Friday, September 29, 2006

Hannity misinformation re: Clinton

Hannity has been on a crusade to bash Clinton for not getting Bin Laden. One of his favorite claims is that Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, but Clinton wouldn't take him because it was a hot potato.

However, Media Matters for America has the following information about Hannity's claims:

"From the June 21 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Here's what bothers me. Is Bill Clinton gave a speech and he said "I couldn't take him [Osama bin Laden] for legal reasons, so I tried to get Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato." He admitted to the Sudan offer.

DAVIS: No. That's a lie.

HANNITY: He offered it. It's not a lie. I have the tape, Lanny.

DAVIS: It is.

HANNITY: Lanny, I have the tape of the speech.

DAVIS: And I've heard tape. You've played it for me. He never refused, never refused to take Osama bin Laden.

HANNITY: How can he offer -- "I asked Saudi Arabia to take him but it was too hot a potato" -- how can he offer bin Laden to them if he doesn't have him?

The truth is that Clinton never offered Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Hannity distorted a remark Clinton made in a speech to the Long Island Association's annual luncheon on February 15, 2002, in which Clinton said that he "pleaded with the Saudis" to accept Sudan's offer to hand bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States. Hannity's mention of "the tape" is a reference to a video of this speech. NewsMax.com obtained a video of the speech in 2002 and began hyping the supposed Clinton "admission" (see transcript and listen to the audio). In fact, Clinton did not "admit" to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else. Here's the relevant portion of Clinton's remarks to the Long Island Association:

CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Iraq Is Fueling Muslim Radicalism Globally, U.S. Says (from Bloomberg.com)

Iraq Is Fueling Muslim Radicalism Globally, U.S. Says (Update2)

By Brendan Murray and Jeff Bliss

Sept. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Anger over the war in Iraq is fueling Muslim radicalism, and the dispersal of terrorist cells around the world poses a greater risk of attacks on the U.S., according to excerpts of a National Intelligence Assessment.

The four-page document, posted last night on the Web site of the Director of National Intelligence, said that while U.S. counterterrorism efforts have ``seriously damaged'' al-Qaeda's leadership, the terrorist movement is growing and becoming more decentralized. The threat of attacks worldwide will increase if current trends continue, it says.

``We assess that the operational threat from self- radicalized cells will grow in importance to U.S. counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the homeland,'' according to the excerpts labeled ``key judgments'' from an April National Intelligence Estimate.

Release of the document comes six weeks before congressional elections in which Democrats are attempting to make the war in Iraq a central issue and Republicans are trying to portray themselves as best equipped to combat terrorism.

Democrats seized on the assessment, a consensus of intelligence analysts from 16 federal agencies including the Central intelligence Agency, to advance their argument that the war in Iraq has made the U.S. less safe. Bush and his fellow Republicans have countered that Iraq is a central front in the war against terrorism and a defeat for extremists there will be a serious blow to extremists worldwide.

Role of Iraq

Both sides could point to portions of the document to make their cases.

``The Iraq conflict has become a `cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement,'' the report says. ``Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.''

Some of the conclusions conflict with past statements by members of the administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The report addresses a question posed by Rumsfeld in a widely publicized October 2003 memo to his top aides: ``Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?''

The intelligence findings said: ``A large body of all- source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in number and geographic dispersion.''

New Generation of Terrorists

It also says that the war in Iraq ``is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.''

A White House official said the conclusions are consistent with Bush's repeated statements that the war in Iraq is a crucial component of the strategy to defeat terrorism and to make the U.S. less prone to attack.

``I don't think that there's any question that we're safer,'' Frances Townsend, Bush's homeland security adviser, said in a conference call after release of the document. ``This is a long war because it's not only a battle of arms but it's a battle of ideas, and the battle of ideas is going to be a long- term battle.''

Bush ordered declassification of the ``key judgments'' from the intelligence assessment after disclosure of the document in the New York Times and Washington Post on Sept. 24 brought renewed criticism of his policies in Iraq from Democrats.

New Life

The declassified excerpt ``pretty much confirms'' what was reported by the newspapers, said Larry Korb, a senior fellow and defense analyst at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic-leaning policy group in Washington. ``Al-Qaeda was in big trouble after we went into Afghanistan and it's taken on a new life after the invasion of Iraq.''

Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon intelligence expert who is now a defense policy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the findings weren't surprising.

Opinion polls have shown for some time ``the war in Iraq had become a major source of Arab resentment,'' he said.

`They Understand'

At a White House news conference yesterday, Bush said he wasn't surprised that terrorists were exploiting the situation in Iraq. ``They're using it as a recruitment tool because they understand the stakes,'' he said.

To believe that radicals would fade away if the U.S. wasn't in Iraq is to ``ignore 20 years of experience,'' Bush said, citing the Sept. 11 attacks and other strikes against the U.S.

``If we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions,'' Bush said. ``They kill in order to achieve their objectives.''

His allies in Congress echoed that stance. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second ranking Republican in the Senate, said ``defeating terrorists in Iraq not only secures that new democracy, but prevents future attacks here at home,'' he said.

Democrats drew the opposite conclusion.

Representative Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that the report shows that ``contrary to the president's assertions, our failed strategy in Iraq has exacerbated the threat against us.''

``The president says that fighting them `there' makes it less likely we will have to fight them `here,''' she said. ``The opposite is true. Because we are fighting them there, it may become more likely that we'll have to fight them here.''

Bush contended the report was leaked for political purposes. ``Here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign and it's on the front page of your newspapers,'' he said. ``Isn't that interesting?''

Public View

The president is facing a public increasingly skeptical about the conflict. In a Sept. 16-19 Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, 55 percent of adults said the war was not worthwhile and 60 percent said it was diverting resources that could be used to fight terrorism.

Stu Rothenberg, a political analyst who is editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, said by releasing the report the administration may be seeking to keep the focus of the public on the terrorist threat, an approach that has helped Bush's approval ratings in recent polls.

``In the near-term, it is hard to see how this helps the administration's case,'' Rothenberg said. ``They are going to be on the defensive, at least for a few days, as the Democrats play `I told you so.'''

Still, he said, the administration ``was pretty effective for a couple of weeks in talking about terror, and all the president is doing to try to keep America safe, and I am sure they will go back to that well again.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Brendan Murray in Washington at brmurray@bloomberg.net Jeff Bliss in Washington jbliss@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: September 27, 2006 09:35 EDT

Monday, September 25, 2006

Iraq

OK, my thoughts about Iraq War:

BIG MISTAKE.

I also want to be on record as saying I've always felt it would be a big mistake (clarification - during the short period in which Bush scared the world into believing Iraq still had WMD, I, like many people, was temporarily convinced we better go in there and knock out those god-damned WMDs. But it didn't take long for the world to see the fallacy of that argument for war)

OK, going back to the prewar days - here's my thinking: Oraq is a country made up of three major ethnic groups (Kurds, Sunni, Shiites) as well as a smattering of Christians. These groups historically have HATED each other and have NEVER demonstrated any ability to live together in peace. Why would a US-imposed democracy ever appeal to them??? They don't care about democracy. They care about killing each other. How naive can we be to think we can go in, remove Saddam Hussein from power, and, all of a sudden, a nation is united in democracy, love and idolotry of the US. I truly believe that is exactly what the designers of this war thought would happen.

But the fact that the highest powers in this government thought this was possible really disturbs me. How naive can they be??? WTF??? Of course, these days these people claim they were fed mis- or disinformation regarding Iraq. But I contend it didn't take much to KNOW that Iraq was a civil war just waiting for an excuse to happen. So, if the highest levels of our government didn't know a civil war was highly likely, then I am truly scared of our government. We must be governed by a bunch of ostriches with their heads in the sand. I mean, it doesn't take a PhD in astrophysics to know that Iraq was a powder keg - I knew it, and I'm just a lowly everyman.

I really resent that we were put into this war.

Oh, and another thing the right wingers keep saying is that the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. OK - maybe it is NOW. However, Iraq and GLOBAL terror had absolutely NO connection to each other PRIOR to the US invasion of Iraq.

In fact, in response to a leaked governmental memo in which the Iraq war was fueling global terrorism, Bush declassified more of that document and continues to justify the War in Iraq as a war on terror. My stance is - YES, he's turned it into a HUGE war on terror, as well as a HUGE boon to terrorist recruitment globally.

Now he and his allies are taking the stance that radical islam was going to hate us regardless of our attack on Iraq, and that if it wasn't Iraq providing motivation for terror recruitment, they'd find some other excuse.

[I'm not sure how I feel about this - I'll have to comment in a later post]

Even so, our resources would have been much better spent truly chasing global anti-western terrorists rather than diverting most of our energies and resources to a fabricated war that, at the outset of the war, had no connection to global terror whatsoever.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Excellent commentary on War on Terror, etc.

Public Radio International's "Here and Now" radio show interviewed Michael Scheuer .. "former analyst with the CIA and a man who once led the hunt for bin Laden" on what the war on terror will look like 20 years from now.

What I found interesting were his views about what Muslims often claim as a source of resentment toward the US - namely, the US support for autocratic repressive regimes in the Mideast. Mr. Scheuer conceeds that policies resulting in such Arab attitudes may be politcally necessary for the US. He contends "we may *have* to [support mideast dictatorships] for political reasons. Its perfectly possible that it is in the interest of the United States to do so"

Wow, how refreshing is that last sentence?!!

What I really appreciate about this statemnet is it does NOT say the US is evil for taking actions or positions. But rather, it is simply the US looking out for US interests - the same thing that any sovereign nation must do.

Typically when this topic comes up, people take extremely polarizing sides. Conservatives dismiss anyone who accuses the US of fommenting anti-US feelings amongst Arabs (by supporting autocratic Arab dictatorships) as appeasers, which has become a code-word for the right wing to describe anybody who gives creedence to any statement of an Arab or European opinion (unless, of course, the statement happens to fall in line with right-wing doctrine).

On the other hand, left wingers who discuss this issue tend to be quite brutal in their assessment of the US. In their view, everything wrong in the world is ultimately traced back to some sort of foreign policy pursued with impunity by the US. There is never any acknowledgement that the US has legitimate, self-centered interests to pursue - just like any country in the world. A left-wing attitude of the US role in the world is that the US should bend over backward to avoid insulting, injuring, disparaging or in any other way disappointing any other country or ethnic group in the entire world.

In other words, commentators on this issue typically take either a pro-US, anti-Muslim stance, or a pro-Muslim, anti-US stance. There is rarely any recognition that the politics are so much more complicated, and rarely any recognition that any choice the US makes is going to have both positive and negative impact.

The leftist approach is simply unrealistic and naive. Yet the right-wing attitudes are bull headed and intolerant.

Me, I just want a healthy USA (and world) for my children and children's children to grow up in. I couldn't care less if the Senate has a Democratic or Republican majority. I don't care which party is in the Whitehouse. I am sick and tired of the extreme political polarization that is gripping this nation.

I don't see that Scheuer has an agenda, other than to expose the truth. He is just painting a picture of the world and the US as he sees it.

He also has much more to say in this interview, which I won't go into now. But I recommned it highly.

http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/herenow/2006/09/hn_0911.rm?start=21:10

Friday, September 08, 2006

Net Neutrality

The Internet its core technologies are based on packet switching equipment. The protocols (at least, the ones currently in use in the real world) and the equipment are not designed to provide a circuit that meets the requirements of multimedia applications.

Now, one logical area of Internet evolution is to provide all sorts of multimedia applications.

However, since the protocols and equipment aren't designed to provide circuits that meet the requirements of multimedia applications - this evolution is not going to occur without introducing new protocols and/or equipment.

One NECESSARY step in this direction is that the new protocols and/or equipment MUST be able to identify a multimedia application as it flows through the network.

Once it identifies that a particular flow is a multimedia application, it can reserve a multimedia circuit for this flow. Without this circuit, and using only today's equipment and protocols, the packets will not be delivered in a reliable and predictable sequence, making the multimedia experience for the end user become unacceptable.

Case in point - have you ever tried to watch streaming video over the Internet? It ain't pretty, is it? There's a long way to go before full screen video can be streamed over the Internet.

Notice in my argument I didn't mention anywhere about WHO was providing the multimedia content. I'm only talking about providing multimedia content - PERIOD. I don't care where it comes from, I only care that the technology can provide multimedia. Because, presently, it surely CANNOT provide multimedia - regardless as to who provides the content.

I claim Net Neutrality prohibits reliable multimedia from working on the Internet (I challenge anyone to explain HOW reliable, fullscreen multimedia streaming works in a Net Neutrality world)

One (flawed) argument might be to throw more bandwidth at the problem. If there's enough bandwidth, then surely any multimedia application will pass through the pipes.

This is flawed - simply because no multimedia service can be engineered on top of an unreliable delivery service (ie, the Internet) without building into it some sort of reliable, predictable delivery mechanism. Lots and lots of bandwidth addresses neither of those requirements - even with 99% bandwidth idle, a switch still might deliver packets in a non-predictable manner. This results in jitter, which, in sufficient quantity, renders a multimedia connection unusable.

How do we provide reliable, predictable, low-jitter connections? By reserving a circuit between two endpoints, with the characteristics of that circuit being sufficient for multimedia (reliable, predictable, low-jitter).

Once again, I'm not talking about where the content comes from - only that the content needs to get from point A to point B in a reliable, predictable fashion no matter who is providing the content.

However, I just described a process that is illegal in the Net Neutrality world. Setting up a reserved circuit is the same as distinguishing and discriminating one packet from another. Because as each packet enters a network, the equipment must decide whether it is destined for a reserved circuit or for general bandwidth. It gives preferrential treatment to those packets that are deemed part of a multimedia circuit - but that's not so much to crowd out other packets, but to simply guarantee that the packets are delivered in a reliable, predictable sequence.

So, if you want Net Neutrality, then you are saying you do not care to see multimedia applications on the Internet evolve beyond where they are today. Personally, I think you're excluding a lot of really cool stuff from being provided.