What I love about kids is their simple and to the point statements of observation about all aspects of life. But this takes the cake. My friend John's twin seven year old boys Sam and Gabe are a never-ending source of joy for me. They're always smiling and nice -- and smart as heck.
On the way back from our Sunday golf game -- they beat me at "nine-hole," we were talking about women and dating (as John's recently divorced and I'm single). Gabe said this: "Women like guys with money. If you want to tell if a woman likes you, this is what she does -- she laughs all silly, and plays with and tosses her hair back when she's talking to you. If women do that to you, then a lot of women like you."
If I am ever dismayed by the complexity of life, I'll always remember never to forget how to look at matters so simply and basically as when I was seven years old myself.
Monday, September 05, 2005
To My Friend Mike Silver on His New Orleans Super Bowl Home Idea
Hey Sil,
In general, I liked your idea of a permanent home for the NFL's Super Bowl Game in New Orleans, as expressed in your Sports Illustrated Online column (for those reading this, read "Open Mike" by Mike Silver by clicking on the title of this post). If I may provide some detail to shape your proposal, I do so here.
The NFL can certainly add to its $1 million donation (considering the estimated revenue of the league is somewhere north of $5 billion), by pledging $350 million toward the redevelopment of New Orleans "Sports Events Infrastructure" and specifically the establishment of not just a new stadium but four 1,000 room hotels and a new building specifically designed to host the NFL Experience and on a permanent basis.
The NFL has a unique opportunity to be involved in the economic planning of a new New Orleans, one that eventually could have the population large enough and well-moneyed enough to support teams representing all of the major sport leagues. Commissioner Tagliabue should immediately convene a meeting of the "big four" sports commissioners (all in New York, so it's easy to do) and craft a coordinated plan of action.
The disaster is done. What it demonstrates is just how much we as a country have allowed our governments resource base -- it's revenues adjusted for inflation -- to deteriorate. We've forgotten how our government once was able to provide money to sustain and improve the quality of life in America. But, after decades of disinvestment in all manor of social and science programs, we've seen the results: declining school performance, The Challenger and Columbia disasters, and now this. The NFL can be part of a major and much needed turn around in America.
Thanks,
Zennie Abraham
Chairman and CEO
Sports Business Simulations
Head of the Super Bowl - Oakland XXXIX Bidding Committee
In general, I liked your idea of a permanent home for the NFL's Super Bowl Game in New Orleans, as expressed in your Sports Illustrated Online column (for those reading this, read "Open Mike" by Mike Silver by clicking on the title of this post). If I may provide some detail to shape your proposal, I do so here.
The NFL can certainly add to its $1 million donation (considering the estimated revenue of the league is somewhere north of $5 billion), by pledging $350 million toward the redevelopment of New Orleans "Sports Events Infrastructure" and specifically the establishment of not just a new stadium but four 1,000 room hotels and a new building specifically designed to host the NFL Experience and on a permanent basis.
The NFL has a unique opportunity to be involved in the economic planning of a new New Orleans, one that eventually could have the population large enough and well-moneyed enough to support teams representing all of the major sport leagues. Commissioner Tagliabue should immediately convene a meeting of the "big four" sports commissioners (all in New York, so it's easy to do) and craft a coordinated plan of action.
The disaster is done. What it demonstrates is just how much we as a country have allowed our governments resource base -- it's revenues adjusted for inflation -- to deteriorate. We've forgotten how our government once was able to provide money to sustain and improve the quality of life in America. But, after decades of disinvestment in all manor of social and science programs, we've seen the results: declining school performance, The Challenger and Columbia disasters, and now this. The NFL can be part of a major and much needed turn around in America.
Thanks,
Zennie Abraham
Chairman and CEO
Sports Business Simulations
Head of the Super Bowl - Oakland XXXIX Bidding Committee
Friday, September 02, 2005
New Orleans Levy Problem - "No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming"
"No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming"
Spiegel Online
By Sidney Blumenthal
In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the
three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut
New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.
Biblical in its uncontrolled rage and scope, Hurricane Katrina has left
millions of Americans to scavenge for food and shelter and hundreds to
thousands reportedly dead. With its main levee broken, the evacuated city
of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico. But the damage
wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of
nature.
A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New
Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush
administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood
killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban
Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and
renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane
striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the
U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the
federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it
was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut
funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than
80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total
reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans
district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated
adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a
series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now
underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ...
Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are
being asked about the lack of preparation."
The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers
almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm
surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands
surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent
City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no
net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration
and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003,
unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer
protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.
In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups
conducted a joint expert study, concluding in 2004 that without wetlands
protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary, much less a
Category 4 or 5, hurricane. "There's no way to describe how mindless a
policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection," said one of the
report's authors. The chairman of the White House's Council on
Environmental Quality dismissed the study as "highly questionable," and
boasted, "Everybody loves what we're doing."
"My administration's climate change policy will be science based,"
President Bush declared in June 2001. But in 2002, when the Environmental
Protection Agency submitted a study on global warming to the United
Nations reflecting its expert research, Bush derided it as "a report put
out by a bureaucracy," and excised the climate change assessment from the
agency's annual report. The next year, when the EPA issued its first
comprehensive "Report on the Environment," stating, "Climate change has
global consequences for human health and the environment," the White House
simply demanded removal of the line and all similar conclusions. At the
G-8 meeting in Scotland this year, Bush successfully stymied any common
action on global warming. Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to
accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which
has produced more severe hurricanes.
In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, including 20
Nobel laureates, warned in a statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in
Policymaking": "Successful application of science has played a large part
in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's
most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy
...Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and
administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The
administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle
... The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends
must cease." Bush completely ignored this statement.
In the two weeks preceding the storm in the Gulf, the trumping of science
by ideology and expertise by special interests accelerated. The Federal
Drug Administration announced that it was postponing sale of the
morning-after contraceptive pill, despite overwhelming scientific evidence
of its safety and its approval by the FDA's scientific advisory board. The
United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa accused the Bush
administration of responsibility for a condom shortage in Uganda -- the
result of the administration's evangelical Christian agenda of
"abstinence." When the chief of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
Justice Department was ordered by the White House to delete its study that
African-Americans and other minorities are subject to racial profiling in
police traffic stops and he refused to buckle under, he was forced out of
his job. When the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting oversight
analyst objected to a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded for work in Iraq
to Halliburton (the firm at which Vice President Cheney was formerly CEO),
she was demoted despite her superior professional ratings. At the National
Park Service, a former Cheney aide, a political appointee lacking
professional background, drew up a plan to overturn past environmental
practices and prohibit any mention of evolution while allowing sale of
religious materials through the Park Service.
On the day the levees burst in New Orleans, Bush delivered a speech in
Colorado comparing the Iraq war to World War II and himself to Franklin D.
Roosevelt: "And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to
the region was by bringing freedom to Japan." Bush had boarded his very
own "Streetcar Named Desire."
Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior advisor to President
Clinton and the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column for
Salon and the Guardian of London
Spiegel Online
By Sidney Blumenthal
In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the
three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut
New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.
Biblical in its uncontrolled rage and scope, Hurricane Katrina has left
millions of Americans to scavenge for food and shelter and hundreds to
thousands reportedly dead. With its main levee broken, the evacuated city
of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico. But the damage
wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of
nature.
A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New
Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush
administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood
killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban
Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and
renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane
striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the
U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the
federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it
was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut
funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than
80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total
reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans
district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated
adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a
series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now
underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ...
Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are
being asked about the lack of preparation."
The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers
almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm
surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands
surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent
City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no
net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration
and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003,
unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the
Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer
protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.
In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups
conducted a joint expert study, concluding in 2004 that without wetlands
protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary, much less a
Category 4 or 5, hurricane. "There's no way to describe how mindless a
policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection," said one of the
report's authors. The chairman of the White House's Council on
Environmental Quality dismissed the study as "highly questionable," and
boasted, "Everybody loves what we're doing."
"My administration's climate change policy will be science based,"
President Bush declared in June 2001. But in 2002, when the Environmental
Protection Agency submitted a study on global warming to the United
Nations reflecting its expert research, Bush derided it as "a report put
out by a bureaucracy," and excised the climate change assessment from the
agency's annual report. The next year, when the EPA issued its first
comprehensive "Report on the Environment," stating, "Climate change has
global consequences for human health and the environment," the White House
simply demanded removal of the line and all similar conclusions. At the
G-8 meeting in Scotland this year, Bush successfully stymied any common
action on global warming. Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to
accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which
has produced more severe hurricanes.
In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, including 20
Nobel laureates, warned in a statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in
Policymaking": "Successful application of science has played a large part
in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's
most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy
...Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and
administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The
administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle
... The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends
must cease." Bush completely ignored this statement.
In the two weeks preceding the storm in the Gulf, the trumping of science
by ideology and expertise by special interests accelerated. The Federal
Drug Administration announced that it was postponing sale of the
morning-after contraceptive pill, despite overwhelming scientific evidence
of its safety and its approval by the FDA's scientific advisory board. The
United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa accused the Bush
administration of responsibility for a condom shortage in Uganda -- the
result of the administration's evangelical Christian agenda of
"abstinence." When the chief of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the
Justice Department was ordered by the White House to delete its study that
African-Americans and other minorities are subject to racial profiling in
police traffic stops and he refused to buckle under, he was forced out of
his job. When the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting oversight
analyst objected to a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded for work in Iraq
to Halliburton (the firm at which Vice President Cheney was formerly CEO),
she was demoted despite her superior professional ratings. At the National
Park Service, a former Cheney aide, a political appointee lacking
professional background, drew up a plan to overturn past environmental
practices and prohibit any mention of evolution while allowing sale of
religious materials through the Park Service.
On the day the levees burst in New Orleans, Bush delivered a speech in
Colorado comparing the Iraq war to World War II and himself to Franklin D.
Roosevelt: "And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to
the region was by bringing freedom to Japan." Bush had boarded his very
own "Streetcar Named Desire."
Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior advisor to President
Clinton and the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column for
Salon and the Guardian of London
Thursday, September 01, 2005
President Bush Needs to Set Oil Price Controls
According to the Washington Post, Gas prices are going to only rise. CNN reports $6 a gallon already at one point today. President Bush can stem this with price controls and then inact a program to restore oil supplies while these controls are in place. Otherwise, these prices can cause double-digit inflation.
Hurricane Katrina - 90,000 Square Miles of Damage
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is the most terrible disaster I've ever witnessed on TV in my life. I was in the 1989 Loma Piereta Earthquake here in Oakland and the SF Bay Area, and that was not bad by comparson, because the damage was in certain areas, like the Marina District of SF, or the Cypress Freeway (which collapsed), again here in Oakland. I also helped my high school friend Val and her parents move out of the sudden war zone that was their neighborhood during the 1991 Oakland Hills Fire. That was a local trajedy.
But, according to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan ( www.whitehouse.gov.) , the destruction of Hurricane Katrina incompasses a 90,000 square mile area.
Now, to comprehend how big that is, it's the size of three states. There are over 1 million people homeless. One of those people is my friend Melissa Detwiller, who lost her home and possibly her three cats. She and her husband Danny lived in New Orleans, and are now in Houston. She's a competitive bodybuilder and has a website. Help her by becoming a sponsor. Just click: ( www.melissadettwiller.com -- that takes you right to her sponsor page.
A Big Republican Mess
Hurricane Katrina is also a test for the Bush Adminstration. It's going to have to -- geez, all these folks screaming and chanting for help in New Orleans on CNN is terrible -- pull some troops from Iraq and other areas of the World. Why? Just watch CNN and listen to the reports of people crying for help, of the total lack of any one of authority around to even give a reassuring pat on the back. And of course, there's the looting. Yes, there are people and resources coming from around the country. But they tax the need for those same resources in their home areas.
Plus, once they get down there, they're in an area almost totally covered by water and with no power or communications, from what I've learned. Cell phones -- which work with towers nearby -- don't work. If you've got a satelite phone, you're in good shape. But how many people do?
If the Administration -- if the President -- doesn't show the resolve to change his course to focus on this matter, the Republican Party will not soon recover.
But, according to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan ( www.whitehouse.gov.) , the destruction of Hurricane Katrina incompasses a 90,000 square mile area.
Now, to comprehend how big that is, it's the size of three states. There are over 1 million people homeless. One of those people is my friend Melissa Detwiller, who lost her home and possibly her three cats. She and her husband Danny lived in New Orleans, and are now in Houston. She's a competitive bodybuilder and has a website. Help her by becoming a sponsor. Just click: ( www.melissadettwiller.com -- that takes you right to her sponsor page.
A Big Republican Mess
Hurricane Katrina is also a test for the Bush Adminstration. It's going to have to -- geez, all these folks screaming and chanting for help in New Orleans on CNN is terrible -- pull some troops from Iraq and other areas of the World. Why? Just watch CNN and listen to the reports of people crying for help, of the total lack of any one of authority around to even give a reassuring pat on the back. And of course, there's the looting. Yes, there are people and resources coming from around the country. But they tax the need for those same resources in their home areas.
Plus, once they get down there, they're in an area almost totally covered by water and with no power or communications, from what I've learned. Cell phones -- which work with towers nearby -- don't work. If you've got a satelite phone, you're in good shape. But how many people do?
If the Administration -- if the President -- doesn't show the resolve to change his course to focus on this matter, the Republican Party will not soon recover.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Pat Robertson - Thanks for The Lesson!
On Tuesday, Pat Robertson stated that if Venezualan President Hugo Chavez thinks the US is going to assasinate him, we might as well do it. There was no mistaking that.
Now, I like Pat and have watched his show on many occasions, particularly when I was small. But even then I felt like he was trying to mold me into a Republican. I've watched Pat long enough to be able to tell when he's serious. It's when he shakes his head slightly but rapidly from side to side as he talks. He did that on Tuesday. He meant what he said.
Man, I didn't even know who Hugo Chavez was until today! Thanks Pat.
Also, Pat got it wrong: Chavez is not a dictator. He was recently reelected. The problem is many of his viewers will not investigate that fact, they'll just eat it hook, line, and sinker. ...and become Republican. Geez.
Now, I like Pat and have watched his show on many occasions, particularly when I was small. But even then I felt like he was trying to mold me into a Republican. I've watched Pat long enough to be able to tell when he's serious. It's when he shakes his head slightly but rapidly from side to side as he talks. He did that on Tuesday. He meant what he said.
Man, I didn't even know who Hugo Chavez was until today! Thanks Pat.
Also, Pat got it wrong: Chavez is not a dictator. He was recently reelected. The problem is many of his viewers will not investigate that fact, they'll just eat it hook, line, and sinker. ...and become Republican. Geez.
My Trip to EA Sports for the IGDA meeting
I orignally shared this with my good friend Jody (check out Ms. May's site!), but I thought it was cool enough to present here..I returned from EA Sports Headquarters in Redwood City. Who are they? EA Sports makes Madden NFL 2006, Tiger Woods Golf, The Sims Online, and other games. I was invited to a meeting of The Silcon Valley Chapter of the International Game Developers Association.
Who?
IGDA www.igda.org is a large worldwide group of people who make, market, finance, run corporations that make, or just are interested in computer and video games --- I'm in it now. I collected about 23 business cards! I also met people who can totally help me inprove my simulation games. The groups is about what you'd expect: mostly men, and mostly nerdy, and mostly Stanford grads. (We were only 5 miles from what we locally call "The Farm")
But what I didn't expect was the racial diversity. That was so cool! It's also a GREAT window into "what's coming next" in other words, the folks at this party are working on a lot of games and devices you will see in the very near future, and mostly on cell phones and PDA's (Personal Data Assistants, like Blackberry). A very cutting edge group. I was really jazzed to be a part of it.
I even met a person who's with a firm that does "motion capture." That's where they record your movements to create an animated character, like in Jurrasic Park or Lord of The Rings. She said I could sign up for free time!
Who?
IGDA www.igda.org is a large worldwide group of people who make, market, finance, run corporations that make, or just are interested in computer and video games --- I'm in it now. I collected about 23 business cards! I also met people who can totally help me inprove my simulation games. The groups is about what you'd expect: mostly men, and mostly nerdy, and mostly Stanford grads. (We were only 5 miles from what we locally call "The Farm")
But what I didn't expect was the racial diversity. That was so cool! It's also a GREAT window into "what's coming next" in other words, the folks at this party are working on a lot of games and devices you will see in the very near future, and mostly on cell phones and PDA's (Personal Data Assistants, like Blackberry). A very cutting edge group. I was really jazzed to be a part of it.
I even met a person who's with a firm that does "motion capture." That's where they record your movements to create an animated character, like in Jurrasic Park or Lord of The Rings. She said I could sign up for free time!
Sunday, August 21, 2005
3 Years Old Girl / 33 Year Old Woman - It's Still The Shoes
Saturday, Mom and I went to visit my step-cousin Michelle and her adorable daughters six-year-old Kiyana and three-year-old Alana. Mom went shopping for clothes for the little ones and Alana could not have been happier. She put on one of the dresses and immediately went to pick out matching shoes and a purse from her closet. Then she came over, sat next to me, and said "Like my shoes?"
I had an immediate flashback to the previous night, when I was at Bix and met Rachel and Alex
(See "Good People / Bad People, below). One of the comments Alex made before we started talking happened when I turned to look in her direction. She kicked up her leg and said "Like my shoes?" When I realized this, I almost fainted.
-- I'm not a geneticist, but there's got to be something to this. Regardless, if a girl or woman asks you to comment about her shoes, do so in kind and tell her they're wonderful!
I think I realized that no matter how old we get, the innocent child in us never goes away.
I had an immediate flashback to the previous night, when I was at Bix and met Rachel and Alex
(See "Good People / Bad People, below). One of the comments Alex made before we started talking happened when I turned to look in her direction. She kicked up her leg and said "Like my shoes?" When I realized this, I almost fainted.
-- I'm not a geneticist, but there's got to be something to this. Regardless, if a girl or woman asks you to comment about her shoes, do so in kind and tell her they're wonderful!
I think I realized that no matter how old we get, the innocent child in us never goes away.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
An Open Letter to Oakland Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente
August 20, 2005
The Hon. Ignacio De La Fuente
President
Oakland City Council
Vice Chair
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority
Dear Ignacio,
Today, I happened to pick up the Sunday August 21st SF Chronicle
Sporting Green to read Tom Fitzgerald's article on the Raiders PSL
problem. I noticed -- much to my surprise as I was not contacted --
that you made a remark about my idea for a Coliseum Surcharge Program.
(see: http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com/raiders.psl.ticket.problem.htm)
I'm not bothered by the remark as much as I am the misspelling of my
name -- they wrote "Zenon" rather than "Zennie" and for the second
time, requiring another correction -- but the fact that you said "I
don't listen to his ideas" recalled a painful chapter in my
occupational life and that was my time with the City of Oakland.
For me it all started as an intern with the City of Oakland's Office of
Economic Development in 1987. During that time, I created a giant
spreadsheet system such that one could evaluate the fiscal and economic
impact of any redevelopment project and project area in the State of
California. I was told by one person "You have three problems: You're
young, gifted, and black."
When I was Economic Advisor to Elihu Harris -- actually a bright spot
in an otherwise dim period -- he rejected my idea and groundwork for a
"Sega GameWorks" development in downtown Oakland. Now, Elihu's a
member of my company's advisory board, and he said "I wish I'd listened
to you about that." Why? Because the GameWorks facilities in places
like Las Vegas are very successful establishments.
When Elihu tried to place me at the Coliseum as he was leaving office,
you told him you didn't want me there. So, Robert Bobb placed me at
Economic Development in 1999, and from there, I went on to establish
the Oakland Alameda County Sports Commission, head the Super Bowl XXXIV
Bidding Committee, and came close -- we did get a good number of NFL
owner votes -- to doing the impossible: landing the 2005 Super Bowl for
Oakland. I might add that during that time, you stood as an impediment
-- until you realized that I (as you told me) "was generating the only
positive press The Coliseum had."
While I was in Oakland, I had to deal with people who didn't listen,
politicians who were jealous that I couldn't be "controlled" (you were
one of them), harrassment by executives who didn't understand how I
could amass such media attention or contacts, and employees who just
didn't have a "winning" attitude. Through all of this, I created
Oakland's Super Bowl Bid, and used very creative financing and
political techniques to help consitutuents and developers. I convinced
the develpers of Times Square's Renovation to come to Oakland, and of
course, I brought Forest City here as well, but not to do housing.
Over the years, I've created a number of ideas, from "Phasing" -- my
concept that would have generated more money for the Oakland
Revelopment Agency -- to The Oakland Downtown Coalition. In the
Phasing example, your legal counsel did state that I found a true
loophole in redevelopment law -- that loophole still exists today. Of
course, you didn't listen.
I've told you how to establish a naming rights marketing strategy for
not just the facility but the Coliseum Complex. I've explained that a
number of "punch list" items on the Coliseum's renovation for the
Raiders were not done -- and are still not done today.
I've put up with your attempt to ask Oakland Business people about my
Super Bowl Sponsorship Concept -- one that Mike Lynch, the head of
VISA's Worldwide Sponsorship Division, said was innovative and can add
value to what they do (and they're an NFL Sponsor) -- without ONCE
asking me about it. You didn't know what you were doing, and yet was
trying to explain something I created. A terrible mistake.
I've put up with your needless coddling of SMG. I've put up with the
ill--considered decision to let SMG run the Coliseum's marketing effort
(what's SMG doing, putting money in your campaign?) I've put up with
your allowing Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty to use the
Coliseum Authority and SMG for his own purposes. I've put up with the
very impossible position you've placed your Executive Director in, with
little resources and staff. I've even put up with how anyone could not
go to the Alameda County Grand Jury and report these matters....Hmm...
Now, I'm in the best two years of my professional life. I run an
Internet company that's over two years old and am currently making as
much money as you, and will surpass you soon. I've established a new
niche market and am able to implement my ideas without being blocked by
those who are insecure, jealous, racist, or just plain unhappy. When I
need to make more money, I simply learn more and implement the
web-based concept. Pretty dangerous, ah? I'm also in an industry of
very bright and very ambitious people. I love what I do.
But what I also love is that I can donate to political campaigns, and
just for the heck of it. I'm not in need of some development contract
-- I just want a better world and a better Oakland. I've given over
$1,500 thus far, and while that's small now, it's going to get bigger.
At this point, I'm not inclined to invest in any campaign you're
heading.
One campaign I might be interested in is one that involves improving
the Oakland Coliseum. As long as the Coliseum is in the state of
disarray it's in, I'll always be a critic, and I might add that in an
Internet age, being a critic of The Coliseum Authority is good for
Sports Business Simulations.
Sincerely,
Zennie
Zennie Abraham
Chairman and CEO
Sports Business Simulations
"Learn to Run"
www.sbs-world.com
510-444-4037 (o)
510-387-9809 (c)
zennie@sportsbusinesssims.com
The Hon. Ignacio De La Fuente
President
Oakland City Council
Vice Chair
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum Authority
Dear Ignacio,
Today, I happened to pick up the Sunday August 21st SF Chronicle
Sporting Green to read Tom Fitzgerald's article on the Raiders PSL
problem. I noticed -- much to my surprise as I was not contacted --
that you made a remark about my idea for a Coliseum Surcharge Program.
(see: http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com/raiders.psl.ticket.problem.htm)
I'm not bothered by the remark as much as I am the misspelling of my
name -- they wrote "Zenon" rather than "Zennie" and for the second
time, requiring another correction -- but the fact that you said "I
don't listen to his ideas" recalled a painful chapter in my
occupational life and that was my time with the City of Oakland.
For me it all started as an intern with the City of Oakland's Office of
Economic Development in 1987. During that time, I created a giant
spreadsheet system such that one could evaluate the fiscal and economic
impact of any redevelopment project and project area in the State of
California. I was told by one person "You have three problems: You're
young, gifted, and black."
When I was Economic Advisor to Elihu Harris -- actually a bright spot
in an otherwise dim period -- he rejected my idea and groundwork for a
"Sega GameWorks" development in downtown Oakland. Now, Elihu's a
member of my company's advisory board, and he said "I wish I'd listened
to you about that." Why? Because the GameWorks facilities in places
like Las Vegas are very successful establishments.
When Elihu tried to place me at the Coliseum as he was leaving office,
you told him you didn't want me there. So, Robert Bobb placed me at
Economic Development in 1999, and from there, I went on to establish
the Oakland Alameda County Sports Commission, head the Super Bowl XXXIV
Bidding Committee, and came close -- we did get a good number of NFL
owner votes -- to doing the impossible: landing the 2005 Super Bowl for
Oakland. I might add that during that time, you stood as an impediment
-- until you realized that I (as you told me) "was generating the only
positive press The Coliseum had."
While I was in Oakland, I had to deal with people who didn't listen,
politicians who were jealous that I couldn't be "controlled" (you were
one of them), harrassment by executives who didn't understand how I
could amass such media attention or contacts, and employees who just
didn't have a "winning" attitude. Through all of this, I created
Oakland's Super Bowl Bid, and used very creative financing and
political techniques to help consitutuents and developers. I convinced
the develpers of Times Square's Renovation to come to Oakland, and of
course, I brought Forest City here as well, but not to do housing.
Over the years, I've created a number of ideas, from "Phasing" -- my
concept that would have generated more money for the Oakland
Revelopment Agency -- to The Oakland Downtown Coalition. In the
Phasing example, your legal counsel did state that I found a true
loophole in redevelopment law -- that loophole still exists today. Of
course, you didn't listen.
I've told you how to establish a naming rights marketing strategy for
not just the facility but the Coliseum Complex. I've explained that a
number of "punch list" items on the Coliseum's renovation for the
Raiders were not done -- and are still not done today.
I've put up with your attempt to ask Oakland Business people about my
Super Bowl Sponsorship Concept -- one that Mike Lynch, the head of
VISA's Worldwide Sponsorship Division, said was innovative and can add
value to what they do (and they're an NFL Sponsor) -- without ONCE
asking me about it. You didn't know what you were doing, and yet was
trying to explain something I created. A terrible mistake.
I've put up with your needless coddling of SMG. I've put up with the
ill--considered decision to let SMG run the Coliseum's marketing effort
(what's SMG doing, putting money in your campaign?) I've put up with
your allowing Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty to use the
Coliseum Authority and SMG for his own purposes. I've put up with the
very impossible position you've placed your Executive Director in, with
little resources and staff. I've even put up with how anyone could not
go to the Alameda County Grand Jury and report these matters....Hmm...
Now, I'm in the best two years of my professional life. I run an
Internet company that's over two years old and am currently making as
much money as you, and will surpass you soon. I've established a new
niche market and am able to implement my ideas without being blocked by
those who are insecure, jealous, racist, or just plain unhappy. When I
need to make more money, I simply learn more and implement the
web-based concept. Pretty dangerous, ah? I'm also in an industry of
very bright and very ambitious people. I love what I do.
But what I also love is that I can donate to political campaigns, and
just for the heck of it. I'm not in need of some development contract
-- I just want a better world and a better Oakland. I've given over
$1,500 thus far, and while that's small now, it's going to get bigger.
At this point, I'm not inclined to invest in any campaign you're
heading.
One campaign I might be interested in is one that involves improving
the Oakland Coliseum. As long as the Coliseum is in the state of
disarray it's in, I'll always be a critic, and I might add that in an
Internet age, being a critic of The Coliseum Authority is good for
Sports Business Simulations.
Sincerely,
Zennie
Zennie Abraham
Chairman and CEO
Sports Business Simulations
"Learn to Run"
www.sbs-world.com
510-444-4037 (o)
510-387-9809 (c)
zennie@sportsbusinesssims.com
Good People / Bad People
After some thought, I decided to make this more of a diary. I've had some interesting experiences I want to share. For example, I went out last night (8-19-2005) and to visit "Bix," a great restaurant near North Beach in San Francisco. (And beautiful, too! Click this link!) Mom's visiting and I spent so much time with her, that I wanted to just plain hang out.
Well, the real story is that I invited Mom to see this show that's a tribute to The Rat Pack, but she didn't want to go, sadly.
Anyway, I went there and just wanted to listen to this jazz band. But as I stood there, a very attractive white woman kept trying to get my attention. Eventually, she just plain old said "Nice band, huh?" So, I walked over to talk to her -- not much of a trip; about six feet in distance.
I had noticed she was with someone, so I really didn't expect anything. The three of us - her name's Rachel and her boyfriend's name is Alex -- had a series of great talks. They're both British, but met here via family members. But there was a woman who would walk over periodically. Her name was Debbie. Now, I thought Debbie was rather attractive, but I was just feeling out the entire situation. Debbie spent a lot of energy talking to Rachel's boyfriend and so much so that -- considering her body language -- I thought she was trying to pick up on him. I even caught her taking a look at me, then rolled her eyes up when I looked at her.
My feeling about Debbie was that she was "hunting" and for white guys. My beef is that some people stupidly judge others by race and based on that determine who's attractive. For example, some African American women tell me I look a bit like Tae Diggs -- moreover, some white and Asian women say that, too.
In my life I've noticed that the more a woman's used to dating black men, the more she makes such comparisons. It's a good gauge.
After I decided to ignore her, Debbie manuevered over next to me. We eventually talked. Debbie's new to the Bay Area, and from Nerw York City. She works for Wells. It turns out that we both know two friends of mine: Frank and Roberta. They've had an on again, off again relationship. So that revalation launched a new conversation. But right in the middle of it, she just turned and started talking to these two white guys standing about six feet away. Frankly, I thought the guys were gay.
I thought Debbie's act was terribly rude, and something only done because she's not interested in me because I'm black. That's not an excusable reason for that. My friend Beth, for example, has a great way of making you feel important, even if she's interested in someone else. A good heart, she has. In that context, Debbie's behavior just plain got me. We were having a great conversation and knew the same people. Then "poof."
Fortunately, Rachel and Alex invited me to join them at a table for dinner. On the way, I said to Debbie -- in front of the two guys -- that she was totally rude. No -- I didn't yell. I just said it very plainly. Then I walked off with Rachel and Alex. They were very supportive, considering we just met. Rachel offered that she struck up a conversation with me because she thought I was attractive. Hey, guys like to have their ego's stroked too, especially by lovely women!
We had a great time with at dinner, and I did give them my card. I hope they stay in touch.
But as we were talking and eating, we would notice Debbie at the bar talking with the two guys. Eventually, they left -- she was alone at the bar. No one came over to talk with her. I thought that was sad. I felt that was God's work. I hope she learned something. Had she been nicer, she could have had a great time with us, and left with new friends instead of being left alone.
Well, the real story is that I invited Mom to see this show that's a tribute to The Rat Pack, but she didn't want to go, sadly.
Anyway, I went there and just wanted to listen to this jazz band. But as I stood there, a very attractive white woman kept trying to get my attention. Eventually, she just plain old said "Nice band, huh?" So, I walked over to talk to her -- not much of a trip; about six feet in distance.
I had noticed she was with someone, so I really didn't expect anything. The three of us - her name's Rachel and her boyfriend's name is Alex -- had a series of great talks. They're both British, but met here via family members. But there was a woman who would walk over periodically. Her name was Debbie. Now, I thought Debbie was rather attractive, but I was just feeling out the entire situation. Debbie spent a lot of energy talking to Rachel's boyfriend and so much so that -- considering her body language -- I thought she was trying to pick up on him. I even caught her taking a look at me, then rolled her eyes up when I looked at her.
My feeling about Debbie was that she was "hunting" and for white guys. My beef is that some people stupidly judge others by race and based on that determine who's attractive. For example, some African American women tell me I look a bit like Tae Diggs -- moreover, some white and Asian women say that, too.
In my life I've noticed that the more a woman's used to dating black men, the more she makes such comparisons. It's a good gauge.
After I decided to ignore her, Debbie manuevered over next to me. We eventually talked. Debbie's new to the Bay Area, and from Nerw York City. She works for Wells. It turns out that we both know two friends of mine: Frank and Roberta. They've had an on again, off again relationship. So that revalation launched a new conversation. But right in the middle of it, she just turned and started talking to these two white guys standing about six feet away. Frankly, I thought the guys were gay.
I thought Debbie's act was terribly rude, and something only done because she's not interested in me because I'm black. That's not an excusable reason for that. My friend Beth, for example, has a great way of making you feel important, even if she's interested in someone else. A good heart, she has. In that context, Debbie's behavior just plain got me. We were having a great conversation and knew the same people. Then "poof."
Fortunately, Rachel and Alex invited me to join them at a table for dinner. On the way, I said to Debbie -- in front of the two guys -- that she was totally rude. No -- I didn't yell. I just said it very plainly. Then I walked off with Rachel and Alex. They were very supportive, considering we just met. Rachel offered that she struck up a conversation with me because she thought I was attractive. Hey, guys like to have their ego's stroked too, especially by lovely women!
We had a great time with at dinner, and I did give them my card. I hope they stay in touch.
But as we were talking and eating, we would notice Debbie at the bar talking with the two guys. Eventually, they left -- she was alone at the bar. No one came over to talk with her. I thought that was sad. I felt that was God's work. I hope she learned something. Had she been nicer, she could have had a great time with us, and left with new friends instead of being left alone.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
"Confidential" UK Policy Memo on Iraq - Must Read
Read it carefully and note the date. Read it again and again..then pass it on. It has this paragraph:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of ter-
rorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record."
---the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.
I wonder how this got out into the open?? Why did it take so long?
Well, here you go....
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Secret Downing Street Memo
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Rich-
ards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a
genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on
extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried
and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or over-
whelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale
was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of ter-
rorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4
August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to
Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus
belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option.
Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement
were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
2
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering
from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime.
No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had
made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam
was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would
also help with the legal justifi cation for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were
three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The fi rst and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diffi cult. The situation
might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in
the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was produc-
ing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right,
people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether
we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the fi rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing
to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse
and urban warfi ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a
winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK
differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play
hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of mili-
tary action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to
decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It
would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a
fuller picture of US planning before we could take any fi rm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we
were considering a range of options.
3
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this
operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contri-
butions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly
work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and
of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal
advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of ter-
rorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record."
---the intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.
I wonder how this got out into the open?? Why did it take so long?
Well, here you go....
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Secret Downing Street Memo
-----
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Rich-
ards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a
genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on
extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried
and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or over-
whelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale
was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now
seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justifi ed by the conjunction of ter-
rorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fi xed around the policy. The NSC had no patience
with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little
discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4
August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to
Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus
belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option.
Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement
were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
2
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering
from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime.
No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was
January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had
made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam
was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would
also help with the legal justifi cation for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were
three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The fi rst and second
could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be diffi cult. The situation
might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in
the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was produc-
ing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right,
people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether
we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the fi rst, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing
to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse
and urban warfi ghting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added
the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a
winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK
differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play
hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of mili-
tary action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to
decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It
would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a
fuller picture of US planning before we could take any fi rm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we
were considering a range of options.
3
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this
operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contri-
butions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly
work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and
of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal
advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
Zennie's Back Into Blogging
After a long layoff becaue of my stepfather's passing, I'm back in the business of blogging on Zennie's Zeitgeist. My life's changed a lot and I've gained a new perspective because of my stepdad's passing, and my improved relationship with my Dad. My Mom's a gem, and going through a hard time, but she -- and I -- will make it.
You're going to see a post with information that spurred me to re-start the blog. As I write this, I'm watching CNN, and I can;t' tell you how surprised I am that this information is not on their news.
The short version is the discovery of a memo written by a UK policy advisor on June 23, 2002 and about Iraq, Saddam, and the US and UK. It explains:
1) That Iraq's possible WMD supply was LESS than that for Lybia, and other Middle Eastern countries.
2) That US intelligence policy was made to fit around the desire to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. That's not a missprint.
There's more in the next post....
You're going to see a post with information that spurred me to re-start the blog. As I write this, I'm watching CNN, and I can;t' tell you how surprised I am that this information is not on their news.
The short version is the discovery of a memo written by a UK policy advisor on June 23, 2002 and about Iraq, Saddam, and the US and UK. It explains:
1) That Iraq's possible WMD supply was LESS than that for Lybia, and other Middle Eastern countries.
2) That US intelligence policy was made to fit around the desire to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. That's not a missprint.
There's more in the next post....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)