Sunday, April 30, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
NBC: Chernobyl's uncertain health legacy - Chernobyl Disaster: 20 years later - MSNBC.com
When enviros start arguing against the resurgence of nuclear energy, the following article provides good intellectual ammunition against them: NBC: Chernobyl's uncertain health legacy - Chernobyl Disaster: 20 years later - MSNBC.com.
The key paragraph: "...a recent UN report found that of the millions of people exposed to low levels of radioactive particles spread by wind and in food following the accident, the health effects have proved generally nominal. The exception was a dramatic rise in thyroid cancer among children at the time. Thyroid disorders are widely treatable…."
The key paragraph: "...a recent UN report found that of the millions of people exposed to low levels of radioactive particles spread by wind and in food following the accident, the health effects have proved generally nominal. The exception was a dramatic rise in thyroid cancer among children at the time. Thyroid disorders are widely treatable…."
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Does Iran Already Have Nukes?
The American Enterprise Institute's Dr. Michael Ledeen thinks so.
As does Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.
I am curious what our millitary intelligence thinks.
As does Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.
I am curious what our millitary intelligence thinks.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Iran: World's #1 State Sponsor of Terrorism
If most Americans agree with President Bush's statement following the September 11th attacks that, "We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them," then it is time for Americans to lobby the Administration to live up to those words by removing from power the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism: the current Iranian government. This radical Islamicist theocracy, with its religiously fanatical mullahs and its insane, apocalyptic, war-mongering, Israel-hating president Ahmadinejad, now appear dead-set on aquiring enriched uranium in order to produce a nuclear weapon.
What's worse (and beyond reasonable debate) is Iranian support for the world's most dangerous terrorists. The U.S. State Department, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Bush enthusiasts, has for eight of the past nine years, named the Iranian goverment as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report.
Moreover, the terrorists supported by Iran are no longer just those, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, whose daily interest is in attacking only Israel. As summarized by counter-terrorism consultant Dan Darling of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism, a report in the German political magazine, Cicero states:
"The author of this article was able to look at a list of the holy killers who have found safe refuge in Iran. The list reads like the Who's Who of global jihad, with close to 25 high-ranking leadership cadres of Al-Qa'ida--planners, organizers, and ideologues of the jihad from Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and Europe. Right at the top in the Al-Qa'ida hierarchy: three of Usama Bin Ladin's sons, Saad, Mohammad, and Othman.
"Al-Qa'ida spokesman Abu Ghaib enjoys Iranian protection, as does Abu Dagana al-Alemani (known as the German), who coordinates cooperation of the various jihadist networks throughout the world from Iran. They live in secure housing of the Revolutionary Guard in and around Tehran. "This is not prison or house arrest," is the conclusion of a high-ranking intelligence officer. "They are free to do as they please."
"Saif al-Adel, military chief and number three in Al-Qa'ida, also had a free hand. In early May 2003, Saudi intelligence recorded a telephone conversation with the organizer of the series of attacks in the Saudi capital Riyadh that claimed over 30 victims, including seven foreigners, in May 2003. Saif al-Adel gives orders for the attacks from Iran, where he operated under the wing of the Iranian intelligence service.
"For years, according to the findings of Middle Eastern and Western intelligence services, Iranian intelligence services have already worked together repeatedly with Sunni jihad organizations of Al-Qa'ida. "As an Islamist, I go to the Saudis to get money," the Jordanian GID man outlines the current practice of Islamist holy warriors. "When I need weapons, logistical support, or military terrorist training and equipment, I go to the Iranians."
Given the undeniable links of the Iranian regime to the world's worst terrorists, and its highly likely desire to produce nuclear weapons, the American people should be demanding that the Bush Administration do the right thing and initiate a regime change in Iran before it is too late.
What's worse (and beyond reasonable debate) is Iranian support for the world's most dangerous terrorists. The U.S. State Department, not exactly a hotbed of pro-Bush enthusiasts, has for eight of the past nine years, named the Iranian goverment as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism in its annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report.
Moreover, the terrorists supported by Iran are no longer just those, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, whose daily interest is in attacking only Israel. As summarized by counter-terrorism consultant Dan Darling of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism, a report in the German political magazine, Cicero states:
"The author of this article was able to look at a list of the holy killers who have found safe refuge in Iran. The list reads like the Who's Who of global jihad, with close to 25 high-ranking leadership cadres of Al-Qa'ida--planners, organizers, and ideologues of the jihad from Egypt, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and Europe. Right at the top in the Al-Qa'ida hierarchy: three of Usama Bin Ladin's sons, Saad, Mohammad, and Othman.
"Al-Qa'ida spokesman Abu Ghaib enjoys Iranian protection, as does Abu Dagana al-Alemani (known as the German), who coordinates cooperation of the various jihadist networks throughout the world from Iran. They live in secure housing of the Revolutionary Guard in and around Tehran. "This is not prison or house arrest," is the conclusion of a high-ranking intelligence officer. "They are free to do as they please."
"Saif al-Adel, military chief and number three in Al-Qa'ida, also had a free hand. In early May 2003, Saudi intelligence recorded a telephone conversation with the organizer of the series of attacks in the Saudi capital Riyadh that claimed over 30 victims, including seven foreigners, in May 2003. Saif al-Adel gives orders for the attacks from Iran, where he operated under the wing of the Iranian intelligence service.
"For years, according to the findings of Middle Eastern and Western intelligence services, Iranian intelligence services have already worked together repeatedly with Sunni jihad organizations of Al-Qa'ida. "As an Islamist, I go to the Saudis to get money," the Jordanian GID man outlines the current practice of Islamist holy warriors. "When I need weapons, logistical support, or military terrorist training and equipment, I go to the Iranians."
Given the undeniable links of the Iranian regime to the world's worst terrorists, and its highly likely desire to produce nuclear weapons, the American people should be demanding that the Bush Administration do the right thing and initiate a regime change in Iran before it is too late.
A General Misunderstanding - New York Times
I have respected and admired Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld since I first came to "know" him via television during the early months of the first Bush Administration. My appreciation of his courage, his keen mind, and his tough outspokeness have been affirmed in this Op-Ed by retired Marine lieutenant general Michael DeLong, the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war: A General Misunderstanding - New York Times. This article also debunks the assertion of the Administration's critics that "it had a plan for winning the war, but not for winning the peace."
Speaking of winning the peace, this blog entry by a professional political statistician gives some hard numbers suggesting that we are, in fact, winning the peace.
Speaking of winning the peace, this blog entry by a professional political statistician gives some hard numbers suggesting that we are, in fact, winning the peace.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The Millitary as Last Option Argument
Hugh Hewitt has done a (belatedly) good job of covering the dangerous Hojjatieh ideology of Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad, and the threat of Iran's mullah's obtaining a nuclear weapon. However, I fear he overestimates President Bush's intellectual adeptness in dealing with this dire situation in a timely manner. So, I wrote Hugh a letter, which I reprint here.
Dear Hugh,
1. Thank you for focusing on the danger of Iran’s mullahs on your show and your blog these last few days. I consider myself a student of Dr. Michael Ledeen who, as nearly the only prominent American intellectual to have urged regime change in Iran for the past three years, has been a modern equivalent of Winston Churchill during the "Alone" years. I would argue that the honor of this comparison belongs to Dr. Ledeen as much, if not more, than to anyone else on the American political scene (given that Dr. Ledeen is a professional intellectual, not a politician).
2. I am deeply concerned that, with the current Iranian situation, President Bush is falling for the same "let diplomacy take its course through the U.N." delusion, foisted upon him by Tony Blair and Colin Powell in 2002. Only this time, the pressure is coming from the Democrats and a perceived reluctance of the American people (as portrayed by the MSM) to undertake another military action against a second Middle Eastern regime. They are saying that the U.S. doesn’t have the will or the way. I do think that President Bush has the "will". I just don’t think he has the "way", i.e., the intellectual arguments needed to justify action against Iran outside the context of the U.N..
3. The main argument put forth by the Left against taking quicker action to overthrow Iran’s mullah’s is based on the same maxim they misused to argue for delaying military action against Saddam during 2002: "Military force should only be used as a last resort." As misused by the Left, this maxim is taken out of proper context, and it is used to trick the intellectually unsophisticated into thinking that military action must be delayed until literally the very last minute before the enemy strikes us. This is, of course, suicide. Waiting until the mullahs have nuclear weapons is waiting until it is too late.
4. We (and by "we", I mean anyone who has any chance to influence the policy of the Bush Administration) should be counter-attacking against this faulty argument by pointing out that, while military might may be the least desirable option to use in general, it should not be the last option to use when confronted by enemies, who we know in advance are end-of-the-world Islamist madmen intent on obtaining nuclear weapons..
5. Time is not on our side. Considering that the progress of Iraq’s WMD program was vastly underestimated prior to the 1991 Gulf War, I feel justified in writing that we do not know with sufficient certainty when the mullahs will obtain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. We can rest assured that they would not hesitate to try fooling us into thinking that they are further away than is actually the case. And with President Bush apparently dead set on letting "diplomacy take its course" through the U.N. (where Russia and China will ultimately veto any Security Council resolution with teeth), I think all of us have cause to be deeply concerned.
Dear Hugh,
1. Thank you for focusing on the danger of Iran’s mullahs on your show and your blog these last few days. I consider myself a student of Dr. Michael Ledeen who, as nearly the only prominent American intellectual to have urged regime change in Iran for the past three years, has been a modern equivalent of Winston Churchill during the "Alone" years. I would argue that the honor of this comparison belongs to Dr. Ledeen as much, if not more, than to anyone else on the American political scene (given that Dr. Ledeen is a professional intellectual, not a politician).
2. I am deeply concerned that, with the current Iranian situation, President Bush is falling for the same "let diplomacy take its course through the U.N." delusion, foisted upon him by Tony Blair and Colin Powell in 2002. Only this time, the pressure is coming from the Democrats and a perceived reluctance of the American people (as portrayed by the MSM) to undertake another military action against a second Middle Eastern regime. They are saying that the U.S. doesn’t have the will or the way. I do think that President Bush has the "will". I just don’t think he has the "way", i.e., the intellectual arguments needed to justify action against Iran outside the context of the U.N..
3. The main argument put forth by the Left against taking quicker action to overthrow Iran’s mullah’s is based on the same maxim they misused to argue for delaying military action against Saddam during 2002: "Military force should only be used as a last resort." As misused by the Left, this maxim is taken out of proper context, and it is used to trick the intellectually unsophisticated into thinking that military action must be delayed until literally the very last minute before the enemy strikes us. This is, of course, suicide. Waiting until the mullahs have nuclear weapons is waiting until it is too late.
4. We (and by "we", I mean anyone who has any chance to influence the policy of the Bush Administration) should be counter-attacking against this faulty argument by pointing out that, while military might may be the least desirable option to use in general, it should not be the last option to use when confronted by enemies, who we know in advance are end-of-the-world Islamist madmen intent on obtaining nuclear weapons..
5. Time is not on our side. Considering that the progress of Iraq’s WMD program was vastly underestimated prior to the 1991 Gulf War, I feel justified in writing that we do not know with sufficient certainty when the mullahs will obtain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. We can rest assured that they would not hesitate to try fooling us into thinking that they are further away than is actually the case. And with President Bush apparently dead set on letting "diplomacy take its course" through the U.N. (where Russia and China will ultimately veto any Security Council resolution with teeth), I think all of us have cause to be deeply concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)