USA Today: Has Iraq War Made U.S. Safer? That's Questionable

Here's why. Standing in front of a political backdrop - "Protecting America" - to underscore his message, Bush made a three-point argument Monday for how the Iraq war had made Americans safer. First, a tyrant had been removed. Second, U.S. efforts to foster democracy were transforming Iraq into "an example" for the region. And third, Iraqi and U.S. forces were fighting terrorists.

Here's the link.

I won't dispute point #1. Yes, we did remove a tyrant. But that begs the question...What did we replace said tyrant with?

Point #2 is a joke, particularly with all the law-free zones in Iraqi prisons and in light of Iraqi prime ministers who execute insurgents personally with a handgun. An example for the region? That's not the kind of example I'd want to set.

As for point #3, do we have to go over this nonsense about the connection between Iraq and 9/11? There is none. We're fighting terrorists, but they're largely terrorists of our own creation. When you overthrow a dictatorial regime in the Middle East, there are bound to be uprisings and insurgencies that use terrorist tactics to achieve their goals. Think 15-year-old boys would strap on bomb belts and blow up U.S. checkpoints if we hadn't invaded in the first place? I doubt it.

Many 2 Many: Discussion of New Ad Metrics

Thanks to Jeff Jarvis and Buzzmachine, I've been turned on to a conversation about alternative ad metrics.

I like the idea of a "Cost Per Influence" model, but as Ross Mayfield points out...

The meme being transmitted isn't necessarily the message of the ad.

Additionally, I'd think that a Cost Per Influence model would raise a number of problems that both advertisers and bloggers would have trouble dealing with:

• First of all, if two bloggers post a similar idea at the same time, who gets credit or responsibility for influence down the line? This is similar to a problem we already have in the affiliate marketing space. I think it would be a bigger headache here.
• Secondly, how is all of this going to be tracked? What if the chain is broken by bloggers who don't get picked up by the presumably Technorati-like tracking mechanism that would measure the proliferation of an idea or opinion? It could be a technological nightmare. Let's put it this way, it's taken nearly 10 years for the online advertising industry to define an ad view (and we're still not done getting publishers, adserving companies and advertisers to agree on and implement the definitions). Can you see what an uphill battle this might be from a technology perspective?
• The notion of people getting paid for influence might set us up for the kind of intellectual dishonesty that bloggers abhor. It wouldn't be long before the capitalists invade and start setting up "idea networks" where one blog simply parrots another for the sake of getting a paycheck.

Personally, while I like the idea of somehow rewarding the most influential bloggers for their influence, I think the model might be more trouble than it's worth. May I suggest a different direction?

Since online branding came back into fashion, companies like Dynamic Logic, Millward Brown and Factor TG have conducted online brand studies to gauge the branding effects of online ads. They could conduct similar studies in the blogosphere, recruiting exposed and control groups from areas where the idea has permeated. Online surveys could then determine how influential the idea was through already-established attitudinal metrics. What I like about this is that the methodology is pretty well established (Forbes.com uses essentially the same method to measure its performance against The Wall Street Journal on brand metrics and they'll refund your money if your campaign on Forbes doesn't outperform WSJ.)

How about adding a new twist in the survey? - asking respondents to reveal where they first heard about the idea. That might give rise to an influence-based performance bonus to influential bloggers.

Whaddya think?

BTW, I'm pinging my partner Jim Meskauskas on this one. He usually eats this kind of stuff up and maybe he'll drop in to contribute some ideas.

Send Cheney Up The River?

Could Dick Cheney be sent up the river? According to this post on Capitol Hill Blue, Cheney is under investigation by French authorities for bribery, money laundering and misuse of corporate funds while he was at Halliburton. Separately, there's this whole thing about an SEC probe into whether a $180 million slush fund was used to dole out bribes.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. If Cheney is indicted in France, do we think that he'll actually be extradited? I don't think so. Not only would this stir up more anti-administration sentiments internationally, but it could further chill relations with France specifically.

It will also be interesting to see whether all of this gets used by the number of Republicans joining everyone's favorite racist ex-Senator Al D'Amato in calling for Bush to drop Cheney from the ticket. Could he be too much of a liability for the Republicans?

Terrific Enron Article on Slate

Kenneth Lay - Up a Creek

There's a neat article in Slate (posted yesterday) that gives a neat overview of the legal strategy used to nail the bastards at Enron and affiliated companies that made vast fortunes while screwing investors and manipulating the energy market in California.

Before I read this article, I was kind of upset that it took so long to indict Ken Lay. Now, I see how lawyers worked their way up the corporate ladder, indicting folks at Andersen and other companies affiliated with Enron, on their way to Lay at the top. So many lower-level employees and management types have flipped that it's going to take a miracle for Ken Lay to escape from this whole mess unscathed.

Maybe there is justice in this world...