17 Burst results for "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on As It Happens from CBC Radio
"On february twelfth two thousand and two donald rumsfeld delivered one of his most frequently quoted lines reports. That say there's that that that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me because as we know there are known knowns there are things we know we know we also know there are unknown unknowns that is to say we know there's some things we do not know but there are also unknown unknowns. The ones we don't know we don't know donald rumsfeld speaking at a news briefing in two thousand and two after he was asked about the lack of evidence linking iraq to a supply of weapons of mass destruction the former. Us secretary of defense under presidents gerald ford and george w bush died on tuesday. He was eight years old as evidenced by that famous clip. Mr rumsfeld had a reputation for being a skilled in slippery bureaucrat throughout his decades long political career. But it's his role as the mastermind and staunch defender of the iraq. War that will define his legacy and for cnn and tune. It's a legacy of war crimes that mr rumsfeld never had to face justice for mr antoon is an iraqi american and associate professor of middle eastern and islamic studies. At new york university. We reached him in new york. And we just heard. Donald rumsfeld's famous no knowns clip infamous. Perhaps we could say. How does it feel hearing that today. Well that was the obfuscation and the deception and the orwellian discourse of the bush administration. But there's one thing we know and many around the world no and that is donald rumsfeld qualifies as a war criminal. That's something we know very well and we know now but we also knew actually back in two thousand and two of. That's important that there were no weapons of mass destruction and there was no connection between iraq and aci or terrorist networks but also what we know is that after two thousand and three because of donald rumsfeld's policies and because of the occupation There is plenty of terrorism iraq. Sadly i think listening to that clip. It's just a a haunting reminder of the orwellian discourse that was so prevalent in two thousand and three in the years after he wrote an in two thousand eighteen in an op. Ed for the new york times that you know the war wasn't a blunder or colossal mistake. It was a crime he wrote. And i was going to ask you whether his death or time has dealt that feeling doesn't sound like no. I mean his death doesn't really change anything unfortunately because it doesn't change the kind of around. Us empire and its wars or how. This society chooses to office kate and to you know to refuse to look at the tasks. They're still writing by large mistake blunder. I mean it was a catastrophe. But the reason why i said we knew back in two thousand and two because overwhelmingly in the us you here and a lot of pundits and others say well if we knew what we now know but actually in two thousand and two. It was all over the obvious. Many around the world including myself but many others were saying there will be no weapons of mass destruction because as a society that was so devastated by thirteen years of sanctions The most draconian sanctions in modern. History would not be able to to produce weapons mass destruction and that's the irony of the catastrophic irony of the war on terror and donald trump's have was one of them in architects of that is that it produces mortar. Actually he said that the world and we would be safer after the war. But we're not. Of course i'm then i'm not saying that to cast any positive aspects on dictatorship i like many was against dictatorship but the reality is that the. Us invasion brought terrorism into iraq. The united states occupies iraq but it does not secure iraq's borders in july of two thousand and three i return to iraq with a group to film documentary and at the at the border with jordan the main entry point there are only three. Us soldiers manning one of the major entry points into the country. I was going to ask you about your trip to film that documentary. And you know it's emotional. Toco back into the united states in nineteen ninety-one. You left iraq so just on a personal level. What was it like to see it. I mean it was. It was quite disheartening. Because you know after thirteen years everyone. I saw in iraq people that i knew relatives neighbors and family members. They had suffered so much in those thirteen years because the sanctions really destroyed the social fabric of society. But also they were already realizing after three months that this occupation is was going to be a chaos. You know many of them. Of course we're happy that saddam hussein was gone but they already realized that which was coming was a total disaster so it was very sad for me even no fan of saddam hussein either. Certainly that was part of why he left. Iraq in nineteen ninety-one perhaps but what should world powers have done. I mean i think you know the problem is is that around the war and bright before there was this this course somehow that there was a binary between a dictatorship and occupation as if military occupation is the other of of dictatorship. What should the world should have done. It's not that the world was in the business of changing dictatorships into democracies definitely not the so called western world. Because if you look at history. They had never done that. We know that superpowers support dictators and they oftentimes are not pro democracy. So why is it then in two thousand and two some all of a sudden so many people would fall into this deception that somehow the united states brings democracy anywhere the issue was not replacing saddam hussein. The issue was about geopolitics and about imperial blunders and disasters imperial fantasies. And the problem with imperial fantasies. Is that you know people over there pay the price iraqis until today pay the price whereas rumsfeld goes into history as well. He served his country and he tried and the warlords in the war. Criminals are rehabilitated. At least in the united states. I mean george. Bush appears on ellen degeneres show and we see his paintings and he dances and as if he did not lie to people as if hundreds of thousands of iraqis that indic- as if thousands of americans didn't die and it was all based on lies of course and i think it's obscene for example that a few years after that you know george. Bush appears in this Dinner for journalists and he jokes about not finding weapons of mass destruction. So to my mind i always think of what the civilians thing. What do civilians in iraq who now live in one of the most corrupt countries on earth Ruled by this political class. That was brought in by the united states. What do they think. I think it says something about. Us media that to my mind though the most accurate headline is from the onion etc publication. It said rumsfeld weapon of mass destruction found dead at eighty eight. He was the weapon of mass destruction. Mr anton thank you so much for your time. Thank you thank you soon. And tune teaches middle eastern and islamic studies at new york university.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on KLBJ 590AM
"Hell we're going to get out of the house tonight. A proved approved a check your pocketbooks $13.1 billion budget. The fight with Yugoslavia and buttress U. S forces around the globe. Now's not a bad idea, because we're getting spread a little thin out there wouldn't you say? The measure would more than double the $6.5 billion. President Clinton. Budget requested last month to back the air war. And so they keep trying to give the president more than he really needs were says he needs anyway. Listen, another subject. I'm getting a lot of mail from tree sitters and those who back them. Remember the Fall Creek tree sitter. Well, I'm told and I'm sure it must be true with a number of Emails that I'm getting that somebody is threatening to cut them down Timber. That's not funny. They're up 100 some feet in many cases, 200 ft. Or arrest them or whatever. So if somebody would email me a phone number at art, Bella a oil dot com in this first hour, I would be glad to get one of you. Tree sitters. On the phone and we can find out what's going on. You know what's new? We're gonna be talking about contrails with William Thomas in the next hour, and there's no choice. I I am. I'm being Besieged Besieged almost like an email bombing. You know, with so many e mails from people who say you know, I thought it was garbage, but I've got to tell you. We've got him here. They're not normal and we're sick. No. I guess I also have to tell you that I can't rule out the possibility of some sort of mass hysteria. You know, Believe me, I've considered that. Just because I've seen contrails all my life. These contrails seem different. But you know, in the face of it, it certainly does seem ludicrous to To talk about contrails was something in him. In other words, intentionally doing something to us what you know, biowarfare. Sort of inoculation. Who the hell knows? But even that seems pretty far fetched, or does it Maybe not. On the Y two K Front on Guy will have a guest on the subject toward the end of next week. Attorney General Janet Reno. This this is from the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge. Has quietly, Reno's quietly created a small agency within the F B. I It is going to deal with y two k repercussions. That's interesting. The agency the national Domestic Preparedness Office, is no up and running and preparing Despite that, the fact that it does get this. I guess it's like area 51. It does not officially exist. Congress has not yet approved any money for it. Well, then how can exist at all? Mm hmm. The mission statement from nd F P O rather ndp oh, to coordinate all federal Efforts. Including those of the Department of Defense Federal Emergency Management Agency. Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. It was a state and local First responders with planning, training equipment and exercise is necessary. To respond to a conventional or non conventional weapon. Mass destruction incident. What are they talking about? There? If the concept is Y two k preparedness. They don't exist, and their mission is to prepare us for some sort of mass. Terror. What the hell? Yeah. I can't figure out but I can't figure out a lot of what our government is doing right now. Russia, according to The Associated Press, has developed a new anti aircraft defense system capable of hitting targets up 200 to 250 miles away and engaging stealth aircraft. Now, how could they do that? According to a report Wednesday, said AP Now I've got to wonder about that. New anti aircraft defense system that can hit one of our planes, even a stealth aircraft. At 250 Miles away. How would they do that? Well, let's see the journal Military Parade. A respected source on the Russian Montoya provided details of the new S 400 system of missiles. Radar. Saying it could hit advanced warplanes and cruise missiles. Also engage and shoot down stealth aircraft. The system named triumph. Is that a Russian word triumph is also capable of hitting radar reconnaissance airplanes at extended range, including AWACS Airborne Command systems. Used by the U. S and NATO. Why would they call it triumph? Not. Why not great in ski or something like that. Why triumph? Maybe they want a word that we will understand. Hmm. Our friends are good friends, the Russians All right. We're gonna pause here for a moment, and we will either talk to a tree sitter. If I have received email Or we will do open lines for the balance of the hour and then at 11 o'clock, Oh, William Thomas, the investigative reporter from Western Canada is going to be here. Talking about this incredible, absolutely astounding, mind boggling contrail thing. And a lot more. That's what's happening tonight..
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on Boston Public Radio Podcast
"You mean by that. Well you know. I talked about going down to the house floor a few days after the murder explaining what happened in sandy hook as Mental illness masquerading is as evil. And i actually was wrong. I mean as it turns out adam. Lanza was not mentally ill and as it turns out over. Half of all mass shooters have no sign of mental illness and so Well that's sort of to allow people isn't sound right It is in fact true that there is not a correlation between mental illness and violence. And if there was that every country would have the kind of homicide epidemic. that america does. Because we don't have any more mental illness than other nations so ultimately you've got to explain this epidemic through another lens and what we know. Is that This access to firearms this easy access to weapons. Mass destruction is probably the simplest and most accurate explanation of the mass shooting epidemic. Would adam lanza have ever sort of come up with this disgusting perverse courage to walk into that school..
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on Scientific Sense
"Welcome to the site of accents. Podcast where we explore emerging ideas from signs policy economics and technology. My name is gill. Eappen we talk with woods leading academics and experts about the recent research or generally of topical interest scientific senses at unstructured conversation with no agenda or preparation be color a wide variety of domains. Red new discoveries are made and new technologies are developed on a daily basis. The most interested in how new ideas affect society and help educate the world how to pursue rewarding and enjoyable life rooted in signs logic at inflammation v seek knowledge without boundaries or constraints and provide unaided content of conversations bit researchers and leaders who low what they do a companion blog to this podcast can be found at scientific sense dot com and displayed guest is available on over a dozen platforms and directly at scientific sense dot net. If you have suggestions for topics guests at other ideas please send up to info at scientific sense dot com and i can be reached at gil at eappen dot info. My guest today is prefaced billions same. Who is professor of economics mathematics at ucla. His suites in brusett in good spoke on impact the culture on economic outcomes of diverse societies inflammation asymmetry to macroeconomics experimental financial markets at a number of topics in machine learning. He's cutting legal editor of economic theory and associated deter of economics though compelled. Thank you for having me show. Yeah thanks for doing so. I want to start with one of your What can papers that said to be published entitled living social and personal preferences in which you say the attitudes of a decision maker toward this end risky choices both personal choices in social choices endo butch really random of individual decision-making The paper asked when it is possible to link. this attitudes. I find disfavored extremely interesting. Bill obviously desk implications for As you describe here for People who out in public office perhaps Celebrex sex in large companies. And so on. And so so. So what do you mean. By linking puss choices and social choices on so the idea of the paper and started out as a purely experimental baker turned into a theoretical paper. In his now paper you seen has a theoretical park and an experimental part experimental. Barnish trying to test the theory. I'm yet but the idea of the paper is that we decision-makers us just of united states. But we make choices in many different domains so we make a choice of How to divide money between ourselves and someone else we make and let's think of that a social choice make a choice of How did about how to choose what to do. In situations that involve risk only to us and then we all make decisions in especially if we're the president or a decision maker who making decisions for other people we make decisions in situations where there is risk for us and for others and the question. Is that third domain. Seems like it's a combination of a first tuna man's and if people have consistent preferences in theory tells you that under certain circumstances it's possible to infer choices in the third domain preferences in the domain from about observations of preferences in the first two games so the paper established as this idea theoretically and then try and then there's an experiment in which in the laboratory. We have student participants as most economic experiments. That have been laboratories are done with undergraduates. At in a laboratory we give subjects choices in the three domains and we see to the extent possible whether the theory looks good and the result. I think is that my colleagues. And i don't necessarily interpret a result the same way i interpret the results of the experiments. Say that most people behave according to theory and a significant number of people. Really do not and so. Let me ask you that on that bill. So so what does the theory predict. How what does it say about. People should be well when remember should here is simply a matter of consistency. Moral judgments being applied. Here we're just asking if there're people's choices in the three domains consistent and with the theory says is that if you can observe certain things in the first two domains and you can completely infer what people will do the third domain in the laboratory experiment It turns out that you can't always observe what you need to observe but for some people you can so in one part of the experiment. People are given a sum of money and they're asked to divided sum of money between themselves and someone else anonymous other person Some people keep everything. give nothing. let's call most people selfish. That's not a particularly good description but let's call them selfish so for selfish people. It should be the case that their decisions in the domain where there are mixed nixon There's mixture of uncertainty and social choice. should be completely determined. Should be the same as in the your social choice. Starting in the pure risk experiment because they don't care about others so as far as they're concerned if i toss a coin comes up heads you get five dollars and i get three dollars comes up tails i get five dollars. I twenty dollars and you get one dollar On the hit choose the The five three the five entry because the the truth. I don't care about you. I don't care about the fact that you're going to get more or less so if i don't. I saw that the social traces the The uncertainty in social choices is irrelevant. Yes so he said it's a very simple objective function rights so essentially oil. The individual has to do is to maximize maximize the He or she is getting. And you'll i wouldn't interrupt so yeah you have to keep in mind. I think i didn't say this to mind that when we before we toss the coin. You don't know how much you could be getting you either. Getting depending on which outcome obtained either twenty dollars one dollar or he'll be getting five dollars or three dollars depending land. Set your cells so it's you wanna maximize your welfare. Taking into account the pay walks and young certainty now standard economic theory says people should maximize expected utility for the kinds of stakes people. It seemed like people should maximize their expected payoffs but very few people do and in fact she. 'have you're in. These environments is very complicated that across individuals so he would have been people do things that are sensible. But don't look at all like what theory predicts yes so so for my understanding though. So even if the coin of cad it's a five and please split up but sandy you don't know where they're going to get the five audit league right. Yes so let me let me try again. I think i said yet natalie so repose. You're asked to choose a five three split or a. Let's make eight dollars both times or a two six right. You have to make a choice of one or the other. It's a coin comes up heads and you have chosen five three. You'll get five. it's a coin. If on you have chosen to six you'll get to. The coin comes up tails either or six depending on which which you have chosen but you have to choose first and then the coin toss comes afterwards so clearly rather have six dollars in five dollars another hand the first choice which is between Sorry the first choice where you'll get either five or three as same expected payoff but is less risky. So if you are averse to risk then you ought to choose five three And not everybody does. And we've also not much more complicated choices for people to choose among right okay and so so so from. Your interpretation of experiment is that Generally people do what the theory says but that a lot of exceptions at kens you have look for some some explanation by I'm not sure that that's what i'd say. Yeah i would say something slightly different namely mike conclusion from this or my inference is a better word by entrance in that a substantial majority of people are consistent and a substantial minority of people are internally inconsistent. Is what they do is inconsistent. It behaves differently in environment a that environment in environment and this is particularly important because one of the big questions about experimental economics. We conduct an experiment in the laboratory. But we're worried about what the external glitterati of the conclusion czar yet. The world behaved the way they do in the laboratory and our people in the world like the students in the laboratory at all and so the result of this experiment suggests that there lot of people who are inconsistent even in a laboratory. So there's no reason to think that their behavior outer laboratory would be consistent with would look like their behavior inside the laboratory is it because They do not know how to maximize expected returns from the experiment. Aw or something else. It's definitely something else because there are people who are doing things which by theory are odd but who are still perfectly consistent doing something that one might think is odd. They're maximizing something and they're doing it in a consistent way they're just not maximizing expected. Return even expected utility here. Is there a. I hate to ask this bill but Is there something that saves There are some people who want to Both maximize daniel tilleke but also simultaneously maximize this utility For the for the society in so one of the things that issue is the opposite of altruism despite and in these experiments you do see spite experimental rivers. Set up so that it's not. You would not expect to see much bite because the other person is anonymous to you. There are a other experiments where you don't know literally who the person is. You don't know their name but you've interacted with them in the past and depending on your interaction to them the past you may be trustful or mistrustful in many altruistic or you may be spiteful and you do see altruistic behavior and uc spiteful behavior right and and those behaviors appear consistent. So this is. This is what i found interesting in your concluding remarks the paper that you know you talk about character often individual It's an important sort of measurement Democratic societies should should think about if that puts in it's going to become Become or run for public office was something out of those lines right. Most i think that when we got sorry in the middle of this paper this project has been going on for quite a few years. More care to admit or care to think about But in the middle of this we were thinking very much about politics and we were thinking about what many people said that in choosing president character matters above all and so if you believe that then the question is can you infer from what you observe about. A person's private choices noth- their character to understand something about how they will make social choices how it will behave in office. The answer is an issue about what you can observe. The answer is if they're consistent. The answer is yes. And so the question of our people consistent and you flown them to be consistent right and experiment i think about. Two-thirds of the people are get greedy consistent And i would say about one. Fifth of the people so substantial minority are really quite inconsistent. And so so. That's a multiple things they want us if you believe character is the governing criteria for For the party leader of a nation for example down and The plus question is can you actually serve The character can you observed actions of that individual and played lies. And if you can The probability of that feeding into The public life appears to be quite hard Yes i think so. And so this hypothesis. Dead characteristic ebony play tedious for a leader seems to be the right right well without trying to comment too much on current politics that assumes that let me differently there seemed to be a lot of people who believe that you cannot judge how someone's going to behave office by how they have behaved before they were in office I would argue that. You probably can if they're consistent and there should be. No reason to believe will behave better when they're in office than they have behaved in their private lives. And it's not just just the us i think is potentially a generally applicable applicant idea now. Clearly this is not something you can operationalize in politics. I don't think this will depend on. What you mean by operationalize. If we go move away from the united states but remove say to the united kingdom. If you ask me eat an observer interested observer but from outside whether boris johnson's behavior in office has been consistent builds his behavior before he was in office. The answer is absolutely yes right. And so so you know i you could potentially say that barrel for most Democracies most leaders most contemporary leaders. I think the answer would be yes and so so the question would be in a democratic system. Voters really taking that into account when they make choices or it is suggested notion that is somewhat cosmetic in nature. I think it varies a lot according to the situation according to the candidates If you look at at past history of us elections For example Edmund muskie was the front runner for the democratic nomination. At some point There was a public not emotional attack on his wife. He defended her in public and he received to be crying. People this as weakness on his part. And it's kinda see sank like a stone The best example is gary hart. I'm not sure if you're aware of this. But the adema before in the year before the election gary hart was thought to be the leading democratic ended. There were rumors circulating that he had a mistress and he he of course denied it and in a press conference. He said i don't mistress. I lead an incredibly boring life. If you don't believe me follow me around at somebody. They did follow him around and the next day quantum with his mistress the next day now this is a perfect example candidacy sanford-lake estonia resurfaced a bit later because he scandals tend to be short lived but the thing that was really that really got to most people was not gonna had a mistress not that he denied it not that he was caught but that after challenging people to follow him around he promptly so no pains to be careful or this suggested that he was a very careless person. The last thing you want in a president is very fearless person. Yeah all those non bill are all out of the window If you study more recent phenomena so i think the used to be the night came to the us in the mid eighty s My expectation of the american president was substantially different from. What is today And so so. The data said in a sort of a historic downgrading of expectations. I'm not so sure that that is the right interpretation. Get i don't know a lot of people who voted for donald trump. Either this time or for years ago. Not sure i know any i mean. I know that. I know some but i've never worked. I have talked to them about politics. So bright impression of what trump voters thing is garnered from interviews that i've seen which are not exactly random samples and Discussions in the press margarita impression. The infants are draw. Is that iraq. Two things going on with a lot of people one is there's a tremendous distrust of what of media and they get older news from sources that are not reliable so the set of There's a famous quote by I forget who which says everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they're not entitled to their own facts like will have different facts then. Yeah people who've been york times so there was a survey done a couple of years ago but howard formed people were as a function of where they got their news and the people who got their news from. Npr were by and large. The most best informed the people who got their news from fox news. Where the worst informed and they were. The people who watch fox news were less well informed than the people who didn't have any news sources at all. Yeah it's a bit like what. I would call belief based decision making so that one fifth of inconsistency you found the experiment we have similar situations in corporate environments right Decision makers make decisions based on gut feel believe at. It doesn't really matter what the data might might might say because the belief is going to override beta ed so so so my observations that this has nothing to do with education. It has nothing to do with States people think about but it has everything to do with a decision process. That is sort of forty to start it. I think that's right. I think is correlated with education in the sense that people who have gone through certain rigorous education have learned to use data in reaching conclusions and rely less on beliefs and got instant. But i agree with what you're saying you know i would. I have been interviewed a couple of times on a different show about politics and one of the things One of the discussions. That came up. What i preface my remarks with i attributed the quote to the person who made it which is in god. We trust all others must bring data. It seems to me that there are a lot of people who think that what people with authorities say it true and they don't brook any disagreement with it and the way they don't brooke disagreement with it is not the day take what someone with authorities says and they look at look at the facts and find conflicts take with someone in forty south and they listened to a particular collection of new sources which reinforced That statement and don't allow any country data to be presented right right. I don't jump. It landed a paper bill so this is entitled asset pricing signatory reasoning it sort of generally related to what you can general at all. Actually i quite similar. It's quite so. What can i tell you about that papers. So i was just going to ask. You said the conduct so you say. The president theory and experimental evidence on pricing and portfolio choices under estimate took reasoning. So so cute again. You know we have some expectations out of economics that people maximize at the creative vision portfolios and so on. But but but what we are finding here is like it so let me give a little back aboard. Yeah so a number of people of whom the most prominent is eugene fama nobel prize for us have asserted the idea that markets are information. Perfect and what they mean by that. Is that although people who trade in the markets begin with private information that relevant about what. The true prices have adverts should be being process of trading causes the crisis to move in such a way that reviews all the information now. There's a lot of doubt about whether that's true. Pharma has a lot of data. Indicating that it's true but i had put this is exactly global. Data sort of we can observe observe information leaking into the market in the course of the day as way of a stock so what happens following an announcement for example. How won't take effect the announcement to make its way in prices but an announcement or not exactly private their public but not. Everybody pays attention to them. Can i infer enough about the announcing sales from the fact that other people are suddenly buying along stock being price. Well dancing must be good or people should dumping it. The announcement must've been bad. So i learned this and there's a lot of economic theory provides situations in which this should come to pass after we settle on prices. We don't necessarily on though everything but we all know everything that's relevant. The prices generally thinks that Information should leak into prices and the idea is the following. Suppose that you have information. That i don't have and your information suggests that the price of this acid to be higher than it actually is when you start buying this asset which drives the price up. I should make inferences about what you learn. If i knew that you have information that i don't have in. My inference will be the rich nations good right now. The problem with this argument is that my infants may be that. You think that the information's good but in my model the world the information is bad. I don't have a model of the world issue right so that the reason that information doesn't leak into prices is not that it's hidden. It's that we interpret information differently so in the in the experiment instead of getting people private information we give them public information but we give it to them in a way. That's hard to understand okay. And so some people understand will and make the right inferences and some people. Don't and in martin standings where a very big majority of people do not know how to interpret information Prices don't look away. They quote should in situations where a big majority of people or a a big chunk. People do interpret properly. Everything works fine by this. Look like you're supposed to and an complex And the complication is. Do you understand that. You don't understand the world or you think understand the world. But you're mistaken if one participant bill In the market with with incident resources. And and the right in the petition of data buddha dead participant make the prices efficient The answer is who's provided that the other people understand that. Well sorry let me back. Let's back up little yet. There's a very very nice experiment done a couple of years ago about asset markets without yards and experiment found that strange things can happen in an acid market when the people in the market are let. This is not quite. Why are not very smart. So what they did is they gave people little chest beforehand and then took the top fifteen percent of people who did well in this test and they ran the experiment with those people so now they have a room full of people all of whom are in this sense smart and what happens is basically the same thing. The market gets to doesn't settle quote right place. Then they just one more experiment. It took a sample of this. Fifteen percent of people were smart. They put them in the room and before experiment started. They told everybody in the room. How the people in the room were selected so now the difference is that in the last story people in the room know that other people in the room are smart by this author and now everything works beautifully that is information is revealed cetera and this cast a lot of light on experiments the original experiments which had been done account tech Because the biggest difference between experiments dummy countback and experiments done at a random university are not only do the students at caltech or smarter but everybody knows students are smarter. And when you do this experiment as some college. London did with professional traders. The same thing happens. That is if everybody is smart. Everybody's sophisticated and everybody knows everybody else's sophisticated so it's not just that the market is populated by sophisticated people. The market is populated by sophisticated people. Who know that. The market is populated by sophisticated people. So we've is so if you're at fact informed. Go back to your question if you're an argument well informed and you have infinite resources and you're drawing the correct inferences in the standard story you would in fact drive prices to where they should be are in fact whether or not you would drive prices to where they should be depends on whether other people interpret your actions correctly and if they don't know that You have the same model. The world is day do then they will not interpret iraq remain on interpret reactions correctly and the net result is that the outcome may be very very different and in fact. That's exactly what happens to the experiments so it turned tell. What's important is again that there'd be enough smart people who can be perceived to be smart in the market so when we do the experiment with all caltech undergraduates enough people throughout the truth that everything works fine when we do it with ucla undergraduates. It depends but sometimes enough people figure things out when we did it with undergraduates university of utah. No one figured out what was going on and the market gets completely screwed up and then we knew caltech students with with utah students. That's enough smart people but more sophisticated. Yes no the difficulty for me. Bill has always been so don't have equal participants in the market so we have some heads forms with hundreds of billions of dollars of assets at become day players pleading with thousand dollars and if the kids fund for argument's sake is is is a participant. Could no sufficient tries. It doesn't really matter if the ten million day traders thousand dollars or serve them interbred the or anything because they can take the come to trade I'm perfectly fine with hitch for die perfectly. Fine people either running around with the chickens get cut off right. It's actually a good from well. Yes so in in many models there are noise traders and the noise traders which are not rational but the but the Sitting you describe is not a realistic setting because you think about it. There isn't one hedge on. There are many hedge funds. And they don't all do the same thing on the reason is that they have different models of the world and fact they advertise so they have different models of the world if everybody had the same model the world. They're the reason why you said there would be no reason why you should give your money to a hedge fund or you might just by the market. But lots of people get that and lots of hedge funds or financial advisers claimed they outperformed the market with the evidences. Aren't evidence is evidence. That data seattle alpha up on average. Yeah but you know. I think that warren buffett's operation has outperformed the market jim simon's operation has enormously outperformed the market in some some teams though. But i think you know so If you if you if you cut jesuit turns of berkshire hathaway. I can look at the data recently but you can see. There are periods where there is excess returns but they'll long periods of time but that is negative alpha hours they allow for on the whole and berkshire. Hathaway isn't exactly the right comparison because berkshire hathaway is not actually operating like a hedge fund. But jim simon operation renaissance style renaissance. Technology is a better example and they have outperformed the market not all the time but very consistently for a long time. Now jim simon's who's extremely started life as a mathematician and was a world class mathematician by way is very smart by and sorry my Cure is telling me something happened on. And their algorithms seemed to work pretty well but at any rate The the point is that in order for informed people to move the market to the right place speak. It has to be necessary either that they are sufficiently large that they're really dominating market. I'm going to give you an example by were just wasn't through there especially large so that they are dominating dominant market or people believe in them so let me give an example where this is not not true so in the eighties. It was a very big market crash one day yup and the explanation of what happened. When winter's follows many people interpreted trades having information large trade having information in fact however many of the large trades were being conducted by programs your program trading and they had no information in the middle so these programs were selling or even selling short and many participants in the market took this as negative information where there was not informative at all that caused the programs to sell even more and there was a cycle in in the bottom religious. Opt out and really dropped a dairy dairy quickly and it was discovered afterwards. That in that curated something. Like fifteen percent of all trades reprogram trades which had nothing to do with information at all and the reaction of the people who regulate the market regulate stock. The new york stock exchange was that program trades would have to be labeled as program trades So that you could understand what trades might be driven lanes mentioned in what trades are not getting by intimation. What happened in the crash was that i saw a program trading selling i thought the program had negative information about true down the asset so i started selling as well but i was mistaken about the programs model of the world yet in the in the status quo. The bill that computer is not spotted. not with the computer. Smart humans Even sure what that means. The question is is the computer programmed better than humans yet. It's less noisy. It's less emotional. So you can see people sitting in front of a computer. Trading cubans generally tend to reduce alpha significantly that machines that are doing site of mine. Mindless programmatic Trade and increasingly. You know those computers could actually get information to analyze that inflammation but one thing that i find very interesting the paper of bill that you say you make a distinction between ambiguity of words and risk-averse And so at risk of woods agent is somebody who understands the risk so that a certain probability of future states of the world bettas that pikkety of woods agent destined like any uncertainty of of anything. Right just want something i would like. I would make a different distinction speaking. Distinguishing what i mean by risks and what i mean by unity by rhys i mean situations in which either there are something. Very light objective Abilities or two which we can assign with some confidence subjective probabilities in by 'ambiguities. I mean situations in which were unsure of the outcome or will run sure. What's going to happen to run. Certain outlets can happen and we can't assign probabilistic probabilities to be averse to risk. Means you don't want to take fair bets on cost between the the toss of coin on end for large stakes. Most people are risk averse but the difference between being risk aversion ambiguity. Averse is that Or the most people are risk averse. The question is how do people behave when they're confronted with situations which they don't know how assign probabilities for example. What does it mean to say that. The probability that mitt romney will be reelected. Senator from utah is ninety five percents. What does that mean. I mean. I understand what it means. When you say you think it's ninety five percent but right to me it seems quite ambiguous and there's a lot of evidence that people do not treat situations where they can't figure out probabilities the same way it treats agents will make handcrafts bubbles so people can be. They treat ambiguity differently than they treat risk so they can risk neutral but reversed ambiguously and there are some people who sort of like him just as there are some people with sort of like yes but by law by large it seems that people who are more risk averse are also more likely to be. I am beauty and the question of in what situations will you perceive ambiguously so if you see on behaving a certain way you regard this as a risky yo inform you about risk or treat my behavior as ambiguous and your reaction to it can be very different depending whether you interpret this risk and assign some probabilities to it or you interpreters and big meals and this is really very true in the world I can go back to politics. Get chess think about in our invasion of iraq. One of the arguments for dating iraq was that saddam hussein had and would be willing to use weapons of mass destruction and the argument one of the arguments supporting the idea that he had weapons of mass destruction was well. He had the opportunity to deny it and to allow inspectors to prove they have weapons of mass destruction. And he didn't take that opportunity so that should be taken as evidence that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They started they did have weapons mass destruction now. The problem with outlying reasoning is that assumes that you know what saddam hussein's utility function was and truth is you don't his function is the way he views. Things is too ambiguous so you can't assign probabilities to it. You have to say whether some possibility but we don't know how likely it is that reason he won't admit to not having weapons of mass destruction or that he won't allow inspectors is. That'll make him look weak to his neighbors. We doesn't wanna look weak to his neighbors. It's important that he looks strong and to him. It's more important to look strong into worry about. United states dating iraq three so his our evaluation of saddam hussein should take into account that this is a situation where we can't really assign probabilities. We should think of this indigenous. Yeah i mean you know this by nearly evens right. Yes or no evens You don't have a lot of experiments Exciting probably like you say is sort of a few exercise to start Out you you. You cannot be proven wrong. He plays say that it's a probability that vote is going to not be too much but there is probability that we're going to get that is probably sixty five percent. There's going to be a third wave of golden right. If it happens i would say look. I was right. You but doesn't happen. I would say that was one good chance impact at the people who say all the posters were wrong. They're predicting hillary clinton would win. Nobody predicted the hillary clinton a hundred percent duty. I don't think our win. Forgot about eighty percents You know and to say that Twenty percent event. Twenty percent guns don't happen is absurd. Of course they haven't. They're happening all the time right yet. So you say going back to the paper again bills you say if the agents of ambig- lady was these agents become price insensitive up so the question is the following if you think that the value of the asset is the truth is going to be a hundred dollars. It's a coin comes up heads and fifty dollars of the coin comes up tails then. There is a at which you're willing to buy the asset before the coin toss presumably certainly willing to pay fifty dollars. Presumably you're certainly not willing to pay one hundred dollars but Because it will and maybe room with a seventy five. Maybe you're risk averse. You're willing to pay less. Let's suppose that you're willing to pay sixty dollars net. I tell you well. It's not a fair coin. It's gonna come up heads. A little more often. Save fifty five percent in the fines. Come up heads the amount through we willing to pay for this asset. Well it's a good outcome so the amount you're willing to pay goes up and conversely if i ask what what would you do for these prices if the prices sixty seventy five dollars you want to buy or sell well in this case you want to sell. The price is fifty five dollars. You wanna buy and there's exactly one price will be different. But if. I don't tell you anything about this coin if i say i'm going to roll a die and my colleague. Charlie clock had in his experimental lab a ten sided. Die now and if the number comes up odd it'll be one hundred dollars to become even it'll be fifty dollars. The problem is that you don't know what the probabilities of coming up otter even are on the ten sided die that there are no regular concided solids for sure For sure but pretty much for sure. The chances of each number coming up are not the same. So the truth. Is this dis ambiguous to you and you can actually do this experiment and will and what you will find is and this is what we found the different paper Theory tells you and experiment bears out that there's a range of prices at which you want to buy arranger prices which you want to sell and those big range of there could be a very big range of prices in the middle in. Which will you hold the asset. You don't wanna sell it. We don't hold the asset. You don't want to buy it. That's not audible if you assign probabilities. So that is unusual. rice prices. moving people don't do anything yet. And indeed that experiment. You see that a lot and this is carries over into paper. We're now talking about. Because when i see you taking certain actions. I don't think that you have the same model. I worry that you don't have the same model of the world that i do. Then i may interpret your behavior as ambiguous rather than good or bad rather than having good information or bad information interpreters and big euros in my reaction jam. Ambiguity is to avoid it. Yeah so you see. Sort of a similar became stock market. Also bill so if fly codex spicy company. I don't want to sell it and you know says a range of prices. If i don't own it. I don't want to buy either. I think you see this it. Has you know it invested. I i it. You see that for two reasons. One is that there's ambiguity and the other is. There's what experimental economists like. Call the endowment effect that people tend to value things they own more than they don't own even when the same thing. I'm there's some about whether to what extent the endowment effect is real but lots of people believe in it that also of a different bush. Some cost died thing going on day to supply by xyz. At even though. I know you know. I'm calling going to a negative turn. I'm not willing to accept it at just holding out for you know that acid side. If you're like on an someone taught you to play poker. Mike case a book The first thing they tell you is once the money is in the pot. It's not yours anymore. So you shouldn't think that you know. I've got fifty dollars in the pot. Other people have seventy five dollars in pot so i really have forty percent of the pot. No that's not true. The money isn't yours anymore. If you now have to call a ten dollar. Then they'll be one hundred thirty dollars in the pot hunchback one hundred forty dollars you call and you have a chance of winning now. So true probably should be computed respect to the actual pot odds and if you watch Analysis of online poker texas holdem. The analysts talk about the pot. Odds all the time and it's very important that wants the money is not yours so this is the sunk cost fallacy. An part of a some part of the reason. I think that people fall prey to this is it's a combination of not understanding some costs but it's also the case that People are very reluctant to admit they made a mistake. But i want to say one other thing. So if you read daniel commons book thinking fast and slow is a very interesting book you see. The conman has fallen prey to a very bad east. Made a very bad mistake namely Violated the dictum in god. We trust all others must bring data so the psychologists conman in particular but the psychologists generally do experiments by questionnaire by asking people what they would do common in his book even says something to the effect that there's no reason to sing. That people would do something different than what they say. My reaction to that is. This is an empirical question. So why don't we asked people what they would do and then give them the opportunity to actually do it if they do what they say. Guess what they don't. They don't show economists. Do not believe in this kind of experiment. In experiments economists do is they make people or they allow people to make decisions and typically real money is involved. Because you can't say what would you do. If i offered two hundred dollars off one hundred dollars and it is true that there's no particular reason why should be different but this is not a theoretical questions. This is an empirical question nutrition use theory with data or trouble with experiments is at its distort thing we're coming. We coming back to what we were discussing earlier on. Which is external diluting Ferment students but the market is not populated by students. I do an experiment. Where oh in the first experiments. My colleague did i mansion servants. The average profit was in two hundred dollars over the course of three hours and some people made as much as four hundred dollars but in the market. We're not talking about hundreds of dollars we're talking about even for ordinary dusters tens of thousands of dollars and for people running funds. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. So it's not at all clear that their personal different people and secondly it's not real clear. They would behavioral same way. Have a world right and if it is your job he if you're running hedge fund Your behavior is going to be you know Determined determined but influenced by your experience at. You're doing it over and over again. You have lot of different experiments that you run that as a student. castle done. I make an injection. What you just said. However if you're running a hedge fund and you've done lots and lots of experiments then some of them will turn out badly in the right one or the wrong ones. Daddy won't be running the hedge fund anymore. The investors typically do not take a very long view o one of the issues with people running companies for example and not just investing in stocks assets but making financial decisions for the company. Has the people running. Companies are gonna be judged by what's happening now. Not whether what they did was likely to be correct. Seventy percent of the time. You're unlucky. You're going to lose their jobs. So there's a tendency to be sometimes overly cautious and it you know it. It used to be said that no acquisitions person was ever fired for buying equipment from ibm. Or that's very old story. But why what's that well because you're doing what everybody else is doing. It's hard to go wrong. It's hard to be blamed. You're doing what everybody else is doing. If you decide to buy restaurant company networks out. that's fine doesn't workout. You're going to get fired yet. I wanted to touch on one other thing before you The bill and so you say the paper again. Victim aggregate risk vithout aggregate risk mispricing decreases as the fraction of price-sensitive agents as the fraction of play sensitive agents increases the festival for won t made by aggregate risk in that context. I think that Two things one is that The prices adjust to aggregate what the market thinks is the true risk you have an opinion of the surreal ivan opinion. The man behind the tree isn't opinion. The true risk in the price somehow aggregates these beliefs. These opinions that's one thing. The other thing is that it activates the risk in that it shares the risks. So instead of your bearing all the risks risk is shared between you and me and At equilibrium at least a quarter sufficiently similar the risk is shared among people and if the market operates properly than more risk will be borne by people who are less averse and less risk will be borne by people who are more averse to risk so if i may take a couple University of california has a defined benefit. Anchin plan yet defined benefit plans or jerry on popular these days however there's fury very good justifications theoretical justification for them which is the general principle. Is that in dividing risk. You should assign more efficient. It's designed more risk to the party. That's less risk averse and less risk the party. That's more risk averse well. The stock market bounces up and down. And you don't get to choose exactly what you're what you choose exactly what you're going to retire but you're probably not going to get to choose which in which five year window you retire retire and a five year window which the market is down and you have defined contribution plan we have to take your contributions out your subject to a lot of timing on the other hand if you would find benefit plan in university subject to the timing but the university you can average over time so university is just like an insurance company Muck less risk averse than you are but less subject to this. This risk is timing. This matters a less than university so Aggregating risk is also about signed this efficiently. Prices are supposed to do that. Okay okay v. Didn't get your other papers bill. But hats begin to another Sperm i think experiments i mean i got into doing experiments quite by accident. That might have founded yet extremely rewarding for lots of reasons. Not least because. I've really enjoyed interactions with my colleagues. I learned a lot from them. I learned a lot of peter starts. I learned a lot about how. Think about data which i had never really done before and that's really stood me in good stead but it's very interesting to see the extent to which theory works or doesn't work in the laboratory at this is not something you know something that beget typically right There are some established notion so help markets work help people make decisions and saw and so this experiment really insightful Either you're going to conform the Expectations are you're going to find some deviations and deviations said they'd be more interesting so lower early alan yet. We were the first experiments. And i was giving talks about them. People were saying why we have to do experiments. We have all this wonderful data so that. Crisp the christ tapes report every transaction on new york stock exchange since about nineteen sixty two. And you think well this is wonderful except the data is in some ways incredibly good in some ways incredibly bad if you want to take that data to the economic theory as opposed to financial theories. Financial theory is talking about That the prices are derived assets. You can. i'm talking about the price of fundamental assets. You can't take economic theory because what you need an economic serious. You need to not know. Just use knocked. Just ten thousand shares were traded at a dollar twenty five. You need to know who blocked him. Who has sold them. You need to know what their holdings were. And you never see that. In except by during experiments excellent. Thanks so much phil really very much. Thank you stay safe. This is a scientific sense. Podcast providing unscripted conversations with leading academics and researchers on variety of topics. If you like to sponsor this podcast please reach out to info. At scientific sense dot com.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on Scientific Sense
"Ambiguous and there's a lot of evidence that people do not treat situations where they can't figure out probabilities the same way it treats agents will make handcrafts bubbles so people can be. They treat ambiguity differently than they treat risk so they can risk neutral but reversed ambiguously and there are some people who sort of like him just as there are some people with sort of like yes but by law by large it seems that people who are more risk averse are also more likely to be. I am beauty and the question of in what situations will you perceive ambiguously so if you see on behaving a certain way you regard this as a risky yo inform you about risk or treat my behavior as ambiguous and your reaction to it can be very different depending whether you interpret this risk and assign some probabilities to it or you interpreters and big meals and this is really very true in the world I can go back to politics. Get chess think about in our invasion of iraq. One of the arguments for dating iraq was that saddam hussein had and would be willing to use weapons of mass destruction and the argument one of the arguments supporting the idea that he had weapons of mass destruction was well. He had the opportunity to deny it and to allow inspectors to prove they have weapons of mass destruction. And he didn't take that opportunity so that should be taken as evidence that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They started they did have weapons mass destruction now. The problem with outlying reasoning is that assumes that you know what saddam hussein's utility function was and truth is you don't his function is the way he views. Things is too ambiguous so you can't assign probabilities to it. You have to say whether some possibility but we don't know how likely it is that reason he won't admit to not having weapons of mass destruction or that he won't allow inspectors is. That'll make him look weak to his neighbors. We doesn't wanna look weak to his neighbors. It's important that he looks strong and to him. It's more important to look strong into worry about. United states dating.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"Blee was the head of the CIA as al-Qaeda unit as counterterrorism chief. Cofer. Black was his boss. Blee had compiled compelling multiple source information about an imminent attack on the United States. They took it straight to CIA director George Tenet been grumpy all along. But this was this was the last Straw. And we hadn't gotten traction. You know we had been breathing people to blue in the face. You know this was not being translated into you know anyone else being mobilized in the defense of nature. Black says tenant got it. Immediately, tenant called the White House and told National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice quote I have to come. See you were coming right now. Richard Blee told Rice and her national security team quote. There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months. The attacks will be spectacular they may be multiple. al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States made my hair stand. In one of her memoirs Condoleeza Rice says her memory of the July tenth meeting isn't Crisp. Because quote we were discussing the threat every day. Following the meeting Rice did raise the threat level for US personnel overseas. But beyond that and specifically domestically Cofer Black says nothing happened. I would like you to be as clear as you can. Mr. Black something. Do you feel? That the Bush administration took any steps did anything in that period of time to head off an attack that they were warned repeatedly by you and others was coming. Nothing went out to order director even encouraged domestic agencies to mobilize their resources in response to this threat. And then these decisions to make you know the public was not warned. Just two days after that July tenth meeting Condoleeza Rice gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington. No. One would have expected the national security advisor to talk publicly about a top level classified briefing she just received however rice did talk about what the Bush administration did see as the highest level security threats to the United States, but as the president has made clear. We must deal with today's world and today's threat including weapons of mass destruction and missiles in the hands of states that would blackmail us from coming to the aid of friends and allies. She did not mention the threat posed by possible terrorist attacks. By late July black tenant and blee all believed that an attack within the United States was imminent. They'd gathered intents conference room at the CIA where Richard Bliss said they're coming here. On August sixth two, thousand and one. President Bush's Daily briefing included the now infamous memo titled Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U. S. A little less than three weeks later? August twenty fourth Bush announced a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Terrorism is prevalent in the Middle East Bush said, but regarding direct threats to the United States. Bush said Defense Secretary Donald. Rumsfeld was actively assessing the security landscape at the time. One of the threats it faces America is the threat of a black male as result of some rogue nation having a weapon mass destruction. Bush did not mention the possibility of terrorist activity on US soil. Eighteen days later September eleventh two, thousand one. Al Qaeda attacked the United States. Let's be clear intelligence failures particularly at the CIA are at the center of the exhausted report published by the nine eleven commission in July of two thousand four. Cofer Black is candid about those failings they knew something was going to happen, but they never knew exactly when or exactly who or exactly how all information that the White House would require to authorize targeted actions. So. Without that detailed Intel could the attacks have been stopped? What could have been different? Cofer Black wishes someone in the white. House had called a principals meeting the president heads of defense national security like a war cabinet specifically to consider the al Qaeda threat the national leaders all come together they do and other issues I just don't understand why they did this. Come together. And a make a determination of what courses a nation should be followed. Such a principals meeting did not happen but even if it had, would it have made enough of a difference especially late into the spring and summer of two thousand one? Black admits that maybe nothing would have changed. But maybe something would have because we know what the consequences were of doing nothing black says the point is in real time you simply don't know at might have caught some of these guys. So maybe you only get one group hijackers that of four groups you know are two out of four. It just gives you the opportunity be bit more lucky than doing nothing. Cofer Black comes back to this point again and again. People in the White House bring in their old biopsies, they have to unlearn those biases and rarely do instead in the face of new information they lean into their own tease. Why do some times? Even when they're presented with compelling information about an imminent threat to the United States. Why do they not act I think I think the Bush administration had to learn a lot of things are a lot of biases met with and their big thing was Serb Listrik missile defense, and it was very difficult to convey the urgency of this threat, which was definitely a new threat to varying degrees. People trust their own instincts and their own biases. Are there any similarities between the lack of action by? Trump for this pandemic. And the lack of action you've been talking to me about in the face of all the intelligence before nine eleven..
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on On Point with Tom Ashbrook | Podcasts
"Along. But this was this was the last Straw. And we hadn't gotten traction. You know we have been briefing people to blue face. You know this was not being translated into. Anyone else being mobilized in the defense of the nation. Black says tenant. Got It. Immediately, tenant called the White House and told National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice quote I have to come see you were coming right now British bleed told Rice and her national security team quote. There will be significant terrorist attacks against the United States in the coming weeks or months the attacks will be spectacular they may be multiple. al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United. States made my ear on. In one of her memoirs Condoleeza Rice says, her memory of July tenth meeting isn't Crisp because quote we were discussing the threat every day. Following, the meeting Rice did raise the threat level for US personnel overseas but beyond that and specifically domestically Cofer Black says nothing happened. I would you to be as clear as you can. Mr Black on something. Do you feel? That the Bush administration took any steps did anything in that period of time to head off an attack that they were warned repeatedly by you and others was coming. Nothing went out to order director even encouraged domestic agencies to mobilize their resources in response to this threat. And then these not my decisions to make you know the public was not warned. Just two days after that July tenth meeting. Condoleeza Rice gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington No. One would have expected the national security advisor to talk publicly about a top level classified briefing. She just received however rice did. What the Bush administration did see as the highest level security threats to the United States but as the president has made clear We must deal with today's world and today's threat including weapons of mass destruction and missiles in the hands of states that would blackmail us from coming to the aid of friends and allies. She did not mention the threat posed by possible terrorist attacks. By, late. July. Black tenant and blee. Steve that an attack within the United States was imminent. They'd gathered in tenants conference room at the CIA where Richard Bliss said they're coming here. On August sixth two, thousand one President Bush's Daily briefing included the now infamous memo titled Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U S. A little less than three weeks later, August twenty fourth Bush announced a new chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Terrorism is prevalent in the Middle East Bush said, but regarding direct threats to the United States Bush said Defense Secretary. Donald, Rumsfeld was actively assessing the security landscape at the time. One of threats faces. America is a threat of blackmail as a result of some rogue nation having a weapon mass destruction Bush did not mention the possibility of terrorist activity on US soil. Eighteen days later September eleventh two, thousand one. Al Qaeda, attacked the United States. Let's be clear intelligence failures particularly at the CIA are at the center of the exhaustive report published by the nine eleven commission in July of two thousand four. Cofer. Black is candid about those failings they knew something's going to happen, but they never knew exactly when or exactly who or exactly how all information that the White House would require to authorize targeted actions. So without that detailed Intel could the attacks have been stopped? What have been different? Cofer Black wishes someone in the White House had called a principals meeting the president heads of defense national security like a war cabinet specifically to consider the al Qaeda threat the National League all come together. They do another issues. I just don't understand why they did not. Come together. And they make a determination of what courses a nation should be followed. Such a principals meeting did not happen but even if it had would have made enough of a difference especially late into the spring and summer of two thousand one. Black. Admits that maybe nothing would have changed but maybe something would have because we know what the consequences were of doing nothing black says, the point is in real time. You simply don't know at might have caught some of these guys. So maybe only get one group of hijackers at of four groups or two out of four. It just gives you the opportunity to be a bit more lucky than than doing nothing. Cofer comes back to this point again and again. People in the White House bring in their old biopsies they have to unlearn those biopsies and rarely do instead in the face of new information they lean into their own tease. Why do some times? Even when they're presented with compelling information about an imminent threat to the United States. Why do they not act I think I. Think the Bush administration had unlearn a lot of things. A lot of biases they came out with and their big thing was a ballistic missile defense. and. It was very difficult to convey the urgency of this threat, which was definitely a new threat to varying degrees. People trust their own instincts, their own biases are there any similarities between the lack of action by President Trump for this pandemic? And the lack of action you've been talking to me about in the face of the intelligence before nine eleven I've I've been I've been pretty forthcoming with the There is a difference, the Bush administration we're looking at an imperfect sight picture. Okay. They could say that were the wizard enough to make a decision would love they had accepted our word for.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"I know the North Koreans found that difficult to accept obviously, we didn't get to a point at the summit in Hanoi where we could reach reaching agreement on that broad framework, but we're prepared to continue trying the doors opened into clemency. We want a very different future after the United States and North Korea on the Korean peninsula. And the president is one hundred percent support of of us remaining engaged diplomatically to try to achieve that goal. The gap is still just a little bit too large for us to get there today. Stephen begin is US special Representative for North Korea. I'm going to try this one one diff a slightly different way. Because you are certainly aware that there is a narrative that is out there right now. That national security adviser John Bolton has now got a hold of the process, and that the United States position has hardened considerably. Are you saying that we the Trump administration position has not hard? Trump administration position is not hard from the very beginning. The US van to achieve the final fully verified denuclearization of North Korea. The president on down have said that the lifting of sanctions will come with attaining that goal. That's not to say that we can't continue to talk with North Koreans, and that there aren't other areas we can explore outside of the lifting of sanctions that can potentially advance all the Singapore commitments that the two leaders made. But there's absolutely no no difference in in for distinction in the US policy on denuclearization. I will say that. That I have an acutely aware that I inherited a portfolio the for twenty five years has been mired in political disagreements and policy differences hand and also has a fairly miserable record of achievement. We started this diplomacy with North Korea with the agreed framework in the early nineteen nineties and one can debate why each subsequent initiative failed and and who who was at fault, but you can't deny the outcome. Starting in nineteen Ninety-four really starting in one thousand nine hundred two when the north and the south agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula racing forward. Twenty-seven years today, we have a nuclear weapons state on the Korean peninsula. So the policies have been a failure. The Trump administration's policy is to push very hard across all fronts. We want to build confidence we want to build trust. We want to end the war, which is currently in abeyance with the nine hundred fifty three armistice we want to heal the wounds of war. We want to recover the remains of the soldiers very much for the same reasons that that helped us normalized relations in other places like me at Phnom at the end of the conflict. It's all part of a total strategy, but it does require North Korea to be fully committed to the elimination of its weapons of mass destruction. And that's what the president was challenging Kim Jong going to buy into that vision completely. And if they do as the president has said. We will exceed their expectations and look what we can achieve together on the cream peninsula. You guys all know that we're going to be taking questions in a very complicated ipad related manner in a few minutes. My former colleague Michael Gordon didn't trust this. So he emailed me a question. He wanted me to get in. And I wanna I wanna read this Email from Gordon because it gets to the point that you're talking about. And it gets again to the all we moving the goalposts issue. President Trump has repeatedly stated publicly that he has no fixed time line for completing the negotiations with North Korea. And it's not in a rush to denuclearize North Korea's long. As young does not connect conduct nuclear missile tests at under in September. Mr. Trump said foot, I don't wanna get into the time game. Is it takes two years three years or five months? It doesn't matter. There's no nuclear testing. And there's no testing of rockets last Thursday. This senior State Department officials said that the goal was to denuclearize North Korea. And eliminated. Eliminate the North's ICBM's during Mr. Trump's current term in office who is right? President Trump or the senior State Department official. So the president has not set an artificial time. Limit on on. This process. That's absolutely right in question to how long would it take us? We stand by the expectation that if we fully mobilized our resources, and if we worked with North Koreans and had to do this over there that we could align ourselves in manner sufficient to achieve this in something approaching a year, we continue to push for this process to begin. And and and it has been said many times that that this will be something we would like to get done in the president's first term. But ultimately it requires the North Koreans to start pulling. And that's asked the missing variable right now is that the North Koreans have to be similarly bought into that objective. And so the pressure is not on us. And I think that's implicit in. What the president is saying the United States is preserved all of the pressure of its international sanctions coming out of the Hanoi summit in. National sanctions are actually quite tough and continue to put significant hardship on the Korean economy. At a minimum this limits. The resources that could be available to divert the weapons of mass destruction programs. But in the best case also creates the right combination of incentives for North Korea to choose this path. The president has been also very clear about sanctions he doesn't desire to impose or sustain sanctions against North Korea. He'd like to have us in a position where we can lift them that we have to get the North Koreans to begin that process of denuclearization. There is no artificial timetable on this. It doesn't have to be done by X date, and we won't be driven by an artificial timetable here. Again, the missing variable is North Korea has to be fully invested in final fully verified denuclearization. We've discussed that. With them we've discussed what that means with the North Koreans. They understand our point of view, and we're going to continue to work to see if we can close the gaps in reach. Reach a common approach on that. We weren't able to do that at the summit in Hanoi. And so we'll continue to work at it. And see if we can't can't get there as soon as possible, Stephen begin US special Representative for North Korea today at the Carnegie Endowment for international peace. Okay. Okay. What do the North Koreans mean when they say close young on there's some confusion about what exactly that might need? I mean, you had working level talks in Hanoi before Trump arrived. How do you think that do you do both sides agree on what exactly do you both sides have a clear understanding of what exactly that means? So we have no agreement to close young. Let me let me just state that up front. So there's no agreed approach to anything related to young at present. That's a good question. And it's the right question to ask because young gun can be many different things. Young beyond in the two thousand eight declaration is part of the six party talks was plutonium reactor and reprocessing facility. We also know that. Over the course of that decade. The North Koreans had developed a undeclared highly enriched uranium capability at Yongbyon. And so obviously the production of fissile material young comes from both uranium facility as well. As a plutonium facility both of which are usable and the dwelt of nuclear weapons become gone is is much more than that too. Young beyond is a whole whole industrial complex involved in the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons development in North Korea consists of of dozens if not hundreds of facilities spread across a large area. Is generically referred to as young beyond. What we're asking the North Koreans to do in the process of denuclearization is to eliminate all dimensions of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nuclear weapons program. And so our definition of young beyond would be quite expansive. In our discussions with the North Koreans. I won't go into every detail of how they have how they have chosen to describe young beyond. But let me just say. In general. It's been shifting things. Like, this are why it is so important than in denuclearization process. You also have an accompanying declaration. We need to agree on the definition of the North Korean weapons programs. We can begin some elements of the denuclearization before that declaration is complete and the case of the two thousand eight declaration, it took practically nine months generated and if the North Koreans are willing to proceed immediately with steps to begin addressing elements of their weapons of mass destruction program. We won't we won't call it up for that. But we do have to have a complete declaration an industrial site. Like Yongbyon illustrates exactly why it's so important that we agree on the full set of capabilities and also the the the the whole what they hold as a consequence of their complex weapons. Mass destruction. I'm going to try to resist asking you to channel the mind of Kim Jong UN, it's it's a little difficult. And I've I've been trying to restrain myself. They've been some missile launch site activity recently, which US satellite cystic. What do you think can is trying to signal for this? So I think you're referring to the some of the some of the open source reporting doesn't show missile launch it shows activities at some of the sites that have traditionally been involved with Iraq at hand or missile programs. And so I think you, and I would agree Helene. It's very important that we'd be precise. Yes. When we talk about things, North Korea has not launched a missile. Activity there like there's activity, right? So. The. The answer is. We don't know what what can John what Kim Jong UN will decide to do. Mayberry much be his decision and his decision alone. We have I think the president has made abundantly clear what our point of view is on that the president's statements last week that he would be disappointed very disappointed. If in fact, this happened and. And we don't know that it's intended to send any particular statement daas, one of the things I mentioned that I'm Pam acutely aware that I've inherited a portfolio of issues that is steeped in twenty five years of of difficult policy, battles and politics. But also there's a phenomenon that I would observe around the North Korean issues. And that's of the of the snap judgment of many experts to drive to an immediate conclusion about anything that's happening in North Korea. So two instances, I would cite that entirely dissimilar from this where we where we also don't know. So sometime during the fall last year the North Koreans surprise the world. With a press report that they had had just completed the successful test evident advanced tactical weapon, so tactical they were signaling in their own wording. That was not a strategic weapon, which would imply weapons of mass destruction. And I was I was a stout ended by the immediate analysis that this was a message to the United States that this was the end of diplomacy that this was a provocation directed at us. And here we are probably four or five months later. I don't think there's an expert alive can even tell me what they tested, or if they tested anything all they released a picture of chairman Kim Jong standing on a beach in a coastal area surrounded by men in uniform, holding notepads writing notes and a large part of the analysts in the commentariat. We're immediately interpreting this as a message directly at the president directly at the United States to this day. We don't know we don't know what that entailed a more. Recent example, is the last week while speculation was building about what's happening around. So hey in some of the other sites traditionally associated with North Korean nuclear and excuse. Missile and rocket tests. There was a seismic event. The press reported was measured somewhere north of the DMZ at some level on the Richter scale of approximately two point. Oh and immediately. I saw messages I saw headlines and analysis that this was a this was a statement coming out of the Hanoi summit. There was even some application against defiance of all analytical evidence that this could have been a nuclear test. And it just continues to boggle my mind how quickly so many are are are pressing to reach conclusions about all this. You think the press is beating the war drumbeat? It's it's it's it's a competition in the twenty four hour news cycle, but it's not just the process the think tank in the analytical community as well. If you read the analysis in the run-up to the Hanoi summit, and you were sitting where I was sitting. You would think a lot of it was completely detached from reality..
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on KTRH
"This is Houston's morning news with Jimmy Barrett and sheriff fryer seven nineteen Houston's morning news. It's the seventeen th anniversary of the September the eleventh terrorist attacks in New York and the Pentagon in over Pennsylvania. It is an opportunity not only to remember the sacrifices many Americans made on that particular day. But also to kind of take a look at where we are at seventeen years later, you know, after nine eleven we talked about it's a tooting. We did institute the TSA you'd offer for for people who are twenty years of age or younger. They don't really remember a time before the TSA, but most of us remember a time when you just walked right in there is virtually no security of nations airports, are we more secure today than we were seventeen years ago. Professor Jeff advocate joins us. I mean, there's still a lot of gaps in security, professor. But at least when it comes to flying. It seems like we're more safe. Well, we are. And you know, we put a lot of money billions of dollars into security danger is to try to protect ourselves from the from from the radical Islamic extremist that killed almost three thousand people on nine eleven that. You know, I think what we're really looking at today is are we more secure in the bigger picture and the answer in my opinion is yes because this president has decided to use resources to go to the root of the problem the poster child for radical Islam nine eleven was al-qaeda, and and then up until well up until last year, it was ISIS and this president when he came into office. He made the decision to get all these sources to go to the rhythm problem and destroy ISIS. Geographically, which he has done. Of that. If you look at the stats from twenty fifteen to twenty seventeen the first year, the President Obama's an office. Excuse me. President Trump we've seen a dramatic decline in the number of arrests Jihadist in this country. The number of attacks across the the west and the never prosecutions in this country by again by one half the staff twenty fifteen to twenty seventeen. In terms of reduction that in those all those areas, and that's fantastic. And yet the borders still are pretty much wide open. Well, it's not just the physical border. It's also the the program that we have we have been in visual coming into this country factor. In fact, somebody individuals. Came in on a student visa visa, some sort and overstate the visa, so yeah, that's an issue that congress has to address the president doesn't have unilateral authority to secure those borders the way he wants to do, and that's part of the part of the continuing political issues. A congress has not provided the the updates that we hate to secure our country, my opinion, the way it should be secure. Are you surprised we've gone seventeen years without a major terrorist attack in this country? Well, I guess pleasantly surprised yes. And technology, but the bipartisan bipartisan commission that congress had charge to look at the use of a weapon mass destruction of how likely that would be to occur and they predicted it would occur about five or six years ago. This study was about about twelve years ago, and that has happened in the west yet that doesn't mean that were totally out of the woods because we have individuals tells us, for example, they have a thousand open cases right now. Jihadist in this country that that that they're looking at all fifty states. So it's not, you know, things are getting better. But destruction of ISIS visuals. No longer inspired like they used to be. But yeah, it's a it's a case of custom vigilance this required. And we have to always be on their toes. Professor. Thanks for joining us. Get to hear from you, sir. That is professor Jeff advocate here on NewsRadio seven forty KTAR H time for another round of traffic.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"What would be historic summit do you have any more background on then you know how they're setting the table for this they seem as we've discussed on the show previously they both sides seem to be getting pretty invested in this summit and thus both sides hope to walk away with something civic region so this is a big symbolic symbolically charged event but the real question is going to be is just a photo op where we see these two leaders shake hands and make sort of vague declarations towards an intent to denuclearize or are we gonna come out of this summit with a concrete scheduled towards future negotiations a plan to wind down north korea's nuclear program a definition of what denuclearization will encompass doesn't include other weapons mass destruction does include their ballistic missile program so those are the sort of tough questions that still have not been resolved in any meaningful way.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder
"Defense rumsfeld they were not neo conservatives they didn't didn't believe in spreading democracy like wolfowitz certainly did what what what cheney in in rumsfeld believed in was dominance power they weren't particularly interested in democratizing the islamic world they wanted to put they wanted to force the islamic world into into submission so that there would be no further attacks now what the neo conservatives and the and the imperialist call him that like cheney and bush shared their what they shared in common was an overstated sense what military power can do they both thought that military power was the key to achieving primary us objectives that was a fundamental error on their part and we saw that fundamental air manifest itself of course after the two thousand three invasion of iraq yeah i don't know that that i mean cheney was that he wasn't necessarily a neo con but but signed onto that those peanuts documents that basically promoted and i think they you know i think as well it said it they all they came to agreement on you know in that case of weapons mass destruction but they all had their agendas but like you say there's an overlap between these sort of neo imperialist and these neo conservatives in the sense that you know maybe one tells them selves another story about why they wanted to be imperialist you know because they're doing good spreading democracy and the other one is just i want the i want access to what's there i want to prevent other people from having access to what's there but that the the idea was that that their agenda was such that there has been this shift in the way that these people but i guess i guess to a certain extent you've answered that in that they perceive themselves as part of the military anyway that the distinction of the military being a you know becoming a just another tool in the toolbox as opposed to the preferred to write the best the best tool in their view that the tool that if employed would necessarily achieve the purposes that they wanted.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on WTMJ 620
"Is in many ways this is kind of pressure testing the message not to say they were necessarily you've you want these outbursts than you want them to be so off the cuff but it's allowing people to kind of say what are the bigger issues here that only disolve for to your point we can just let these people kill each other all day long and it's just gonna keep say this is all different in the fact that he is using chemical weapons mass destruction and at the end of the day yes we we have to i think as a world in besides that the united states we do have to say okay enough is enough because if you allow this to continue to happen it will manifest himself to other places as it is thanks for the call so i mean really what we're hearing is is you know we tried so many other things right we've tried the diplomacy we've tried the line in the sand we've tried engaging them in these these rational discussions if it takes a crazy tweet once in a while to kind of push this forward while at the same time we've seen trump's ability to bring rational smart very very smart people on his team like general mattis you know let them do their job and maybe this is is a two pronged approach and maybe this is maybe this is strategic we've got one more call coming up after the break this is tracey johnson on wtmj whether you live in a quiet town the heart of the city or somewhere in between one thing we all have in common.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on WPRO 630AM
"The us could well take further the action against them and james mattis who is our secretary of defense james mad dog mattis to work for a guy named mad dog by the way james mad dog mattis had this to say we obviously stand united with allies to believe in the rule of law of a rules based order and whether it be north korea using a weapon mass destruction somewhere or any other country we are against the use of mass weapons of mass destruction especially when violations of the treaty and that was secretary mattis now as you can imagine the reception on the democratic side has been lukewarm specifically ben cardin who is a united states senator from the rate state of maryland had this it was the right response i agree with it but the president of the united states has yet to respond to russia's attacks here in the united states are asked our allies in the west to join us in imposing much more stringent sanctions against russia for that conduct but it was right to join your up in regards to expelling these diplomats so in other words there's still upset about the russian hacking of the election which obviously caused us to have donald trump instead of hillary clinton as president so and no matter what donald trump does it's going to be a wrong move in the eyes of some yes this was an appropriate response we're talking about a response for mr putin did in uk and it showed the unity of the west and responding to let mr putin no that that type of conduct will go won't go challenge that was more ben cardin apparently is okay with this one though you're listening to the news with gene valicenti a lot going on as i said we've got we've got a tremendous amount to get to today we will get to all of it you don't wanna miss a second coming up in the seven o'clock hour i'll be joined by mike a yellow he is the proprietor and owner pine ridge shooting club down in exeter because i want to try and get some definitional terms to the talk that's coming out of smith hill in terms of the gun debate and find out exactly what an assault weapon is and we'll do that as well you're listening to the news with.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on 790 KABC
"Commemorate twenty two just one for a nice dinner jerry the winning is just beginning listened for that cuticle for your shot at five hundred dollars cash k abc scorch county a cumulus station kabc news is live and local at one o'clock i'm jeff whittle the trump administration is expelling sixty russian diplomats in response to the poisoning of an ex spy and his daughter in england with the use of a powerful nerve agent defense secretary james mattis reacts to today's decision obviously and united with allies that believe in the rule of law of a rules based order and whether it be north korea using a weapon mass destruction somewhere or any other country we are against the use of mass flip into mass destruction especially when violations treaty canada and several european countries are also kicking out russian diplomats over that poisoning three los angeles men who were convicted of the twenty thirteen gang related killing of a former garfield high school football player in east la jonathan gonzales roca so lease and anthony gabriel were eat sentenced today to more than a hundred years to life in prison judge steven a marcus called the murder of twenty one year old gabriel soto a crime of great violence and said the victim who was not the intended target was particularly vulnerable as an unarmed man with no gang connections who just visiting a friend a mountain line was tranquilizers morning after it was found roaming a neighborhood in zoo saad of big cat needed to be carried by three wildlife personnel after it was spot outed and captured in a neighborhood not far from northside park nbc four is megan ray is caught the action from up above don't drop him back and neighbors couldn't resist snapping a quick picture before the mound line was taken away in the bed of a truck off to be released back into the wildest everybody sperm outline name what was happening while he was sleeping james rowe haas kabc news and a pair of swailes are swimming and seal beach harbor today and they've attracted a large crowd of onlookers and there are some concerns they might get stuck in the shallow water and nbc four is megan ray is she was also overhead of the.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on KVNT Valley News Talk
"You receive a ballot you need to be registered to vote it's also a good idea to be sure you're voter registration is current so your ballot will not be mailed to an old address ballots mailed to an old address will not be forwarded meaning you may not be able to vote or worse someone else me vote on your ballot if you wanna say in who will be our next mayor who will represent you on the assembly and school board it if you want your voice heard on propositions and bond issues you need to be registered to vote or you need to verify your mailing address is correct with the division of elections the deadline to register to vote an update addresses for the april third elections is saturday march third we encourage you to research the candidates research the issues and to register to vote or uptake your voter registration by going to our website 1020kvntcom and clicking on the register to vote button registered to vote today at 1020kvntcom hello from the b we go do what they say we played so they give him a visa handed yeah sure where riddled necessarily at a robot going down the road lake rick great movie all right jim how come city texas hello jimmy pay timbo how you better hacking uh you know uh recently we've had uh ships we had us naval ships hitting out of their ships at sea that was a once in a lifetime event if ever until win and toast until ship started having computercontrolled the rumor is host those ships were hacked into by the chinese and they allowed these events the trains trains that are ahead sensors you know train tracks have sensors they're everything they speed up and slow down the trains and everything and how many train wrecks have we had recently and you know you brought you brought up that somebody hacking into the car and using it as a weapon mass destruction it's like you really made a lot of sense with that and and that other the other thing you brought up uh about the smart roads only allowing so many driverless cars near road at a time goodness gracious lobby we simply would by these vehicles if.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on KKAT
"With the polls explosive report flu spread i barbecue zak there's a report of a hefty chunk of cash paid to a former adult film star a month before the 2016 presidential election by a lawyer for donald trump the wall street journal reports the 130000 payment was to keep her from publicly talking about an alleged sexual encounter with trump in 2000 six which he denied in a friday morning tweet president trump denied using vulgar language referring to haiti and african nations during the meeting on immigration at the white house speaker paul ryan offered this comment first thing that came to my mind was very unfortunate on helpful civil rights leader jesse jackson expressed his feelings form man powell the weapon mass destruction democratic senator dig durban was at the meeting and said trump made the remark in question more than once california has reported a huge spike flu related deaths of people under 65 compared to this time last year correspondent jan johnson says influenza is widespread in the us law flu sufferers went to their doctor in the past week and the number of hospitalizations for confirmed cases of flu devil officials at the centers for disease control say the flu season may be peaking but it's very unpredictable and even the best case scenario suggests nearly three months left in the flu season a winter storm is packing a powerful punch as it drops snow and ice from texas to maine lead forecaster bob or with the national storm prediction center says parts of the midwest are experiencing blizzard conditions the storm is colder we are going to see some heavy snow already snowing heavily cause parts of the ohio valley up through the eastern great lakes that is the area where we do anticipate the best potential for heavy snows go through the night january mega millions jackpot of 451million claimed by 20 year old shame this laura port richey florida he opted.
"weapons mass destruction" Discussed on KARN 102.9
"Code sleep how much would you pay to own it all hitler is personal telephone get first personal command telephone was sold by phone torn anonymous speier for two hundred and forty three thousand dollars the red phone include did not see party symbol and hit flourish name engraved of the back field pat i got the less of alexander historical options his phone as a weapon mass destruction unlike anything we've seen before it's taken a lot of lives the phone was found and hitler is bunker in barreling in a preferred figure of a job also owned by kevlar sold to another buyer for over twenty four thousand dollars pam coulter cbs news we're just chief executive ordering and urgent investigation today into a sexual harassment claim a by a female engineer she'll edges are prospect took the company evaporated after she complained about advances from or boss susan feller righetti says the companies human resources department ignored her complaints because of last was a high performer i'm jim taylor cbs news very warm today with times of cloud sense on chime it high temperature seventy five will be a shower thunder from the area this afternoon that so i ask you thought with period of rain and mild low fifty six when you have to tomorrow expected to be rather fall give the morning then mostly cloudy a very warm of showered spots i temperature tomorrow seventy four i'm still warm on wednesday night for the meteorologist la they brought the president whoever is in this case dropped as a very high degree of constitutional authority to read held foreign of threatens he has told will face all the rush limbo a weekend review we've got suspended entry into this country by aliens illegal immigrants everybody at a time he thinks we're under that and he can determine how long that the congress has given the president that sweeping authority sunday morning on eleven on news radio one oh two nine they are ran.