Wednesday, December 07, 2005

From Lebanon

Michael Totten has a great set of pictures of the Lebanon-Israel border and describes what it’s like there.  The Lebanon side is Hezbollah controlled, the Israeli side is settled with towns and irrigated fields.  Check it out.

Also, Totten has had a guest blogger who takes on the question of what to do about Syria.  It is an interesting look into the mind of someone with a stake in the conclusion of events.  It’s quite different from most of the analyses I’ve seen on the conflict.

      The Bush Administration may want to spread democracy and peace in the Middle East, but regime change and the military option have yet to prove effective in this tumultuous region. There is great potential for further instability.

      The Bush Administration learned a lot from the Iraq campaign. President Bush, Secretary Rice, US Ambassador to the UN Bolton, and US Ambassador to Lebanon Feltman are brilliantly using diplomacy. The United States government deserves congratulations for the way it is deftly using international institutions to support America's agenda. This is highlighting the best attributes of American foreign policy - support for democracy, human rights, justice, and anti-terror - while regaining the trust of the international community. America does not appear as the bully.

      Key word: diplomacy. The US does not need to assert the military option because everyone knows it is there. A few brazen remarks every so often wouldn't hurt, but shouldn't be a quotidien habit.

My only comment is that everyone knows the military option is there only because the current administration has proven that the U.S. will actually use it.

Monday, December 05, 2005

Honduras

The North and South American continents have always been pretty close to each other. Back in the day, when all the continents were apart of the giant landmass called Pangaea. North and South America then were more smashed together, Mexico City pretty much touching Columbia. After a very long time of floating around on an eternal sea of magma, the two land masses both drifted west, and slightly apart.
The North American plate continues to the north and west, slamming into the Pacific plate sliding along the San Andreas fault and sliding over the pacific plate somewhere off the coast of Oregon and Washington.
The South American plate drifts west and climbs over the Nazca plate. The subduction zone occurs just off the entire western coast, and results in all the volcanos.
The area in between the two continents consists of two smaller plates, both going in different directions. The Cocos plate extends from southern Mexico until Panama and is traveling east. The Caribbean plate is bordered by the Greater Antilles (Cuba and Hispaniola) on the north, the Lesser Antilles (Barbados, Grenada, etc..) on the east, the coast of Venezuela on the south, and the Pacific coast of Central America on it’s west.
Most of the countries of central America have volcanoes, due to the subduction occurring with the Cocos plate driving down under the Caribbean plate, but there is an area of Central America where the plates just bunch up the landforms. Unlike the north-south range of volcanic mountains running from Mexico down to Panama, and then continuing in the Andes, this area is a mishmash of ranges and ridges running every which way. That area is contained in the country of Honduras.

In this beautiful country, full of mountains and banana fields, is a small town with a boy named Luis, who gets support from an organization known as Feed the Children. We started sponsoring him about 4 years or so ago. It’s the coolest thing to know that such a small part of your income, even when you don’t have much to spare, can be such a shining light in a small child’s life. Especially when the people who give him the things he needs with that money are also sharing the words of God and the good news of Jesus Christ. He wrote us recently and expressed how beautiful his country was, so I thought I would learn a little bit more about it, and drop that knowledge on to you.

Honduras is the original banana republic, in that it is very poor, lacks many of the physical resources that the countries around it have, and yes: has a very large banana industry. Honduras is about 112,000 square km, about the size of Tennessee, and had an upside down triangular shape. The north side of the triangle faces the Caribbean sea, the SW side abuts Guatemala and El Salvador, and the SE side is shared with Nicaragua. At the southern apex of the triangle, Honduras has some coastline on the Pacific, in a gulf, Fonseca, shared with El Salvador and Nicaragua.
Honduras is mostly mountainous, with thin, flat plains near the coasts. The weather, as you might expect, is sub-tropical at sea level ranging to temperate in the highlands. The country was at one time heavily forested, but deforestation has been great, and much of the forests are gone, pushed aside by agriculture.
The area is frequently hit by hurricanes, like Hurricane Mitch in 1998, a category 5 storm which, because of how storms travel in the Caribbean, hung over Honduras for several days, causing massive flooding and killing thousands.

Honduras was a part of the Mayan Empire for a while starting in about 100AD, but the Mayan Empire centered in the Yucatan peninsula, and mostly had influence in the region. They build a city and temple in the area of Copan, near the modern day border with Guatemala. After the Mayan culture collapsed in the 900s, Honduras became an area of several tribes and cultures.
The Spanish came at the dawn of the 1500s. Columbus himself walked along the north coast of Honduras, but the region was largely ignored for many years. There was rumor of gold in the hills, and for a while colonization meant the search for gold. But gold has never been plentiful, and it eventually dried up.
Constant fighting with the Spanish until 1539 and European disease nearly wiped out the native populations in the 40 years after the Spanish first took control of the area. Honduras became a colonial backwater after the mining was depleted. Agriculture was not easily developed, as it lacked the fertile volcanic soils of it’s neighbors. Some tobacco and coffee was exported to Europe, but not nearly as much as the surrounding colonies. Most of the economy consisted of local grazing land. The north coast was also a frequent target of the infamous pirates of the Caribbean.
The colony collapsed in the early 1820s, and the Central American nations quickly declared independence and settled on a plan for a unified federation. Unification is hard, though, when there are local rivalries, suspicions, sectarianism and a strong divide between liberal and conservative trains of thought. By 1838, all the provinces became independent nations.
There’s an interesting tale of one Honduran who rose to become the leader of the Unified Federation and desperately held it together. He is like the George Washington of Central America. His name is Francisco Morazan, but I won’t go into his tale here.
Between independence and about 1875, there was a period of instability in Central America (you think: what, it wasn’t unstable at some point?). Squabbles between the political strains of thought dominated government and economic development was stagnant. To add to that injury, U.S. and European powers, mostly private, which either wanted to take over altogether or drive the area into debt by loaning money of which only a slight amount ever made it to the country. Most of it ending up in hands with sticky fingers, if you get my drift.
Between then and 1891, President Marco Aurelio Soto attempted to change all this by regulating state finances, reforming the legal code, and encouraged U.S. investment in mining. With that taste of success, large banana companies drove out the smaller producers and basically ran the government through bribes and financing private armies. One historian notes:
“North American power had become so encompassing that U.S. military forces and United Fruit could struggle against each other to see who was to control the Honduran Government, then have the argument settled by the U.S. Dept of State.”
Needless to say, government officials right up to the president ran things more like political “bosses” than elected officials. The worst of which was Tibercio Carias Andino of the National Party, who professionalized the military, suppressed his opposition and the media and let the banana companies run free.
All this led the U.S. to put pressure on the country after WWII, causing succeeding presidents to begin reform, modernization and liberalization. 1954 saw the birth of Honduras’ first labor movement, in the form of a banana strike. THE Banana Strike was the first one that the government could not put down with force or bribes, and grew to over 40,000 fruit workers and was widely supported. The government gave minimal concessions, but recognized the union’s right to exist – something that was unthinkable in other Central American countries.
But government officials were, on the whole, still quite corrupt and incompetent. 1956 saw the rise of military power in Honduras when Colonel Lopez Arellano and a group of soldiers threw out the government, and in a move not unlike what happens in Turkey, threw out the leaders, held new elections, and then turned the government over to the civilians again.
This occurred several times, and for the most part the military was in charge until the 1980s.
It was during this time that Honduras had what was called the Soccer War with El Salvador. It wasn’t much of a war really, but it’s quite interesting.
The military still held much control over things after that, but the 80s were mostly marked by the USA’s intervention in Nicaragua, by using Honduras as a base of operations for the Contras that conducted war with the Socialist governments of Nicaragua and El Salvador.
Each president subsequent to the disbanding of the Contras in 1990 has attempted to bring Honduras further and further away from banana republic status. Rafael Leonardo Callejas (N) was elected in 1989 by a large margin. He began a program of privatization, selling off public industries and laying public employees off in an attempt to put Honduras’ books in order. Mostly what it did was drive the unemployment and poverty rates higher, and the industries were sold to cronies and persons in the military. Carlos Roberto Reina (L) was elected in 1993 and promised a “moral revolution” to clean up the corrupt political system, which only slowed it down really. 1997 saw the election of Carlos Flores Facusse (L), who attempted to negotiate with all the governments and institutions that Honduras owed money, in an attempt to finally bring the country out of debt. Any chance of this happening ended with Hurricane Mitch, after which the government was in a constant state of crisis management.
Ricardo Maduro (N) was the victor in the 2001 elections, representing the first time that voters could vote for different government posts (parliament members, president) from different parties, and the national congress for the first time is controlled by a different party than the president.
Also a first, Maduro was elected on a platform of crusading against the growing fear of crime. People didn’t, and still don’t, feel safe in the streets. In fact this issues still dominates the political landscape today, and the current presidential elections, which were held a couple of weeks ago, pivoted on this issue.
The two candidates took different sides to the issue, but while the Liberal and Conservative labels don’t really mean much beyond historical tradition, the main difference on the topic of crime was that one supported the death penalty and the other life in prison for violent crime.

Now it appeared that the Liberal candidate, Manuel Zelaya, who ran as the more Catholic “life in prison” candidate was defeating the National candidate Porfirio Lobo, who was the death penalty candidate. Exit polls had him ahead, but the count was close and there is a recount going on.
Honduras was one of the first Central American countries to sign the Central American Free Trade agreement. Which is no wonder, as they stand to gain quite a bit. The last hold out was Costa Rica, the smoothest economy on the isthmus.

Christmas trees and Holiday Wreaths

OK, so there’s some discussion going on about how anti-Christmas activists are trying to eradicate the word “Christmas” from everything and replace it with “Holiday” or something equally as bland.  Note Fox has been calling this the “War on Christmas.”  And the left is just reminding us that the Constitution says that the government isn’t supposed to promote any particular religion, even if all that doesn’t apply as Christmas appeals to all the Christian denominations.  Heck, Christmas has become so secular that atheists too can worship at the alter of Santa Clause and decorate their houses for the fun and tradition of it all, without ever mentioning what it was originally supposed to mean.

However for me, it wouldn’t bother me one iota if the secular world gave up on the holiday all together.  Then the Christians could take it back as their own and recall what it is we are supposed to be celebrating.

Plame the sequel

Tom Maguire, who has been about as all over the Plame/Wilson affair as anyone, notices that there is another report of a CIA agent being outed by the press.  This time the journalist is not nearly as well known as Robert Novak.  The agent also doesn’t appear to have a husband who has a political axe to grind with the administration.  So you think this one is going to get any traction?

Pilots Win!

Congratulations to the University of Portland Pilots’ Womens Soccer team.  They beat UCLA yesterday for the College National title.  I got to watch that game, as well as the semi-final over Penn State.  It was a phenomenal game, and after a tough battle with Penn State, they made UCLA look like they had no business being in the final.  The final score was 4-0.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Airport insecurity

It’s about time:

      Airline passengers soon will be able to take small scissors and screwdrivers aboard planes again, Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley announced Friday.

      Hawley said the change will take effect Dec. 22 and is part of a broader effort aimed at having screeners spend more of their time searching for explosives rather than small, sharp objects that don't pose as great a risk. The small implements were banned after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Holy cow.  I could have told them that years ago.  I don’t mean to be conceded about that, think about it.  Before 9/11 most people flying airlines pictured hijackers as folks with some request, like get our comrades out of prison, or take us to Cuba.  Something like that.   After 9/11 potential passengers realize that there are people in this world willing to kill themselves and a whole host of other people in order to get their point across (or perhaps just take several infidels with them).  At the time, the hijackers were brandishing box cutting knives.

But look what happened when people on board the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania got wind of what the hijackers were planning.  They fought back.  Is it possible for hijackers to take control of a plane now with anything less than an Uzi and a blowtorch (for the locked cabin)?  I would opine that it’s impossible now, considering the extra safety measures and the consciousness of modern passengers.

And yet up until now federal standards for things you can't take on planes borders on children's toy kitchen knives.  A couple of years ago I took a flight and forgot I had an old wine key in my bag.  It had a corkscrew and a small knife, the kind you use to tear the foil on a bottle of wine.  And yet the security guy told me that if the knife hadn't been there it would have been fine.  I could barely cut a sliver of cheese with that knife, and would have been more afraid of an antagonist brandishing the corkscrew than the inch long knife part.

So what took the feds so long?
Glenn Reynolds says: A SHOCKING SIGN of Intelligence in the Homeland Security area.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

It gets worse

Whoaaaa!  Interview with a terrorist, reveals all sorts of things.  Like it’s highly likely that Al-Qaeda has the means to build a dirty bomb and how easy it is to get into Iran from Afghanistan.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Bundling Bungled Edicts

The FCC made some ominous comments about how cable companies should be offering their product this week.

      Responding to calls from conservative groups for tighter standards for decency in broadcasting, the chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has raised the option of allowing pay television viewers to pick their own channels, setting up a potentially costly brawl with the cable and satellite industries.

       
      Chairman Kevin Martin offered the option in a speech to the Senate Commerce Committee on Telecommunications and Transportation, reversing a well-established FCC position that favored bundling channels as the most cost-effective option for consumers.

       
      The so-called à la carte programming option is a pay-per-channel plan in which consumers would pick the channels in their cable package. That approach could replace the basic and expanded bundles now offered by cable and satellite TV operators.

 
Let me start by saying that I’ve been hoping that someday cable companies would offer channels a-la-carte so I could get the stations I want without the threat of channel surfing through dozens of meaningless and crappy stations.

However I have a hard time believing that having the feds call the shots is going to be healthy for the cable industry.  I also don’t think it will solve all the conservative fears about decency in broadcasting.  After all, can’t you just switch the channel, or get technology to keep your kids from watching it?  Or not get cable!  It’s not like power you know, you don’t NEED it.

Democratic struggle roundup

There is so much going on in the world it is sometimes hard to keep up with it all.  I read at least one site that is trying, but even he is focusing on actions having to do with Democratic struggle.

So here’s my Publius pundit roundup.

Egypt just had a second round of elections to fill up their parliament.  This is significant because you can only run for president if your party has at least 65 members in that body.

Mubarak’s ruling party is still in a majority, but the Muslim Brotherhood, which is an extremist group, has 76 seats.  The other reformist parties have a combined 10. 

Kirk Sowell argues that we need to remove any aid or financing we give them and get tough.  That oppositions parties are having such a hard time is from the government suppressing opposition.  They MB election wins are because they are running as independents and not under the MB party banner (which was outlawed in Egypt).

They are having elections in Venezuela again too.  This time all the opposition parties pulled out of the election, leaving Hurricane Hugo’s party as the only game in town.  They did this out of protest of Chavez’s rigged election practices. 

There were also some riots and general mayhem around the country.

The election results in Bolivia are around the corner.  Evo Morales just might win the presidency, and Carlos Alberto Montaner argues that the drug trade will find a haven there, Brazil will be adversely affected, the state might actually break up, fall into civil war (and take Chile with it).  Either way, the possibility exists that if Morales wins, the South American continent will be shaken.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa argues that Bolivia is in this fix because of Bolivian petty dictators who nationalized their countries and refused to see the light on opening up their markets.  Underlying this is the “enabler.”  The US propped up these petty “tinpots” in the name of political stability.

Honduras just had elections, and the incumbent president was defeated.  More on Honduras later.
Costa Rica chooses free trade!

Argentina slides further off the economic deep end.  The left leaning president down there, Kirchner, fired off all the last moderate economic advisors he had and appointed Chavez-type leftists.

Elections are probably not on the level in Armenia, where opposition boycotted the constitutional vote, and Chechnya, where the winners were handpicked by Putin and lots of the voters look like Russian soldiers.

Don't rescue me!

Bloomberg puts a big headline on this article about an anti-war Christian organization.  It seems that they had four of their workers in Iraq kidnapped by “insurgents” and Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) blamed the United States for the kidnappings, because they invaded the country in the first place.
Also:

      Kimberly Prince, a member of Christian Peacemaker Teams, said in a telephone interview from Chicago that the group doesn't want U.S.-led military forces to attempt to free the hostages.

 
So much for taking care of your own.  I respect that others, including other Christians, have opinions that differ from my own concerning the way our government operates.  It’s just embarrassing, that’s all.

Update: Glenn Reynolds responds:

      InstaPundit strongly supports the use of violent force to save lives of its workers (er, that's me), readers, advertisers, or unrelated onlookers should they be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a conflict situation. The use of grossly excessive or gratuitous violence, while not exactly encouraged, isn't exactly deplored, either.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Canada Falls

Here’s something that doesn’t happen in America ever, or even in Canada that often.  Due to our electoral system the President and members of congress are elected and serve their term and that’s it.  They can be impeached, but that is a difficult process.

However, in Canada all it takes is a vote of no confidence from the parliament and the Prime Minister is gone.  Just like that our frozen neighbors to the north have no leader, and must choose one in the next month.

This follows months of scandal and indictments.  In case you hadn’t been following it.

Darwinian Fundamentalism 101

I’ve talked about Intelligent Design and it’s relationship to Darwinism before.  A friend passed along this interesting blog that talks about Darwinian Fundamentalism.  The approach is sound, I think.

      I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.

For sure.  Microevolution being small changes in a species that changes the color or texture of their fur, gives them added resistance from disease (see last post) or some other minor adjustment.  Macroevolution being the change over time of one organism, say a fish, into another, like you.

Is Democracy like Sex?

Conversely, are special interest groups like parasites?  Take a look at this great article by the esteemed Professor Glenn Reynolds for the Vanderbilt Law Review where he ponders those questions and responds that the unpredictability and chaos of Democratic systems is not a bug, it’s a feature.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Insta-roundup

 When reading blogs during the day, I often read Instapundit first, or only.  Mostly this is because he is the most prolific and general, and will post on a variety of subjects.  I also appreciate the level of detachment he has to the subjects.  Opinionated, but not personal or partisan (although occasionally it slips in.

He usually has a running theme going on.  I found that War efforts and attitudes is a common one, and today is no exception.  (All links are care of Instapundit).

Democrats are finally saying that the best course for the war effort is to gradually withdraw troops as the Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.  Really?  You mean like Bush has been pushing for the last two years?

Troops in Iraq continually see things differently than we do here in the USA.  Why is that do you think?   Glenn Reynolds thinks it’s a Reverse Vietnam.

Bruce Willis wants to make a pro-war film about Iraq.

And a useful Urban Legends buster about the war.

Throw Phil Collins out

Bush unveiled his program for border security and illegal aliens.  It looks similar to what he has been proposing since the election.  I note that it’s not as extreme as giving current illegals amnesty, nor is it as harsh as sending all illegals back immediately.

There are some aspects of it that I like.  I like that employers will be targeted and punished to a greater extent if they hire illegal aliens.  Also that there will be more of an effort to release the detained illegal in their country of origin (even their hometown?) as opposed to right across the border. 

However, they are talking about lots more money to do this, and I wonder how that money is going to be spent.  Also, while there isn’t absolute amnesty, the plan calls for a temporary amnesty for all illegals that come out of hiding and register.  They will be sent back out of the country after 3 years automatically and then they can re-try to get back into the U.S.

I have been disappointed at how Bush and the Republicans have been spending money lately.  However, this is an issue that needs some sort of action, so I’m tentatively behind Bush on this one.  However, I’m sure that’s not my final answer.

Climate Busting Conference

Hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving.
The UN climate conference begins in Montreal.  The article says that there will be about 10,000 people attending.  I’ve been to conferences where there were over 10,000 people before and what I want to know is, what is the environmental impact of transporting, housing temporarily (in posh hotels no doubt), and feeding that many people for 10 days?  Keep in mind that the feeding part is going to be mostly restaurant fare, and all the waste that implies.

All that for what gain?  Will anyone really care in 10 years if the US doesn’t sign?

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

What makes the economy tick?

Some people think that they know what makes the economy tick, or some think that they know what to look for when evaluating where an economy is going.  But everyone who says that has a different set of indicators when compiling their analysis.  

Inc.com had an article that laid out the Democratic Party’s indices, which they claim are to test the waters of small business health.  But when you are looking at Health care costs, retirement and savings, Employee compensation, you are evaluating the health of the employment market, not the small business market.

As Jeff Cornwall, Belmont Univ. Center for Entrepreneurship, points out, some of their other indicators don’t tell you much about small business health either.

      Many of the factors that they load into their index are macro economic variables that have never been shown to really have much a direct impact on small businesses, including balance of trade and federal deficits. While there may be legitimate reasons to be concerned about these types of measures, there is no evidence that they have any direct impact on small business start-ups or growth.

      Other variables that they include are inconsequential or even meaningless for small business:
      - They include the Russell 2000 index, which is a measure of stock prices of smaller public companies. The vast majority of small businesses employ fewer than 20 people and they are not publicly traded.

      - They include venture capital activity. While this is an interesting factor for some discussions, VCs fund only a small fraction of one percent of businesses.

      - They include a broad measure of commercial credit, rather than the more specific measure of small business credit reported by the SBA that most recently showed a 5.5% increase in bank funding of small business.

      Probably the most important reason to be skeptical about the Democrats' SBI is what it does not measure. The cost/scope of regulation and tax rates have been proven in studies from around the world to be the two most important predictors of entrepreneurial activity. While the Democrats' SBI does include cost of regulations as one of their seventeen variables, they do not include a single measure related to taxes or tax rates.

      Why don't the Democrats want to include tax rates in their index? Could it be that it does not fit their agenda?

I noticed one thing in the article Cornwall linked to.

      With a perfect storm of rising interest rates, energy prices, and health care costs, the health of the nation's small-business climate is at an eight-year low, according to Congressional Democrats.

      Combined with the impact of hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, these conditions have "hindered the ability of entrepreneurs across the country to start and grow their businesses," Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) said in statement.

Hurricanes hinder the ability of entrepreneurs from starting and grow businesses?   If you view the market as static, then this might make sense, but the market, and the small business world is very dynamic, and a hurricane might hit the market of a particular area hard, but open and free markets are designed to come back from things like that on their own.  Free Enterprise minded people will look upon events like that as opportunities, and lacking any official or devious inhibition, they will create jobs and investment on their own.

Which brings me to my point, that the only two things that “hinder” small business development in this country are un-ethical anti-competitive strategies by large corporations, and the government.

Not in that order.

Protest Jimmy

Gateway Pundit rounds up several different protests.  They all have a common target though: Jimmy Carter.

This comes after his “certification” of the election results in Venezuela last year, vindicating Hugo Chavez’s latest presidential bid, despite massive voter intimidation and countless charges of election fraud.

One wonders if the Carter Institute is just following good business practices.  I mean who decides what third party gets used to monitor elections?  Doesn’t the government of the country in question have something to say about that?  So if your target clientele are governments run by fascist or socialist dictators, then your objective is to appeal somehow to those potential clients.  What better way than to certify the re-election of one of their buddies.

Truly, I don’t believe what I’m saying.  The reason that Carter has so much authority, it seems, to be able to get away with giving the thumbs up to corrupt governments is that people of the left persuasion still believe in him.  There’s nothing that I really can point to in order to dispel this thinking.  Jimmy really could be an honest, trust worthy guy, personally.  However, in that case he has the nativity of a 6 year old when it comes to foreign policy and electoral corruption.

Friday, November 18, 2005

WMD still unaccounted for

Frontpage has this interesting interview with Bill Tierney, former military intelligence officer, who worked at Guantanamo and in Baghdad.  He was also an weapons inspector for UNSCOM in Iraq.

Money quote:

      FP: Ok, so where did the WMDs go?

      Tierney: While working counter-infiltration in Baghdad, I noticed a pattern among infiltrators that their cover stories would start around Summer or Fall of 2002. From this and other observations, I believe Saddam planned for a U.S. invasion after President Bush’s speech at West Point in 2002.

Powerline notes that this period was immediately preceded by Bush’s West Point Speech and Senator Rockerfeller’s private visits with middle east leaders where he let slip that it was his opinion that Bush made up his mind to invade Iraq just after 9/11 in 2001.  Seeing as Rocky was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, I’m sure they took this seriously.

It means that Saddam might have been preparing for a US invasion as early as 8 months before the actual conflict.  He could have waged his bets that the US really wouldn’t invade or that he could hold them off if they did, he could have considered using his illegal weapons against the US if they invaded, or he could work on hiding the weapons out of country.  He seems to have wisely chosen the last option.

I say wisely with the caveat that the other two options would have been monumentally stupid.  Option one was a long shot in either case, and option two would have confirmed to the world everything he had been trying to hide for 10 years.

Since intelligence found weapons with serial numbers indicating that they had at one time been in Iraq in Belgium, and then quite a few Iraqi Scud missiles in Sudan in 2004, I would think that option 3, above, was actually put into effect, and you can reasonably argue that Saddam did, in fact, have WMD contrary to UN mandates.

Google Earth follow up

John Hanke, Product directory for Maps and Earth at Google, responded to the French report that I mentioned the other day.

      Does Google Earth ever censor or alter any data due to military or security concerns?
      "To date, we haven't made any changes to data."

      What about the incident regarding the White House grounds reported in the French study?
      "It was a USGS data set and in that data the USGS pixellated three areas. We had that data up for about a year and we recently pushed out some higher resolution data for about 40 cities, including Washington, D.C., from a private vendor, Sanborn. We did not make alterations to the prior data set."