JON STEWART interviews Iraqi General George Sada (video is available here) and there’s some interesting discussion in which Sada says that there absolutely were Weapons of Mass Destruction. (The interesting part starts at about 3/4 of the way in, with 2:45 remaining.) Sada says they were transported to Syria just before the United States invaded Iraq. “I have seen them myself, because you see I was the number two man in the Iraqi Air Force.”

I haven’t read Sada’s new book, but it seems significant to me that he’s getting attention from the likes of Jon Stewart, who’s certainly no Administration mouthpiece. (Thanks to reader Adam Jensen for the tip.)

UPDATE: Reader Alan Goldstein thinks there’s less here than meets the eye: “on the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC-FM on March 9th General George said he didn’t actually see them himself.”

Ian Schwartz has the video too, and a transcript.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Dana Buzzell emails:

I believe George Sada’s comments about seeing/not seeing the WMD in Iraq are consistent. I didn’t see the Brian Lehrer Show, but I saw Sada on other shows and he said he didn’t personally see the WMDs being transferred to Syria, but did see them in Iraq, prior to their removal.

Here’s a link to the Lehrer show. And James Lileks, who has read the book, emails:

In his book he doesn’t say he saw the WMD sent to Syria, but he describes the operation, and says this:

“My own knowledge of these transfers [WMD to Syria] doesn’t come from any of the published reports but from a man who was actually involved in the transfers – a civilian pilot who witnessed the commercial 747 going back and forth between Syria and Iraq at that time. And he has confirmed for me that it happened just this way.”

Sada says there were about 56 transfers. He is much more specific about his first-hand knowledge of a planned WMD attack on Israel in the run-up to the first Gulf War, but of course we have to take his word for it all. Or not.

Indeed.

MORE: Bill Quick has further, uncomplimentary, thoughts about the Administration’s PR strategy.

ERIC OLSEN takes a three year retrospective look at the war in Iraq.

PUBLIUS WRITES on what to expect in Belarus.

THE “ENDING EARMARKS EXPRESS:” It’s an anti-pork bus tour.

IF IT’S NOT GUANTANAMO, HOW CAN THERE BE human rights violations in Cuba?

Three years after the harshest crackdown on dissent in decades, human-rights conditions in Cuba have deteriorated as authorities intensify a campaign to disrupt and intimidate the island’s small opposition movement, according to dissidents, diplomats and political analysts. . . .

The attacks intensified after a speech by Castro last July in which he denounced opposition activists as U.S. government lackeys and praised supporters who two weeks earlier disrupted a dissident protest in Havana.

“The people, angrier than before over such shameless acts of treason, intervened with patriotic fervor and didn’t allow a single mercenary to move,” Castro said. “This is what will happen however many times as necessary when traitors and mercenaries go a millimeter beyond the point that our revolutionary people … are prepared to permit.”
But Sanchez and other activists say Cuban state security agents direct the pro-government attacks, which often occur in front of the homes or meeting places of dissidents, and participants include police dressed in civilian clothes.

Sanchez said the aim of the attacks is to “increase the political repression” without significantly increasing the number of political prisoners. “Why don’t they want to increase the number of political prisoners?” he asked. “Because outside, in other countries, there has been a lot of criticism.”

So I guess we need to criticize this, too. I wonder, though, why this is getting so little press.

THE CARNIVAL OF THE VANITIES is up!

TOM MAGUIRE: “Why Should You Care About Reporters’ Reading Disabilities?”

JOHN SCALZI’S OLD MAN’S WAR has been nominated for a Hugo Award. So has Charles Stross’s Accelerando.

I’ve read ’em both, and they’re both really good. You can hear our podcast interview with Scalzi here.

UPDATE: Oops, somehow missed it before, but I’ve also read Ken MacLeod’s nominee, Learning the World. It’s also excellent. People want to know how I’d vote, and it’s a tough call. I think I’d give Scalzi the nod, because Old Man’s War isn’t just good, it’s also the kind of “entry-level science fiction” that the field needs, something you can’t really say about the other two. On the other hand, MacLeod’s heroine is a blogger, which ought to count for something. (Is it a trend?) (Bumped.)

WAR AND PEACE: Some interesting numbers:

While every lost serviceman and servicewoman is certainly tragic and should be mourned, the actual statistics tell quite a different tale from the MSM and Democratic doom-and-gloom outlook. Comparing the numbers of lost US military personnel to past years, and past presidential terms, may even be a shock to supporters of the war.

Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let’s compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton’s term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)

In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents. This is all simply outright lies and distortion.

You’d think this would get more attention.

UPDATE: John Kluge emails:

The guy at red state gets it about half right on military deaths. He is absolutely right that soldiers die in accidents and of natural causes when they are in garrison. What he doesn’t take into account is that the military was much larger under Carter, Reagan and Bush I than it has been under Clinton or Bush II. Clinton and Bush II are really the only two comparable numbers. Looking at those numbers, it appears that the Iraq, Afghanistan wars have resulted in an increase of 885 dead over what could have been expected through normal garrison operations in Bush II’s first term. That is not too bad when you consider that Bush has liberated two countries and fought a prolonged insurgency in both and that America lost over 1,000 dead in taking Vichy French North Africa in 1942 (that was before we even so much as fired a shot at the Germans).

Good point.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Robin Burk calls the above analysis flawed. But surely the fact that today’s death rate, in wartime, is statistically indistinguishable from earlier peacetime death rates tells us that this is hardly the sort of endless slaughter that antiwar propagandists maintain.

MORE: Reader John Wixted emails:

I used the data supplied by the Manpower Data Center at the Defense Department (you linked to a site where the data could be found) to plot military deaths per 100,000 soldiers (defined as Total Military FTE, which includes active duty and reserves). This is the best way to look at the data because it controls for changes in the size of the military. For year 2005, I assumed that the numbers were the same as 2004 since the number of military deaths in Iraq was about the same, and the size of the military was about the same as well.

What the data show is that to liberate 50 million Muslims from tyranny, the military death rate climbed back up to the death rate that was in effect in the early 1980s (during a mostly peaceful period, though we invaded Grenada in 2003 with limited US casualties). Many in this country believe that the cost of liberating millions of oppressed Muslims was not worth it and that we have just made things worse for everyone, especially in Iraq. But in a recent poll conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland (conducted January 2-5, 2006), Iraqis were asked:

“Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?”

More than 90% of Kurds and Shia (i.e., the people who were liberated from tyranny) said that it was worth it. Understandably, only 13% of Sunnis agreed (Link).

All of this offers perspective that is usually missing when people complain about the war.

Indeed. Meanwhile, John McDaniel says it’s all about operational tempo and force cuts from the 1990s.

I WAS A BIT SLOW to jump on the story of Abdul Rahman, the Afghan Muslim who converted to Christianity and now faces a death penalty, because I was afraid it would be a rerun of the Dubai Ports story fiasco. But it seems to hold up, and it’s a disgrace. Civilized countries permit freedom of religion. Uncivilized countries kill people for their beliefs. This will simply provide more ammunition for those who believe that Islam is incompatible with civilization.

CHINESE ARMY DEFEATED BY AN ARMY OF DAVIDS:

China has ordered the armed forces to get permission from local government, and abide by environmental rules, when building new facilities, and holding training exercises. This is a major change, for in the past, the armed forces could do whatever it wanted, with no interference from local government authorities. The only one who had any control over these matters was the national government, and in most cases, the national leadership didn’t care what the military did as long as it didn’t cause a stink they could smell. The Internet and cell phones have changed all that. Now, whenever the military offends a lot of civilians, the word gets around (nationwide) quickly (within hours.) These embarrassing situations (especially when the military seizes land it needs, or causes a mess with pollution, or other bad behavior by the troops) tend to get into Chinese or foreign media, and that does not make the big shots in Beijing happy at all.

Heh. This is an example of how communications technology can make a difference even in a place like China that tries to censor the Internet.

MICKEY KAUS has figured out that I’m not really a Pollyanna.

Plus, at Bloggingheads.tv, Kaus and Jim Pinkerton discuss space travel, nanotechnology, and human survival, with occasional references to An Army of Davids and Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity is Near.

EVERYBODY’S TALKING about how newspapers are in trouble. In my TCS Daily column I look at what to do about it.

EUGENE VOLOKH: “I’ve heard international law fans urge that U.S. constitutional decisionmaking should be informed not just by express statements in treaties that the U.S. has signed and ratified, but also by international practice outside treaties, by statements in treaties that the U.S. hasn’t signed or hasn’t ratified, and by actions of international bodies established pursuant to treaties that the U.S. has ratified. What U.N. commissions say and do may thus ultimately affect not just international politics, but the constitutional rights of Danes, Americans, and anyone else who has a broader view of free speech than the U.N. seems to endorse. Not a pretty prospect, it seems to me.”

No, it isn’t.

ANOTHER DROPPED BALL at the New York Times.

A MOVEMENT TO CENSURE JIMMY CARTER. Well, it’s no dumber than Russ Feingold’s.

I’M NOT SURE ABOUT IRAQ, but there does seem to be a civil war going on in Gaza. I wonder why it’s not getting played up the same way?

A NEW CATO INSTITUTE PAPER calls the DMCA perverse:

The courts have a proven track record of fashioning balanced remedies for the copyright challenges created by new technologies. But when Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, it cut the courts out of this role and instead banned any devices that “circumvent” digital rights management (DRM) technologies, which control access to copyrighted content.

The result has been a legal regime that reduces options and competition in how consumers enjoy media and entertainment. Today, the copyright industry is exerting increasing control over playback devices, cable media offerings, and even Internet streaming. Some firms have used the DMCA to thwart competition by preventing research and reverse engineering. Others have brought the weight of criminal sanctions to bear against critics, competitors, and researchers.

The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders—and the technology companies that distribute their content—the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.

Indeed.