FR Columnists'Corner - "Heads I win, Tails You Lose" by William McKinley

Free Republic Network ^ | 7-29-03 | William McKinley

[Bob J]

FR Columnists' Corner

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

By William McKinley

Imagine if people cared about coin flips. I mean, cared deeply and passionately about if heads would come up or if tails would come up. Imagine there being heads partisans, and tails partisans, and imagine there being moderates who can prefer heads one time and tails the next, depending on the coin, or the day, or the way the wind blows. And imagine that our fictitious little land does not know that an everyday coin will come up heads half the time, and tails half the time.

Now imagine if a study was conducted by a major university. The study would flip a coin 500 times, and count the number of times it came up heads, and the number of times it came up tails. Using good scientific method, the study would then use a different coin, and count the results for it.

And let's further imagine that the first coin, a bright and shiny penny, came up tails 260 times (52%). And the second coin, an equally bright and shiny quarter, came up heads 265 times (53%). Both are reasonable numbers, as we would expect that 19 times out of 20 that a 500 flip sample is measured, the result would be between 46-54% for either result, given random chance.

If one were to visit such a land the day after the study was published, what would one be able to gather if one saw paper after paper blaring "a majority of coin flips comes up tails, a recent study reveals"? And what would one be able to gather if one heard news report after news report talking about how "a recent study has ominous news for the heads, as a majority of flips came up tails"? What would we be able to gather, if one searched high and low to find a single report in the media about how the same study had a result with the opposite conclusion, and perhaps with even a greater majority, and none were to be found? Would we not be able to conclude, without there being any real doubt, that the media in our little land is significantly biased against the advocates of the head? Would we not be able to conclude, without there being any real doubt, that the media has a tail fixation?

Recently, the University of Maryland released a poll. Reporters and writers were unanimous in their appraisal: a majority of Americans believed that the Bush administration misled the people, lied to the people, stretched the truth to the people, and a few other descriptions all amounting to the same thing- the majority had spoken, and the administration's side was in the minority.

The question from the poll that had generated the responses cited in story after story was "Is it your impression that when the US government presented evidence of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war with Iraq it was...", to which 52% chose the answer "stretching the truth, but not making false statements." Tails!

There was another question in the survey. "Is it your impression that when the US government presented the evidence to justify going to war with Iraq, it was being misleading or not misleading?" This is a very similar question, and the presence in polls of two similar questions asked different ways is to give a way to measure if the way a question is asked influences the results. To this, 53% responded, "not misleading". Heads!

In this poll, when asked one way, a majority said that the truth was being stretched (or worse), and when asked another way, a majority said the administration was not being misleading. Yet every news story echoed the same line- the majority sided against the administration.

If the media was unbiased (or rather, represented by an equal distribution of biases), there should have been stories describing how a majority of the people thinks the administration has stretched the truth, and there should have been a comparable number of stories about how the majority thinks the administration has not been misleading. There should have been stories about how the poll showed things that could be read either way. There should have been a variety of analyses, since it really could be presented accurately, if not truthfully, in a number of ways.

For example, the same question's results which triggered the media response that "the majority thinks Bush stretched the truth", could very easily and accurately as 'over three quarters of the public says that the US government did not present evidence they knew was false'; in addition to the 52% that chose "stretching the truth, but not making false statements" were 32% who chose "being fully truthful". Reports written like this did not get written, however. What can we gather from this?

In reality, the University of Maryland poll shows that about half the country thinks the administration stretched the truth but did not mislead. About a tenth thinks it lied, and a third thinks it was completely truthful. We did not see any stories about this poll written like this, either. What does this tell us about the media?

It tells me that the media is biased, and not to a small degree. The complete absence of stories of stories declaring "a majority of Americans say the adminstration did not mislead them" is proof. The media presents information in a manner which tells the story which they want us to hear, hoping to elicit a response they want to see. Remember this the next time a story comes around crowing about what the majority thinks. The real story may be different, just hidden by a media whose heads are buried in its tails.

[Mike4Freedom]

That the media is biased is self evident. Generally they are biased in favor of the existing government because they want favors from that government. Occasionally they display politcal bias in one direction or the other on a particular issue but their bias generally favors more government intervention. This is for the first stated reason and because they tend to report bad news and problems and the government is often the first, non-thinking solution to any problem.

We (conservatives and libertarians) generally know that most problems are caused by too much government and government is rarely the solution to anything.

Now, as to the justification for the war, the current polls are interesting as a data point. The really important data is how those numbers change with time in the future. I would suppose that the more time goes by with no weapons found, the more people will conclude that the original data was false. Of course, we shall see how that works out, but I would be truly disappointed with the American people if that does not happen. They will also have to judge if was an intentional lie or stupidity.

For those old enough to remember, even loyal Republicans eventually stopped supporting Nixon in the Watergate affair.

The sooner the Republicans stop finding excuses for what happened, the better the future prospects for the party.

[lepton]

I would suppose that the more time goes by with no weapons found, the more people will conclude that the original data was false.

One still has to get around the fact that not only have we not found WMDs that Hussein denied having, we haven't found the ones he admitted to having.

[Mike4Freedom]

we haven't found the ones he admitted to having.

Sorry, I am confused. What WMD's did he admit to having currently that we havn't found?

[lepton]

As his government was non-compliant, we did not track down and destroy rather significant quantities that his government admitted to in the mid-1990s after we had tracked down portions.

Overall, here is a fair summary of some of the WMD inspection events by TheWriterInTexas.

Among other claims by Iraq, is that AFTER inspectors were thrown out, it secretly destroyed the 10,000 liters of anthrax it admitted to (though the U.N. believes that they had 27,000 liters of anthrax). Aside from it being a bizarre thing for them to do, we can find no evidence of the destruction having happened.

As far as the logistics of the hunt for the materials, what we are looking for isn't very large. A volume of 27 cubic meters - slightly less than the volume of an 8' x 12' room - as a top end estimate for all of the the anthrax. As for the chemical weapons, the lightest agent I've found - mustard - has a specific gravity of 0.92, which is roughly the difference between a standard ton and a metric ton, meaning that a standard ton of mustard gas is slightly less than one cubic meter. The "sulfur mustard" that Iraq uses has a specific gravity of 1.27, meaning that one standard ton of it takes up just over 0.7 cubic meters. VX is almost exactly the same as water (1.0083), as is Sarin (1.092). All the other nerve agents I could find numbers for are in that same band as VX and Sarin - all very slightly denser than water. At a specific gravity of 1.00, 110 tons of an agent could be stored in a space the size of two fuel tanker-trucks.

At 1.27, 100 tons would fit in 373 55 gallon drums. Again, a thousand liters is one cubic meter. Guys on the back of pickup trucks move tons of stuff around their farm each day...by hand. Your single grocery store handles this much stuff in a month - in a day if it's a big one. If these were 55 gallon drums, and your van could carry six of them at a time (like a Chevy Express), Bubba could move an entire inventory of 100 tons of chemical agents from one side of the country to the other by himself with just Bubba, the van, fuel and a portable loading ramp - with just one trip a day - in 62 days: less than third the time they had after we announced.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

I would suppose that the more time goes by with no weapons found, the more people will conclude that the original data was false. Of course, we shall see how that works out, but I would be truly disappointed with the American people if that does not happen. They will also have to judge if was an intentional lie or stupidity.

The sooner the Republicans stop finding excuses for what happened, the better the future prospects for the party.

It is beyond tragic that 60 mass graves found so far is not considered to be evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Just what does it take?

[breakem]

How do you destroy anthrax and what proof would result that you had done so?

[Mike4Freedom]

It is beyond tragic that 60 mass graves found so far is not considered to be evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Just what does it take?

Mass graves are evidence of internal tyranny. The world has plenty of examples of that on-going. Our only excuse for going to war is an immenent threat to the United States, i.e.self defense. There was no such threat! There was no connection to Al Queda or the 9/11 attack. There was only oil.

How does such internal tyranny = WMDs? I don't understand.

[Registered]

Mike, allow me to be the first to call you a loon.

Loon.

:-)

[William McKinley]

This really is not very difficult.

After the first Gulf War, as part of the cease fire agreement, Saddam provided to the UN an inventory of his stockpiles. According to the UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement, he had to destroy these inventories under the watch of UN weapons inspectors.

He didn't.

There are two possibilities.

One, he hid the crap and we have not found them yet.

Two, he destroyed them on his own, knowing full well that by not doing it in front of inspectors, he was inviting everyone to assume he still had them, knowing full well that he was in violation of the cease fire agreement and the UN resolutions.

In either case, we were more than justified.

In either case, Saddam brought his downfall on all by himself.

[ravingnutter]

Our only excuse for going to war is an immenent threat to the United States, i.e.self defense.There was no such threat!

Wrong...Bush NEVER said the threat was imminent. Here's the exact quote regarding the "imminent" threat:

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"

There were news articles claiming Bush was saying the Iraqi threat was imminent. For example, one article referred to the State of the Union speech, while another referred to the October 7th address, but Bush never used the term in the October 7th address. The same is true for Bush’s speech last year to the United Nations, his speech/press conference of March 6th, and his speech as the war was beginning. Either Bush didn’t use the word “imminent,” or he used it to argue that we should not wait until the threat is imminent...he never, ever said the threat was imminent.

There was no connection to Al Queda or the 9/11 attack.

Beg your pardon...

While the Prague meeting has been refuted by some officials, people seem to forget that Farouk Hijazi, an Iraqi intelligence officer met with bin Laden in Kandahar in Dec 1998.

Also forgotten is that in 1998, two of bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad for discussions with Qusay Hussein. This and info on other meetings can be found here.

Also in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.

Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack. [The link above has much info on the connection, I suggest you peruse it carefully]

The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided in the para above. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?

And what about Ramzi Yousef (known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi, was convicted of the 1993 WTC bombing and entered the US on an Iraqi passport) and his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who was the paymaster for bin Laden?

There are just too many things that point to Iraqi involvement, even without the refuted evidence.

There was only oil.

Ummm...the oil is going to the Iraqis to rebuild their country. That is common knowledge.

How does such internal tyranny = WMDs? I don't understand.

You want proof of WMDs? Okey-dokey...from Bush's 2nd in command on National Security, Stephen Hadley...

An unsigned CIA memo on Oct. 5 advised that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts in Niger, Hadley said. A second memo, sent on Oct. 6, elaborated on the CIA's doubts, describing "some weakness in the evidence," such as the fact that Iraq already had a large stock of uranium and probably wouldn't need more, Hadley said.

FR Thread

Couple that with the discovery of the centrifuge in the flowerbed and this report that states the IAEA misrepresented it's findings...

Dolley, citing IAEA’s own inspection reports as documentation, said: “Iraq has never surrendered to inspectors its two completed designs for a nuclear bomb, nuclear-bomb components such as explosive lenses and neutron initiators that it is known to have possessed, or almost any documentation of its efforts to enrich uranium to bomb-grade using gas centrifuges, devices which are small and readily concealed from reconnaissance.”[5] Moreover, IAEA has previously conceded that Iraq’s weaponization R&D---small-scale technical research devoted to the design of a nuclear bomb’s components---is not readily detected by means of inspections. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei stated in 1998 that “no matter how comprehensive the inspection, any country-wide verification process, in Iraq or anywhere else, has a degree of uncertainty that aims to verify the absence of readily concealable objects such as small amounts of nuclear material or weapons components.”[6]

The IAEA’s own guidelines for the safeguarding of highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium gives the conversion time for transforming these materials into weapons components as on the order of seven to ten days or one to three weeks, depending on the form the materials are in (metal, oxide or nitrate) when the materials are acquired by means of diversion or theft.[7] Thus, Iraq could be capable of producing a nuclear weapon in less than a month with sufficient diverted or stolen fissile material if it has managed to fabricate and conceal all of the non-nuclear components of a weapon.

You also apparently missed this report by CIA Operative David Kay, and this report by the Swedish, who say they have found the smoking gun.

As far as "internal tyranny"...maybe you missed this FR report with links to reports on Saddam's brutality. Gruesome read, but IMHO, yes, it amounts to WMD if you compare it to the Holocaust.