Watchdog to consult on how tweets can be brought under its remit, asking each newspaper to draw up a ‘Twitter policy’ Reporter and newspaper Twitter feeds are expected to brought under the regulation of the Press Complaints Commission later this year, the first time the body has sought to consolidate social media messages under its remit. The PCC believes that some postings on Twitter are, in effect part of a “newspaper’s editorial product”, writings that its code of practice would otherwise cover if the same text appeared in print or on a newspaper website. A change in the code would circumvent a loophole that – in theory – means that there is no form of redress via the PCC if somebody wanted to complain about an alleged inaccuracy in a statement that was tweeted. Last year the PCC found it was unable to rule in a complaint made against tweets published by the Brighton Argus. Its plan, though, is to distinguish between journalists’ public and private tweets. Any Twitter feed that has the name of the newspaper and is clearly an official feed – such as @telegraphnews or @thesun_bizarre – will almost certainly be regulated. However, that principle could be further extended to cover a reporter’s “official” work account, whilst leaving personal accounts that discuss conversations over breakfast and weekend exploits as outside its ambit. Some journalists – such as the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones – already maintain multiple accounts in an effort to preserve professional and personal distinctions. The PCC wants each newspaper to develop a “Twitter policy”, to tell its reporters which accounts are considered part of its editorial product and which are not. But with many newspapers, including the Guardian, republishing tweets on their site, many journalist musings are likely to be drawn in. An online working group of the PCC has already recommended that the body undertake a “remit extension”, the formal mechanism by which the self-regulatory body takes on a new area of responsibility, after consulting with the newspaper industry as to how Twitter regulation can be implemented. That consultation is due to finish in the summer and the new rules are likely to be in place by the end of the year. Publication on Twitter is already subject to libel laws and court orders – the internet, of course, does not exist in a legal vacuum. Last week, for example, journalists at the Guardian were reminded that tweets that hinted at the identity of individuals covered by injunctions would be a breach of the injunction itself. In February the PCC ruled that information posted on Twitter should be considered public and publishable by newspapers after it cleared the Daily Mail and Independent on Sunday of breaching privacy guidelines. Both newspapers had reported on tweets posted by Sarah Baskerville, a Department for Transport employee, in November last year. Baskerville, who had around 700 Twitter followers at the time, described a course leader as “mental” and posted links to tweets attacking government “spin” and Whitehall waste. Baskerville complained to the press regulator, arguing that she could have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy and that the reporting was misleading. The Daily Mail and Independent on Sunday argued that the messages were public and could be read by anyone. The PCC decided in favour of the newspapers, in what is the regulator’s first ruling on the republication of information posted on Twitter. •
Continue reading …
Cuba authorities bring back coffee mixed with peas in response to rising global coffee prices For some it had the acrid smack of austerity, for others it was a delicious brew that tasted just right. Either way, coffee mixed with roasted peas is returning to Cuba. Authorities have announced the resumption of the special blend, a venerable money-saving tactic, in response to rising global coffee prices and Cuba’s economic crunch. “It has been decided to once again produce coffee mixed with peas for the rationed quota,” a trade ministry note said in the communist party newspaper Granma. In the past year Robusta coffee prices had jumped 69% to $2,904 a tonne, it said, while peas had climbed merely 30%, to $500 a tonne. With President Raul Castro trying to shake up the centrally planned economy so that “two plus two equals four”, the conclusion was inescapable: bring back the peas. Cuba had long mixed coffee with roasted peas to stretch supplies after coffee production slumped, and then collapsed, following the 1959 revolution. The brew is less potent and more bitter than pure coffee, which Cubans tend to drink with lots of sugar. “It’s got a thin, sharp taste. I never liked it,” said Isa Morena, a guesthouse owner in Havana. “It didn’t help that we had no choice. It was that or nothing.” But when the pure stuff returned to the monthly ration book in 2005, amid an economic upturn, some complained it was unfamiliar and tasted funny. “I like it better with peas,” Juan Hernandez Pedroso, a street sweeper, told AP. “I don’t know, maybe it’s because it’s what I’m used to.” Some Cubans in the US have shunned Starbucks and continued to home-brew the pea version. As an additional cost-saving measure the trade ministry cut the monthly coffee ration for young children. “The rationed quota issued to consumers up to six years of age will be terminated. These measures will be applied as of this month.” The measures mean that the government can keep distributing 115g bags of coffee, at a subsidised price of 17 cents each, to the population. The island used to produce 60,000 tonnes of beans annually and was reputedly the world’s top exporter in the 1940s, but output shrivelled after the plantations were nationalised. Labour shortages, negligence, incompetence and lack of incentives due to low prices all played a part. After a record low of 5,500 tonnes in 2009 a modernisation effort boosted production to around 6,700 tonnes last year. That still left a big shortfall filled with $47m worth of imports, Castro told the national assembly last December. The island could not afford that this year, said the president, and it was an “unavoidable necessity” to once again blend coffee with peas. He hoped the measure would inspire productivity. “If we want to continue drinking pure, unrationed coffee, the only solution is to produce it in Cuba, where it is proven that all the conditions exist for its cultivation, in sufficient quantities that satisfy our demand and enable us even to export it.” Cuba Global recession Economics Global economy Rory Carroll guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Blog by half-American ‘ultimate outsider’ describes dangers of political and sexual dissent She is perhaps an unlikely hero of revolt in a conservative country. Female, gay and half-American, Amina Abdullah is capturing the imagination of the Syrian opposition with a blog that has shot to prominence as the protest movement struggles in the face of a brutal government crackdown. Abdullah’s blog, A Gay Girl in Damascus, is brutally honest, poking at subjects long considered taboo in Arab culture. “Blogging is, for me, a way of being fearless,” she says. “I believe that if I can be ‘out’ in so many ways, others can take my example and join the movement.” Her blog really took off two weeks ago with a post entitled My Father the Hero, a moving account of how her father faced down two security agents who came to arrest her, accusing her of being a Salafist and a foreign agent. Abdullah’s family is well-connected – she has relatives in the government and the Muslim Brotherhood whom she prefers not to name – and she says being politically active was a “natural thing”. “Unfortunately, for most of my life being aware of Syrian politics means simply observing and only commenting privately.” That changed when protests broke out and Abdullah joined them, blogging about her experiences. “Teargas was lobbed at us. I saw people vomiting from the gas as I covered my own mouth and nose and my eyes burned,” she wrote after one demonstration. “I am sure I wasn’t the only one to note that, if this becomes standard practice, a niqab is a very practical thing to wear in future.” The blend of humour and frankness, frivolity and political nous comes from an upbringing that straddles Syria and the US. “I’m the ultimate outsider,” she says. “My views are heavily informed by being both a member of a small marginal minority as an Arab Muslim in America and as a part of a majority as a Sunni in Syria, and of course as a woman and as a sexual minority.” Homosexuality is illegal in Syria and a strict taboo, although the state largely turns a blind eye. “It’s tough being a lesbian in Syria, but it’s certainly easier to be a sexual than a political dissident,” she says. “There are a lot more LGBT people here than one might think, even if we are less flamboyant than elsewhere.” Writing in her blog, she said was terrified when she realised at 15 that she was gay, becoming a devout Muslim and getting married. She came out aged 26 and returned to Syria, where she taught English until the uprising closed classes. Her posts vividly describe falling for other women, finding a Damascene hair salon full of gay women and having a frank conversation with her father about her sexuality. “For my family it is a preferable outcome than a promiscuous heterosexual daughter,” she jokes. Born in Virginia to an American southerner mother and a father from an old Damascene family, Abdullah moved to Syria at six months and grew up between the two countries. She spent a long period in the US after 1982, when an Islamist uprising in Syria was being brutally quashed. Despite facing prejudice– in both the US and Syria – Abdullah sees no conflict in being both gay and Muslim. “I consider myself a believer and a Muslim: I pray five times a day, fast at Ramadan and even covered for a decade,” she says. “I believe God made me as I am and I refuse to believe God makes mistakes.” Having family members in high places and dual nationality has, as some blog comments have pointed out, made her more able to speak. But on Wednesday Abdullah and her elderly father went into hiding in separate places after the security forces came round again. She has refused to go to Beirut with her mother, and is blogging when she can, moving from house to house with a bag of belongings. Abdullah is also writing a book, in the hope that a revolution will bring more freedoms, both sexual and political. “The Syria I always hoped was there, but was sleeping, has woken up,” she says. “I have to believe that, sooner or later, we will prevail.” Katherine Marsh is a pseudonym for a journalist who lives in Damascus Syria Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Protest Katherine Marsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Blog by half-American ‘ultimate outsider’ describes dangers of political and sexual dissent She is perhaps an unlikely hero of revolt in a conservative country. Female, gay and half-American, Amina Abdullah is capturing the imagination of the Syrian opposition with a blog that has shot to prominence as the protest movement struggles in the face of a brutal government crackdown. Abdullah’s blog, A Gay Girl in Damascus, is brutally honest, poking at subjects long considered taboo in Arab culture. “Blogging is, for me, a way of being fearless,” she says. “I believe that if I can be ‘out’ in so many ways, others can take my example and join the movement.” Her blog really took off two weeks ago with a post entitled My Father the Hero, a moving account of how her father faced down two security agents who came to arrest her, accusing her of being a Salafist and a foreign agent. Abdullah’s family is well-connected – she has relatives in the government and the Muslim Brotherhood whom she prefers not to name – and she says being politically active was a “natural thing”. “Unfortunately, for most of my life being aware of Syrian politics means simply observing and only commenting privately.” That changed when protests broke out and Abdullah joined them, blogging about her experiences. “Teargas was lobbed at us. I saw people vomiting from the gas as I covered my own mouth and nose and my eyes burned,” she wrote after one demonstration. “I am sure I wasn’t the only one to note that, if this becomes standard practice, a niqab is a very practical thing to wear in future.” The blend of humour and frankness, frivolity and political nous comes from an upbringing that straddles Syria and the US. “I’m the ultimate outsider,” she says. “My views are heavily informed by being both a member of a small marginal minority as an Arab Muslim in America and as a part of a majority as a Sunni in Syria, and of course as a woman and as a sexual minority.” Homosexuality is illegal in Syria and a strict taboo, although the state largely turns a blind eye. “It’s tough being a lesbian in Syria, but it’s certainly easier to be a sexual than a political dissident,” she says. “There are a lot more LGBT people here than one might think, even if we are less flamboyant than elsewhere.” Writing in her blog, she said was terrified when she realised at 15 that she was gay, becoming a devout Muslim and getting married. She came out aged 26 and returned to Syria, where she taught English until the uprising closed classes. Her posts vividly describe falling for other women, finding a Damascene hair salon full of gay women and having a frank conversation with her father about her sexuality. “For my family it is a preferable outcome than a promiscuous heterosexual daughter,” she jokes. Born in Virginia to an American southerner mother and a father from an old Damascene family, Abdullah moved to Syria at six months and grew up between the two countries. She spent a long period in the US after 1982, when an Islamist uprising in Syria was being brutally quashed. Despite facing prejudice– in both the US and Syria – Abdullah sees no conflict in being both gay and Muslim. “I consider myself a believer and a Muslim: I pray five times a day, fast at Ramadan and even covered for a decade,” she says. “I believe God made me as I am and I refuse to believe God makes mistakes.” Having family members in high places and dual nationality has, as some blog comments have pointed out, made her more able to speak. But on Wednesday Abdullah and her elderly father went into hiding in separate places after the security forces came round again. She has refused to go to Beirut with her mother, and is blogging when she can, moving from house to house with a bag of belongings. Abdullah is also writing a book, in the hope that a revolution will bring more freedoms, both sexual and political. “The Syria I always hoped was there, but was sleeping, has woken up,” she says. “I have to believe that, sooner or later, we will prevail.” Katherine Marsh is a pseudonym for a journalist who lives in Damascus Syria Arab and Middle East unrest Middle East Protest Katherine Marsh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Greece denies claims by Der Speiegel but markets react quickly after report of emergency meeting in Luxembourg The euro has fallen sharply on the foreign exchange markets in late trading after reports Greece is preparing to leave the eurozone. Athens has denied the reports. The Greek deputy finance minister, Filippos Sachinidis, told Reuters: “The report about Greece leaving the eurozone is untrue. Such reports undermine Greece and the euro and serve market speculation games.” The euro has had its worst week since January, and has fallen 1% to below $1.4400 after a report on the Der Spiegel website that a secret crisis meeting is being held in Luxembourg on Friday evening to discuss the situation of the heavily indebted Greek nation. The report said that the Greek prime minister George Papandreou felt he had no option but to leave the eurozone and that Germany intended to prevent the country tearing up the decade-old single currency. Quoting a document which it said was prepared by the German finance minstry, Der Speigel said that the euro could lose as much 50% of its value if Greece pulls out of the Eurozone, leading to an explosion in Greek national debt and crippling its banking system. A German government source told Reuters after the report that: “An exit is not planned and was not planned.” A spokesman for French finance minister Christine LaGarde refused to comment. Greece has been surrounded by rumours for weeks that its considering ways to restructure its debts – which its government has repeatedly denied – and last month its finance ministry launched an investigation into a trader at Citigroup after rumours swirled of an imminent debt restructuring . Greece has already agreed a €110bn (£96bn) bailout by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union . The country’s debt is expected to hit 160% of GDP in 2012, although the report in Der Spiegel said it would reach 200% if the country exited the single currency. Euro Euro Greece European Union Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Greece denies claims by Der Speiegel but markets react quickly after report of emergency meeting in Luxembourg The euro has fallen sharply on the foreign exchange markets in late trading after reports Greece is preparing to leave the eurozone. Athens has denied the reports. The Greek deputy finance minister, Filippos Sachinidis, told Reuters: “The report about Greece leaving the eurozone is untrue. Such reports undermine Greece and the euro and serve market speculation games.” The euro has had its worst week since January, and has fallen 1% to below $1.4400 after a report on the Der Spiegel website that a secret crisis meeting is being held in Luxembourg on Friday evening to discuss the situation of the heavily indebted Greek nation. The report said that the Greek prime minister George Papandreou felt he had no option but to leave the eurozone and that Germany intended to prevent the country tearing up the decade-old single currency. Quoting a document which it said was prepared by the German finance minstry, Der Speigel said that the euro could lose as much 50% of its value if Greece pulls out of the Eurozone, leading to an explosion in Greek national debt and crippling its banking system. A German government source told Reuters after the report that: “An exit is not planned and was not planned.” A spokesman for French finance minister Christine LaGarde refused to comment. Greece has been surrounded by rumours for weeks that its considering ways to restructure its debts – which its government has repeatedly denied – and last month its finance ministry launched an investigation into a trader at Citigroup after rumours swirled of an imminent debt restructuring . Greece has already agreed a €110bn (£96bn) bailout by the International Monetary Fund and the European Union . The country’s debt is expected to hit 160% of GDP in 2012, although the report in Der Spiegel said it would reach 200% if the country exited the single currency. Euro Euro Greece European Union Jill Treanor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Condoleeza Rice Gets Testy When Lawrence O’Donnell Asks Her Tough Questions About Faulty Intelligence to Justify Iraq Invasion
May 6, 2011 No Comment
It what turned out to be a very contentious interview, the Last Word’s Lawrence O’Donnell pressed former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice about the Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence to invade Iraq. Rice was defensive and got angry with O’Donnell for his line of questioning and was still defending their excuses for the invasion. It got sticky pretty early: O’DONNELL: As we look back and reflect on September 11th today, I want to quote something that President Bush said about September 11th, the lesson of September 11th. He said this repeatedly. It became boilerplate in the speeches. “September 11th taught us a lesson I will never forget and America must never forget — America must confront threats before they fully materialize. My administration looked at the facts and the history and looked at the intelligence in Iraq and we saw a threat.” He’s clearly saying that September 11th is the reason he looked at Iraq differently and saw a threat there. RICE: Yes. Are you surprised by that? O’DONNELL: Yes. Because — RICE: After September — O’DONNELL: — because Iraq had — RICE: — after September 11th — O’DONNELL: — nothing to do with — RICE: — after — O’DONNELL: —. RICE: — after, of course you look at threats differently. Your country has just been attacked. You know that you cannot allow threats to materialize. Do you know how many times I’ve been asked — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: But there was nothing in the — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — threat that Iraq — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — presented — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that was in any way related to us — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence, we can end this — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — and. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — interview right now if you don’t want me to finish my — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Go ahead. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — my point. Thank you. If one looks at what happened to us on, we didn’t connect the dots. There was a threat materializing that we didn’t respond to. Saddam Hussein had been a threat from the time that he invaded Iran in the late 1980s, through the 1991, when, in fact, he went into Kuwait, dragging us into war. We thought he had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. And in a context in which terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was a nexus that we could not allow, we decided that this was a threat that had to be dealt with. O’DONNELL: Forty thousand casualties later, in Iraq, 4,400 military — American military deaths in Iraq later, would you say that is the single biggest miscalculation that the Bush administration made, that Osama — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped by those military men who went in there and found no weapons of mass destruction? RICE: Sadda — Saddam Hussein was threat. He had used weapons of mass destruction. This was not — O’DONNELL: But we now know he wasn’t a threat — RICE: Lawrence, are we going to do this with my answers or with — O’DONNELL: Go ahead. RICE: — your commentary? It’s about time someone subjected one of these Bushies to an interview where they were pushed the way Rice was here. This is the way any of them should be treated any time they’re allowed on the air. I’m tired of watching them all come back on the television to revise history without even being questioned on their lies on Iraq and WMD’s, much less challenged when they lie on the air as Rice did here. Rachel Maddow came on the air a few minutes early to discuss the interview with O’Donnell. Click here to view this media Full transcript below: LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: — thank you for joining me. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Nice to be with you. O’DONNELL: On Sunday night, you put out a statement about the killing of Osama bin Laden and you said the demise of Osama bin Laden was a tremendous victory for the American people, “justice has been done and we are all indebted to the American military and intelligence community for their skill and dedication. I am overwhelmed with pride in America and in those who protect us. We are all united tonight in gratitude and love for our country. God bless America.” Why didn’t you congratulate or thank the president of the United States, who made this the CIA’s number one priority? RICE: Well, first of all, I said — I have congratulated President Obama several times, if you look back at the many statements that I’ve made. And I felt that this was a moment to acknowledge the American people, a moment to acknowledge what we’ve been through as a country. And since President Obama is the president who protects us, I think he’s covered by that statement. O’DONNELL: The — do you think the president’s visit to Ground Zero today was appropriate? And is that something you would have advised President Bush to do if you had gotten Osama bin Laden? RICE: Well, I have not seen the visit, but it’s totally appropriate for the president of the United States to — to go to Ground Zero and to commemorate the lives of those lost there and to say to the first responders, I understand you went to fire stations, thank you for what you did at that time. When President Bush went to Ground Zero and said that people would hear from us, he did so on behalf of the United States of America, not on behalf of his administration. And I think today, President Obama went to Ground Zero on behalf of the American people, not his administration. O’DONNELL: Have you had a chance to speak to President Bush since (INAUDIBLE)? RICE: Yes, I have. Yes. O’DONNELL: And what is his reaction to all of this? RICE: He’s gratified by it because this has been a long struggle. It closes a chapter, if not the full book, on al Qaeda, but it closes an important chapter. O’DONNELL: Did he tell you why he decided not to come to Ground Zero? RICE: I talked to him before this invitation came up. But President Bush has stayed largely out of sight. And this is a moment for President Obama to be with the American people. President Bush was there on September 14th, when he stood at Ground Zero and — and called the nation to action and put a lot of in place — a lot of things in place that would ultimately lead to this day. O’DONNELL: As we look back and reflect on September 11th today, I want to quote something that President Bush said about September 11th, the lesson of September 11th. He said this repeatedly. It became boilerplate in the speeches. “September 11th taught us a lesson I will never forget and America must never forget — America must confront threats before they fully materialize. My administration looked at the facts and the history and looked at the intelligence in Iraq and we saw a threat.” He’s clearly saying that September 11th is the reason he looked at Iraq differently and saw a threat there. RICE: Yes. Are you surprised by that? O’DONNELL: Yes. Because — RICE: After September — O’DONNELL: — because Iraq had — RICE: — after September 11th — O’DONNELL: — nothing to do with — RICE: — after — O’DONNELL: —. RICE: — after, of course you look at threats differently. Your country has just been attacked. You know that you cannot allow threats to materialize. Do you know how many times I’ve been asked — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: But there was nothing in the — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — threat that Iraq — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — presented — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that was in any way related to us — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence, we can end this — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — and. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — interview right now if you don’t want me to finish my — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Go ahead. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — my point. Thank you. If one looks at what happened to us on, we didn’t connect the dots. There was a threat materializing that we didn’t respond to. Saddam Hussein had been a threat from the time that he invaded Iran in the late 1980s, through the 1991, when, in fact, he went into Kuwait, dragging us into war. We thought he had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. And in a context in which terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was a nexus that we could not allow, we decided that this was a threat that had to be dealt with. O’DONNELL: Forty thousand casualties later, in Iraq, 4,400 military — American military deaths in Iraq later, would you say that is the single biggest miscalculation that the Bush administration made, that Osama — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped by those military men who went in there and found no weapons of mass destruction? RICE: Sadda — Saddam Hussein was threat. He had used weapons of mass destruction. This was not — O’DONNELL: But we now know he wasn’t a threat — RICE: Lawrence, are we going to do this with my answers or with — O’DONNELL: Go ahead. RICE: — your commentary? We have not focused on the fact — you have not focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been a threat to the United States of America, to the Middle East, since he invaded Iran. Now, we made the wrong call then and we supported him against Iran. He then became a more monstrous threat. After 1991, shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone that was supposed to be keeping his air force on the ground; trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction; breaking out of the sanctions through the scandalous Oil for Food Program. Yes, he was a threat. With or without mature weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat. And nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. Of course, the lives lost will never be brought back. But in Iraq, that is not a threat to invade its neighbors, not a threat to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction, not a threat to pin — to (INAUDIBLE) Palestinian terrorists as suicide bombers. There’s going to be a better Iraq and a better Middle East. And so, in fact, I think that what we did in Iraq will be demonstrated by history to be an important part, an important pillar of a new Middle East. O’DONNELL: Well, I think history demonstrates that Iraq presented absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever. And — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Well, what would be — that would be a surprise — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: OK — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — to the 16 Security Council resolutions that called him a threat to international peace and security — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Using information which was not — RICE: That would be a surprise. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — not true. RICE: That would be a surprise. No, no, no. That was on the basis of his invasion of Kuwait and the weapons of mass destruction that were found there in 1991. The weapons inspectors who could not do their jobs and so left in 1998, the attack by President Clinton in 1998 to try to bomb those sites, it would be a surprise to the Kurds, who he gassed and the Iran — the Iranians who he gassed and the people in the south of his country who he gassed. It would be a surprise to the CIA, that considered him a massive threat to the — to international peace and security. O’DONNELL: If he was a threat — (CROSSTALK) RICE: So — O’DONNELL: — to Kuwait — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — was a threat to the Kurds. (CROSSTALK) RICE: Well, you know — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: I do not think he was a threat — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — to New Yorkers. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Do you — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — then you have — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — think he was a threat to New Yorkers? RICE: Lawrence, you — you obviously have a very different view than the U.N. Security Council. You obviously have a very different view — O’DONNELL: Do you think he was the same threat to New Yorkers — RICE: You obviously have a very different — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that Osama bin Laden was? (CROSSTALK) RICE: — you obviously have a very different view than those people who were flying the no fly zone, like the soldier who’s in my class at Stanford who was shot at by Saddam Hussein. So you may not view him as a threat. Most people in the world did. O’DONNELL: Most of the world didn’t, which is why we couldn’t assemble the coalition that we would have liked to assemble to go in there. RICE: How — Lawrence, let me ask you, how many — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Let’s — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, no. I have a question for you. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Let’s get to the rhetoric — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, I have a question for you. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — which ran up to this — (CROSSTALK) RICE: I have a question for you. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — war. RICE: How many countries fought — O’DONNELL: Do you — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — in the coalition? O’DONNELL: And we — we don’t have enough time to repeat all the history. RICE: No, no, no. You — you just made a charge. O’DONNELL: I would like to review — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — your — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — you’ve just made a charge so — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — your feelings about things you said ramping up to the war — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, not until — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — the threat of a mushroom cloud — (CROSSTALK) RICE: We’re not going there — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — from Saddam Hussein. You now know was completely false. (CROSSTALK) RICE: You know what — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Do you regret saying that? RICE: Do you know what? O’DONNELL: Would you take that back if you could? RICE: You know what, you’ve just made a false statement. You said we couldn’t assemble a coalition. How many countries fought in the coalition in Iraq — O’DONNELL: Actually? And had casualties? RICE: How many countries — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Actually fought? RICE: Yes. How many? O’DONNELL: Maybe a half a dozen actually fought. RICE: Oh, I see. So the Georgians who went there and the Japanese who went there — O’DONNELL: Actually had soldiers — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — and others — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — firing weapons on the ground? (CROSSTALK) RICE: — this was a bipartisan coalition. The people who — the British and the Australians and the Poles and all of those who — and the Canadians — all those who ultimately were in Iraq, these were not part of the coalition. O’DONNELL: Yes, they were. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. RICE: Yes. O’DONNELL: Now — (CROSSTALK) RICE: So — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — now about the mushroom cloud — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — your statement was just false. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that you were completely wrong about — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Do you — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — would you say that was possibly the single worst misstatement by a national security adviser publicly? RICE: I said that we could not afford to have it be a mushroom cloud — O’DONNELL: But where did — RICE: — that told us — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — you think that mushroom cloud would be — RICE: Lawrence, you have a bad habit with your guests. You never let them answer a question. O’DONNELL: Go ahead. RICE: Thank you. O’DONNELL: Where would the mushroom cloud be? RICE: The question was, had Saddam Hussein actually resuscitated his nuclear weapons or was he trying to? And if you look at the intelligence reporting at the time, it said that he could possibly reconstitute that nuclear capability within a year with foreign assistance and that he was trying to do it. O’DONNELL: But we knew — (CROSSTALK) RICE: What I said — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that was wrong. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — what I said — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: He couldn’t have resuscitated — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Well — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — anything in a year. We know — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — cite things that we know were wrong and have been proven wrong? RICE: Because what you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday. O’DONNELL: If you — RICE: So at the time, we didn’t know that he had not resuscitated. The intelligence said he was reconstituting, that he was reconstituting his nuclear program. He had resuscitated his biological and chemical program. He was shooting at our aircraft. He was a threat to international peace and security. He’d been sanctioned by the U.N. 17 times on that course. He was a threat. O’DONNELL: The (INAUDIBLE) that you said were used exclusively — exclusively for nuclear weapons obviously were not. They were the kind of tubes that were used for rockets. That kind of that when you say that intelligence indicated that, but your White House was using intelligence incorrectly. You were misstating what the intelligence actually was. RICE: Lawrence, we can do this one way or another, all right? You can let me answer your questions or you can — O’DONNELL: Talk about the (INAUDIBLE) — RICE: — or you can make rhetorical statements. O’DONNELL: Let’s talk about the aluminum tubes that you were so wrong about. That is — that’s a — that’s one of those things you like to use as an indication of what the intelligence was telling you, but the White House was misinterpreting the intelligence — RICE: No. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — to reach its own conclusions — RICE: No, no, no. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — this was not the White House misinterpreting anything. The director of the CIA briefed the Congress that those aluminum tubes were most likely for nuclear capability — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — and a — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You said exclusively. RICE: We believed that the nuclear tubes — that the tubes, given Saddam Hussein’s history, given the long trail of what he was trying to acquire, were for nuclear weapons. Now, you’re right, the intelligence turned out to have been wrong. But, you know, you don’t get to get up in the morning and say, you know, my intelligence might be wrong. You have to act on the intelligence that you have. And that’s the intelligence that we had at the time. O’DONNELL: When you look at what we now are calling the Arab Spring and you look at these uprisings against these dictators in the region, would it have been better, now, knowing what we all know now, would it have been better to wait and let history catch up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Would we — (CROSSTALK) RICE: But Saddam — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — do you think we might have — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Saddam Hussein — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — a similar — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — we — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — uprising in Iraq today? (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Saddam Hussein was a threat and we dealt with the threat. We didn’t go to Iraq to bring democracy anymore than dealing with Adolph Hitler was to bring democracy to Germany. But once there, we felt that we had to help the Iraqi people get to democracy. And it’s simply ill-informed and ahistorical to suggest that a dictator as brutal as Saddam Hussein would have allowed an Arab uprising in his country. You’re looking at a dictator in Syria who put down an uprising. You’re looking at a dictator in Libya who has tried to put down an uprising. And if you want to talk about humanitarian disaster, why did we go into Libya? Because he was about to mow down his own people. He was going to eliminate his own people. He was going to commit genocide against his own people. Saddam Hussein committed chemical warfare against his own people. And I’d really like to have an answer from those who say it was a good thing to intervene in a humanitarian way in Libya because Gadhafi was killing massive numbers of civilians. Saddam Hussein put 400,000 people in mass graves. He used chemical weapons against Kurds and Shia. If that wasn’t a humanitarian reason to intervene, quite apart from the security reasons, I really think people have a lot of explaining to do. O’DONNELL: But you would grant the style of intervention in Libya and Iraq is totally different. RICE: Well, yes, because Libya and Moammar Gadhafi are, thankfully, not Saddam Hussein. But if you think for one minute that you were going to be able to take Saddam Hussein down by mass protests in the streets, then you’re clearly ill-informed. O’DONNELL: We’ll never know. Dr. Rice, thank you — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, you’re right, we’ll never know. But I — I would have to say, anybody who thinks that that’s going to happen would have to be pretty ill-informed. O’DONNELL: That will be the last word. RICE: Thank you. O’DONNELL: Dr. Rice, thank you very, very much for (INAUDIBLE). RICE: You’re quite welcome. O’DONNELL: Thank you. RICE: Thanks.
Continue reading …Condoleeza Rice Gets Testy When Lawrence O’Donnell Asks Her Tough Questions About Faulty Intelligence to Justify Iraq Invasion
May 6, 2011 No Comment
It what turned out to be a very contentious interview, the Last Word’s Lawrence O’Donnell pressed former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice about the Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence to invade Iraq. Rice was defensive and got angry with O’Donnell for his line of questioning and was still defending their excuses for the invasion. It got sticky pretty early: O’DONNELL: As we look back and reflect on September 11th today, I want to quote something that President Bush said about September 11th, the lesson of September 11th. He said this repeatedly. It became boilerplate in the speeches. “September 11th taught us a lesson I will never forget and America must never forget — America must confront threats before they fully materialize. My administration looked at the facts and the history and looked at the intelligence in Iraq and we saw a threat.” He’s clearly saying that September 11th is the reason he looked at Iraq differently and saw a threat there. RICE: Yes. Are you surprised by that? O’DONNELL: Yes. Because — RICE: After September — O’DONNELL: — because Iraq had — RICE: — after September 11th — O’DONNELL: — nothing to do with — RICE: — after — O’DONNELL: —. RICE: — after, of course you look at threats differently. Your country has just been attacked. You know that you cannot allow threats to materialize. Do you know how many times I’ve been asked — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: But there was nothing in the — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — threat that Iraq — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — presented — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that was in any way related to us — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence, we can end this — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — and. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — interview right now if you don’t want me to finish my — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Go ahead. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — my point. Thank you. If one looks at what happened to us on, we didn’t connect the dots. There was a threat materializing that we didn’t respond to. Saddam Hussein had been a threat from the time that he invaded Iran in the late 1980s, through the 1991, when, in fact, he went into Kuwait, dragging us into war. We thought he had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. And in a context in which terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was a nexus that we could not allow, we decided that this was a threat that had to be dealt with. O’DONNELL: Forty thousand casualties later, in Iraq, 4,400 military — American military deaths in Iraq later, would you say that is the single biggest miscalculation that the Bush administration made, that Osama — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped by those military men who went in there and found no weapons of mass destruction? RICE: Sadda — Saddam Hussein was threat. He had used weapons of mass destruction. This was not — O’DONNELL: But we now know he wasn’t a threat — RICE: Lawrence, are we going to do this with my answers or with — O’DONNELL: Go ahead. RICE: — your commentary? It’s about time someone subjected one of these Bushies to an interview where they were pushed the way Rice was here. This is the way any of them should be treated any time they’re allowed on the air. I’m tired of watching them all come back on the television to revise history without even being questioned on their lies on Iraq and WMD’s, much less challenged when they lie on the air as Rice did here. Rachel Maddow came on the air a few minutes early to discuss the interview with O’Donnell. Click here to view this media Full transcript below: LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: — thank you for joining me. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Nice to be with you. O’DONNELL: On Sunday night, you put out a statement about the killing of Osama bin Laden and you said the demise of Osama bin Laden was a tremendous victory for the American people, “justice has been done and we are all indebted to the American military and intelligence community for their skill and dedication. I am overwhelmed with pride in America and in those who protect us. We are all united tonight in gratitude and love for our country. God bless America.” Why didn’t you congratulate or thank the president of the United States, who made this the CIA’s number one priority? RICE: Well, first of all, I said — I have congratulated President Obama several times, if you look back at the many statements that I’ve made. And I felt that this was a moment to acknowledge the American people, a moment to acknowledge what we’ve been through as a country. And since President Obama is the president who protects us, I think he’s covered by that statement. O’DONNELL: The — do you think the president’s visit to Ground Zero today was appropriate? And is that something you would have advised President Bush to do if you had gotten Osama bin Laden? RICE: Well, I have not seen the visit, but it’s totally appropriate for the president of the United States to — to go to Ground Zero and to commemorate the lives of those lost there and to say to the first responders, I understand you went to fire stations, thank you for what you did at that time. When President Bush went to Ground Zero and said that people would hear from us, he did so on behalf of the United States of America, not on behalf of his administration. And I think today, President Obama went to Ground Zero on behalf of the American people, not his administration. O’DONNELL: Have you had a chance to speak to President Bush since (INAUDIBLE)? RICE: Yes, I have. Yes. O’DONNELL: And what is his reaction to all of this? RICE: He’s gratified by it because this has been a long struggle. It closes a chapter, if not the full book, on al Qaeda, but it closes an important chapter. O’DONNELL: Did he tell you why he decided not to come to Ground Zero? RICE: I talked to him before this invitation came up. But President Bush has stayed largely out of sight. And this is a moment for President Obama to be with the American people. President Bush was there on September 14th, when he stood at Ground Zero and — and called the nation to action and put a lot of in place — a lot of things in place that would ultimately lead to this day. O’DONNELL: As we look back and reflect on September 11th today, I want to quote something that President Bush said about September 11th, the lesson of September 11th. He said this repeatedly. It became boilerplate in the speeches. “September 11th taught us a lesson I will never forget and America must never forget — America must confront threats before they fully materialize. My administration looked at the facts and the history and looked at the intelligence in Iraq and we saw a threat.” He’s clearly saying that September 11th is the reason he looked at Iraq differently and saw a threat there. RICE: Yes. Are you surprised by that? O’DONNELL: Yes. Because — RICE: After September — O’DONNELL: — because Iraq had — RICE: — after September 11th — O’DONNELL: — nothing to do with — RICE: — after — O’DONNELL: —. RICE: — after, of course you look at threats differently. Your country has just been attacked. You know that you cannot allow threats to materialize. Do you know how many times I’ve been asked — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: But there was nothing in the — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — threat that Iraq — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — presented — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that was in any way related to us — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence, we can end this — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — and. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — interview right now if you don’t want me to finish my — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Go ahead. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — my point. Thank you. If one looks at what happened to us on, we didn’t connect the dots. There was a threat materializing that we didn’t respond to. Saddam Hussein had been a threat from the time that he invaded Iran in the late 1980s, through the 1991, when, in fact, he went into Kuwait, dragging us into war. We thought he had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction. And in a context in which terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was a nexus that we could not allow, we decided that this was a threat that had to be dealt with. O’DONNELL: Forty thousand casualties later, in Iraq, 4,400 military — American military deaths in Iraq later, would you say that is the single biggest miscalculation that the Bush administration made, that Osama — that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and must be stopped by those military men who went in there and found no weapons of mass destruction? RICE: Sadda — Saddam Hussein was threat. He had used weapons of mass destruction. This was not — O’DONNELL: But we now know he wasn’t a threat — RICE: Lawrence, are we going to do this with my answers or with — O’DONNELL: Go ahead. RICE: — your commentary? We have not focused on the fact — you have not focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been a threat to the United States of America, to the Middle East, since he invaded Iran. Now, we made the wrong call then and we supported him against Iran. He then became a more monstrous threat. After 1991, shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone that was supposed to be keeping his air force on the ground; trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction; breaking out of the sanctions through the scandalous Oil for Food Program. Yes, he was a threat. With or without mature weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat. And nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. Of course, the lives lost will never be brought back. But in Iraq, that is not a threat to invade its neighbors, not a threat to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction, not a threat to pin — to (INAUDIBLE) Palestinian terrorists as suicide bombers. There’s going to be a better Iraq and a better Middle East. And so, in fact, I think that what we did in Iraq will be demonstrated by history to be an important part, an important pillar of a new Middle East. O’DONNELL: Well, I think history demonstrates that Iraq presented absolutely no threat to the United States whatsoever. And — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Well, what would be — that would be a surprise — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: OK — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — to the 16 Security Council resolutions that called him a threat to international peace and security — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Using information which was not — RICE: That would be a surprise. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — not true. RICE: That would be a surprise. No, no, no. That was on the basis of his invasion of Kuwait and the weapons of mass destruction that were found there in 1991. The weapons inspectors who could not do their jobs and so left in 1998, the attack by President Clinton in 1998 to try to bomb those sites, it would be a surprise to the Kurds, who he gassed and the Iran — the Iranians who he gassed and the people in the south of his country who he gassed. It would be a surprise to the CIA, that considered him a massive threat to the — to international peace and security. O’DONNELL: If he was a threat — (CROSSTALK) RICE: So — O’DONNELL: — to Kuwait — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — was a threat to the Kurds. (CROSSTALK) RICE: Well, you know — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: I do not think he was a threat — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — to New Yorkers. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Do you — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — then you have — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — think he was a threat to New Yorkers? RICE: Lawrence, you — you obviously have a very different view than the U.N. Security Council. You obviously have a very different view — O’DONNELL: Do you think he was the same threat to New Yorkers — RICE: You obviously have a very different — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that Osama bin Laden was? (CROSSTALK) RICE: — you obviously have a very different view than those people who were flying the no fly zone, like the soldier who’s in my class at Stanford who was shot at by Saddam Hussein. So you may not view him as a threat. Most people in the world did. O’DONNELL: Most of the world didn’t, which is why we couldn’t assemble the coalition that we would have liked to assemble to go in there. RICE: How — Lawrence, let me ask you, how many — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Let’s — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, no. I have a question for you. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Let’s get to the rhetoric — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, I have a question for you. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — which ran up to this — (CROSSTALK) RICE: I have a question for you. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — war. RICE: How many countries fought — O’DONNELL: Do you — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — in the coalition? O’DONNELL: And we — we don’t have enough time to repeat all the history. RICE: No, no, no. You — you just made a charge. O’DONNELL: I would like to review — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Lawrence — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — your — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — you’ve just made a charge so — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — your feelings about things you said ramping up to the war — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, not until — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — the threat of a mushroom cloud — (CROSSTALK) RICE: We’re not going there — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — from Saddam Hussein. You now know was completely false. (CROSSTALK) RICE: You know what — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Do you regret saying that? RICE: Do you know what? O’DONNELL: Would you take that back if you could? RICE: You know what, you’ve just made a false statement. You said we couldn’t assemble a coalition. How many countries fought in the coalition in Iraq — O’DONNELL: Actually? And had casualties? RICE: How many countries — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Actually fought? RICE: Yes. How many? O’DONNELL: Maybe a half a dozen actually fought. RICE: Oh, I see. So the Georgians who went there and the Japanese who went there — O’DONNELL: Actually had soldiers — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — and others — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — firing weapons on the ground? (CROSSTALK) RICE: — this was a bipartisan coalition. The people who — the British and the Australians and the Poles and all of those who — and the Canadians — all those who ultimately were in Iraq, these were not part of the coalition. O’DONNELL: Yes, they were. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. RICE: Yes. O’DONNELL: Now — (CROSSTALK) RICE: So — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — now about the mushroom cloud — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — your statement was just false. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that you were completely wrong about — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Do you — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — would you say that was possibly the single worst misstatement by a national security adviser publicly? RICE: I said that we could not afford to have it be a mushroom cloud — O’DONNELL: But where did — RICE: — that told us — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — you think that mushroom cloud would be — RICE: Lawrence, you have a bad habit with your guests. You never let them answer a question. O’DONNELL: Go ahead. RICE: Thank you. O’DONNELL: Where would the mushroom cloud be? RICE: The question was, had Saddam Hussein actually resuscitated his nuclear weapons or was he trying to? And if you look at the intelligence reporting at the time, it said that he could possibly reconstitute that nuclear capability within a year with foreign assistance and that he was trying to do it. O’DONNELL: But we knew — (CROSSTALK) RICE: What I said — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — that was wrong. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — what I said — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: He couldn’t have resuscitated — (CROSSTALK) RICE: Well — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — anything in a year. We know — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — cite things that we know were wrong and have been proven wrong? RICE: Because what you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday. O’DONNELL: If you — RICE: So at the time, we didn’t know that he had not resuscitated. The intelligence said he was reconstituting, that he was reconstituting his nuclear program. He had resuscitated his biological and chemical program. He was shooting at our aircraft. He was a threat to international peace and security. He’d been sanctioned by the U.N. 17 times on that course. He was a threat. O’DONNELL: The (INAUDIBLE) that you said were used exclusively — exclusively for nuclear weapons obviously were not. They were the kind of tubes that were used for rockets. That kind of that when you say that intelligence indicated that, but your White House was using intelligence incorrectly. You were misstating what the intelligence actually was. RICE: Lawrence, we can do this one way or another, all right? You can let me answer your questions or you can — O’DONNELL: Talk about the (INAUDIBLE) — RICE: — or you can make rhetorical statements. O’DONNELL: Let’s talk about the aluminum tubes that you were so wrong about. That is — that’s a — that’s one of those things you like to use as an indication of what the intelligence was telling you, but the White House was misinterpreting the intelligence — RICE: No. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — to reach its own conclusions — RICE: No, no, no. (CROSSTALK) RICE: — this was not the White House misinterpreting anything. The director of the CIA briefed the Congress that those aluminum tubes were most likely for nuclear capability — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — and a — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You said exclusively. RICE: We believed that the nuclear tubes — that the tubes, given Saddam Hussein’s history, given the long trail of what he was trying to acquire, were for nuclear weapons. Now, you’re right, the intelligence turned out to have been wrong. But, you know, you don’t get to get up in the morning and say, you know, my intelligence might be wrong. You have to act on the intelligence that you have. And that’s the intelligence that we had at the time. O’DONNELL: When you look at what we now are calling the Arab Spring and you look at these uprisings against these dictators in the region, would it have been better, now, knowing what we all know now, would it have been better to wait and let history catch up with Saddam Hussein in Iraq? Would we — (CROSSTALK) RICE: But Saddam — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — do you think we might have — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Saddam Hussein — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — a similar — (CROSSTALK) RICE: — we — (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: — uprising in Iraq today? (CROSSTALK) RICE: — Saddam Hussein was a threat and we dealt with the threat. We didn’t go to Iraq to bring democracy anymore than dealing with Adolph Hitler was to bring democracy to Germany. But once there, we felt that we had to help the Iraqi people get to democracy. And it’s simply ill-informed and ahistorical to suggest that a dictator as brutal as Saddam Hussein would have allowed an Arab uprising in his country. You’re looking at a dictator in Syria who put down an uprising. You’re looking at a dictator in Libya who has tried to put down an uprising. And if you want to talk about humanitarian disaster, why did we go into Libya? Because he was about to mow down his own people. He was going to eliminate his own people. He was going to commit genocide against his own people. Saddam Hussein committed chemical warfare against his own people. And I’d really like to have an answer from those who say it was a good thing to intervene in a humanitarian way in Libya because Gadhafi was killing massive numbers of civilians. Saddam Hussein put 400,000 people in mass graves. He used chemical weapons against Kurds and Shia. If that wasn’t a humanitarian reason to intervene, quite apart from the security reasons, I really think people have a lot of explaining to do. O’DONNELL: But you would grant the style of intervention in Libya and Iraq is totally different. RICE: Well, yes, because Libya and Moammar Gadhafi are, thankfully, not Saddam Hussein. But if you think for one minute that you were going to be able to take Saddam Hussein down by mass protests in the streets, then you’re clearly ill-informed. O’DONNELL: We’ll never know. Dr. Rice, thank you — (CROSSTALK) RICE: No, you’re right, we’ll never know. But I — I would have to say, anybody who thinks that that’s going to happen would have to be pretty ill-informed. O’DONNELL: That will be the last word. RICE: Thank you. O’DONNELL: Dr. Rice, thank you very, very much for (INAUDIBLE). RICE: You’re quite welcome. O’DONNELL: Thank you. RICE: Thanks.
Continue reading …
Leafsnap uses face-recognition software to identify a species of tree. Can it create a new generation of conservationists? To date, the world of mobile phone apps has largely left me cold. Yes, I can see how you can easily lose an hour of your life – or more – to Angry Birds . But the most interesting and potentially useful developments I have seen so far are apps such as Shazam and RedLaser . The power to identify and recognise non-text based things such as images and music points to just how potent and useful mobile phones are becoming. It now appears that we could be about to reach a significant new landmark. An app has just been launched that can identify a species of tree from a photograph of its leaf. Apps exist already that help you identify flora and fauna – the Forestry Commission recently launched an app called ForestXplorer for identifying trees – but they have traditionally relied on the user deducing the species from a list of possible characteristics. Leafsnap promises something different: a joint effort by Columbia University , the University of Maryland , and the Smithsonian Institution in the US, it uses the same technology as face-recognition software to identity the species itself: This free mobile app helps identify tree species from photographs of their leaves and contains beautiful high-resolution images of their flowers, fruit, petiole, seeds, and bark. Leafsnap currently includes the trees of New York City and Washington, D.C., and will soon grow to cover the trees of the entire continental United States. Leafsnap turns users into citizen scientists, automatically sharing images, species identifications, and geo-coded stamps of species locations with a community of scientists who will use the stream of data to map and monitor the ebb and flow of flora nationwide. The Leafsnap family of electronic field guides aims to leverage digital applications and mobile devices to build an ever-greater awareness of and appreciation for biodiversity. Personally, I think this is a tremendously exciting development. Just think what species recognition software could be next: edible fungi; rock-pool inhabitants; butterflies; wild flowers; the list is endless. Couple this with the app’s “geo-coding” potential and it could help to generate some very powerful data. (Please do share below any “nature-spotting” apps you have found particularly useful.) There is a slight lament to note, though. As a child, I used to enjoy flicking through wildlife pocket guides trying to identify species when out on long walks, or on the beach. I wonder what impact this software will have on children today when they know they can identify something within a matter of a few seconds without any real effort or engagement? Will that help to educate and inspire them? Or, conversely, will it tune them into things they might have otherwise simply ignored? Wildlife iPhone Smartphones Mobile phones Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Comedy writer and TV producer John Lloyd is a lifelong fan of all things Mac and of a 15-year-old Porsche 911 What’s your favourite piece of technology, and how has it improved your life? Well, the Mac completely changed my life. I first came across that little boxy square Mac in the 80s – it was a cubic thing. I was taught to use it by Lise Mayer, one of the writers of The Young Ones. It had everything you needed, it was the most exciting thing. I’m a dedicated Apple Mac person. When was the last time you used it, and what for? I use my Mac all the time – more or less 24 hours a day. I’ve got five different computers, and that is the other problem – how do you collate this variety of information, because I use them all for different purposes. What additional features would you add if you could? That’s difficult to say, because all these devices now have many more things than I have time to use – but two things: one, something similar to a Babel Fish, with perfect translatability, because I work in many languages. Instant translation from one language to another. Another thing I would like is perfect speech recognition technology, so that I could speak words into a computer and it would transcribe them perfectly. Do you think it will be obsolete in 10 years’ time? Definitely. We will probably have stuff where you will be able to speak to it directly, almost like an implanted chip. We’re almost seeing the demise of the keyboard, such as the way we use the iPhone. What always frustrates you about technology in general? Very banal things. Fifteen years ago, I thought that I’d be smart if I was working in batteries rather than in television – we still haven’t come up with a battery that lasts forever. But my biggest frustration is forgetting to bring the charger. I also get very annoyed that every new iteration of a phone or computer requires a new set of plugs. I’m starting to think that’s how computer and phone companies make most of their money. Is there any particular piece of technology that you have owned and hated? I do wonder why they haven’t managed to make a quiet hairdryer yet. My wife uses one every morning and they’re incredibly loud, aren’t they. If you had one tip about getting the best out of new technology, what would it be? Ask your children – unless you are a child. Kids seems to be able to do these things almost intuitively, while adults find them almost impossible. I’ve never read a computer manual in my life, so I always ask my children how these things work. Do you consider yourself to be a luddite or a nerd? I think neither, really. I think technology has great advantages, and I’m lost in admiration for the people who create it all. But if you meet a great chef, or great composer, it’s equally as mysterious how they do what they do. What’s the most expensive piece of technology you’ve ever owned? Probably my car – I have an extremely old Porsche 911, it’s about 15 years old. It was second hand when my wife bought it for me, but it was pretty pricey. Mac or PC, and why? I just think everything is better about the mac – the prettiness of the design, the ease of comprehension. It just feels like when you go from a Mac to the PC, if feels like going back to the horse and cart – slow and clunky. Creative people almost always tend to be Mac people. Do you still buy physical media such as CDs and DVDs, or do you download? What was your last purchase? I still do, and I know I will for a while, but I’m beginning to think I really should have a Kindle. I have thousands of books, and I read an enormous amount, but I think there is no question about the convenience of the Kindle. But I do like buying DVDs and CDs. I bought a lot of spy thrillers on DVD last year when I was scripting Johnny English 2 – from the Bourne Identity right back to The French Connection. Robot butlers – a good idea or not? No. I don’t want a robot. I’m against them – it’s a bit like convenience food, you’re a lot better off preparing your own food, aren’t you? What piece of technology would you most like to own? I’d love to have a helicopter, but I’m going to have to work a bit harder before I can afford one of those. • John Lloyd co-created the BBC series Not the Nine O’Clock News (with Sean Hardie) and ITV’s Spitting Image (with Peter Fluck and Roger Law). He also produced all four Blackadder series and is the brains behind QI. The QI app is available from the App Store. Comedy Television Stuart O’Connor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …