SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lurqer who wrote (26294)8/25/2003 1:06:43 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
;-)



To: lurqer who wrote (26294)8/25/2003 1:25:35 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
A Weapons Cache We'll Never See
________________________________________

By SCOTT RITTER
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 25, 2003

DELMAR, N.Y. — Some 1,500 American investigators are scouring the Iraqi countryside for evidence of weapons of mass destruction that has so far eluded them. Known as the Iraq Survey Group and operating under the supervision of a former United Nations weapons inspector, David Kay, they are searching mostly for documents that will help them assemble a clear, if somewhat circumstantial, case that Iraq had or intended to have programs to produce prohibited weapons.

It is a daunting task. And according to many Iraqi scientists and officials I have spoken to, it is not being done very well.

A logical starting place for such a mission is in the Jadariya district of downtown Baghdad, adjacent to the campus of Baghdad University: the complex that housed the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate. The directorate was the government agency responsible for coordinating all aspects of the United Nations inspection teams' missions. It was also supposed to monitor Iraq's industrial infrastructure and ensure compliance with the Security Council resolutions regarding disarmament, verification and export-import controls.

As such, the directorate was the repository for every Iraqi government record relating to its weapons programs, as well as to the activities at dozens of industrial sites in Iraq that were "dual-use" — used to manufacture permitted items but capable of being modified to manufacture proscribed material.

For 12 years the Iraqis collected and collated this data. If we inspectors had a question about a contract signed between country A and Iraqi factory B, the directorate could produce it at short notice. The 12,500 page "full, final and complete declaration" provided by Iraq to the United Nations in the fall of 2002 was compiled using this archive. And the directorate's holdings went well beyond paperwork: every interview conducted by the United Nations inspectors with Iraqi scientists throughout the 1990's was videotaped and available for review.

Of course, all this material was put together by officials and scientists who were obedient, either out of loyalty or fear, to the former regime, and it was done in a way intended to prove that Iraq was complying with the United Nations resolutions (something that has not been proved false in the five months since the American-led invasion). Still, even if one was to discount the entire archive as simply a collection of Iraqi falsifications, it would still be a sound foundation on which the Iraq Survey Group could have started investigations. After all, some of my most fruitful efforts as a United Nations inspector were initiated using false claims by the Iraqi government as the starting point.

And it seems that after the coalition troops moved into Baghdad, the records were all there for the taking. According to several senior directorate officials I have spoken to since the war — one a brigadier general who had been a high-ranking administrator at the complex — the entire archive had been consolidated into metal containers before the war and stored at the directorate's Jadariyah headquarters for protection.

Yet these eyewitnesses have provided me with a troubling tale. On April 8, they say, the buildings were occupied by soldiers from the Army's Third Infantry Division. For two weeks, the Iraqi scientists and administrators showed up for work but, according to several I have spoken to, no one from the coalition interviewed them or tried to take control of the archive.

Rather, these staff members have told me, after occupying the facility for two weeks, the American soldiers simply withdrew. Soon after, looters entered the facility and ransacked it. Overnight, every computer was stolen, disks and video records were destroyed, and the carefully organized documents were ripped from their binders and either burned or scattered about. According to the former brigadier general, who went back to the building after the mob had gone, some Iraqi scientists did their best to recover and reconstitute what they could, but for the vast majority of the archive the damage was irreversible.

(Page 2 of 2)

Obviously, I am relying on the word of former directorate officials, but these are people I knew well in my days as an inspector, and none would seem to have anything to gain by lying today. In any case, the looting of the building, if not the previous presence of American troops, has been well documented by Western news reports.

Why was this allowed to happen? I am as puzzled as the Iraqis. Given the high priority the Bush administration placed on discovering evidence of weapons of mass destruction, it seems only logical that seizing the directorate archive would have been a top priority for the coalition forces — at least as important as the Iraqi Oil Ministry or the National Museum. And it seems highly unlikely that coalition leaders didn't know what the archive contained. I was one of many international inspectors who led investigations of the facility — and the data we produced was used by the American government as part of its case that Saddam Hussein was hiding prohibited programs.

Today, with the tremendous controversy over the administration's pre-war assertions, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the archive that produced Iraq's 12,500 pages of claims — none of which have yet been shown to be false — that comprise the most detailed record of Iraq's weapons programs.

Next month the Iraq Survey Group will give a formal briefing to American and British officials on the status of its investigations. President Bush has already hinted that the group will make a case that it has found evidence of prohibited weapons programs and of efforts to hide them from international inspectors. Such a case may have merit, but without being able to compare and contrast it to the Iraqi version of events, I'm not sure how convincing it will be to the American public, or to the rest of the world.

____________________________________________

Scott Ritter is a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and author of "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America."

nytimes.com



To: lurqer who wrote (26294)8/25/2003 1:44:19 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
<<...The Market Climate for stocks remains characterized by unfavorable valuations and moderately favorable trend uniformity. Last week, the Dow Industrials and Transports actually cleared the non-confirmation they've displayed lately, by rising to joint new highs. That is a constructive development, and while we wouldn't increase our exposure to market risk at present levels, a well-behaved decline would create an opportunity to modestly increase our exposure. At present, our exposure to market risk is likely to fluctuate between about 40% on the low side to 70% on the high side, depending on the condition of trend uniformity that we observe at any particular point in time.

That brings up a subtle point - our identification of trend uniformity is very discrete: favorable or unfavorable. But within each status, trend uniformity can range from tenuous and weak to extremely strong. In some cases those details matter, and in other cases they do not. When both valuations and trend uniformity are unfavorable, that's all we need to know to establish a full hedge against market fluctuations. It does not matter how weakly or strongly negative trend uniformity might be. In contrast, when valuations are unfavorable and trend uniformity is favorable, our discipline requires us to accept some amount of market risk, but the extent to which we do so is determined by how strong or weak the status of valuation and trend uniformity is at any point. Again, at present, that extent is likely to fluctuate between about 40%-70%. Currently, we're near the low side of that range, but a well-behaved decline may change that.

Well-behaved essentially means a market decline that does not extend existing divergences or create new ones. For example, a decline in which the major averages retreat, but financials, utilities, retails, or some other sector goes into free fall, is not a well-behaved decline. Nor is a decline in which the number of new lows suddenly explodes on high trading volume. Nor is a decline in which risk spreads between corporate and Treasury yields suddenly widen markedly. Suffice it to say that there are a great many ways in which the market can decline while also behaving badly. Bad behavior conveys negative information. In contrast, well-behaved declines during periods of favorable trend uniformity tend to be good opportunities to increase our exposure to market risk. We'll see.

In bonds, the Market Climate continues to be characterized by modestly favorable valuations and modestly favorable trend uniformity. If trend uniformity was simply a measure of obvious trends in interest rates, one might be prompted to ask what kind of psychedelic mushroom would lead us to grade those trends as favorable. But as I've frequently noted, trend uniformity doesn't measure the extent or duration of any particular market movement, but instead measures its quality. Bond yields have certainly moved higher in recent months. But while the move has been very rapid, it has also been impressively well-behaved on the measures that we use. So we take the surge in yields as a signal of better valuation rather than deteriorating conditions for the bond market, and we've acted accordingly. Our position in the Hussman Strategic Total Return Fund remains fairly restrained, but we established some exposure to long-term Treasuries near the recent lows. The Fund continues to have a portfolio duration of less than 7 years...>>

hussman.com



To: lurqer who wrote (26294)8/25/2003 9:23:44 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
U.S. military strength called lacking in Iraq

sunspot.net



To: lurqer who wrote (26294)8/25/2003 9:26:09 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush uses crises to push preset agenda

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jim Salvucci
The Baltimore Sun
August 25, 2003

HERE IS a prediction: Soon, maybe by the time you read this, the Bush administration will argue that the Great Blackout of '03 demonstrates the need for more energy deregulation and privatization, a beloved administration theme.

We can already hear the first bleats of this contention from certain sectors.

Why is this foreseeable? Because it follows a pattern of behavior by the Bush White House to use crisis and panic to promote predetermined actions no matter the threat, situation or need.

A familiar example: During the 2000 campaign, the economy seemed to be humming and everyone forecast years of budget surpluses. George W. Bush touted his massive tax cut as a return of that surplus to its rightful owner, the American taxpayer. Never mind that his cuts went mostly to the rich and that government programs generally help the average Joe.

After the inauguration, the economy sank fast and the surplus disappeared. Sept. 11 hurt the economy more, and soon we were back to deficits. But then, in the midst of economic anxiety, the tax cut and all future tax cuts were recast as the best and only solution to our financial woes - just you wait! And now, despite obvious failure, the White House continues to push tax cuts.

Example two: The invasion of Iraq was also predictable the moment Mr. Bush took office. Many commentators have noted, though neither frequently nor stridently enough, the influence of a group of neoconservatives under the rubric the Project for the New American Century. In 1998, they called on President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq in order to frighten the Middle East and the world into a new era of peace and democracy.

The group is no conspiracy hatched in obscurity, but a collection of prominent ideologues with a Web site. Among them: Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Well, so what?

Sept. 11 provided a unique opportunity for this group to accomplish its goal. We knew then as we know now that Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 terrorists, but the strike on American soil and subsequent alarm offered a convenient opening for the Project for the New American Century's invasion scenario.

As backup, we heard that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction threatened us imminently.

The fact is that Mr. Hussein's overthrow has indeed frightened our enemies, but Iran and North Korea have consequently accelerated their nuclear weapons programs - the precise opposite of the theoretical outcome.

Need some more examples?

We have seen the same pattern with regard to government secrecy. Before 9/11, the Bush administration was on track to become the most secretive regime in memory. The terrorist strikes again provided handy cover as the cry of "homeland security" replaced "national security" as the favorite counter to public scrutiny.

Another? Big forest fires, we are told, call for more logging, as though administration ties to the logging industry had nothing to do with this naked boondoggle.

All of these policies - tax cuts, invasion, secrecy, anti-environmentalism - were foregone conclusions the moment Mr. Bush was elected. No matter the circumstance, the administration will deliver its ideological results. Danger, disaster and dread - the horrors of 9/11 among them - become mere pretext for domestic and foreign policies already in the works.

And what have we, the American public, gained? Appalling joblessness, increasing deficits, decreasing security, endangered civil rights, misdirection in Iraq and threatened natural areas. With this record to guide us, we can predict the results of more energy deregulation and privatization.

Conservatives have always claimed to present the voice of reason, but they are more allergic to clear fact and logic than the liberals and postmodernists they constantly denounce. The truth is that under the watch of President Bush and his conservative and corporate allies, our country has not prospered. We do not feel safer. We certainly should not feel freer.

The modus operandi of Mr. Bush and his crowd is to use times of danger to push distasteful ideology and then wait for free-market utopia to break out all over. It is a beautiful dream, but the results speak for themselves.

___________________________________

Jim Salvucci teaches English at Villa Julie College in Stevenson.

Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun

sunspot.net



To: lurqer who wrote (26294)8/25/2003 11:17:23 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Message 19240540