill,” said CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser.
“He can’t afford to a lose a single vote. Every Democratic senator has the power to kill this bill, and that fact gives Senate negotiators tremendous leverage in their negotiations with the House.”
Nelson told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that he would withdraw his support if the final bill gets changed too much from the Senate version under consideration.
My husband and I stayed in Alexandria, VA for a few days last week before Christmas, and happened upon a local institution for dinner one chilly evening. At the Hard Times Cafe, newcomers are served a complimentary sampling of the house specialty, really salty chili (“so you order more beer,” my husband said). Peruse the often crayon-encrusted menu underneath ceiling decorations of cow hides and framed cartoon strips; oddly soothing countrified carols played in the background. A rusty pick up truck bearing an American flag and a large deer strewn with Christmas lights was parked in front.
Despite my desire for a tangy Southern plate of bbq ribs to go with my sweet tea, I chose a Terlingua chili bowl with chopped onions, cheddar, diced tomatoes, and sour cream which was, as expected, too salty and big to really enjoy or finish. The next day, a bowl of Cincinnati chili with a hearty addition of saltines helped absorb a little of the salty overflow. The beer batter onion rings that we shared were crunchy and tasty with an addictive horseradish sauce, but the complimentary corn bread was gelatinous and not warm enough to melt the rock hard butter served with it. Service was attentive and efficient; prices are reasonable for this small franchise.
The State Department said that if this continued, Washington’s efforts to help stabilise Pakistan could be affected.
WASHINGTON: The US State Department said on Thursday that if Pakistan continued to deny visas to hundreds of US officials and contractors, Washington’s efforts to help stabilise the violence-ridden country could be affected.
At a briefing, the department’s Deputy Spokesman Robert A. Wood confirmed earlier reports that Pakistan had denied visa to hundreds of US officials and citizens.
“Well, it is true. Hundreds of visa applications and renewals for US officials and contractors are awaiting issuance by the Pakistani government. The cause of the delays is unclear. But we are working with our Pakistani counterparts to try to resolve these issues. And we’re working very hard,” he said.
“In terms of what kind of an impact it may have, I would suspect, if this continues, it will indeed have an impact on our ability to do the work that we want to do to help the Pakistani people, in terms of fighting terrorism; in terms of economic development, and a whole range of issues.”
In an unusually harsh expression of public indignation from an official platform, the official said while the US administration was trying to work these issues with the government of Pakistan, “but indeed there are cases that are — that we’re concerned about”.
Asked if it’s a deliberate campaign to harass US officials and US operations in Pakistan, Mr Wood said: “I don’t think I can call it a deliberate campaign” but “certainly, if any of our officials feel that they are being harassed, there are appropriate channels to go through in order to file complaints about that sort of thing”.
Yet, he said, he would not “make a general comment that there’s an official harassment campaign”.
Explaining how the US administration was trying to resolve this dispute with a country it regards as a key ally in the war against terror, Mr Wood said: “We have raised these issues with Pakistani officials at very senior levels. And we’ve expressed our concern about the delays and the impact that this could very well have on our programmes and activities.”
The Pakistani authorities, he said, were well aware of America’s concerns. “I can’t give you any reason why they’re being delayed. But these issues are important.”
He said that while only Pakistanis could explain why they were doing so, for the Americans it was a big concern and they had raised it at very senior levels.
“We’re committed to trying to work with Pakistan to make sure that we can get these visas and get on with the business of what we’re trying to do in Pakistan.”
“In terms of raising it at senior levels, how far does this go back? Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raise it on her recent trip?” he was asked.
“Let me just say this: We’ve raised it at very senior levels. I don’t really want to get more specific than that,” said Mr Wood.
Asked if the delay was already having an impact on US-Pakistan relations, Mr Wood said: “It’s hard for me to characterise how — would I want to stand up here at the podium and say it’s having a real impact right now. I don’t — I can’t really say that. I just don’t know. But I think, should this continue, it indeed will have an impact.”
I’ve been thinking about the hungry in our country. I think the government should take over distributing food instead of those profiteering grocery stores. I’ve been thinking about the price of gasoline for Americans; perhaps a federal gas station would help. My heart breaks for puppies without a home; maybe Pelosi can force petless people to take one. And a government church. A national education system. A federal TV network. Let’s get really crazy: how about government healthcare?
“Allah är gud” men “Jag är inte säker om det fanns en liten pojke eller inte.”
I Sverige handlar jul mer om tomtar, Kalle Anka, och glögg än om Jesus. Detta borde vi nog vara ypperligt tacksamma för, annars skulle nog hela högtiden vara under konstant, högljutt anfall från vänstern.
I korståget i den Heliga Politiskt Korrekthetens Namn, så börjar USA förvandlas till.. ja, jag vet inte vad. Amerikaner pratar om ett så kallat kulturkrig, och att nationen är delad. Svenska journalister, med undantag för kanske Ulf Nilsson, är så fullständigt ideologiskt blinda i kombination med total okunnighet om amerikansk kultur att de inte kan se den vidöppna sanningen: det finns en halva av USA som vill bevara sina traditioner och sin kultur enlight smältdegelns karaktär, och en annan som vill slakta allt som är amerikanskt för att ersätta det med multikulti.
Det senaste exemplet är en offentlig skola i Indiana, där rektorn har skrivit en julsång alla elever ska tvingas sjuka. Denna ska ta med alla religioner. I den muslimska delen tvingas alla sjunga om Allah, att han är gud, och att han kommer följa dig genom hela ditt liv. I den kristna delen ifrågasätts om ett litet barn ens funnits, och varför man ens ska ha med honom. Dubbelmoralen och hycklandet är vidrigt. Svensk media, as usual, är dödstyst.
Så vad säger ni, gott folk, ska vi börja sjunga om Allahs storhet till jul även i svenska skolor? Vi vill ju följa amerikanarnas exempel här, tydligen.
Every year there has to be some kind of controversy, is it okay to say, ‘Merry Christmas,’ or is ‘Happy holidays’ the better politically correct seasonal greeting.
This year is no different, St. Michael Society sent me this article about an 8-year old special needs boy who was suspended from his public elementary school for drawing a stick figure of Jesus on the cross. Before he was allowed to rejoin his class, his father (a substitute janitor) had to pay out of his own pocket for a psychological evaluation exam.
Obviously the teacher should have talked to the student first, and then the principal should have talked to the student and the parents. And isn’t the school counselor not equipped to talk to the child???
Ah, the ol’ ‘middle finger’ approach to songwriting, it’s bliss. Generally these types of songs come when the songwriter is royally pissed off. In this case, Rivers Cuomo was told by his record executives that Weezer needed more commercial material. That being said, Cuomo wrote this song about standing up for himself, about the triviality of the record industry and above all, defiance.
It’s ironic really, and slightly annoying to me, how bands can be told they need to be more ‘commercial friendly’ and instantly write a hit song. It makes me wonder, “Why couldn’t they do that before? Why did they wait to be told?”. But it also makes me realise that there is a reason these songs were written. By any measure, this song is wonderful. The music is typical thumping Weezer and the lyrics are once again, typical Weezer. You could not get a more Weezer-ish song if you tried.
Zombie Tycoon has a fun aesthetic, numerous items and a sensible control scheme. But the gameplay runs into too many problems. An overly sensitive camera, frustrating AI and a brutal lack of good checkpoints (play for ten minutes, make one small mistake and start over from scratch) make Zombie Tycoon more of a frustrating disappointment rather than an enjoyable RTS.
You might have grasped, from my Wilco post at least, that this month of December I am taking quite a personal use of this space.
I will keep this trend, but cheer it up a bit!
Living Colour have been important to me for about 20 years. Beyond their music for a very personal record.
Almost everyone start going to concerts with mates, more or less as teenagers. They are cool, different nights out. The ones you remember.
Then if live music becomes a passion (or an addiction), you want to go and see gigs for the mere pleasure of the gig. It happens that you don’t want to miss a concert because your friends don’t bother no more.
This is an important moment in the life of people loving live music. At a certain point of our “gig-going career” arrives the first gig you go on your own. For the pleasure of music.
That day changes the way you will think and approach live music in the future.
Can you remember what was your first “solo” gig?
Mine dates back to 11 June 1993. I was still living in Rome and Living Colour were playing in a theatre the other side of town from where I lived. I could neither borrow my parents car nor any of my friends bothered to go, but I didn’t want to miss it.
I got on my moped, crossed the entire city, got there. I still remember the weird feeling of being on my own, no one to share comments, emotions, impressions. It was different, more intimate. A one to one with the music.
After that great gig, my connection with Living Colour was beyond the music, was going to be forever.
After that night, I went to hundreds of gigs on my own and the weirdness of the first experience left space to the freedom of enjoying music for the sake of it. It’s worth.
I went to see Living Colour second time in UK. I thing it was 2003, they were playing the “old” London Garage after the reunion. December 2009, same venue (now fully refurbished) where they played tonight’s gig. About 25 years since they formed, over 20 since Vivid, their stunning debut. An album that changed black music, but I’ll come to this later.
Following Vivid, Living Colour released another two masterpieces. Time’s Up, still with Muzz Skilling on bass, was the perfect evolution. The band retained its heavy sound but explored more commercial areas and made their biggest commercial success. An album packed with music ideas, nowadays one of these songs would be enough for a band to fill an entire LP.
At their peak Muzz Skilling left. For hardcore fans this is the end of the “real Living Colour” which is unfair if you consider that to replace him arrived another phenomenal bass player, still with them since: Doug Wimbish. Stain is their third album, a darker more intimate collection of songs. Midway through the album it contains one of the most beautiful ballads, by drummer Will Calhoum. Nothingness. Lyrics deserve to be here despite it wasn’t played tonight.
“Well like a descendant, I drifted far, far and wide
Isolation, separation, no where to hide
Maybe there’s somewhere I can go
Where there’s sunshine and the wind won’t blow
Nothingness
All I have to feel is my loneliness
Nothing in the attic ‘cept an empty chest
And nothing lasts forever
Although there are many, I look for no one, no one but me
I search for things that are taking me high and far out of reach
But this is the place I call my home
I live with the lies and the fear all alone
Nothingness
All I have to feel is my lonliness
Nothing in the attic ‘cept an empty chest
And nothing lasts forever
Living Colour split a couple of years after Stain with any member going solo in side arty, jazzy, intellectual projects.
They reunited in 2000. Released another album Copperopolis in 2003, which was not more than a reason to tour (was it?). Today Living Colour are touring their fifth album, The Chair in the Doorway.
Despite and over-excited Rolling Stone review I don’t find this album adds anything to the impact Living Colour had on hard rock in the past. It is a good album, it has Vernon Reid’s guitar solos, Doug Wimbish landmark effected slap-bass lines and Will Calhoum ever impressive drumming.
The album is released on metal label Megaforce, which may be the problem. The production goal seems to move the band’s sound to the label audience more than the other way round. There is a bit too much of classic heavy metal riffs, Metallica inspired big guitars, heavy drumming. Not a lot of the classy, bluesy, funky music they became famous for.
Nevermind. One thing is to listen to a new Living Colour album, another thing is to experience Living Colour live. They could tour without having to promote an album, but you know how these things go.
If you are a fan of musicianship, Living Colour are one of the most skilled bands out there. A band that is able to mediate technique and musical meaning without becoming an empty exercise on speed, strange harmonies or odd beats.
Any of the member released DVDs and CDs on technical tricks and tips about his instrument. All of them are reference for a generation of professional musicians that followed.
The stage is packed with instrumentation. The vintage Vernon Reid amplifiers with their shiny golden valves and his endless set of pedals are a first sign of what we are about to getting. A guitar geek would get mad for them.
Same vision around Doug Wimbish wall of bass amplis and even more pedals. Will Calhoum drums have his name printed on the bass drum. Something you can do only if you are a legend. He is, and the breathtaking solo midway through the gig will show it off.
Ignorance is Bliss opens the gig, and it’s indeed a bliss. A couple of old tracks, Which Way to America and Auslander reminded everyone why 25 years on Living Colour can still sell out venues both sides of the oceans.
When these guys appeared, they changed a key prejudice about black music and hard rock.
It was the second half of the eighties, Public Enemy and rap in general brought social issues into urban music. The rest of black music rotated around soul, pop and Michael Jackson.
Black music, from the seventies funk and disco boom, either moved into hip-hop, or pure pop.
Rock, especially hard-rock with a punk twist, had always been a matter of white people.
Living Colour challenged this. They used to play in that experimental laboratory which was the CBGB in NYC. For the first time the world saw a full black line-up playing bloody good hard-rock.
Living Colour not only showed the world that heavy rock it is not only a white people affair, they also showed the world that funk it is, indeed, a black power thing.
These two concepts together revolutionize the music scene. Their funk-metal indicated directions for some of the most successful bands of the nineties.
To name but few, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Rage Against the Machine, Jane’s Addiction and Primus wouldn’t have been the same without Living Colour.
If seminal is a precise adjective, this is one of the few times you can’t be wrong using it.
Vernon Reid is not only one of the 100 guitarists of all time for Rolling Stone magazine, he is the mentor of many more among which Tom Morello is probably the most obvious and most famous. His collaborations go well beyond rock and roll.
Tonight Reid with short hair and a baseball cap looks even more like Morello.
His style joins Jimi Hendrix heritage, eighties metal madness and cool it down with clever funk-jazz rhythmic out of an impressive technique. His guitar creates the Living Colour’s sound. Funny Vibe tonight does not only still sound a wonderful song, it is a manual of funk-metal.
Doug Wimbish is a legend to bass players more than to music fans. Pioneering slap technique, special effects and any trick you can do with four strings. So is drummer Will Culhoum able to bring ethnic rhythms into heavy drumming. He sits behind an incredibly rich drum kit.
Put the two of them next to each other you have a rhythm session able to pulse the hip-hop beats and the syncopated attitude of funk into the power drumming that metal needs.
They don’t lack showmanship either. During the show, Doug Wimbish walks off stage to play his bass among the fans, the Buddy Guy way. Will Calhoum fills a mid gig interval with a 15 minutes drum solo that keeps an audience not anymore used to solos in awe.
On top of that, I haven’t forgot Corey Glover . He still is one of the most peculiar voices and funniest man of the circus.
He did challenge the metal-singer cliché. Stop thinking of a screaming, tattooed, macho man with long, blonde hair, rethink. Corey is the nicest of guys. With a huge sense of humour, odd suites, he loves to pull faces and make jokes with the fans. Tonight he reminds me of a kind of Louis Armstrong if Satchmo was born 60 years later. Wearing funny spectacles on his forehead and an orange overall. Despite his voice can’t reach the peaks it used to, his presence makes him one of the key ingredients of Living Colour success. He brings the fun into a hard rock concert, he brings the social awareness, he brings the black power and he reminds everyone that Elvis is dead.
When after about 2 hours of music, the riff of Cult of Personality erupts from Vernon guitar anyone in the Garage can’t help but jump.
At the climax Corey takes the microphone to the public and asks anyone to sing one of Living Colour statement statements, Elvis is Dead.
At those times, circa 1991, the song looked a direct reply to Dire Straits that were “Calling Elvis“.
Tonight the song was not on the setlist. It comes out of the blue as it was the moment for it. Throughout it, in the middle, a hard version of Hound Dog mixes things up.
“Tabloids scream
Elvis seen at a shopping mall
That’s the kind of talk
That makes my stomach crawl
Picture a zombie Elvis
In a tacky white jump suit
Just imagine a rotting Elvis
Shopping for fresh fruit
You can’t ’cause
Elvis is dead
When the king died
He was all alone
I heard that when he died
He was sitting on his throne
Alas poor Elvis
They made us know you well
Now you dwell forever
In the Heartbreak Hotel
Elvis was a hero to most
But that’s beside the point
A Black man taught him how to sing
And then he was crowned king
The pelvis of Elvis
Too dangerous for the masses
They cleaned him up and sent him to Vegas
Now the masses are his slave
Slave? Slave
Yes, even from the grave
I’ve got a reason to believe
We all won’t be received at Graceland” [Elvis is Dead]
The concert ends here, with one (quite big) disappointment. There was an encore planned on the setlist. With Nirvana’s In Bloom cover and Love Rears Its Ugly Head on it. Their best song. It did not happen, why? Rather sad, but also a good excuse to go seeing them again.
Pioneers, nice guys, amazing musicians, if you don’t know Living Colour you can’t wait any longer. Choose your network but connect to one of the most important bands of the latest thirty years. It’s never too late to discover from where your favourite music sprang.
[website] [myspace] [facebook] [spotify]
Photo Tip
I’ll keep it personal, revealing you what I think is an essential ingredient to gig photography: to love music.
It sounds banal but it has an incredible effect on the quality of your work.
Love music doesn’t mean being a die-hard fan. That doesn’t help, if you do love a band too much you get involved into the songs, start singing, moving, dancing and don’t concentrate enough.
To be interested in the music of the band you are photographing indeed helps your images.
It’s the same in any kind of photography, isn’t it?
When you notice something and decide to take a picture of it, is because that “something” transmit an emotion strong enough to induce you to click.
So why music photography shouldn’t work like this? It does.
You may argue professionals are supposed to shoot anything on a commission, they have to adapt even to subjects thay are not interested, I appreciate this.
Nevertheless if you work on something you like, it helps.
The best concert photographers I know are also music lovers. They know about music, talk about music often write about music.
Try shooting some gigs of a band after you got informed about them. Try to know in advance their music, their stage presence, the instruments they play.
Decide what kind of photos you think best represent them. Be prepared. Than get to the pit with a different attitude. Concert photography is not just about collecting photopasses.
You’ll see the improvement.
Artificial Christmas Trees For Sale Made In The U.S.A.
Artificial Christmas Trees For Sale Made In The U.S.A.
There are still plenty of artificial Christmas trees made in the U. S. A. are available for immediate delivery.
Nobody can match the quality of a superior quality American made artificial Christmas trees which is sold on our web site.
Christmas Depot offers superb quality and low prices everyday on top quality artificial Christmas trees made right here in the United States of America. Our company has an American labor force and we are full of American pride.
Stop by now and see for yourself our magnificent selection of hand made artificial Christmas trees built right here in the U.S.A.
Support small business this Holiday season and get back on the “made in America” bandwagon because it really makes a difference to our country. It’s time to beat the recession.
Small business selling products made in the U.S.A.
There is really no reason to buy your artificial Christmas tree anywhere else.
See our selection of artificial Christmas trees at your convenience and please don’t forget to support our troops this Holiday season. Our troops are working extra hard and the Holidays are a great time to show them how much we appreciate what they do. Please show them support.
The most amazing moment that I have experienced so far happened yesterday!
The youth demonstrated our power by filling a briefing room, having prepared questions and getting to ask 6 of the 9 questions during the “off the record” briefing with US negotiators.
An SSC blog post puts it better than I can:
As EPA Chief Jackson took her seat at the panel, a standing ovation marked the beginning of an amazing evening. Although I cannot disseminate exact details of the briefing, the atmosphere was positive and buzzing with energy. After an interesting brief on the US policy position by Pershing and a brief speech by Jackson, the floor was opened for questions. In the row in front of me, a US Youth Delegate donning a PowerShift t-shirt was called on. As she began her question, she announced that she was in attendance along with over 500 American Youth. She turned around, and about 80% of the room waved to our negotiators. Now that is an illustration of power.
Seeing all of the youth in the room wave simultaneously is a moment that I won’t forget any time soon.
These are the most significant quotes from the tenth session of the Iraq Inquiry
You can read the full transcripts of the sessions here, here, here and here
And you can watch the videos here
—————————
10th day of public hearings
Subject: Post Invasion Iraq: The planning and the reality after the invasion
8th December 2009: Morning session: Evidence by
Sir Suma Chakrabarti (Permanent Secretary in the Department for International Development, from 2002 until 2007)
Dominick Chilcott, (Head of the Iraq Planning Unit within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from February 2002 until June 2003)
-
Chakrabarti
“It is very interesting for us that both Clare Short departed the scene, as you know, 12 May and the Chief of Defence Staff changed at the end of May/early June and the relationship became very much easier with the new CDS. Mike Walker came across and saw Valerie Amos, and actually said and there is a quote in the papers, a record of meeting that the best relationship the military had around Whitehall was with DFID. No one I didn’t ask him to say that. So I think this is quite an interesting take on personalities.”
-
Important exchanges
LYNE: “Where did the resistance come from that you had to, as it were, penetrate in December in order to get access to the military planning? Was it from within the armed forces or was it from the political leadership? Was it from Number 10 or the Ministry of Defence? Who was stopping you?”
CHAKRABARTI: “Quite clearly the Prime Minister thought we should have access in December when Clare Short raised it on 12 December. I think it was from some in the military, not necessarily everyone. Clearly Tim Cross thought we should have access and I think it may have been from MoD ministers. I don’t know to this day, but”
LYNE: “So the Prime Minister was unaware until December that you were not being involved in the planning for this?”
CHAKRABARTI: “Well, I don’t know if he was aware or unaware, but certainly that was when it was raised with him directly by Clare Short.”
LYNE: “And he then agreed?”
CHAKRABARTI: “Yes.”
———————-
Chilcott
“And I guess that when we supported the Security Council Resolution that authorised the day after operations, that was the point when we realised that we had pushed as hard as we could and we weren’t going to get any more than that. And, indeed, if it was good enough for the other members of the Security Council, there was a certain sense to why should we be perhaps holier than the Pope if the French and Germans and others were prepared to accept it.”
-
“I think we were pretty realistic in our own planning about how much influence we were likely to have, and I think the I don’t know whether you count this as influence but maybe I can think of four or five examples of where we may have had some influence. One was influence in the sense of having access to President Bush and having our voice as part of the interagency debate in an unprecedented in a way that no other country matched. So we had a chance to make our points and we did so repeatedly. So to that extent we had access. I think after the Hillsborough summit on 7 and 8 April, when Bush said the UN should have a vital role he said this publicly although he didn’t quite mean everything that we meant by it, that was definitely a step forward. When Jay Garner told Jeremy Greenstock in March that a substantial UN involvement in post conflict Iraq was increasingly accepted in Washington, I think that was again a sign that our arguments were beginning to have some effect in Washington. Our embassy reported about the same time that there had been a principals meeting in Washington that had accepted the need for a United Nations Security Council mandate for the Phase 4 operations and a Brahimitype UN special coordinator to bring on the political process in Iraq. Now, both of those things were quite important for us and they were both achievements as a result of our lobbying. I mean, not just us, there were other voices in the interagency debate that had the same views, but I think our voice I think undoubtedly contributed to it. And there was a later stage, where President Bush seems to have told the Department of Defence that the new Iraqi Government could not be dominated by their choice of exiled Iraqi politicians, and again that’s almost certainly as a result of points we were making, or the Prime Minister was making, to President Bush, based on the work that we were doing about the dangers of appearing to, you know, put in place a certain section of Iraqi exiled politicians.”
-
Important exchanges
CHILCOTT: “I think the then Prime Minister did in his discussions with President Bush. After the Hillsborough meeting and I have got the date of it was, indeed, the 7 and 8 April. After the Hillsborough summit where we briefed the Prime Minister strongly about the importance of a UN role in the day after, President Bush in his press conference talked about the vital role for the UN.
LYNE:”Didn’t that have to be rung out of him a bit?”
CHILCOTT: “I don’t know whether it was rung out of him at the meeting, but I think without the
Prime Minister asking him to do it, he probably wouldn’t have done it. So I think that was a direct consequence of our lobbying.”
-
LYNE: “So you reported that. How did your leadership react to this emerging rather worrying picture of what was going on on the other side of the pond?”
CHILCOTT: “We doubled our efforts in our bilaterals with the Americans to try and swing them back into a sort concept of operations that we felt was more likely to bring success. So the ORHA rock drill was on 21 and 22 February, the Prime Minister chaired a ministerial meeting on day after issues on 6 March, which, you know, raised the high level of ministerial engagement on these issues, and Mike O’Brien who was then minister of state in the Foreign Office led discussions on day after issues on 13 March, which I attended as well, and then there was the 16 March Azores Summit. So there were a series of high level events where we were making our points to the Americans.”
-
THE CHAIRMAN: The objectives in Phase 4, for the aftermath. Was it clearly understood by military, by political, diplomatic quarters what we were supposed to do?
CHILCOTT: Yes, I think the UK view of it was well understood within the UK government, and I have no reason to think it wasn’t well understood in the UK military as well, which was that we were working on broadly this threephase model in our minds that we would have a period of occupation, where we would be governed by, as I said, the Geneva Convention and The Hague regulation, where we would be responsible for the welfare of the people. And our main concern at that stage would be establishing a secure environment and ensuring that humanitarian relief was able to get through to those that needed it. But we wanted that period to be as short as possible, after which we would move to some interim administration authorised by the UN Security Council. It was clear, I think, on the eve of the invasion that we weren’t going to have a UN run interim administration, but an interim administration was authorised by the Security Council was going to be good enough for us. And that would begin the process of reform and reconstruction in Iraq and, at the same time, we would have the UN involved in a political process in parallel that would lead to some kind of convention or conference that would enable a new constitution to emerge and elections on the basis of the new constitution, whereupon with a new Iraqi Government, we could; hand over power completely to the new Iraqi government. And that coalition security forces would be needed for as long as the new Iraqi government wanted them. So I think that broad threestage conflict was well understood, and I think with we quite a good core script which we modified as we went along. This had been in existence for quite a while.”
————————————-
10th day of public hearings
Subject: Intelligence
8th December 2009: Afternoon session: Evidence by
Sir John Scralett (Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 2001 until 2004, former head of the MI6)
Air Chief Marshal Sir Brian Burridge (Deputy Commander in Chief at Strike Command of the Royal Air Force)
Lieutenant General Robin Brims (General officer commanding the First (UK) Armoured Division)
-
Scarlett:
“We certainly had to consider the possibility that chemical and biological weapons would be used by the regime in the event of a conflict.”
-
“That said, there was some there was heightened concern, certainly by May 2001, about possible nuclear related procurement and longer-term plans to enrich uranium.”
-
(May 2001) “On biological weapons, at that point it was stated that there was clear evidence of continuing biological warfare activity. That was at a time when the intelligence about mobile production laboratories first came into play, and that was taken seriously. And as with chemical, there was a lot of emphasis on the capability of Iraq’s biological sort of industry to start production of agents very quickly if a decision was taken to do that. And then on the question of missiles, both extending to an illegal extent the range of the permitted missiles that they were permitted to have under the Security Council Resolutions, beyond 150 kilometres, if they were to extend that and then in fact to design longer range missiles, that was given a lot of prominence in the assessment as a step change in the progress that they were making. So that was a sort of baseline. “
-
“The next big assessment was done in March 2002, which was essentially and I won’t go over the detail again, but essentially confirmed many of those judgments with certain nuances. Significant progress on the missile programme was noted, that the most important change at that point was there was a stronger judgment about the capability to produce and plans to produce biological warfare agent, and that reflected a better understanding of the mobile facilities what was thought to be a better understanding of the mobile facilities and the refurbishment of a former production facility.”
-
(March 2002) “The judgment at the end of that paper was: “It is clear that Iraq continues to pursue a policy of acquiring WMD and their delivery means.”
-
“Now, there was a paper, an assessment, on 9 September 2002, which reaffirmed and that was on Saddam’s options for using chemical and biological weapons. But it was in fact a separate judgment on capabilities which existed. I know that it has been described as a possibly a worst case scenario paper, but it wasn’t intended to be that. That paper reaffirmed existing judgments on the ability, if so decided to produce agent the availability of a range of delivery permitted limits. The change was in the judgment on current possession, which now became firm: “Iraq has currently available a number of CW and BW agents and weapons from prewar stocks or recent production.” And the paper referred to recent intelligence on the production of weapons now taking place, the development of a mobile systems and then, importantly, on the regime and Saddam’s intent: The great importance that he attached to the possession of chemical and biological weapons and his readiness to use them if necessary, including to defend the regime from attack: “He saw possession as a central feature of his regional power position and continuing ability to project influence.”
-
“On 4 September, it was noted that the fact that Saddam possessed this capability and was prepared to use them was significant and needed to be brought to the attention of ministers. Close attention was paid at the meeting to the recent important and valuable intelligence, which was described as reliable and authoritative, and the assessments staff were instructed to firm up the judgment on possession in particular in the light of that intelligence, and that happened in the paper which was produced on 9 September: “It was also noted that further intelligence might be forthcoming in the near future.” And, indeed, further intelligence did come in September, which reported on the acceleration on theproduction of chemical and biological agent. And that too was regarded as significant.”
-
(Report 19th of March 2003) “The reports were assessed in the context of the policy of dispersal and concealment. They were not understood to be an indication that chemical and biological weapons did not exist. Indeed, they didn’t say that but, of course, it was clear from the reports that they might be difficult to find.”
-
“I had referred earlier on to the importance that was attached to his intent and his awareness of the possession of chemical and biological weaponry as an integral part of his power structure and his influence and his ability to influence neighbours. And that, I think, is correct and that, of course, is one of the things that we saw.”
-
Important exchanges:
LYNE: “So your assumption is that on 10 and 19 March respectively, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Chiefs of Staff, would have actually seen the update and then the JIC note of 19 March?”
SCARLETT: “They would also have seen – assumption, that’s a slightly loose word. I was certainly working absolutely on the basis that these updates by this stage, that they were being read carefully.”
LYNE: “Did you get any feedback, any questions about them?”
SCARLETT: “About that particular point?”
LYNE: “Yes, did somebody after 10 March ring you up and want to ask you about it?”
SCARLETT: ”No.”
LYNE: “There was no visible reaction to it?”
SCARLETT: “Of course, as I have said, it wasn’t new information and the disassembly was a longstanding item.”
LYNE: “So it was presented as confirming a existing?”
SCARLETT: “It wasn’t actually presented as that at the time. It was just reported in the update as being intelligence which had been received. But the intelligence reports themselves, as I have said, went through independently to the Prime Minister and, I’m sure, to senior ministers, because that’s the way the system worked.”
LYNE: “So did the JIC consider revising its assessment in the light of these reports or not?”
SCARLETT: “Well, the JIC looked again at the issue and recorded its view in the minute of 19 March and judged then that Iraq had a usable chemical and biological warfare capability, deliverable by artillery shells and possibly by unmanned aerial vehicles. It also said that missiles might be available to deliver CBW, but Iraq might lack the necessary warheads, which was a reference to the difficulty I have just referred to. What did not happen was that the JIC said, right, we have received these reports; this requires a review of our assessment on possession because that’s not what the reports said. The reports referred to disassembly and, in one case, of equipment which we had assessed to be disassembled for a very long time. So that wasn’t, in fact, new. And disassembly of the chemical weapons, the report which came in on 17 March, so quite a few days later, was saying that they didn’t have it. They were saying that they were concealing it and, of course, the consequence of concealing it was that it would be difficult to use. And, of course, it was highly relevant because that meant they would be difficult to use against US military forces or UK military forces. So I am quite sure that it was taken on board in that context.”
LYNE: “Just to be absolutely clear about this, these two reports were not a game changing moment?”
SCARLETT: “No, they were not..-
-
LYNE: “Now, some of the intelligence on which the judgments about WMD were made in the dossier, you yourself had described earlier as patchy or unclear. You said the stuff on missiles was good. Sir William Ehrman last week again used the term patchy, sporadic, poor limited. Did you come under pressure in preparing this publicly to firm up the language in the dossier? For example, there has been released under the Freedom of Information Act a minute from Desmond Bowen in the Cabinet Office, from whom we have already heard, to you of 11 September that refers to the use that will be made by the: “… opponents of action who will add up the number of judgments on which we do not have absolutely clarity.” So was there more clarity than you had confidence in in the way the document eventually came out?”
SCARLETT: “Well, the answer I mean, there were two questions there: was there more clarity and did we come under pressure. The answer to both is no and no.”
-
LYNE: “Obviously a lot of attention has centred on the 45minute claim. The dossier said on page 19 that Iraq could: “… deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so.” But it left it unclear what kind of weapons were meant. Should you, as the person with overall responsibility for the dossier, have corrected the misconception that this might have been held to refer to, say, ballistic missiles?”
SCARLETT: “Well, of course, this was as you say, had been the subject of great debate and it was considered in detail in the Inquiry by Lord Hutton and it was looked into also by the ISC and also in the Butler Report. And the conclusion has been that it would have been much clearer and better as it were, the matter wouldn’t have been lost in translation if it had spelled out in the dossier that the word was “munitions”, not “weapons”. I think that’s essentially the point. Of course, that’s all the report said. It didn’t say more than munitions, and it didn’t give further context to it. So anything else would have been assessment or speculation. Now, you know, those comments have been accepted. I would only say that there was absolutely no conscious intention to manipulate the language or to obfuscate or to create a misunderstanding as to what they might refer to.”
LYNE: “Were you aware at the time of the serious concerns about this that had been expressed by Dr Brian Jones of the Defence Intelligence Staff?”
SCARLETT: “I was not.”
-
FREEDMAN: Just another issue on the nuclear side. As I understand it, the British view and I think this is in published material certainly the British view is in published material that nuclear weapons were only an issue if sanctions ended, whereas the American view was that they could be a serious issue even with the continuation of the sanctions regime. Is that fair?
SCARLETT: Yes. And, of course, there is a nuance there, because you could have the sanctions regime continuing but being successfully evaded. And certainly our view was the British view was that if fissile material was obtained illicitly from outside Iraq, then that would make potentially a significant difference to the capability of that programme.”
————————–
Important exchanges
BURRIDGE: “So we wanted to be sure that we made it clear both that the Iraqi people were not the subject of our intent, but the regime; that we would be extremely careful with our targeting so as to avoid making reconstruction and the capacity building of the country more difficult; It is as simple as that. So that was the test case for analysing the exercise.”
GILBERT: “Is that what you had in mind when you told the House of Commons Defence Select Committee in June 2003 that many of General Franks’ staff the words you used were:”… would regard us as their conscience”? What did that mean? Is that essentially what you have just been saying?”
BURRIDGE: “Yes, essentially that. There are two aspects in that we use a different approach to targeting. We are absolutely doctrinally rigid. We use a template called strategy to task to target. So that we can show an audit trail, and are required to show an audit trail, from any target back to the strategy, thereby passing through all the aspects of the law of armed conflict such as discrimination, military necessity, et cetera. We are required to do that for our law officers in this country and we go through that process with every target. US colleagues were new to that as a discipline and they did recognise the value of it because it made it made the dialogue with the international community a little easier. Secondly, in being the conscience, as it were, quite often there will be nuances even amongst the same operational team on the front bench at CentCom. So someone who is able to say actually, to me, it looks a bit like this and I do remember on a couple of occasions saying, “General, that may look okay in Washington, but let me just tell you how it might look in London or, more so, Berlin or Paris or wherever”. It is not to say they needed reining in, it is just to get these nuances right they needed the input from someone perhaps whose perspective was a little different.”
-
GILBERT: “What were the respective American and British perspectives with regard to the exercise?”
BURRIDGE: “Sorry, what was the?”
GILBERT: “Our different perspectives.”
BURRIDGE: “Right. If we were going to participate, our end state would have been was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. The strategic end state for the US was to effect regime change. That may sound a neat point, but it is significant in gaining strategic alignment between two capitals.”
-
GILBERT: “Finally, before I pass on to Sir Lawrence, how did you describe the readiness of your force at the moment the action was to begin?”
BRIMS: “We were ready. Readiness was described prior to the any date being given.”
-
GILBERT: “Was there discussion between you and the Americans about the possibility that Britain might not, at the last moment, be able to participate?”
BURRIDGE: “Yes, I made it absolutely clear that the way things will be in the UK is this and there will be a House of Commons vote, the outcome of that will depend on whether the Prime Minister agrees that we should participate. And I have to say all I had in return was, “Yes, we understand your system, we absolutely understand your system”.”
World Speedskating champion Shani Davis has done it again!
Shani Davis smashed the world record by running the third fastest time ever Sunday in Calgary,and fastest anywhere but Salt Lake City, the world’s fastest rink — to win the 1,000 meters at the speed skating World Cup.
Davis was chasing his own world record (1:06.42) he set in Salt Lake last March, and missed it only by a few seconds by finishing in an astounding 1 minute, 6.91 seconds at the Olympic Oval, well ahead of Lee Kyou-Hyuk of South Korea in 1:07.61.
Shani Davis is unbeaten in three world cup’s this season, and his dominance is only getting stronger. As it stands now, Shani is in competition with himself-because there is no one in the world that has a chance to beat him.
He is demolishing the competition, and this is only the beginning. I predict a clean sweep at the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Olympics.
The world will come to know Shani Davis by his accomplishment dominating the sport of speed skating, and not for his little ‘row’ with comedian/Team sponsor Stephen Colbert.
Last Friday, Shani was thrust into the tabloid press by his very public denouncement of the acerbic comedian, that had upset Shani, by referring to the great nation of Canada in a very disrespectful manner.
Shani simply called Colbert, when asked how he felt about him,…”a jerk”…
Some in the media have been trying to portray Shani to be a self-centered, self-absorbed glory seeker, but I say that this is unfair,if you look at the main objective here. You are not self-centered if you simply look after your strongest business position, and sometimes the solo competitions take precedence over the team relay competitions.
There is a time and place for both.
Shani is in this sport to win, and he is fully aware of the fact that when he does win in a severely dominating way-ala Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps….then all the eyes of the world will be on him, as well as the sport of speed skating.
Face it…do you think that I know anything about it, outside of ”Hans Brinker” stories and my man Shani Davis here.I am certain it’s like that throughout black America. Shani is going to let us all know what’s up with Speed skating through his dominant streak of world record victories, and by being a black man doing it in a white sport…if you know what I mean…
The reality of it is that he can have the same effect his sport that Joe Louis had in his,and become the pound for pound speed skating champion loved by all.
Kids will probably make up a dance called the ”Shani!”…after he sweeps the Olympics.
Just wait and see.
Shani also has to recognize the basic financial realities that can be rewarded to him when he sweeps all of his competitions in the Olympics-and I want him to have all that he can attain. He, as well as all of his fellow Olympians, must desire the financial windfall that Olympic swimming hero Michael Phelps’ and Sprinter Usain Bolt received after they dominated and swept their respective competitions.
…and he saw that black Olympic swimming medalist Cullen Jones received far less endorsements than Michael Phelps,even after Michael got caught smoking weed!!!
Do you think that Shani Davis is selfish for wanting to be like Michael Phelps….rather than Cullen Jones?
I think the answer for Shani is simple, as he is a champion.
Handle your business Shani, and just know that, as your star rises as in the sport of speed skating,you will inspire a nation of African-Americans to become fans of your sport, as we join together to support and celebrate your continued streak of victories.
The world will have to bow down to your dominance in the sport of speed skating.
’s Ted Barrett, Dana Bash and Alan Silverleib contributed to this report
Ah, the ol’ ‘middle finger’ approach to songwriting, it’s bliss. Generally these types of songs come when the songwriter is royally pissed off. In this case, Rivers Cuomo was told by his record executives that Weezer needed more commercial material. That being said, Cuomo wrote this song about standing up for himself, about the triviality of the record industry and above all, defiance.
It’s ironic really, and slightly annoying to me, how bands can be told they need to be more ‘commercial friendly’ and instantly write a hit song. It makes me wonder, “Why couldn’t they do that before? Why did they wait to be told?”. But it also makes me realise that there is a reason these songs were written. By any measure, this song is wonderful. The music is typical thumping Weezer and the lyrics are once again, typical Weezer. You could not get a more Weezer-ish song if you tried.
You can read the full transcripts of the sessions here, here, here and here
Shani simply called Colbert, when asked how he felt about him,…”a jerk”…
…and he saw that black Olympic swimming medalist Cullen Jones received far less endorsements than Michael Phelps,even after Michael got caught smoking weed!!!
