Which version is more fun? Both for you and the audience? Scripted or freeflow? That's probably the question you're trying to answer with the practices. Glad to hear it's going well. I vote for models in lingerie...

cheers,

Dick

It will be very interesting to compare what you are doing now with what it will be sometime next year. As I see it, it'll be like how you polish the essays; and brother, I believe it will shine.

Sapper Mike

Hi Bill,

I have just found your site, and reading a few of your essays has encouraged me to read more. Even though I disagree with many of your statements ("No wonder the far left is praying for our own [young soldiers in Iraq] to be killed in greater numbers."), you do know how to tell a good yarn.

Was wondering what you thought of Bush's chief of staff Andrew Card recently saying that whether or not US intelligence going into the war was faulty, is a "moot point"?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1209-08.htm

As you stated below, Saddam killed many people. (rhetorical question alert!)Since we do not know when those mass graves were filled, how can we assume that the 1,700 deaths per months would have continued at that rate had we not invaded? Had Saddam's appetite for destruction peaked at some point, or was he able to maintain that 1,700 murders per month average throughout his reign, and could he maintain it with the spotlight of the world on him? (rhetorical question alert off)

In any event, the fact remains that Bush received the go-ahead for the war not because Iraqis were being killed, but specifically because we were assured that Saddam had stockpiles of biological weapons ready to be unleashed at short notice. We were shown fuzzy satelite pictures, told of mobile weapons labs, convinced that 50,000 liters of antraxnightshademountaindew were ready and waiting for him to pour out over our heads like gatorade on a football team's unsuspecting coach.

Appolgies if you covered this already (the significance of accurate intelligence and being "correct" (or at least honest if you are not correct) in making a case to go to War), but doesn't it bother you at all?

BTW - I think I think that we should have gone to "war" with Iraq, that jumping into the middle of the middle east and trying to start a democratic chain reaction is a bold, noble, and worthwhile pursuit. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of the bad guys should be a top priority. To that end, we should continue with the job we started. I just have a feeling in my gut that becuase of the clumsy way it was done (and in many ways still looks to be going), we have made it incredibly harder (and more expensive) on ourselves and innocent Iraqis than it had to be. True, France and Germany (to name just 2) acted poorly, and not always in the best interests of the World as opposed to their own best interests, but as of now their skepticism towards the "iminent threat" posed by Saddam have been vindicated. We may not want to admit that, but our job could have been be a lot easier (and faster) if we had placed less faith in faulty intelligence and more faith in the intelligence of people of the World, who I believe want to help in the spread of Freedom.

best regards

Kurt

[obscure reference] What about some French Foreign Legionaires fighting cowboys and pirates, all of whom are also shooting at the tigers, lions, and coyotes leaping through the air at a girl who's tied to a submarine? [/obscure reference]

If you've got juggling elephants you've got my $12,000 Bill. Hearing you speak would just be a bonus after that.

Yes, we had a good time (c: I kinda *liked* the Nyquilly, cottony, vanilla pudding version.
It's a pleasure and a privilege to see how things are progressing. I look forward to attending the next lab session -- if a deadline doesn't keep me tethered to the Mac all night.
By the way, will the models in lingerie include a manly man? ;^)
Amy

Bill:

I had no idea you were so funny. Your last few posts have been a riot.

Kurt,

Hindsight is 20/20.

All interpretation is subject to bias of some sort. If someone next to you is shot in the head and you find yourself looking down the barrel of a smoking gun, your interpretation of the events suggests that the person holding the smoking gun shot the person next to you, that the smoking gun is loaded, that the smoking gun has the safety off, that the person holding gun wants to shoot you in the head as the gun is pointing at you.

None of those things may be true. In the time it takes you to confirm the data, you may be dead. So, do you act with what you believe to be true or do you wait for that 100% certainty?

Regarding the intelligence community and Iraq's WMDs, I have a quick question. Why do people who maintain that Iraq didn't have WMDs assume that faulty intelligence stated they existed and current events have proved they didn't, when it could just as easily be true that good intelligence stated they existed and faulty intelligence and resources can't find them?

When law enforcement agencies do a surprise raid on a house where drugs are present, what do the occupants do with the drugs? They flush them down the toilet in a quick effort to get rid of the evidence while knowing that they can never retrieve them or the money used to acquire them.

If the occupants of that house were tipped off 13 months in advance, what do you think they would do with the evidence. They would move them to a secure location.

Saddam had 13 months to hide his WMD programs. If his people were able to move evidence around on the same day when UN weapons inspectors arrived at certain facilities, how good of a job do you think they'd be able to do given 13 months of leadtime?

If you were a drug dealer and knew that a raid was coming to your home tomorrow, would you leave the drugs in the house? If you were the murderous dictator of Iraq and knew that the US military was coming to invade your country because of your WMD program, would you leave the evidence in your country?

Steve, some of the rest of us read peanuts too.

I figured. :) If I hadn't thought so, I would've used [pointless reference] tags. Obscure references are only fun if somebody gets them.

Hey Bill, what did you think of Taiwan?
I just read in the paper that we'd issued a stern warning to Taiwan against declaring independence and flaring up a conflict. I asked my dad (who's a career FSO) what would happen if they did declare independence. He said that he thought we would try not to be too subjective, but in the end would come in on the side of Beijing.
I would like to know how we can expect our own people and the international community to believe that we are fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan for reasons of principle when we continue to sell out a friendly democratic government who has always been a loyal ally to us, in favour of the world's largest dictatorship. I was always angry at President Clinton's irresponsible pro-PRC policies, and I would have hoped that once we get a tough administration back in charge, we would show a bit more principle in our way of dealing with the Taiwan issue. That does not appear to be the case.
I understand that the mainland is a valuable trading partner, that it is a valuable associate in reining in North Korea, and that we should encourage China to become a responsible member of the world community. However, I think there are certain lines that one should not cross, realpolitik or not. Taiwan has always been a loyal ally, and we should value such alliances. Taiwan has a freely elected government, and that is something that we're supposed to respect. And most importantly, Taiwan is already independent, and it's time we recognize that fact. Our policy towards China has been smelling "doublethink" ever since Nixon.
We are trying to base our policies in the Middle East on principle as I understand it. We should do the same in China. Important commercial ties should not cancel out important principles. For instance, even as dependent as we are on Saudi oil, if there was a crisis between Israel and Saudi Arabia, we would back the Israelis, wouldn't we? Why? Because they're a democracy, and Riyadh is not. So why don't we apply that to the PRC and Taiwan?

I do NOT think we'd back Beijing on that one. The fact is that the invasion of Taiwan is impossible for the Chinese to pull off. (see USS CLUELESS for a recent, typically excellent analysis).

Time is against Communist regimes. That is why, I think, that when dealing with North Korea and Mainland China, the best bet may be to just let things ride for a while and not break anything, and just wait for revolution, evolution, or the Clue Bat to knock sense into them on their own.

(And time was against in Iraq, by the way)

WORLD CRISES SOLVED -- 5c

Hmmmmm, I guess I will have to sell my DeLorean stock and by a few tickets. Anyone want some DeLorean stock?

To Bill (and other readers),

I have two questions. I can’t ask them at a liberal site because the answer would just come back that Bush is the devil and what purpose would that serve. The first one is a general question or concern about the planning of this administration. How does the administration post a document that says countries can’t compete for contracts in rebuilding Iraq and then the next day call the same countries that where just publicly black listed and tell them they need to forgive all outstanding debt to Iraq? I question the decision to publicly antagonize many countries under the guise of national security (I mean are we really at a point where we have to consider Canadians a threat)? But even if the decision is made to block these countries from the reconstruction of Iraq, how can we expect them to then work with us in the restructuring the debt of Iraq? I fear it is inconsistency such as this that gets interrupted (and yes twisted) into the cries of American Arrogance.

The second question goes more towards my constant and never ending tilt at the windmills of uber-partisanship. Why is that then when this administration takes a dramatic stance against the long time policy of support ot Taiwan it is written off as "when dealing with North Korea and Mainland China, the best bet may be to just let things ride for a while and not break anything", But when previous administrations worked with either of these countries there were screams of treason? Ask yourselves to honestly answer how you would have responded if Clinton had told Taiwan to back off an independence initiative days before a visit from high ranking official from mainland China. For the record I agree with Bill’s opinion on China (not so sure about that attitude with North Korea they scare the hell out of me and have no underpinning of democracy like China does). The difference is I also agreed with that policy under the previous administration. People need to look at the policy of an administration not the party affiliation in deciding if they agree with a decision or not.

E:

I'll tread carefully here, because I'm on Bill's turf, and I know full well that he can write rings around me. But you asked an interesting question, and I'd like to try to answer it.

The reason non-coalition countries are not being invited to submit bids for Iraqi reconstruction is that, simply, one has to reward one's friends and punish one's adversaries. It's easy to dismiss that as 'punitive' and 'petty' and so forth. But realistically, if someone gets the same benefits from America, regardless of whether or not they answer America's call for help, then why should anyone answer such calls in the future? It's in America's best interest, in wanting countries to help us in the future, to reward those that do, to the exclusion of those that don't.

As for forgiving debts to Iraq -- well, France and Germany (and, to a certain extent, Russia) were the ones that ran up huge Iraqi debts BY SUPPORTING SADDAM'S REGIME. In what way does it make sense to forgive such debts? Again, in the interests of encouraging responsible international behavior, and discouraging behavior that endangers America, trying to get those debts forgiven makes sense. It would NOT make sense to say, in effect, "you supported a dangerous megalomaniac as long as you could make a profit from it; we'll make sure you get your profit, but pretty please, don't do it again."

These two rationales are not connected; they are independent of one another. It just so happens that a few countries are in BOTH categories (were eager to help Saddam, were reluctant to help the US), so they get hit twice. So what? Yes, the French and the Germans are in a tight spot right now. But it was their decision to take a stand there; America gave them every opportunity to jump on board. It's not America's fault that they refused to do so, and it's not America's obligation to save them from themselves by forgetting the past eighteen months.

Please note, by the way, some OTHER ommissions from the list. Israeli companies will not be invited to participate in reconstruction either, and for the same reason -- they didn't fight the war. (Israeli reactions to this are mixed -- they had their own reasons to hate Saddam, and would probably have fought willingly in Iraq, had they been asked to do so.) No doubt America would ask Israel to forgive Iraqi debts too, if Israel had any!

One last thought. It seems to me that many people expect the United States to 'play nice' with the rest of the world, on the theory that, if we do, the rest of the world will 'play nice' with us. It doesn't work that way; it never has. 'Playing nice', in a kindergarten or in the international arena, is a useful strategy if you have a playground monitor to make sure no one gets out of line. If you don't -- and, in the international arena, we don't -- then there's nothing to keep the 'nice' people from being stomped on, EXCEPT FOR THE SELF-CONTROL OF THE STOMPERS. Being 'nice', under those circumstances, doesn't get you very far.

Instead, you make sure you're able to defend yourself from the bullies... which gives you the freedom to be as 'nice' as you want to be, because you can stop being 'nice' when it stops being safe to do so.

By rewarding steadfast friends, and ignoring those who stood in the way, America is in fact engaging in the same sort of quid-pro-quo that "you be nice and I'll be nice" suggests. The main difference is this -- carrot-and-stick is enforceable and sustainable. Being nice, and hoping others will notice and act likewise, is neither.

respectfully yours,
Daniel in Medford

As for the PRC thing, I agree with you: partisan whining always grates on the ear no matter who's doing it. I happen to think that not confronting the PRC directly unless absolutely necessary is probably the best strategy, and that it was then, too.

Before 9/11 I was apolitical, and when I heard the Republicans baying at the moon whenever Clinton did anything good OR bad, I thought they were completely insane. I still think they had lost their heads, though I now have a substantially lower opinion of Clinton than I did then now that I've had the chance to look back with more informed eyes. (And, naturally, 20/20 hindsight.) I think if anything they did themselves harm by reacting to everything with equal hysteria, whether it was really a problem or not. And now I think the Democrats are doing the same thing... though I do think there's a bit more at stake now than there was then.

I am really looking forward to being in Pasadena on the 16th.

And no, I didn't plan my California trip around that date.

Really.

Well, not as far as you know, anyway.

Hello again.
I'm the one who posted the first thing about the PRC and Taiwan. Thanks for USS Clueless Bill, it provided very interesting insight into the situation. I always figured that the mainland could not really invade since we were there, but I never thought the situation was that much against them.
I apologize if my posting sounded too critical, but there is still one point where I think we are wrong, which is not recognizing Taiwan. Our policy concerning the Formosa strait doesn't make much sense. We basically say that there is only one China, the mainland, but meanwhile we back the other China, all the while maintaining that it doesn't exist. (Which it does, and we all know that). I realize that the time may not be right for this (North Korea being a pain in the @$$, and China finally stepping into the international community as a responsible player), but I still think we should grant Taiwan more official backing. The referendum plan, if it comes out to declaring independence, would be perfectly legitimate, and in the Washington Post article I read, it sounded like Bush was reproaching the Taiwanese for simply saying, "We exist". Couldn't situations as confused as this one create and uncertainty among the Taiwanese as to whether or not we are still loyal to them?
On a totally unrelated topic, but one which has been bugging me for some time; I was in France at the time the whole weapons of mass destruction controversy started, and all I heard over the French radio was a short announcement that the administration had admitted that it had misled the public about Iraq's WMDs. However, when I got back over here this seemed to be contested by many sites, including this one.
I'm not trying to restart the debate or anything, but could Bill or someone clarify this for me? What exactly did Bush say?
Thanks. Bill, excellent site you have here. Look forwards to visiting it more often.

Oh by the way. What my dad said was that we would quietly agree with the PRC's position should Taiwan declare independence. He did NOT say that we would back the mainland if they actually attacked Taiwan. I don't think anyone has any doubts that we would, in that case, come in on the Taiwanese side. Sorry if that was unclear.

Oh wait, one last question regarding Taiwan. I forget where I read this, but I remember reading somewhere that we had reason to believe that the Taiwanese have nuclear weapons. Is that plausible? We know Israel has had them for years, and if countries like Pakistan and India can acquire them I suppose it wouldn't be too hard for a country as well-developped as Taiwan. Any thoughts on that?

The realpolitik here is fairly simple and can't just be dismissed. Taiwan has de facto independence already, and while having them obtain real independence may be desirable, it's hardly our most pressing issue. Bush's position is to favor the status quo in the hope the issue will resolve on its own, and Bill is correct to point out that time is on the side of freedom here anyway, not on the long term survivability of Communist governments. It seems we will simply come down hard on either side which tries to disturb the status quo on its own (China by invasion, Taiwan by declaring independence. While we would defend Taiwan if China attacked, we don't have a whole lot of uncommitted military at present, and we hardly would welcome a unilateral provocation from Taiwan.
JKS.

An intelligent Christmas

I would like to remember you that for Christmas make an intelligent present is mandatory.

I would like to remember you that your company may grow up if you promote it doing something good for all.

By the way instead of making silly presents or nothing at all, you can help people spend only few money buying presents in good ethical products made by people of poor countries.

By the way instead of giving a diamond to your wife you can give a surgical operation to a child that absolutely needs it, or a year of scholastic education to a whole children class in India or Africa.

I give you one of the many possible chances that I like, whith no intermediates and wastes: just go to the site of The Shantidhara Social Servcice Society, (click here
http://www.shantidhara.org/) and let you give a school to thousands children with a small donation;

they are used to do everything with only few money.

Here many other ways to start immediately and be useful to everyone: http://www.liberaassociazioneilpopolo.it/inglese/attivazioneimmediata.html

I know problably you know and do these things, but don't be afraid to talk about it with your friends!

So do your own act; because it's easy to talk to stop wars, but where you don't sow love, there is only hate that grows up.

Domenico Schietti
2010 Poverty Elimination
http://www.liberaassociazioneilpopolo.it/

only if I get to fly the helo! And only if it's an HH-60G Pave Hawk! Can we do some aerial refueling enroute to the elephants?

In re the Taiwanese Nuclear Program;

Taiwan had a nuke proigram for a while, but was finally persuaded to drop i. Presumably for being put under the American security umbrella, as was done in other cases such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea.

Taiwan had several reactors, but does not have an entire fuel cycle. I don't recall offhand what they have in the way of proliferatable technologies, but they do have a basic nuclear industry that could, in the space of a few years, produce a usable device. However doing so would just about make them a pariah state and would jeopardize any American support in the event of an invasion.

Saddam in US custody!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105706,00.html

SWEET! [/Starvin'Marvin]

Saddam has been captured. I am going to fire my AK47 in celebration. Err, I don't have an AK47, we are not allowed to have guns in Europe. Fire a couple clips in my name. :-)

Anticipatory Retaliation, JKS, just wanted to thank you all for your comments about Taiwan. Especially about the nuclear effort.
THEY CAUGHT HUSSEIN! YES!

Scripted or extemporaneous? Both, of course. Just like a Christopher Guest movie, I would recommend a skeleton (how else to arrange for the visuals), but allow for improvisation too. Also, "going live" with multimedia would be good. It could not work out well at all, but you could actually go to live television and roll with it. You could have google access and let the audience nominate the search terms. But there has to be a skeletal structure. Do you want to have a video of aircraft queued up with no way of getting off the topic of ________?
:)