I think that if some jihadists get ahold of a nuclear explosive, or even a "dirty bomb" (a conventional explosive that spreads radioactive material to contaminate a large area), they will find it very hard to resist the temptation to blow it up in Washington DC. Everything the Cheney Administration has been doing increases the chance for this regrettable contingency.

nuclear attack? only if jeb got elected and cheney held on to his vampire bed aka the veeps office, and rove got to be the information minister.

then of course, it would be described as a polite ,misunderstanding

30%? Why not 32? or 31.987? Since we've produced nothing to measure this against? And if it doesn't happen, well, we're not wrong, are we? Why not say there's a 99.689% chance? Again, if it doesn't happen, we can always say "Whew! That was close."

This "data" is being pulled out of the ass of think-tank denizens who have their own agenda. No matter how many agenda-carrying ass-spewing sheltered government stooges you put in a room, the answer follows the same principles: what is true doesn't matter. More important is, what do you want to be true?

Until some pundit comes forward and says, "100%. In Alsace-Lorraine. In the next three months;" and it proves to be true...am I going to put any credence to this crap. In the meantime its akin to the elephant rock. "Yep, no elephants around here. Rock must be working."

I agree with Alexis - that was my first reaction as well. What was their methodology? "We ran simulations of the entire world geo-political and economic history for the next ten years. In 30% of simulations, a nuclear explosion occured sometime during that period."

Also, I think what Beinart said and what Lugar asked are VERY different. The questions, whether the United States is going to be nuked, or whether SOMEONE is going to be nuked, possibly BY the United States, are extremely different.

On the anniversary of 9/11, the NY Times reported -- as a tiny sidenote -- that captured documents showed that al Qaeda considered crashing planes into nuclear power plants, but rejected the idea. The story indicated that they rejected the idea for moral reasons; it was too much to create a massive nuclear incident. Of course, I can't figure how they accept crashing into the Twin Towers as morally OK, but it showed there was some twisted consideration of how much innocent killing was "too much."

There is little chance that they would "restrain" themselves in a similar manner now, since Chimpy has given them the all-out brutal war they so desired.

So facts bounce off people's heads, true enough and what was the truth about Iraq. Instead of looking at what politicians and pundits say why not look at what the anthropologists say?

The first question to ask our anthropologist would be what causes war in the first place?

Answer: When one country builds up a surplus of some kind of goods that another country needs and does not have this will always be the basis and cause of ALL wars. Not some wars, ALL wars. So if you hear about WMD or spreading democracy or liberation it will always be pure bullshit.

But of course what do anthropologists know? Their job is to study humanity in all its glory. I have pointed this out before but all I get is disbelief because it could not be that simple. It has to be some kind of grand strategy or it has to be some kind of lunacy on the part of our leaders. Somehow it is just so disappointing to realize that it was no complicated many tiered objective it was that Iraq had something our government wanted.

Anthropology will always outrage certain people because it reveals too much about ourselves and we don't like that, we would rather garb it in something more spectacular and intellectually challenging because it makes us feel more important.

Can you follow the bouncing fact?

I agree with Alexis as well, what qualifies these think tankers to say this about that or that about this? Nothing, not their credentials that they wear like cabbage on a generals uniform and remember it was think tankers that told Bush war was a good plan and I think that is all we really need to know about think tankers and what they claim.

I think saurabh hints at the most absurd part of this--many of those surveyed are in positions to increase the odds of a nuclear attack: Either by provoking terrorists or other countries to launch one, or more likely, given that they've got the largest nuclear arsenal at their command, launching one themselves. Let's hope they're not out to prove themselves right.

It's ALL just shoveling shit to swing a realestate deal. A basic case of ARMED ROBBERY.

Hedgehog, remember the Bushies thought this was going to be easy, they talked themselves into that one and found out they were wrong.

Hold a gun to the Iraqis' head, steal the shirt off AMERICA'S back.

The Bushies could have known the cost if anyone had asked. There were already those predicting numbers above $50 billion; I suspect that by just dropping that on Iraq we could have gotten everyone on our side.

No, they didn't do it because it would be cheap or because they needed to steal what Iraq had. I don't know the full reason but I can speculate. Growing up I heard plenty of conservatives lament that the U.S. had grown soft and needed a bracing experience like the Depression or WWII to make us manly again.

It apparently never occurred to them that what made Americans more independent and tough then could have been their leaders calling on them to contribute to the greater good, rather than telling them to consume citizenship like a Big Mac.

This is a little like when we were polling Information Technology Security professionals about whether a Millenium Bug catastrophe was a high or low probability. The higher their estimate, the more valuable the expertise they were selling. As I recalled, they overestimated a bit as to how easily and completed it would be fixed.

Next let's survey burglar alarm salesmen on how likely it is for your house to get broken into.

Michael

Lugar is either being deliberately disingenuous, and acting like an effing hypocrite, or (more charitably), he's got a blind spot as big as an Indiana cornfield--or a sprawling subdivision, which is what many Indiana cornfields are being turned into. The essence of the NPT is that non-nuclear nations agree not to pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons IN EXCHANGE FOR real and substantial reductions, and eventual disarmament, by those already in the nuclear club. And what is the U.S. regime doing? Violating international treaties and conventions (on chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, the militarization of space...), developing new generations of "more usable" lethal weapons, threatening, invading and occupying other nations, "keeping all options on the table", including the first use of a nuclear bomb and the "right" to attack a country "pre-emptively"--i.e. for no good reason. Also, refusing to criticize or even publicly acknowledge Israel's illegal arsenal (while having conniptions over Iran), and sanctioning and rewarding India's nuclear status. Among other things. Odd how none of this appears in Lugar's report. The focus, and the onus, is entirely on other countries of the world, when the United States is the single worst offender and biggest driving factor in the nuclear arms race.

But then, Lugar IS an ideologue. Pure Republican partisan hack underneath that moderate and respectable-looking veneer. I lived in Indiana during Bush's first term, and made a couple of trips to Lugar's Indianapolis office with other activists to express our views on the Iraq invasion and occupation. We implored him, courteously but passionately, and backed with strong factual evidence, to use his intelligence and his influence in Washington to restrain the scaremongers and warmongers. He blew us off completely. By going along with the Bush war plans, he is as responsible as the neocon architects themselves for the horrendous consequences that followed--and that we predicted at the time. Our second visit was just before the Congressional vote on the additional $87 billion Bush wanted for Iraq in the fall of 2003. Lugar (along with sidekick Biden) was all over the talk shows, pretending to ask serious questions and act responsibly regarding the request; he wanted credit from skeptical constituents for "asking hard questions" (the actual phrase the head of his Indianapolis office used on us). This was exposed as the charade it was/is when he stated outright even as he was raising those supposed questions that he would definitely vote in favor. What kind of accountability and oversight is that? Pure charade. And I saw, too, how he willingly prostituted himself in Indiana on pro-Bush campaign commercials.

Funny how of all those "experts" in his study group, not a single one mentioned U.S. foreign and defense (sic) policy as a top non-proliferation priority. This survey looks to me like little more than a plug for the Nunn-Lugar program, dressed up as a "scientific" (sic) survey. And that program, while it has some achievements to its credit, completely misses the larger context and dominant driving forces behind nuclear proliferation. Lugar needs to take a closer look at his own country's policies and actions before lecturing others.

Hedgehog, if you believe Bush invaded Iraq to make us more manly than you are fucking idiot.

*ahem*

As Sitemom, I would prefer more reasoned disagreement and less profane, interpersonal sniping.

Profane, intrapersonal sniping remains fine, however.

seems to me that the two interlocking reasons for invading Iraq are

1) to control—not obtain, but control—the Iraq oil, and, more important, control who gets it. We easily could have continued buying it. That's not the point. We have to be able to hold it over China's head like a club. Which is merely a subset of:
1a) control over the Entire Middle East—meaning a permanent presence in Iraq, biggest embassy in the universe, more bases ringing China, etc.

2) let's not forget turning on the afterburners on the fleet of jets carrying money from the middle class of the US to the war profiteers. Look at the billions, nay, soon to be trillions, going directly from the US treasury (us) to Lockeed-Martin, Bechtel, General Dynamics, Halliburton, et al, with only a feigned slight of hand momentary stop in an account labeled "for Iraq" or "against Terrorism" but never actually getting anywhere near any Iraqis, or Afghans for that matter.

The ironic corollary of this is that we've run out of our own money to give to these profiteers, so the US is using Chinese and Japanese money. Yes, that's right. Using China's own money to finance the building of bases ringing China! Fortunately, this is so cleverly hidden that China will continue to buy up our debt indefinitely, just to insure the continued proliferation of Walmarts.

well, maybe not.

Ironically, the best way for inhabitants to get some of this cash is to be there when the Allied Special Forces are handing out bags of hundred dollar bills, pre-invasion, as has been going on in Iran for months already.

What was said above about Luger is true for John Edwards too. I wrote long, long letters telling him how Iraq had no nuclear WMDs or anything else that threatened the USA.

And, I imagine, John Kerry.

AFter the war started, I wrote him and said "I hope you find those WMDs to justify this immoral and illegal war."

Before the war, I thought it was a stupid idea. I was wrong about that. It is a oh-so-breath-takingly stupid idea. Like in stupid beyond all belief. I never suspected they would fuck up so badly, and I am coming to the conclusion that they are doing this on purpose.

I have long thought that war has transitioned from its historical roots as a means of wealth/power redistribution (for better or worse) and nation-consolidation to something that is more than the sum of those two parts--an excuse to funnel large sums of money without any oversight or thorough justification. I'm not saying the former two never happen, but they're pretty rare, especially around here.

SiteMom, I want milk and cookies. And if I don't get it my left hand is going to slap my right hand. See if you can stop that intrapersonal sniping!

""I think that if some jihadists get ahold of a nuclear explosive, or even a "dirty bomb" (a conventional explosive that spreads radioactive material to contaminate a large area), they will find it very hard to resist the temptation to blow it up in Washington DC.""

Yes but Washington DC != All of America. The US fire bombed Tokyo, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Japan survived. The USSR lost 20 million in WWII and went on to crush Germany. We lost New Orleans and America still rumbles onward.

The point is that terrorsists with a loose nuke just are not an existential threat to the US. Slavery, now there was an existential threat it lead to civil war and the loss 700,000 men and it's still an issue.

Jonathan, sorry about the profanity, my apologies.

So, why am I still paying these people? I suppose so they can stesl the kids' lunch money till they get grown, buy a rifle and 2 bullets with what's left, put it in their hands and send them out a conquering.

My comments were a little oblique especially in my haste to get milk and cookies.
My point was that we may very well and, I say, probably do go to war so we can spend the money that it costs in a very particular way, one which been championed continuosly and consistently by powerful people. I'm not sure exactly what hedgehog means, but I'd wager "that way" has some Venn overlap with the list of budget items Joe Schmoe considers "Manly"--and that his considerations thereof are not coincidental.

And anyway, I'm willing to line up my IQ behind hedgehog's and vouch for it, not that that carries much weight.

I think that controlling the oil is the same as stealing it, I think Iraq is sitting on top of, if I recall correctly, about one third of the world supply of oil. No matter how you cut it, control the Middle-East or control the oil it is still a stock pile of goods that is there for the taking. If you control it you own it. I don't know why this is so hard to believe that the Bushies would start a war that they thought would be over in a couple months for capitol gained. They are stealing our money right now and giving it to the oil companies in the form of tax breaks and subsidies do really think stealing Iraqi oil would be beneath them somehow? The problem is they totally misjudged the situation and now three years later they still have their hand stuck in the cookie jar and are making up all kinds of crap to save face i.e. spread democracy, liberation etc. You know liberals are supposed to believe in science but apparently not when it does not agree with their misconceptions.

I don't know how anyone could possibly believe we went to Irag to make us manly. Give me a break, please.

I guess it all depends on your definition of MANLY. If you believe going out and killing someone, or a lot of people and siezeing their possessions is MANLY, the point may be well taken. That's because that's exactly what's happening. When you kill someone, when you take their life, you've taken ALL they ever had, ALL they could ever be.

Mike, I understand what you are saying however watching a rich and powerful nation literally destroy another nation which was perceived as weak and defenseless and therefore an easy target and then present it as an act of benevolent kindness I find it extremely hard to swallow. I know I am pounding this into the ground but being manly is just not even remotely related to why America invaded Iraq, you can look at if from any angle, up, down, inside out or right side up but it is still the most asinine thing I have ever heard in my life.

Oh come on, Mr. Bush invaded Iraq because our "lifestyles are non-negotiable," & because of 911 & because Saddam was "another Hitler," & because Mr. Bush didn't want "the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city," & because "911 taught us that our oceans no longer protect us," &, most of all, to spread freedom jelly on the oppressed Iraqi muffin.

See, it's pretty simple.

Now if Mr. Bush follows this brilliant strategy of his with enforced homage to Poseidon so the goddamn oceans get off their asses & start protecting us again, then, sirs & ladies, & only then, will I be proud to call this president MY president.

At last a voice of reason, don't forget mom and apple pie.

As I stated above, it looks like ARMED ROBBERY to me. Just another violent crime that will go unsolved.

I think you are right about armed robbery Mike Meyer.

I agree that Washington DC is NOT equivalent to the entire U.S. However, it IS a "high value target" - and also, a number of people dear to me personally live in the immediate vicinity. That is why I hope it will NOT be attacked with a nuclear explosive or radioactive dirty bomb. The Cheney Administration's policies are increasing the probability of this unhappy outcome. My suggested course of action - change the policies, change the administration, try to be a good neighbor instead of the boss of the world, c'mon people, smile on your brother (everyone you meet), get together and love one another right now.

And a pony.