Two Significant Reports on Climate and Pollution

You might be interested in these 2 significant reports regarding pollution and climate change.

The first one is by the National Environment Trust titled "Toxic Beginnings: Cancer Risks to Children from California's Air Pollution" (published in 2002)

As per the report, in San Francisco, for example, the average infant will exceed the EPA’s lifetime exposure to toxic air pollutants in just 19 days (and a shocking 229 times the acceptable lifetime limit by age 18). The problem is severely compounded by the fact that children face significantly higher risks due to their physiology. Because children breathe more air relative to their body weight, their exposure to air contaminants is higher relative to adults.
Who are the culprits ? According to the report the problem lies in what

California law calls toxic air contaminants, or "TACS." TACS are chemicals that are emitted into the air from many of the same sources that contribute to smog and soot: vehicles, equipment, and factories. Though many of these chemicals contribute to smog, they also independently contribute to cancer, birth defects, and other health problems.

For a quick summary, you can read Jeffrey St. Clair's article @ Counterpunch. Born Under a Bad Sky - Cancerous Air

---------

The second report is called Climate Code Red:The Case for Emergency Action (published in 2008). An excerpt from Wikipedia is included below:

Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action is a 2008 book, published by Scribe Publications, which presents scientific evidence that the global warming crisis is worse than official reports and national governments have so far indicated. The book argues that we are facing a "sustainability emergency" that requires a clear break from business-as-usual politics. The authors explain that emergency action to address climate change is not so much a radical idea as an indispensable course we must embark upon. Climate Code Red draws heavily on the work of a large number of climate scientists, including James Hansen.The key themes described at the Climate Code Red website are included below:

• Our goal is a safe-climate future – we have no right to bargain away species or human lives
• We are facing rapid warming impacts: the danger is immediate, not just in the future
• For a safe climate future, we must take action now to stop emissions and to cool the earth
• Plan a large-scale transition to a post-carbon economy and society
• Recognise a climate and sustainability emergency, because we need to move at a pace far beyond business and politics as usual

Thanks to Bill Anderson at CounterCurrents for this link to the Climate Code Red publication

Humanitarian Interventions and Angelic Powers

Read the Transcript of Noam Chomsky’s speech EUROPE AND AMERICA AS UNDERWRITERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER at the Institute of European Affairs, 19 January 2006. For full transcript, see here

Chomsky speaks about so called "Humanitarian Interventions". He discusses the classic essay on humanitarian intervention. That’s John Stuart Mill’s essay on humanitarian intervention [J.S. Mill, "A Few Words on Non-Intervention," Fraser's Magazine, December 1859.]

I found this bit about the British Raj interesting.

John Stuart Mill’s immediate concern was India, and he was calling for the expansion of the occupation of India to several new provinces. The timing of the article is quite revealing. It appeared in 1859. That’s immediately after what was called in British history the ‘India mutiny’: the Sepoy rebellion [in 1857], which Britain put down with extreme savagery and brutality. This was very well known in England. There were parliamentary debates – huge controversy over it. There were people who opposed it: Richard Cobden, a real committed liberal, and a few others. Mill knew all about it. He was a corresponding secretary of the East India Company, and was following it all closely. The purpose of the expansion of British power over India, as he knew, was to try to obtain a monopoly over opium so that England could somehow break into the Chinese market. They couldn’t sell goods to China because, as they complained, Chinese goods were comparable and they didn’t want British goods. So the only way to break into the Chinese market was by gunboats and to force them to become a nation of opium addicts at the point of a gun and by obtaining a monopoly of the opium trade – didn’t quite make it, American merchants got a piece of it – they could compel Chinese to become opium addicts and gain access to Chinese markets. And in fact he was writing right at the time of the Second Opium War [from 1856 to 1860], which achieved that. Britain established the world’s most extensive narco-trafficking enterprise; there’s never been anything remotely like it. Not only were they able to break into China for the first time, but also the profits from opium supported the Raj, the costs of the British Navy, and provided very significant capital which fuelled the industrial revolution in England.

And now for a world government

And now for a world government by Gideon Rachman

In the Financial Times, no less. Apparently, according to Rachman, we're confronted by the Furies:

1. Global Warming
2. Global Financial Crisis
3. Global War on Terror.

and that

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

In my opinion, 2) and 3) are almost certainly engineered and gaining rapid momentum as we speak. 1) is thrown in for good measure. World government (or whatever other terms exists for the concept) sounds just like another excuse to grab more power and subject us innocents to stringent IMF loans and random slaughter.

In Greek mythology, The Furies are depicted as completely foul: aged women with dogs' heads, bats' wings, black skin, hair of snakes; their smell was foul, and they oozed foul substances from their mouths, eyes, and noses; their noises were like an old woman's cackle or a dog's bark. Sometimes they appeared as a cloud of insects. I'm not looking forward to meeting them.

Unraveling the Threads - Part Deux

In the movie The Departed, Irish Mob boss Frank Costello plants an informant in the Police Department. Simultaneously, the police assign an undercover cop to infiltrate Costello's mob. To add to the confusion, Mob Boss Costello is himself an FBI informant (for many decades) which all adds up to a very interesting movie. The most interesting bit is the heavy blurring of lines between the infiltrators and the infiltrated with the characters undergoing sometimes abrupt transitions between the two roles. The infiltrators are tacitly allowed to prove their credentials by committing the same violent acts that the criminals may commit. The movie is also about the concept of Identity and how it motivates behavior. The earlier Hong Kong crime-thriller Internal Affairs has a similar theme and The Departed is based on it.

It seems to me that after enough infiltration, there is virtually no difference between the infiltrators and the group they're supposedly infiltrating. The infiltrator is "legally" sanctioned to perform the same heinous acts as the group he is infiltrating in order to gain approval and trust. We'll see how this is related to P2OG (which we'll see later in this post)

Now back to the Mumbai attacks, two Indian men were recently arrested (by the Calcutta police) as suspects in the attacks. However, one of them (Ahmed) turns out to be a counterinsurgency police officer (from the Srinagar Police) on an undercover mission. According to the Srinagar police

Ahmed was a Special Police Officer, part of a semiofficial counterinsurgency network whose members are usually drawn from former militants. The force is run on a special funding from the federal Ministry of Home Affairs.

So embarrassingly for India, the two police departments were completely unaware of clandestine operations within the the other group. It also means that Ahmed "successfully" aided the the eventual perpetrators. And in all likelihood, the entire undercover operation Ahmed was participating in is probably blown wide open.

All this got me thinking about Double Agents and Triple Agents.

From wikipedia, we have the following definitions:

Double agent is a counterintelligence term for someone who pretends to spy on a target organization on behalf of a controlling organization, but in fact is loyal to the target organization. Double agents may be agents of the target organization who infiltrate the controlling organization, or may be previously loyal agents of the controlling organization who have been captured and turned by the target; the threat of execution is the most common method of turning a captured agent into a double agent.

A Triple Agent pretends to be a double agent for the target organization, but in fact is working for the controlling organization all along. Usually, he keeps the trust of the target organization by feeding information to them that apparently is very important but is in fact misleading or useless.

Which got me thinking about how all this Double Agent, Triple Agent stuff is pertinent to the Mumbai attacks. We can find a few more connections if we approach the Mumbai attacks from this angle.

--
First, lets look at the possible role of Dawood Ibrahim (the gangster/terrorist hybrid fugitive). After all, he was the mastermind of the 1993 Mumbai attacks, so the angle merits heavy investigation.

Dawood Ibrahim ranks fourth on Forbes' list of the world's 10 most wanted fugitives from the law. He was the mastermind of the 1993 bombings in Mumbai. Dawood has also been involved in several deep undercover operation for the CIA in Afghanistan. From the article The Mumbai Attacks:More Than Meets The Eye, we see that

Ibrahim's organization is known as the D-Company and is known to be heavily involved in drug trafficking. According to the U.S. government, D-Company is involved in large-scale shipment of narcotics into the U.K. and Western Europe. He is also alleged to have ties to the CIA through casino operations in Nepal.

So we can probably assume that the CIA (and hence the ISI) and Dawood have a long history (the term often used for Dawood is "ex-CIA off-the-books spook"). If indeed, Dawood was involved in the recent attacks, then it's possible that this was in conjunction with the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) with Dawood possibly providing the logistical and financial support.

So what are the gang aspects of the Mumbai attacks ?

1. I initially read newspaper reports that 2 CIA agents were directly targeted by the terrorists at the Taj and shot gang execution style. The reports are now quite impossible to find. If this were true, why on earth would LeT do this?
2. And what to make of the VERY mysterious death of Hemant Karkare (head of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS)) ? As we all know, he was investigating a false flag operation by Hindu extremists in India and had made some high-profile arrests (see Malegaon blasts). He was apparently the earliest of targets and died under VERY mysterious circumstances with varying accounts. Again, why would the LeT consider this to be a top-priority target? It's logically possible that Karkare was killed accidentally "in the line of duty", but this just seems a bit too convenient. All of a sudden, we have the very real possibility of the involvement of Hindu extremist groups at some level. The web gets too complicated if that is the case.
3. The attacks have all the signs of a bitter feud between hidden parties with several reports pointing to execution style killings.

--

Next, we look at the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), a U.S. intelligence agency that would employ black operations tactics. From wikipedia, we have a description below of what the P2OG might do. Note that this isn't just some abstract idea. It appears that this Group is already operational (or always been under a different name)

The Defense Science Board (DSB) conducted a 2002 "DSB Summer Study on Special Operations and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism". Excerpts from that study, dated August 16, 2002, recommend the creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG), to bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence and cover and deception. For example, the Pentagon and CIA would work together to increase human intelligence (HUMINT), forward/operational presence and to deploy new clandestine technical capabilities.

Concerning the tactics P2OG would use, Among other things,

• This body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction—that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S. forces.
• Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk", the briefing paper declares

Again, note that 2 reliable sources indicate very strongly that P2OG is already operational.
Darkness Visible: The Pentagon Plan to Foment Terrorism is Now in Operation by Chris Floyd
The Coming Wars What the Pentagon can now do in secret by Seymour M. Hersh

Note the P2OG tactics: "hold states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states that their sovereignty will be at risk". The keyword here is sovereignty. To see how this is being fulfilled real-time as we speak, we need to look at the fact that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to New Delhi soon after the attacks which I believe is significant. She says that even if non-state actors carried out the attacks, it would still be the Pakistani government’s responsibility to take “direct and tough action". The other interesting bit about sovereignty is in this article Is Pakistan’s sovereignty under threat which in turn refers to a column published in the Washington Post Tuesday by Robert Kagan titled The Sovereignty Dodge.

Kagan says

...It would be useful for the United States, Europe and other nations to begin establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned."

...Rather than simply begging the Indians to show restraint, a better option could be to internationalize the response. Have the international community declare that parts of Pakistan have become ungovernable and a menace to international security. Establish an international force to work with the Pakistanis to root out terrorist camps in Kashmir as well as in the tribal areas. This would have the advantage of preventing a direct military confrontation between India and Pakistan

And here are Obama's comments on the situation:

Sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves

Seriously, what does that mean? Does that mean invading another country? I sincerely hope that this isn't giving the green flag to India to launch an attack on Pakistan. We all know the consequences of that.
Sounds very much like the United States is setting up the groundwork to justify "legal" invasion of any country based on the "War on Terror" justification. Ummm .. wait a minute, they're already doing that! But now, it will all be executed under an official "international operation" (NWO Alert!) and the scope is the entire globe.

---
Finally, how does the Military-Industrial Complex fit into the web?

Consider this interesting article which talks about "a Gladio-style attack, perhaps using brainwashed patsies and double agents."

From wikipedia,

Gladio is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Italy after World War II, intended to counter an eventual Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organisations, "Operation Gladio" is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organisations, sometimes called "Super NATO". Gladio has been accused of trying to influence policies through the means of "false flag" operations.

The article above also mentions the following:

Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony: 'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security." (aangirfan: The Bologna Bomb 1980, Gladio, terrorism in Europe)

The keyword here is "the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security". Note how this translates more or less directly into more power for the Military-Industrial-Complex.
Vincenzo Vinciguerra's prediction above is actually very ominous. Consider this news: Mumbai Attacks Politicize Long-Isolated Elite from Dec 6th

Last Wednesday, an extraordinary public interest lawsuit was filed in this city’s highest court. It charged that the government had lagged in its constitutional duty to protect its citizens’ right to life, and it pressed the state to modernize and upgrade its security forces.

The lawsuit was striking mainly for the people behind it: investment bankers, corporate lawyers and representatives of some of India’s largest companies, which have their headquarters here in the country’s financial capital, also known as Bombay. The Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the city’s largest business association, joined as a petitioner. It was the first time it had lent its name to litigation in the public interest.

OK, there you have it: Military + Industry. And it is certainly all very Complex.
Should we also expect the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA)to be introduced in India once again ? Are we in for massive coastline modernization projects ? Boondoggle upon Boondoggle nested within other Boondoggles spanning billion dollar defense contracts all over the globe purporting to make us more secure.
Postscript

Will we ever rise above this all-consuming murkiness ? Sadly, I don't think we'll ever know what really happened since in all likelihood, there will be no transparency or accountability during the investigation. As I described in my previous post on the Mumbai attacks, it seems as if governments, intelligence agencies, corporations, drug traffickers and extremist organizations are all participating in this complex web at multiple levels, each with their own set of objectives, with some overlap across the different groups. IMHO, the consequences are highly unpredictable and extremely dangerous.

I suspect that all of the mayhem is somehow related to "Deep Politics".

Here is an excerpt from wikipedia regarding Deep Politics:
Deep politics is a phrase coined by researcher and academic Peter Dale Scott, which he describes thus;

“My notion of deep politics… posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too provocative to be retained with equanimity”\

Scott has spent an enormous amount of time researching political processes that fly under the radar of conscious political activity, are omitted from discourse on the right and the left, and are many times intertwined with global drug traffic. Here is Scott’s definition of “parapolitics”;

parapolitics , n. 1. a system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished. 2. generally, covert politics, the conduct of public affairs not by rational debate and responsible decision-making but by indirection, collusion, and deceit… 3. the political exploitation of irresponsible agencies or parastructures, such as intelligence agencies… Ex. 1. ‘The Nixon doctrine, viewed in retrospect, represented the application of parapolitics on a hitherto unprecedented scale.’ 2. ‘Democracy and parapolitics, even in foreign affairs, are ultimately incompatible.

Note very carefully the mention of "are many times intertwined with global drug traffic". As mentioned earlier in this post,

Dawood Ibrahim's organization is known as the D-Company and is known to be heavily involved in drug trafficking. According to the U.S. government, D-Company is involved in large-scale shipment of narcotics into the U.K. and Western Europe. He is also alleged to have ties to the CIA through casino operations in Nepal.

To close out this very long post, I find this comment by 'felicity' here very enlightening:

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serb national is supposedly what set off WWI. George Bush once said, “He (Saddam) tried to kill my daddy.” (That may well be the ‘reason’ George decided to invade Iraq given his recent, slightly roundabout remark that even if proven that Iraq had no wmd’s he still would have ordered the invasion.)

The point is that vendettas, petty grievances, challenges to personal power, religious zealotry, pride, humiliation...have set off more than one war throughout history. The tragedy is that mass suffering and death could have been avoided had the truth been identified.

It’s absolutely necessary that we determine what was really behind the Mumbai attacks otherwise we’ll be repeating our ingrained habit of simply reacting which is no more mindful than an involuntary response to a stimulus.

World War Z (The Movie)

World War Z (the film) is expected to be out in 2010. It's based on the book of the same name by Max Brooks (son of Mel Brooks). My favorite Zombie movies are both the 'Dawn of the Dead' movies. (I enjoyed Zack Synder's version more than George Romero's). If you watch Zack Synder's version, make sure you watch the Unrated Director's cut. And keep watching for the "final" ending after the credits roll.

In comparison to "Dawn of the Dead", World War Z appears to be epic in scale spanning the globe.

According to J. Michael Straczynski (Babylon 5) who is penning the script for the movie, the scale of the movie will be phenomenal.

Most zombie movies to this point have been small, focusing on a few people in a house. And this has got real scare. You’re in India with hundreds of boats trying to get out of there with a tidal wave of zombies. The scale of what we’re doing here is phenomenal.

Hmmm ...Billion+ people trying to escape the zombies. Sign of things to come ?

Of course, Zombies are just a device. We're really talking about humans inflicting horrors on other humans and on the planet in general.

Snippet of the song, "Down with the Sickness" by Disturbed (which plays at the end of Dawn of the Dead)

Get up, come on get down with the sickness [x3]
Open up your hate, and let it flow into me
Get up, come on get down with the sickness
You mother get up come on get down with the sickness
You fucker get up come on get down with the sickness
Madness is the gift, that has been given to me

I can see inside you, the sickness is rising
Don't try to deny what you feel
(Will you give in to me?)
It seems that all that was good has died
And is decaying in me
(Will you give in to me?)

It seems you're having some trouble
In dealing with these changes
Living with these changes (oh no)
The world is a scary place
Now that you've woken up the demon in me

Unraveling the Threads

As was the case after 9/11, we've been inundated by a barrage of theories attempting to explain who was responsible for the Mumbai attacks. The most logical account I've read so far is by Jeremy R. Hammond who is the editor of Foreign Policy Journal.

The Mumbai Attacks: More Than Meets The Eye

The analysis above indicates that the evidence points to the Pakistani-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) [the official angle], BUT there's a lot more complexity involved. The tangled web includes Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), Dawood Ibrahim (drug runner extraordinaire and accused in the 1993 bombings in Mumbai), ISI, RAW, CIA, MI6 and others.

Many possibilities are being put forward. I recommend you put in full effort to read these and make your own judgment instead of coming to superficial, knee-jerk conclusions. In fact, don't even believe anything I say.
As far as the media is concerned, stories are certainly pumped into it at an alarming pace until something sticks. Fact, Conjecture, Fact, Fact, Conjecture, Fact, Conjecture, Fact, Conjecture ...ad nauseum. See excellent piece by Biju Mathew on Conjecture and Fact and how the State shapes the official story (as much Fact as it is Conjecture) for it's own benefit. He emphasizes the need for transparency and accountability.

Some of the most intriguing theories are included below:

Who Benefits From Mumbai Terror Attacks?The Meaning of Mumbai (focusing on the South Asia 'war on terror' angle)
India's 9/11. Who was Behind the Mumbai Attacks? (CIA-ISI nexus)
Mossad-CIA Connection To Mumbai Terror Attacks? (Zionist angle included)
Mumbai Terror Attack: Further Evidence Of The Anglo-American-Mossad-RSS Nexus (more extreme Zionist angle focusing on the attacks on Chabad Lubavitch, the ultra-orthodox Jewish group, also emphasizes the Divide-and-Rule angle)

Given that the Indian Security apparatus has bungled so badly, false flag theories are popping up everywhere, not unlike 9/11.

Whoever planned and executed the attacks, the important question is why they did it. Too many parties, too many conflicting objectives. It seems as if governments, intelligence agencies, corporations and extremist organizations are all partcipating in this complex web at multiple levels, each with their own set of objectives, with some overlap across the different groups. IMHO, the consequences are highly unpredictable and extremely dangerous.

Possible objectives of the perpetrators include:

1. Destabilize the Indo-Pak peace process and bilateral relations, thereby increasing the possibility of war
2. Strengthen Indo-US-Israel (Zionist angle here) relations. I believe this will be the costliest mistake in human history (also known as 'deadly embrace')
3. Allow fundamentalists elements to secure power in the next elections in India.
4. Promote social strife in India and Pakistan (or South Asia in general) to keep them from progressing and building better relations. This appears to be an obvious continuation of the Divide-and-Rule policies implemented so successfully (and resulting in utterly tragic consequences for many innocents) by the British empire and continued in recent history by the American empire.
5. Take focus away from fundamentalist Hindu elements in India (note the accused in the Malegaon blasts)
6. Expand the so-called "War on Terror" to South Asia.
7. Prevent the world from being a safer place.
8. Further radicalize Muslims which will further justify the "War on Terror" (yes, I know, twisted logic)
9. Further strengthen the Military Industrial Complex's stranglehold over humanity.
10. A crazed quest for power resulting unintentionally in termination of the human species (OK, worst case, but within the realms of possibility)

Who is likely to benefit the MOST from these objectives ? They are likely to be the masterminds. Who is the leading proponent of the "War on Terror" ? Whoever is trying to further these objectives has inexplicably led us to possibly one of the most dangerous moments in human history. Everything is at stake.

Carpet Bombing ?

Recent comments by Hindi movie actress/personality Simi Garewal:

"Go to the Four Seasons and look down from the top floor at the slums around you. Do you know what flags you will see? Not the Congress', not the BJP's, not the Shiv Sena's. Pakistan! Pakistani flags fly high! ... You know what I think? We should carpet-bomb Pakistan. That's the only way we can give a clear message. ... Look at America. Not one attack after 9/11. Do you know why? It's because they gave a clear message to the world that they cannot be messed with."

The comment on the flag comes off sounding really shallow and flawed. First of all, watching the slums from "Four Seasons" is a dead giveaway that Simi Garewal is part of the privileged elite. Secondly, as many have pointed out, green flags and the presence of 'star and crescent' does not automatically imply Pakistani flag.

Secondly, US Intelligence Reports have indicated that the Campaign in Iraq has increased terrorism threat (for example, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/25/usa.iraq and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). So her very basic premise for justifying Carpet Bombing is wrong.

Finally, the most egregious of her statements is regarding Carpet Bombing itself. Maybe she's into the obviously and thoroughly discredited "Fight Fire With Fire" strategy. I doubt if she knows what Carpet Bombing means because she just implicated herself as a war criminal/terrorist by advocating the use of terror to subdue civilian populations. That makes her NO DIFFERENT from the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks except she recommends using the mighty power of the State to do so. Wonder if she's heard of Dresden and Guernica. Probably not. She probably doesn't even understand what she's saying, mired in her own prejudices and confusion. Another self-righteous self-proclaimed, murderous intellectual spouting off nonsense in her impeccable English accent. Also, I guess she's already performed her own private investigation into who planned and executed the Mumbai attacks. Maybe she should make the results of her investigation public. "It's obvious who did it!", she might yell and scold us for being so naive. However, a look at history suggests that there have been several cases where the Indian government initially accused Pakistan (or Lashkar-e-Taiba), but turns out they had nothing to do with the violence (these incidents include the Malagaon blasts, the Samjhota Express incident and possibly others as well). In any case, even if LeT were responsible, how does that translate into bombing civilians ? That's like saying if Hindu extremist groups were involved in terrorist acts against Muslims (and they have indeed done so), then India should be carpet bombed by Pakistan. That's totally ridiculous.


One could draw a parallel with the words of former US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright on CBS's 60 Minutes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright)When asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than die in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

Albright expressed regret (still somewhat evasive) for this remark in her 2003 autobiography, where she wrote,

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. […] As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong. […] I had fallen into a trap and said something that I simply did not mean. That is no one’s fault but my own.