The following is an excerpt of an interview with Donald Rumsfeld by David Dimbleby of the BBC, on March 4, 2003. The complete interview can be read on the BBC website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2819931.stm
DR: . . . The critical issue is the relationship between weapons of terrorist states, which Iraq is, by everyone's agreement -
DD: America took it off the list of terror states 20 years ago.
DR: I don't know that. I accept -
DD: When you - when you - sorry. When you visited Iraq and negotiated with Saddam Hussein, when America wanted Saddam Hussein for its own purposes, America took Iraq off the list of terrorist states and, indeed, supplied it with the wherewithal to make the chemical weapons they're now trying to remove.
DR: I've read that type of thing, but I don't know where you get your information, and I don't believe it's correct. They may have been taken off. I was a private businessman...
I was asked for a few months to assist after the 241 Marines were killed in Beirut, Lebanon. And I did meet with Saddam Hussein. I did not give him or sell him or bring him any chemical weapons or any biological weapons, as some of the European press likes to print. It's just factually not true.
Now, whether or not the United States at some point, when I was not part of the government, decided to take him off a terrorist list, you may be right. In fact, I -
DD: Are you saying you don't know, you didn't know when you went there whether he was on the list of terror states or not? You were trying to reopen -
DR: I believe he was.
DD: - a relationship between the United States and Iraq.
DR: That's right. And I believe he was on the list of terrorist states when I went there.
DD: We're being diverted a bit here, but let's just go into this, because it's another of the causes of a lack of credibility, or a credibility gap that you particularly have to fill, that you were there and met the man.
DR: I was there with the President and Secretary Shultz to meet with him and to see it was one of the few Middle Eastern countries that had not re-established relationships with the United States after the earlier Middle East war.
DD: But you aren't saying that you weren't aware that he was using chemical weapons, because the Secretary of State at the time had said they were using them.
DR: I was certainly aware of that. I didn't say I wasn't aware of that. I said I was not aware that the United States gave him, as you suggested, or I gave him, and that I had some burden to bear. That's just utter nonsense.
DD: I'm not suggesting you had a burden to bear. I was saying that there was one of the reasons you lacked -
DR: You said you particularly.
DD: No, you went and talked to the man.
DR: I did.
DD: But what I'm suggesting is that the United States in the world outside, over and over again people say, well, now they're trying to get rid of the weapons, as Jesse Jackson put it when he was at Hyde Park Corner a week ago, for which the United States has the receipts. I mean, that's the problem, that you created this monster, evil, as you know -
DR: You who?
DD: You, the United States, not you personally.
DR: Well, first of all, you're wrong. If you look at the record of the European countries, and the other technologically advanced countries of the world and the relationships with Iraq, I think you'll find that the United States ranks relatively low in terms of trading with Iraq and assisting Iraq with respect to weapons. I think that's correct. I don't have the data, but I think you'll find that's the case. And I think, furthermore, that if at some point a ground truth is achieved, it will be embarrassing to countries that have been providing Saddam Hussein's regime with a great deal of those technologies.
RUMSFELD, YOU FUCK--ONE OF THE PLAYERS IN THIS LIE, IF NOT more--DICK CHENEY IS BEHIND THESE ACTS, SO IS COLIN POWELL, WOROWITZ A TOTAL OF 12 WHO SIGNED IN 1999 A PACT [see the Fifth Estate March 28/03]IT STATES TO CREATE A CRISIS--THE MAGNITUDE OF PEARL HARBOR WOULD BE NECESSARY TO TAKE OUT SADDAM-Iraq effectively as the cental strategic point FOR THE ENTIRE ARAB NATIONS. THERE IS NO MENTION OF IRAQ PEOPLE BEING FREED OF REPRESSION ONLY CONTROL OF THE OIL--THE LYING NO GOOD BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL BE EXPOSED FOR 911 THEY KILLED THEIR OWN--RUMSFELD,THE MAIN PLAYER-- A RELUCTANT BUT JUST AS GUILTY POWELL, A WILLING WOROWITZ AND THE EVER PATHETIC--RIGGED THE VOTE BUSH .NOT ONE WILL ESC APE THE TRUTH. TALK GOD, TALK POLITICS--IT IS SIMPLY WRONG--AND AGAINST THE UN, NATO, GENEVA CONVENTION--AND WORSE IS GOD'S COALITION,THE REAL DEAL.
Posted by: Sandra on April 12, 2003 04:43 AMThe most basic duality that exists with variables is how the programmer sees them in a totally different way than the computer does. When you're typing away in Project Builder, your variables are normal words smashed together, like software titles from the 80s. You deal with them on this level, moving them around and passing them back and forth.
Posted by: Jocosa on January 18, 2004 09:49 PMEarlier I mentioned that variables can live in two different places. We're going to examine these two places one at a time, and we're going to start on the more familiar ground, which is called the Stack. Understanding the stack helps us understand the way programs run, and also helps us understand scope a little better.
Posted by: Hansse on January 18, 2004 09:50 PMTo address this issue, we turn to the second place to put variables, which is called the Heap. If you think of the Stack as a high-rise apartment building somewhere, variables as tenets and each level building atop the one before it, then the Heap is the suburban sprawl, every citizen finding a space for herself, each lot a different size and locations that can't be readily predictable. For all the simplicity offered by the Stack, the Heap seems positively chaotic, but the reality is that each just obeys its own rules.
Posted by: Anchor on January 18, 2004 09:50 PMThe Stack is just what it sounds like: a tower of things that starts at the bottom and builds upward as it goes. In our case, the things in the stack are called "Stack Frames" or just "frames". We start with one stack frame at the very bottom, and we build up from there.
Posted by: Paschall on January 18, 2004 09:51 PMLet's take a moment to reexamine that. What we've done here is create two variables. The first variable is in the Heap, and we're storing data in it. That's the obvious one. But the second variable is a pointer to the first one, and it exists on the Stack. This variable is the one that's really called favoriteNumber, and it's the one we're working with. It is important to remember that there are now two parts to our simple variable, one of which exists in each world. This kind of division is common is C, but omnipresent in Cocoa. When you start making objects, Cocoa makes them all in the Heap because the Stack isn't big enough to hold them. In Cocoa, you deal with objects through pointers everywhere and are actually forbidden from dealing with them directly.
Posted by: Mable on January 18, 2004 09:52 PM