Thursday, June 24, 2004

What's in a name? Juan Cole explains, in very plain English even wingnuts can understand, why there was no evidence linking an Iraqi intelligence agent to an al-Qaeda operative in Malaysia: A reader asked me to comment on the controversy over whether an Iraqi intelligence agent was detailed to al-Qaeda in Kuala Lumpur to be the guy that picked people up at the airport. It was covered by the Washington Post after the allegation was made by 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, former secretary of the Navy. The al-Qaeda employee in Malaysia is named Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi. The Iraqi intelligence agent is named Lt. Col. Hikmat Shakir Ahmad. Political Scientist Christopher Carney, who was brought in to look at documents by Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans so as to second-guess trained analysts at the CIA who actually know Arabic, first made the mistake of identifying the two. Carney is an Americanist at Penn State and had no business butting in. The family name (here, nisba) of the al-Qaeda guy in Malaysia is Azzawi. The family name of the guy in Iraqi intelligence is Ahmad. Do you notice how they are not the same? The personal or first name of the al-Qaeda guy is Ahmad. The personal or first name of the Iraqi intelligence agent is Hikmat. Do you notice how it is not the same? So, Ahmad Azzawi is not Hikmat Ahmad. See how easy that is? Mr. Ahmad Azzawi has a couple of middle names, to wit, Hikmat Shakir. Having a couple of middle names is common in the Arab world. Lt. Col. Hikmat Ahmad just has one middle name, Shakir. This is the only place at which there is any overlap between them at all. They share a middle name. And, o.k., one of Azzawi's middle names is the same as Lt. Col. Ahmad's first name. This would be like having someone named Mark Walter Paul Johnson who is a chauffeur for Holiday Inn. And then you have a CIA agent named Walter Paul Mark. Obviously, it is the same guy, right? Natch. I hope 9/11 Commission member John Lehmann got that. It would be nice if Professor Cole could consult with the Florida Election Commission to explain the same point. 12:17:29 PM    comment [] Dogs and Abu Ghraib Rumsfeld's comments on the Abu Ghraib scandal suggest that although dogs were used to frighten prisoners, they were never used to attack them. This photo suggests otherwise. . 11:37:33 AM    comment [] Who was in charge on 9/11? The NY Times gets some letters: To the Editor: Re "Account Recalls Cheney as a Swift and Steady Hand" (news article, June 18): The country is under attack, and the vice president urges the president not to return to Washington. The vice president issues the order to the military to send attack planes to shoot down civilian aircraft -- indeed, directs the whole operation from his bunker under the White House while the president is flying from one place to another, a cellphone call away. I am trying to picture Bill Clinton letting Al Gore take over; George H. W. Bush letting Dan Quayle take over; Jimmy Carter letting Walter F. Mondale take over; Richard M. Nixon letting Gerald R. Ford or Spiro T. Agnew take over; John F. Kennedy letting Lyndon B. Johnson take over -- I go all the way back to Harry S. Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt and try to imagine any vice president taking over under the same circumstances. I can't. The whole story reads like "Seven Days in May." America, we have a problem.   ALEXANDRA HOFFMAN New York, June 18, 2004 To the Editor: Re "Excerpts From Report on Orders to Shoot Down Planes on Sept. 11" (June 18): The vice president is not in the legal chain of command and has no authority to issue orders to the military, especially to shoot down a civilian airliner. Why did President Bush not issue the orders himself? MATTHEW J. NASUTI Greenfield, Mass., June 18, 2004 The writer is a former Air Force captain in the judge advocate department. 1:03:34 AM    comment [] Robot surgeons Doctors at the Stanford Medical Center are now using da Vinci, a seven-foot-tall, three-armed robot to perform surgeries. The remote-controlled da Vinci allows doctors to work from smaller incisions, which leads to less invasive surgeries, speedier healing and lower infection rates. It also gives them greater comfort and precision as they work. Da Vinci's most significant drawback is that it takes away the surgeon's ability to use touch as he works; he has to perform from visual cues only. However, researchers expect that they will some day be able to simulate and even enhance the tactile sensations of surgery, just as we are already able to simulate and enhance video and audio information. 12:08:30 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2004 David V. Johnson. Last update: 7/1/04; 12:05:46 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.