Cynical Nation

Yeah. Right. Sort of. Whatever.

He's politicizing and using Veterans' Day, and the very same Veterans he's cut benefits for, to try and shore up his plunging poll numbers.

Here's a couple nuggets for your consideration:

THE SAME DAY we went to war, the GOP Congress, with Bush's blessing, cut billions in Veterans' benefits.

Bush voted AGAINST the $87B bill to cover expesnes for the troops in Iraq, before he voted FOR it when he got it on credit.

I don't think this is going to help him much, even though it's giving you a hard-on.

How much can it help when even people like Boss Hog Congressman JD Hayworth are now avoiding him like the plague?

> I don't think this is going to help him much, even though it's giving you a hard-on.

Kee-rist, everything's always boners with you people. And to think Jill would have us believe Republicans are obsessed with sex.

But anyway, that's not the point. The point is this. I'm not a teenager anymore, and it would take a lot more than this speech from our president to get me to sprout wood. That would require a flat tax, or at least appointing Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court.

As always, whenever a proposed increase is reduced, Dems scream of a 'cut'.

In 2001, Clinton's last year, federal outlays for the VA was $45,039,000

In 2005, after 4 years of Bush, it has grown to $68,161,000.

Wanna tell me again about how he doesn't care about the Vets?

Barry,
Forget it. This president has no credibility and he can not fight back. He is simply a liar.

Going into Iraq has not helped the war on terror. In fact it made things worse. When will you finally realize that this war was the very wrong action to take? It is so obvious. The whole world has realized that, with the exception of (some) republicans.

Ain't the Dems saying it. Here's the text of a letter co-signed by the VFW, American Legion, and Diabled American Veterans in March 2003:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7474070&BRD=1645&PAG=461&dept_id=33198&rfi=6

The following is the body of a letter to Congress signed jointly by The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Disabled American Veterans on the resolution:

"As so many of our nation’s finest men and women are poised for possible war in the Persian Gulf region, fighting a global war on terror and defending our ideals at home and abroad, Congress is considering budget cuts that would deny sick and disabled veterans much-needed medical care and other earned benefits."

"The House budget resolution proposes reducing both mandatory and discretionary spending for veterans programs and services by $15 billion over the next 10 years. Especially appalling is a proposed 1 percent cut in mandatory spending, including veterans disability compensation and pensions, which is the main source of income for many veterans."

"We point out that the monthly compensation for 3.3 million veterans and survivors increased just 1.4% this year. That is the smallest cost-of-living adjustment in three years. Now, with soaring energy costs driving up prices for other goods and services, it is callous and indefensible to propose slashing these benefits."

"We recognize that our country has serious budget problems, but cutting already under funded veterans’ programs to offset the costs of tax cuts is indefensible and callous."

"Congress must rethink drastic cuts in benefits and services for disabled veterans at a time when we have thousands of our servicemembers in harm’s way fighting terrorism around the world and when we are sending thousands more of our sons and daughters to fight a war against Iraq."

Now, you can look at outlays, and that $68B you quoted in 2005? Estimated. Actual outlays in 2004? $59.5

In spite of over 2.2% annual inflation, which means you would need to be at over $51B just to stay the same, in spite of having placed 350,000 men in the field in 2003, and having maintained almost every active-duty division on duty for almost 3 years since the war began.

Yeah, I think you can make a case for slashing Veterans' benefits in general, and besides:

Yo never answered my point, which was that the GOP Congress AND the President put forth proposals to slash Veterans' benefits THE SAME MONTH they sentthem off to war.

Hard to argue with factual history.

Unless you want to be the "revisionist" Barry was warning Conservatives about in his initial post on this thread.

That, actually, was what I got the most kick out of.

Conservatives are worried about "revisionism"?? After the war of propaganda and doublespeak that is the core of their media and blogosphere?? There's nothing to revise. It's ALL spin.

Barry, is the war of propaganda and doublespeak the core of our blogosphere?

Because, I gotta say, I'm really, really bad at the whole double-entendre thing. So if doublespeak is anything like that, I don't think I'm going to be allowed to stay in our evil empire club.

And that makes me a sad, sad, puppet of the vast corporate Karl Rove conspiracy, I tell you what.

Who says "Talking Points" are a bad thing?

Liberals have been using them for years...decades even.

"Bush defiling Veteran's Day," and "insulting Veterans" by "politicizing the day," is an inane Liberal Talking Point (inane because former Ppresident Clinton used the day to give an extreperous speech about the failure of the Coalition to find WMDs, thus "politicizing" it as well) and a talking point because EVERY Liberal commentator made use of the same exact tag lines...including "good'ol Dick Bey."

Moreover, a "reduction" on a proposed increase is NEVER rightly defined as a "cut," because that proposed increase never existed. Thus calling a reduction to a PROPOSED increase a "CUT," is, in fact, a LIE.

Yes, as Mal states, the $68 Million Bush allotted for Veteran Affairs is much larger than the $45 Million allotted by the previous administration, thus Bush INCREASED Veteran Funding by every rational and appreciable measure.

What about the $78 million proposed?

That was just a "proposal" and it was deemed "too damn high" by a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in both Houses of Congress.

Hey! Come to think of it, Mal just conclusively proved that the Dems LIED.

So if lying makes Republicans unfir for office, then it stands to reason that it also makes Democrats unfit as well.

OK, all you Dems, prepare to vote Libertarian - for "Less government, lower taxes, and with the help of God, a better world." At least that's how one Libertarian I know puts the Libertarian agenda.

Again, neither this poster nor "Mal" has been able to refute my point.

Instead, they revert to playing with numbers, as if you could compare Bush's term in any significant way to Clinton's.

As to Clinton, "JMK", (Jesus, what's with the 3-letter names here?), I guesss you "forgot" to mention Bill Clinton didn't just give a speech for Veteran's day, he was the focus of a 3-day EXTRAVAGANZA at Hofstra that was convened to discuss his legacy, his Presidency, and his history.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/12/nyregion/12clinton.html

He didn't call in the families of Veterans and the media and deliver a disingenuous, canned bundle of "inane" talking-points and propaganda designed to bolster his sagging fortunes and the poll numbers that measure them.

Hey: it just showed me one thing: After his kidney troubles (brought on by lying), Karl Rove is back handling the puppet strings.

"He didn't call in the families of Veterans and the media and deliver a disingenuous, canned bundle of "inane" talking-points and propaganda designed to bolster his sagging fortunes and the poll numbers that measure them."

Man, I'm glad he didn't do that. 'Cause that would have totally sucked.

It's a good thing that no president has given a disingenous propaganda speech in recent history.

I mean, you know--unless you consider actually arguing for what you believe to be the correct policy decision "propaganda".

In responding to your post, am I also resorting regurgitating a "canned bundle" of "talking points"? Because if all attempts at honest debate just end up turning into propaganda, then I guess there's no point in ever arguing for anything ever, eh?

Oh, and on that note, would you consider corrupt former British official George Galloway's speech before the US Senate to be nothing more than propaganda and talking points, in light of his seedy record?

Barry,
I like the title of this post "It's about time". I agree, it's "about time" that "Mr. President" resigns. This is probably the single most corrupt and incompetent administration in the history of the country. The Plamegate scandal is bigger than Watergate. It is also now crystal clear that Bush deliberately lied to take the country to war. The only difference I see between Bush and Nixon when he resigned is that Nixon was a far smarter man than Bush.

Let's see, Bush lied to get us into a war he planned well before 9-11, which had nothing at all to do with terrorism or WMD's, and pointing this out is revisionism?

Another display of that spectacular Neocon brillance!

Here's the inanity of the American and European Left.

Now, in the face of an ongoing Islamo-cultist uprising/rebellion in France PROVING the efficacy of both the Bush Doctrine ("any nation that harbors, sponsors or assists terrorists is guilty of an act of war") and the Patriot Act, the twin components of the current "War on Terrorism,", there are still those who insist on denying what has already been well established - (1) that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the world's foremost state sponsor of international terorrism, and (2) that Islamo-cultism is a well organized, well funded, global movement that the West (ALL of the West) simply cannot afford to live peacefully with.

"Plamegate?"

It's a cipher. According to her own husband, Valerie Plame hasn't left the country in over nine years.

Every CIA operative's identity is "Classified," only a very small percentage are "covert." The Covert Operative's Identity Protections Act was NOT violated in this case. Otherwise Fitzgerald would've been able to charge Libby under that statute. Novak, who has oppossed the war in Iraq from the start, was outraged at what he saw to be another "cronyism" Bush appointment (Joe Wilson). There's no possibility that Novak sought to punish Joe Wilson, by outing his wife, as some sort of "payback," NOT for an administration he disagreed with on that very issue! No, Novak sought to embarrass the Bush administration by showing Wilson to be a career political hack (which he is) who got a plum assignment on the recommendation of his ditzy wife, who apparently worked for the CIA.

It's very obvious that America and the rest of "the West" has a very clear enemy today, OK two dire and deadly enemies. The most obvious one is Islamo-cultism, of which,al Qaeda is only a very small part. All of "fundamentalist Islam" (Islamo-cultism) is our enemy and the sworn enemy of the West.

Of course our most insidious enemy in the West, is the cancerous slime, that "enemy within," called American Liberalism" and "European Socialism" and ALL who adhere to that hideous anti-human worldview.

"This is probably the single most corrupt and incompetent administration in the history of the country. The Plamegate scandal is bigger than Watergate. It is also now crystal clear that Bush deliberately lied to take the country to war. The only difference I see between Bush and Nixon when he resigned is that Nixon was a far smarter man than Bush."

My God. it's like you think that if you just say things, they will be true.

Why do you say things like this, Blue? I'm asking you honestly here. You come to a blog where you KNOW that people disagree with you, but then you just toss out pontifications like these as if they were going to accomplish something.

If you're in a place where you know that no one is just going to believe you at your word, wouldn't it be more prudent not to say anything of this nature without backing it up in some fashion?

Or do you honestly think that the truth is so obvious, merely saying it will cause the light to break through the clouds which persistently fog the minds of those too stupid to come to the same conclusions as you to begin with?

I'm not screwing around here. I really want to know why you keep saying these things as if anyone who didn't already agree with you would take you seriously.

And for the record, this is a more in-depth analysis of how I feel about the whole thing. If you're really interested in honest discussion, and not just preaching your own personal dogma, then I invite you to look at what I've said and criticize it. I love a good debate. What I don't like is being yelled at just because I disagree.

Adam,
I am not yelling at you. I just say what the majority of Americans believe. I believe that the truth is so obvious and I am not the only one.

I know I can not convince you and thats not really my intention. I just express the truth the way I believe it is. I will read your blog, but I hope you understand that, regarding Bush-related views, I am in the majority of Americans and you are in the minority. Sorry.

"I am not yelling at you. I just say what the majority of Americans believe. I believe that the truth is so obvious and I am not the only one.

I know I can not convince you and thats not really my intention. I just express the truth the way I believe it is. I will read your blog, but I hope you understand that, regarding Bush-related views, I am in the majority of Americans and you are in the minority. Sorry."

Again, there you go. As if you could scientifically measure what every single voting age citizen in the United States thinks, and then categorize from there how many of them share your opinion.

Just because the president you don't like has low approval ratings does not mean that people are critical of him for the same reasons that you are. I mean, am I sounding reasonable enough here?

And even if, by some aberration of human behavior, every single citizen except for me agreed with you 100%, what would that matter if they were all wrong?

So if you're going to talk to someone who you know disagrees with you, what the point in just "expressing the truth the way it is" if simply expressing it isn't going to change anything for anyone?

Personally, I avoid getting into conversations with people on the subjects that I know I disagree with them on unless I feel prepared to make a good case for what I believe. Otherwise, I just come off as trying to provoke people's temper for the sake of telling them that I know better than they do, and it doesn't matter to me that I can't substantiate what I believe, because if they had half a brain they would already agree with me.

I mean, what's the point, Blue? Can you tell me, in all honesty, what you're doing other than smugly flaunting the fact that you disagree with Barry and people like me? Is there anything beyond that?

One good point: Even, for the sake of argument, if most Americans did agree with you, Blue, that doesn't make them right. Believing something is true just because a lot of people say so isn't how one should found their beliefs. However, considering the fact that Iraqis can vote, Syria is leaving Lebanon alone (for the most part), and Palestinians have called a ceasefire and stuck to it, I am inclined to say that you are wrong. The only wrong thin we could do now is back out of the middle east, and leave Israel alone and open to attack from Iran. Not that they've needed anyone's help in the past.

Guy,
As you mentioned Israel has proven again and again that they do not rely on others, but themselves. Iran does not have the capability to attack Israel, and if they did they would regret it big time. I personally do not think that our presence in the middle east has helped Israel and there are many Israelis that agree with me on that.

The fact that Iraqis can vote does not mean much at this time. The country is a complete mess without law and order, suffering daily terrorists attacks. What the Bush administration has achieved is to de-stabilize the region and make Iraq a center for terrorists. There is no plan on how to proceed and it does not look that things will stabilize there soon.

The reason many democrats are so critical of Bush and his actions are obvious and well-justified in my opinion.

Really? Have you taken a poll of Israelis? Have you learned the opinion of each and every one of them, to make that kind of justification? Don't say they agree with you, because you don't know that. And Iran is in fact building a nuclear arsenal, spread out over 8 or 9 different facilities in the country. Iran is the only Mid-East nation that STILL poses a threat to Israel. Anything we can do to aid them in bringing down such a backwards, fascist state is necessary to global stability. What we need is someone in Washington with the balls to finish up in Iraq, by pouring as many resources into it as possible, and then focusing on Iran after a recuperation period for ourselves, so that we can attack fresh.

Blue: you continue to fail at answering my question.

Because there is really only one that I care about.

If you aren't going to argue your case, if you aren't going to provide some numbers or some evidence to justify your words, then why are you here, among people who disagree with you, saying things that you believe in as if just saying them was somehow significant to anyone other than yourself?

Are you really just that arrogant, Blue? Do you really think that anyone with the gaul to disagree with you just is too stupid to waste your time on? That we aren't worth anything beyond your occasional scraps of self-righteous posturing?

Why are you here at all?

to quote Red v. Blue:
"No, I never wonder why I'm here. Semper Fi, bitch." Sorry, I know I'm not Blue Wind, but the opportunity was too great to pass up.

Adam,
Sorry, but I did not have time to read your post so I can answer. I will eventually. In any case, I am here, but my presence should not make you so upset. This is just a blog.

Who said anything about upset? I'm simply posing a question.

But thanks for showing an interest in seeing my post and responding :)

Criminal moron traitor Bush doesn't give a shit about terrorism, fool. He wants money. More and more money. The military didn't rush in and secure weapons sites, they flew right past them and secured the oil fields. Even idiot neocons admit this is true; however, they use the laughable excuse that Bush and Cheney were suddenly terrible concerned with the environment, and out of deep ecological concern they bypassed all those possible nuclear weapons to rush in and save the environment!

Remember when liar Bush said the Iraqi oil would be pumped to pay for the war? Looks like American taxpayers got pumped, eh? Did you ever stop and think about why oil and gas has doubled when when have an oil and gas President and an oil and gas VP? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!

Record profits and government giveaways to Big Oil -- whoa! COINCIDENCE!!!

Iraq the largest sponsor of terrorism? That's just a lie. Saddam did pay off the families of Palestinian martyrs, but are you going to seriously disagree that Palistinians are somehow wrong to fight for what was stolen from them?

No, the largest sponsor of terrorism is SAUDI ARABIA, you know, THE NATIONALITY OF MOST OF THE ACTUAL 9-11 TERRORISTS, and where all the funding came from, NOT IRAQ, STUPID.

Oh wait, but the Saudis are great friends with who ... hmmm ... oh, that's right the BUSH FAMILY!!!

Ahahaha, you neocon traitors can't even put up a good argument. Your boy is a criminal just like you are.

I'm only a criminal because the sex is cheaper in prison.

If you must know.

Ok Adam, I read your post. You are clearly biased one way. You try to justify what Bush did. I disagree with what you believe for a simple reason. Bush and Cheney had access to much more intelligence than the dems that voted for the war. It is obvious to me that they simply selected what intelligence to disclose. Did the democrats know at the time about Wilson's findings? No. They did not. But the president did and he kept lying.

Even if we assume that the president and Cheney were confused about the intelligence and really thought that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, he should not have started the war. At the time we invaded, Iraq was fully cooperating and had let the UN inspectors in to look. They were willing to allow the inspectors anywhere they wanted to be. But Bush et al did not care. They simply wanted war.

All that is now academic except that more than 2000 Americans are dead, and 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. On top of all that, it is more than obvious that it will be very hard if not impossible to win this war at this time. It could have been won if at an earlier point a much larger force had been sent in Iraq. Now we have a country essentially destroyed, in anarchy, and dominated by the terrorists. How can you justify still supporting Bush after all this dishonesty, disastrous decisions, or, at the very least, incompetence??

> Did the democrats know at the time about Wilson's findings? No. They did not. But the president did and he kept lying.
Actually, Wilson lied about his own findings, which you would understand by now if you were paying attention and if your own stubborn biases didn't get in the way.

"Ok Adam, I read your post. You are clearly biased one way. You try to justify what Bush did."

Using evidence and arguments to try and substantiate an honestly held belief is not bias, Blue. It's called debating.

"At the time we invaded, Iraq was fully cooperating and had let the UN inspectors in to look."

Not really--they let the UN inspectors see if they could find anything, but they didn't show them what they did have--after all, we found a good deal many weapons and assorted paraphanelia after we invaded that was in breach of the resolutions. Funny how the inspectors hadn't found those during the time window you're talking about.

WMD wasn't the only thing on the table.

"All that is now academic except that more than 2000 Americans are dead"

Here is some perspective on that.

"and 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead."

you are wrong. back that number up.

and everything else you have to say is, once again, simply stated without evidence.

When you feel like actually supporting your points, call me.

"When you feel like actually supporting your points, call me."

I think you are not supporting your points, not me. Here is why:

1. Iraq was really cooperating at the very end. The last few days before the invasion, Hussein's regime was willing to let the inspectors go anywhere. The whole world wanted to give it a try, except Bush. What would have costed waiting a few more weeks? How many people might be alive today if that happened?

2. Regarding the 100,000 civilian deaths, I am attaching below a reference from the medical Journal Lancet where that was reported and established. Read it.

Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey.
The Lancet, Volume 364, Issue 9448, Pages 1857-1864
L. Roberts, R. Lafta, R. Garfield, J. Khudhairi, G. Burnham

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-4DV11P2-13&_coverDate=11%2F26%2F2004&_alid=334622886&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=4886&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4a05cded2ba67aa9f3a9a32f54792c6b

"1. Iraq was really cooperating at the very end. The last few days before the invasion, Hussein's regime was willing to let the inspectors go anywhere. The whole world wanted to give it a try, except Bush. What would have costed waiting a few more weeks? How many people might be alive today if that happened?"

I don't know. How many more mass grave sites would be in place by today if we hadn't gone in?

"2. Regarding the 100,000 civilian deaths, I am attaching below a reference from the medical Journal Lancet where that was reported and established. Read it."

I'm well aware of where that number comes from, as that's an old article. Did you notice the part about the margin of error being 90,000? Kind of makes the 100,000 number meaningless.

No, thats not the margin of error. Where did you get the 90,000 margin of error from? You got it very wrong. If you dont believe scientific estimates from top medical journals, like the Lancet, then what do you believe? Bush? Tell me how many civilians do you think have been killed in Iraq so far?

*sigh* Give me a minute to dig this out...

here.

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

THAT is where I got it from--the "study" itself, and Slate's well-articulated criticism.

As for "who I believe", the question is entirely irrelevant. I don't "believe" anyone. I look at what they have to say and the evidence they provide for it, and I judge it on its merits rather than simply on the basis of who's saying it. And I draw my own conclusions.

For more on that way of thinking, see here.

In any case, do you see what I'm saying about that article?

They said that they were 95% certain that anywhere between 8,000 and 195,000 people died, so they averaged the two numbers and on that basis they irresponsibly argued that 100,000 people had been killed.

Do you see how completely groundless that number is?

You are not a reviewer for Lancet. Are you? This paper has been reviewed and accepted in a top medical journal. In a study like this, it is not surprising that the confidence intervals are wide. However, you ignore some other parts like:

"We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000–194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included."

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

Now you may discard the study as "inaccurate". However, I am not sure you have the background or expertise to do so. And I am asking you again. How many civilians do you believe have died in Iraq? If you can not answer this, you better take the opinion of serious people who know what they are talking about and publish their data in a scientific manner, like the authors of the Lancet article.

"Now you may discard the study as "inaccurate". However, I am not sure you have the background or expertise to do so."

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that you needed to be a highly certified scientist to do basic math.

They estimated that anywhere between 8,000 and 195,000 people died, and then did simple averaging. You don't need to be a genious to do the math.

And there certainly is no science in just saying "well, based on what we can see, anywere between ten and two hundred thousand people might've died, so we'll just add those two numbers up and divide them by two, and whatever number we get, we'll say is how many people died. Superscience!"

You can go ahead and just believe it if you want to. Just based on the fact that it's a scientific magazine.

Me, I judge things on their merits. And believing something just because it's an authority doesn't make you rational. It means you've got faith, plain and simple.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You can not judge the Lancet paper on its merits, but you think you can. You are similar to the Bush administration. They do not have the expertise to make decisions on many issues, but they think they are so good that science is irrelevant and that they are always right. See where this attitude brought the country: In a disastrous situation.

Thank you so much, you condescending prick. Anythng else you want to tell me I'm incapable of doing?

The Lancet paper is bullshit. I studied science and I published a few research papers when I was in grad school. If I had ever turned in a quantitative analysis that shoddy I would have been flunked. You don't have to be a physician to recognize that their statistical analysis was appalling. But these were not stupid people -- they were people with an agenda.

Hey, Barry. Fashionably late, I see :)

Adam, it's been one of those weekends, I'm afraid. And it's clearly not yet over for me. ;)

Barry,
No, is not bullshit. Is real and the doctors of Johns Hopkins who prepared it had no agenda. You can not compare what you did in graduate school with a study published in a medical journal like Lancet. You apparently are not aware of the review process in scientific journals like that. There is no way that anyone can pass a "polticial agenda" thru the rigorous scientific review of journals like Lancet. Certainly medical schools like Hopkins do not mix science with politics. I hate to say but this attitude towards science is similar to the one of the Bush administration. The ones with the agenda are not the doctors, but the right-wing radicals that discard science. The fact is that tens of thousands of civilians have died in Iraq. You dont even need a study for that. You hear about cibilians being killed every day in the news.

P.S. Adam, I stand by what I said. You have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

Actually, Blue, I am a research scientist with a Ph.D. and I have published several articles in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals myself. Consequently, I feel quite comfortable pronouncing judgment on this bit of "research" from Lancet (not that you even need a Ph.D. to understand why this analysis is flawed -- you don't.) That's what "peer review" means, after all. And for future reference, it might be best not to make assumptions about people whom you don't know.

Barry,
Ok, but you are not the only one. I am also the same like you and I have also an extensive publication record. The only reason that I said what I said was because you were talking about what you were doing in graduate school. To me that suggested that you dont do actively research, but I apologize if I was wrong.

That paper went thru peer review in Lancet and was published in 2004. I have not heard from you any specific criticism except that it was "flunked". And I insist, the analysis is valid and the origin of this paper is verty trustworthy. There was absolutely no political agenda.

I addressed the Lancet article at some length back when it was actually news. Meanwhile, it seems to me that *you're* the one who's debating the point with simplistic, declarative statements (e.g., the paper is correct, Lancet has no agenda, etc.) with no evidence or arguments to back them up. Adam has pointed out some very specific points, and your responses have been, well, less than impressive.

One last point, however. I would not pick a fight with Lancet researchers when it comes to medicine. That is their thing; it isn't mine. This paper, however, was not medical research. It was a piss-poor statistical analysis based on a badly flawed survey methodology.

I may not understand medicine, but I do understand statistical analysis and methods. Not to be arrogant, but I believe physicists (of which I am one), generally do a much more rigorous job with statistics than many of their colleagues in other fields, since the study of statistics is so intricately connected with what they do (quantum mechanics, for example.) That's why I feel so comfortable in denouncing this survey, although I am far from the only one to have done so.

Look, you can find flaws with statistical analysis in pretty much any medical study if you look carefully. I dont have time now to go thru the stats and details of this paper. However, it is one thing to criticize a paper for flawed statistics and another thing to claim that the authors have "political agenda". Where do you base this claim?? Medical schools and journals do not have agendas. What you said is equivalent to saying that your major physics journals have political agendas. Thats not the case.

In any case, do you dispute the fact that there are tens of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq? What do you believe is the number?

In attributing bias to the Lancet researchers, I was being kind. The only other alternative, IMO, is that they were grossly incompetent.

Science is done by humans, and there is *always* the danger of humans bringing their biases and prejudices to bear on the research, whether consciously or subconsciously. There is no journal that's immune to this, be it in medicine, the physical sciences or anywhere else.

In other words, I agree with you that shoddy statistics can be found anywhere. But if you toss out the statistical analysis in the case of this Lancet article... well, then you have nothing left.

Well, is about time you admit your strong bias then as well. If you were oblective you would agree that the number of innocent civilian deaths in this war is very high. I repeat, you dont need a study for that. Just adding the numbers of civilian causalties that we hear daily in the news over the last 2 and a half years would result in a very high number. Dont you agree?

Blue, I've *never* made a claim to be unbiased. I've been upfront about my bias from the get-go. And unlike Lancet, I don't pretend to know the number of Iraqi casualties. I feel reasonably confident that it's more than 1,000 and equally confident that it's less than 194,000.

Your point about adding the casualty figures reported in the news media over the course of the insurgency is well taken, and the figures do indeed mount. But bear in mind that the Lancet article didn't even *include* much of these figures, which makes the 100,000 figure all the more ludicrous.

But now you're changing the subject, of course. The argument was never about whether "a lot of people" died in Iraq. I'm sure we're all in agreement there. The debate was about this singularly pathetic bit of research in Lancet, which you defended to the hilt.

“Criminal moron traitor Bush doesn't give a shit about terrorism, fool. He wants money. More and more money. The military didn't rush in and secure weapons sites, they flew right past them and secured the oil fields. Even idiot neocons admit this is true; however, they use the laughable excuse that Bush and Cheney were suddenly terrible concerned with the environment, and out of deep ecological concern they bypassed all those possible nuclear weapons to rush in and save the environment!” (BH)

The invasion of Iraq was NOT based on WMDs. Not at all.

The primary trigger for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s refusal to comply with UN Resolution 1441, which both Britain and America called a “last chance Resolution,” as Iraq had violated 13 other such Resolutions going back to 1991.

JMK

“Remember when liar Bush said the Iraqi oil would be pumped to pay for the war? Looks like American taxpayers got pumped, eh? Did you ever stop and think about why oil and gas has doubled when when have an oil and gas President and an oil and gas VP? WOW, WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!

Record profits and government giveaways to Big Oil -- whoa! COINCIDENCE!!!” (BH)

Another inane and wrong-headed attempt at an argument.

Oil prices have soared in response to two things, (1) a shortage of refineries here in the U.S., that’s why gasoline prices spiked after Katrina and have come down over the intervening two months as more refineries came back online and (2) increased demand for oil from India and China, though that too has been mitigated as China’s demand has leveled off lately and new technologies that get oil from “oil sands” or “shale oil” have been greatly improved.

Iraq has had nothing to do with the rising price of oil.

JMK

“Iraq the largest sponsor of terrorism? That's just a lie. Saddam did pay off the families of Palestinian martyrs, but are you going to seriously disagree that Palistinians are somehow wrong to fight for what was stolen from them?
No, the largest sponsor of terrorism is SAUDI ARABIA, you know, THE NATIONALITY OF MOST OF THE ACTUAL 9-11 TERRORISTS, and where all the funding came from, NOT IRAQ, STUPID.

Oh wait, but the Saudis are great friends with who ... hmmm ... oh, that's right the BUSH FAMILY!!!” (BH)

Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan – which, of those five nations has not been on the U.S. State Department’s list of “State Sponsors of International Terrorism,” during the last fifteen years?

If you said Saudi Arabia, you’d be right.
Though Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Wahabbism (Islamo-cultism) it is NOT a State sponsor of international terrorism and its government, like Pakistan’s has cooperated with America in the global war on terrorism.

Do some reading first, before you make inane pronouncements, OK.

JMK

These guys, Iraq Body Count, seem to be maintaining a pretty comprehensive accounting of civilian deaths in Iraq. They say the number is between 26,931 and 30318 (as of November 14, 2005).

Can someone tell me how to get the "target" attribute to work?

NO, there IS no "comprehensive body count".

Iraq Body Count posts the diclaimer "...Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports..."

Why? Why does the US Government not count civilian or enemy dead?

Propaganda reasons.

For the same reasons that the International Press was blacked out from combat operations in Falludjah, where white phosphorus and napalm was used (see Washington Post).

For the same reasons that the International Press and the Red Cross were shut out of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo until recently.

Rethuglycans in power have a propaganda war to win, and they will control what they need to control "by all means necessary."

See redstate, instapundit, powerline and every other wingnut site for the last week.

But the country has shown, in recent polls, that this strategy is killing this Republican President's job and approval numbers, and we haven't even begun to talk about the effect that torture, which 60% of Right-wingers approve, will have on the Republican Party.

I can hardly wait to see what happens.

Thanks, WF. I actually spent some time online today trying to access iraqbodycount, but it appeared their server was down at the time. This is basically a moonbat site, and I think their bias is obvious. That makes it all the more interesting that they're even now reporting only a fraction of the absurd figures Lancet was throwing around more than a year ago.

Barry,
You keep saying that the Lancet figures are "absurd". So tell us, whats your estimate? How many civilians you think have been killed in Iraq? If you do an approximate estimate the way I told you (2 and a half years X average daily casualties)you may end up agreeing that is in the tens of thousands. Or not? Tell us what do you think and what do you believe is acceptable in terms of "collateral damage" for the "brilliant" neoconservative plan.

What the hell good is it for us to play "guess the body count"?

Blue Wind: The question is not how many Barry thinks have been killed. The question is, how do you justify the numbers in the Lancet study without resorting to simply "they're scientists and they said so, so I guess they must be right"

After all, a scientific journal allowed an article advocating Intelligent Design to be published, and it was also peer-reviewed; does that make the conclusions that that article came to unquestionable by the "unqualified" masses?

I personally don't think so, but hey. I guess you'll have to start believing in ID now, Blue, since a scientific journal has now advocated it.

Ortho,
I am curious to see what kind of a number of dead civilians is acceptable to supporters of the war. Is as simple as that. All these people would be alive today if "Mr president" behaved more rationally and was not dishonest. Trust me, every life matters.

> I am curious to see what kind of a number of dead civilians is acceptable to supporters of the war.

How many civilian deaths were acceptable in WWII? Please be precise.

"All these people would be alive today..."? No accidents? No heart attacks? No Ba'athist reprisals on their villages? I think you have made an unjustifiably sweeping statement there.

When you say that "every life matters" I assume you include the estimated 300,000 Iraqi civilians who died as a result of UN imposed, U.S. enforced sanctions of the 1990s? How about the 800,000 Rwandans who died in 1994 as the U.S. government ignored their pleas for help.

Barry,
If you compare WWII (when we were attacked by Nazi Germany) to the Iraq war (when we attacked another country based on false intelligence and lies) you are out of touch with reality. Completely.

> If you compare WWII... to the Iraq war...

I didn't. I simply asked a question. Since you seem to think that it's reasonable to ask how many civilian deaths are acceptable for a given conflict, how many deaths were acceptable in WWII? Why won't you answer? Please respond with a specific number. Or do you admit that it's ludicrous to ask someone to define such a meaningless and arbitrary figure for a war?

Oh, Barry. Don't be silly. Like Blue would ever admit anything ever :D that would require being reasonable and entering the discussion with a degree of open-mindedness.

Good point, Adam. I don't know why I'm wasting my breath (fingers?)

But as long as I'm doing so, I have to take issue with one more thing, Blue. You said we were attacked my Nazi Germany. We were not. We were attacked by Imperial Japan. Why the hell did that stupid Roosevelt go fighting the Germans and Italians in North Africa when we were attacked by Japan? Was he a neo-con?

Remind me, Blue Wind, where it was that we were attacked by Nazi Germany in 1941? My recollection is that Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 12, 1941 citing, with some justification, hostile actions the Roosevelt administration had been conducting against Germany since September 1940.

I applaud FDR for taking any excuse to join in the worldwide assault on that monster, but in 1941/42 the U.S. could have easily negotiated peace with Hitler. There was no imminent threat against the United States, and very, very few Americans had any interest in fighting Germany.

> Remind me, Blue Wind, where it was that we were attacked by Nazi Germany in 1941?

We weren't. Blue Wind "LIED!!!!!" to drag us into WWII! He must be a closet neo-con. ;)

My answer to 'how many dead?' is however many it takes.

If they're shooting at our soldiers, or blowing up cafés, or stoning rape victims, or telling throngs to burn the Jews, whatever, waste 'em please. I'm REALLY sick of their bullshit and would hotseat an F22 and go if I weren't such a spineless lazy chickenhawk.

Is that the answer you were lookin for?

If a war cannot be waged whereupon any civilians die, then none can be waged at all. Shit happens and you do your best to minimize good-people deaths (i'm sick of the word civilian). Do we not do that?

LOL! Well, one of you weak Shrub worshippers made a lame attempt to refute my statements by saying, "Hyuk! Durrr ... no, you are WRONG!"

If we went to war over U.N. resolutions, why does Bush try to couple Iraq with terrorism every time Karl Rove puts his hand up his ass and works his monkey jaws?

Good job, stupid.

Look, no civilians died in Iraq. All that bombing was pinpoint surgical hurting of terrorists. If Clinton were in office, innocent civilians would be getting hurt,and we would be bombing aspirin factories. But he's not, it's Lord Bush, the Personal Savior of the Sub-optimally IQ'd! Every bomb destroyed a nuclear or bioweapons lab. None of them splatter five-year-old girls as clearly shown day after day on television outside the United States of Big Oil.

Now stop talking bad about Bush, you're giving the Neocons a tummy ache.

Barry and the rest of neocons,
Ok, what I meant was that Nazi Germany declared war to us and you know it.

Of course and there is no "acceptable" number of civilian casualties. However, the difference between the Iraq war and other wars we fought(with the tragic exception of Vietnam) is that this was an unnecessary war. We did NOT have to go into the Iraq war. It was a huge, catastrophic mistake of your hero (Bush). All civilians that died in this war would be alive today if we had as a president a rational leader. Imagine, maybe 40-50,000 people would NOT be dead today if Bush had not lied. On the other hand, in WWII we had no choice. WWII was a war we had to fight. The Iraq war is not. It is a simple as that.

It's threads like this that make me question the value of debating anything with anyone. When exactly did it become fashionable for one to wear their bias on their sleeve? The first step in coming to any type of resolution is to try and rise above your own bias and see things from all sides. I frankly see no effort to do that here whatsoever.

That's the problem we have these days. Everyone is so concerned with winning the day that solving the actual problem becomes secondary at best. Compromise is apparently a lost art even in conceptual form. It's a waste of time to discuss anything with someone whose ultimate goal is anything other than to resolve a difference.

Stepping down from soapbox - you may now commence throwing eggs.

"Of course and there is no "acceptable" number of civilian casualties. However, the difference between the Iraq war and other wars we fought(with the tragic exception of Vietnam) is that this was an unnecessary war."

So if it was a justified war, like WWII, then the civilian casualties thing becomes irrelevant?

In any case, from what you're saying, talking about casualties is therefore pointless, correct? After all, you should be focusing all of your efforts on discussing why the war is unnecessary and unjust, because if people disagree with you there, then the talk of casualties will only seem like the exploitation of other people's deaths to score political points...right?

From godzilla:
"That's the problem we have these days. Everyone is so concerned with winning the day that solving the actual problem becomes secondary at best. Compromise is apparently a lost art even in conceptual form. It's a waste of time to discuss anything with someone whose ultimate goal is anything other than to resolve a difference."

Hey, I like discussion, and think it is both possible and good when a certain attitude is adopted.

I can even point to a recent example where I was called on my own bullshit, and I admitted i was wrong, if you'd like. here.

But that's even besides the point.

I think that discussion isn't a healthy thing to engage in if you go into it expecting to persuade everyone or anyone. No, I think it's best when you go in and do you best to present your beliefs in a presentable and reasonable way, and then take in what the people who disagree with you have to say and see what you can learn from it.

Not necessarily change your mind, but, for instance, they might point to some information that's important to address if you want to remain intellectually honest in your beliefs.

I don't know. For me, I discuss things because my ability to collect information is limited and I feel as though the more people I talk to, the more I can pick up where they've got their information and learn something from it.

It's frustrating with Blue here because he isn't really telling me anything other than what he believes. He gives me almost no "why" to it, other than that duh, he believes it because it's true. But I never expected him to buy my argument--I'd just hoped that he'd actually engage me in a real debate, but it seems that is beneath his dignity to do so.

Anyway, don't throw all discussion out the door--I think it's important and while you might not persuade the person you're talking to, you never know what people reading/seeing/hearing the debate will get from it.

Debate is a useful tool for fishing out information that people would otherwise not be motivated to put forward, I think.

"It's frustrating with Blue here because he isn't really telling me anything other than what he believes. He gives me almost no "why" to it, other than that duh, he believes it because it's true."

Well, I can argue it is exactly the opposite. Let me ask you 3 simple questions:

1. What was the official reason we invaded Iraq? Was n't it the alleged imminent threat from Husseins WMDs?

2. Did we find WMDs in Iraq?

3. If the war had never happened, would thousands of civilians and 2,000 American soldiers be alive today?

As one famous european writer has said "It is true if you believe is true". Perception is everything. The problem with neocons is that their perception is far far from reality.

"I think that discussion isn't a healthy thing to engage in if you go into it expecting to persuade everyone or anyone. No, I think it's best when you go in and do you best to present your beliefs in a presentable and reasonable way, and then take in what the people who disagree with you have to say and see what you can learn from it."

As I said the point is to come to a resolution by trying to rise above your own personal bias. That resolution can come about through you winning someone over to see the value in your points, or the opposite or any degree in between. The point is that if you are ever going to resolve something then something has to give. I don't see much of that these days, certainly not here.

The point is that I completely agree with the paragraph above, in fact I think it pretty much says the same thing I did. But as much as I agree with the spirit of those words, I don't see that spirit conveyed much in this thread.

Fair enough, godzilla--this certainly hasn't been the most digified discussion ever held, I'll give you that.

So I guess it'd be my turn to give, then, eh?

"1. What was the official reason we invaded Iraq? Was n't it the alleged imminent threat from Husseins WMDs?"

That was undeniably a large part of it. In fact, I would personally criticize Bush for his over-emphasis on WMD as the selling point; the fact of the matter is that we'd known for ten years that we were going to have to resolve the situation in Iraq in some fashion, and Clinton himself had made the attempt to address it.

The fact of the matter is, we went to war with Hussein in 1992, and ended that war on the basis that certain conditions were to be maintained. Hussein showed a wanton disregard for those conditions for a decade; some sort of consequences were going to have to be imposed. Bush did not talk about this nearly enough, clearly sticking with the strategy of talking about WMDs because he believed they were the most solid example of a clear and present dander and would make the war easier to sell.

As a result, I agree that he has no one but himself to blame for the backlash that happened when it turned out we were wrong on the WMD count.

But I think that there's evidence here against claims of dishonesty. People talk about how the Bush administration lied about WMD rather than just made an honest mistake, and how his administration continues to lie about how many casualties there have been.

But if he were such a bold-faced liar, and so calculating, why wouldn't he have simply provided faked evidence that he was right about WMD? It wouldn't have been even all that difficult to do, to plant materials to be conveniently found that suggested that Hussein either had WMD or had the capability to produce them in good sized quantities. So while I found Bush's treatment of the pre-war debate to be in many ways lacking, I don't buy the charges of outright dishonesty, as I see no evidence for them.

That said, it isn't as though WMD was the only thing that Bush talked about before the war. And I don't expect you to take my word on that one. You can see all the sources listed here which back me up on that count.

On to the next question, then.

"2. Did we find WMDs in Iraq?"

No, we did not. And the failure of our intelligence agencies, and all the agencies that were so certain that we would, is profoundly disturbing. And as I said above, the backlash from not finding them can be pinned on no one but Bush, who invested far too much of his energies in pushing the notion that we would definately find them and they were the ultimate proof of the smoking gun that Hussein represented.

That said, we found plenty of other things banned by the UN Sanctions that had not been discovered by Hans Blix, including illegal missiles and other paraphanelia.

"3. If the war had never happened, would thousands of civilians and 2,000 American soldiers be alive today?"

I think that withoutfeathers put it best when he responded to your claim that all those people would still be alive today by saying:
"No accidents? No heart attacks? No Ba'athist reprisals on their villages? I think you have made an unjustifiably sweeping statement there."

That said, you didn't make a sweeping statement here, you just asked a fair question.

So I will answer it: I don't know if they'd still be alive today, but they certainly wouldn't have been killed by things related to this war--if there was no war, that's an obvious statement.

But I also believe that we should not abandon the war just because it is hard and has required sacrifice, and will remain difficult and call for further sacrifice for some time to come.

If you can make the case that the war is unjustified, then obviously, these people have all died in vain.

But if you believe, as I do, that Iraq is where we should be and helping to secure the future of the Iraqis is both in our interest and the right thing to do, then the deaths are tragic, but it is up to us to ensure that they are not in vain.

In other news, I'd like to point out that the post I made before the previous one was comment #69

Just wanted that on the record.

"But if he were such a bold-faced liar, and so calculating, why wouldn't he have simply provided faked evidence that he was right about WMD? It wouldn't have been even all that difficult to do, to plant materials to be conveniently found "

No he could not have done that, despite being a bold-faced liar. The army and the CIA would have never agreed to do something so low, and if anyone from the administration had attempted that, they would have been caught. In addition, the europeans would have demanded to examine the WMDs found independently. So that was not a choice.

"That said, it isn't as though WMD was the only thing that Bush talked about before the war"

The single reason Americans supported the war was the fear of a potential WMD attack from Hussein. The country did not support the war because of the prospect of a democratic Iraq. You and few others had that in mind, but the vast majority of Americans did NOT. Thats why it took a big WMD-related lie from Bush for the war to start.

"No he could not have done that, despite being a bold-faced liar. The army and the CIA would have never agreed to do something so low..." OK, but how about Blackrock Security? Could they have been persuaded to do something so low? And when you say "[t]he army and the CIA would have never agreed to do something so low" do you mean that no one in either organization could have been found to engage in an unlawful activity? Maybe some former guard from Abu Ghraib or a CIA interrogator from one of those "black prisons" in Roumania? Please don't try to tell us that it could not have been done.

"and if anyone from the administration had attempted that, they would have been caught." Caught by whom? Hans Blix? Kofi Annan? Scott Ritter?

"In addition, the europeans would have demanded to examine the WMDs found independently. So that was not a choice." You don't think the CIA could have planted convincing evidence? And if we had refused, what? They would have opposed the war? Please!

"No he could not have done that, despite being a bold-faced liar. The army and the CIA would have never agreed to do something so low, and if anyone from the administration had attempted that, they would have been caught. In addition, the europeans would have demanded to examine the WMDs found independently. So that was not a choice."

So the CIA would let Bush lie about the intelligence in public in order to get us into a war, but they wouldn't let him lie about the WMD once we got there?

"The single reason Americans supported the war was the fear of a potential WMD attack from Hussein. The country did not support the war because of the prospect of a democratic Iraq. You and few others had that in mind, but the vast majority of Americans did NOT. Thats why it took a big WMD-related lie from Bush for the war to start."

You may believe that, but I do not. And I know that makes me "naive" in your opinion, but I don't really care what you think of me. Unless you can quantify that assertion, I see no reason to believe it.

"So the CIA would let Bush lie about the intelligence in public"

No the CIA would not let him lie. In fact Tennet has said repeatedly that he had warned the administration NOT to use the reference to uranium from Africa in the state of the union address. However, Bush was not listening to the CIA. He was listening to his ingenius neo-con friends.

"Unless you can quantify that assertion, I see no reason to believe it"

Look at several recent polls. The vast majority of the country is now against the war. This is after they realized that there were no WMDs or any imminent threat.

"No the CIA would not let him lie. In fact Tennet has said repeatedly that he had warned the administration NOT to use the reference to uranium from Africa in the state of the union address. However, Bush was not listening to the CIA. He was listening to his ingenius neo-con friends."

Sources please? I'd like to see exactly what Tennet said, rather than your take on it.

"Look at several recent polls. The vast majority of the country is now against the war. This is after they realized that there were no WMDs or any imminent threat."

That is how you see it. My personal belief is that it has more to do with the fact that Bush almost never addresses the nation to give a status report on the war, nor do any other prominent administration officials.

Because of that, he has essentially left an information gap which his opponents are all too happy to move in on. They fill in the blanks, and the American people start to get dubious.

In any case, neither you nor I can actually quantify WHY the war is losing support, we can only speculate. But I am aware of the fact that that it is losing support--and once more, I blame Bush for that almost entirely, though not for the same reasons that you do.

Adam,
Do you need any sources to confirm that the world is not flat? What I told you about Tennet is a well-known fact and he has said it in interviews. I dont have time looking for sources. Ask Barry, I suspect he will be aware of that.

"No the CIA would not let him lie. In fact Tennet has said repeatedly that he had warned the administration NOT to use the reference to uranium from Africa in the state of the union address."

Is that George "Slam Dunk" Tenet you're talking about?

"As one famous european writer has said "It is true if you believe is true". Perception is everything. The problem with neocons is that their perception is far far from reality."

This is by far the single most ignorant and moronic statement made in this whole debate. Many white supremacists believe that the Holocaust is a lie. Does that make it true? Are you, Blue Wind, willing to stand there and say that because ignorant dumbasses don't believe something, they must be right? Perception is not reality. In fact, that's one major problem with our society. We've been told that what we believe for ourselves is true. Bullshit. What you're saying, Blue, gives people the excuse to hide from reality, and not have to face their problems. An idea like that shouldn't even be covered by the 1st Amendment. "Perception is everything." Face reality, and admit when you're wrong, and stop justifying your wrong opinions and saying they must be right because you think they are.

Hmmm, I wonder if Cheney sitting over at the CIA every day threatening, intimidating, and demanding that they suppress evidence, and, you know, all that outing of CIA agents and retaliation stuff ... well, I wonder ... no. No way. That doesn't mean that Bush would DISTORT the information. It doesn't mean that he ignored what was there and just cobbled together something scary sounding, you know, mushroom clouds and all that.

Gee, remember how they demonized Hans Blix, and compared him to Mr. Magoo? Guess what? Blix was right, Bush was lying.

Remember how they portrayed Kerry as a liar and a coward, wearing Band-aids to belittle his military medals, all the while knowing that Bush basically dodged the draft, and knowing the Cheney hid in school forever.

That is as fair an argument as you will ever get from Neocons. They believe that the ends justifies the means. They wrap themselves up in God and Glory, but in their hearts they are Chickenhawks and white collar criminals like Kenny-boy Lay.

Like their cowardly draft-dodging leader, Rush Limbaugh, they lose almost every exchange in any real debate where another person is allowed to speak.

That Guy,
You did not get what I said. I was being sarcastic when I quoted Luigi Pirandello's "is true if you think is true". I was implying that the neoconservatives have a completely distorted perception of reality and thats why they made such huge mistakes (in my opinion at least). However, you "perceived" what I said in a completely different way, further supporting the validity of Pirandello's statement.

No, actually, I completely understood your dig at neocons. My statement is based on reading all of your 'arguments'. You have based your 'reality' on your own perception. I find that your own statement actually applies to you more than it does Barry or Adam.

Now you say that you understood what I meant. However, if you read again what you wrote in your previous post, you will realize that you did not. Are you sure you are not a Neocon? Do you have distorted perception of reality? Cheers.

"Gee, remember how they demonized Hans Blix, and compared him to Mr. Magoo? Guess what? Blix was right, Bush was lying."

Was he right when he said: "He might be able to reveal when they were done away with. I am inclined to think it was early in 1991 or 1992." (source: BBCNews.com, December 16, 2003) or when he said: "The destruction [by UNSCOM] of all other agent and munitions took place at Muthanna from June 1992 to May 1994." (source: October 11, 1996 Report to the Security Council)

Which was it Hans? Was the stuff "done away with" in 1991/92 or was it destroyed "from June 1992 to May 1994[?]"

"Do you need any sources to confirm that the world is not flat? What I told you about Tennet is a well-known fact and he has said it in interviews. I dont have time looking for sources. Ask Barry, I suspect he will be aware of that."

Ah, Blue. Ever the helpful.

I wasn't questioning if Tennet made those statements, I was simply questioning what his actual wording was, because without seeing that, all I was going on was your interpretation of them.

And yeah, actually. I don't believe the world is round simply because people say so. I believe it because I've seen photos, heard various perspectives that all seem to be persuasive and consistent, and have yet to hear an opposing perspective that made any sense to me.

Likewise, I've heard enough and read enough to be fairly confident that you're referring to something specific that Tennet said. But unless I see his actual wording, I'm not going to feel confident as to the nature of what he actually said.

But hey, it's cool. I'll do my own digging, if you don't want to actually link to anything you ever talk about.

And so, upon digging, I find this.

"Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound."

So where in this can you find evidence of dishonesty in anyone?

You're free, of course, to browse the entire transcript and use something that I missed as evidence against what I'm saying here. Hell, you're even free to go out and find some other place to link to that might provide some information that would make it difficult for me to maintain my position.

But that would require a little effort on your part.

Hope you found my link helpful.

ok Adam,
In the same link, here is also part of what Tennet said:

"Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed."

and he continues

"From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct – i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

It seems clear to me that the CIA agents expressed concerns to the inner circle of the president (national security council), but only "some" of the language was changed. Apparently under pressure (my interpretation) the CIA agents "concurred" that the British report was "factually" correct. Again, is how you interpret things, but it seems to me that the pressure to include the 16 words was comming from the inner circle of the president.

"It seems clear to me that the CIA agents expressed concerns to the inner circle of the president (national security council), but only "some" of the language was changed. Apparently under pressure (my interpretation) the CIA agents "concurred" that the British report was "factually" correct. Again, is how you interpret things, but it seems to me that the pressure to include the 16 words was comming from the inner circle of the president."

It is debatable--hell, I'll even grant it for the sake of discussion.

But the fact remains that Tenet approved of the speech, as did his agency--the CIA at the time didn't think that it there was a distorting of the facts. It may perhaps be said instead that Tenet personally would have delivered the information differently, but I have already concurred that I don't think Bush handled his choice in emphasis well.

But the bottom line is, Tenet was not making an accusation of dishonesty or distortion.

"But the bottom line is, Tenet was not making an accusation of dishonesty or distortion."

I agree with that. But what he said is in a way incriminating for this administration. Again, is how you perceive things. I am completely convinced that Bush and the rest, deliberately lied and misled the country. I know you dont believe that, but, remember me, thats how it will be eventually recorded in history.

"I agree with that. But what he said is in a way incriminating for this administration. Again, is how you perceive things. I am completely convinced that Bush and the rest, deliberately lied and misled the country. I know you dont believe that, but, remember me, thats how it will be eventually recorded in history."

Hey, that's entirely possible.

But I ask you--what is more imporant: what's right or what's recorded by history?

In any case, I think we've both got a good feeling of where we both stand now.

It's been a good debate, and I'm sure we'll engage again in a different post, but I think 90 comments is probably long enough :)

I'd like to finish this thread, then, by apologizing for being at all patronizing or insulting--as I know that is sometimes my nature.

Thanks for putting up with it, and sticking around to hash out our ideas for a little while. Like I said, it was good fun.

Same here Adam. You are a good guy, despite you completely wrong "neocon" ideas. Cheers.

"That is as fair an argument as you will ever get from Neocons. They believe that the ends justifies the means. They wrap themselves up in God and Glory, but in their hearts they are Chickenhawks and white collar criminals like Kenny-boy Lay." (BH)

Hmmmmm, funny story, Ken Lay and the Enron scandal belongs to the previous Democratic administration. That administration knew the NEED for a strong and vital private sector. As a result, Clinton pushed hard for both Welfare Reform, a business friendly environment, and a softening of IPO rules at the SEC, among other things. Hell, executive salaries jumper to 187X that of the average worker during the Clinton, more than that gap had widened under both Reagan and Bush Sr combined!

In fact, the current Bush administration went after all those white collar criminals that had run amok during the previous eight years. In fact, one of the first things he did was sign the Oxley-Sorbannes legislation that made that kind of chicanery much harder to get away with...four years this past July and counting...four months, five months, etc without a business scandal like the dozens that were hatched under his predecessor.

Hey! Wise up and read up on some of this stuff. It's pretty interesting and it might keep you from making idiotic statements like that tend to make you look foolish.

"LOL! Well, one of you weak Shrub worshippers made a lame attempt to refute my statements by saying, "Hyuk! Durrr ... no, you are WRONG!"

If we went to war over U.N. resolutions, why does Bush try to couple Iraq with terrorism every time Karl Rove puts his hand up his ass and works his monkey jaws?

Good job, stupid.

Look, no civilians died in Iraq. All that bombing was pinpoint surgical hurting of terrorists. If Clinton were in office, innocent civilians would be getting hurt,and we would be bombing aspirin factories. But he's not, it's Lord Bush, the Personal Savior of the Sub-optimally IQ'd! Every bomb destroyed a nuclear or bioweapons lab. None of them splatter five-year-old girls as clearly shown day after day on television outside the United States of Big Oil.

Now stop talking bad about Bush, you're giving the Neocons a tummy ache." (BH)

Another round of inane comments that make up an idiotic attempt at an argument.

The current administration NEVER linked Iraq to 9/11 in their pre-war speeches despite Cheney's oft cited references to the "Mohammed Atta in Prague" story that came from Czech Intelligence.

The Bush Doctrine put America at war with virtually every nation on the U.S. State Department's list of "State Sponsors of International Terrorism" and that Doctrine was approved by both Parties, something like 99 - 0 in the Senate!

Some nations that had been on that list quickly capitulated and cooperated with the U.S. the way Pakistan did. Others did it later, the way Libya has done.

Afghanistan itself had NOTHING to do with 9/11 either...that much is fact.

Their "act of war" was to harbor al Qaeda operatives, defying America's demand that they hand them over after 9/11.

Iraq too harbored al Qaeda, as Baghdad funded and joined with the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps in northern Iraq in their fight against the anti-Saddam Kurds.

See? Now try to understand this very simple concept - though neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan had anything directly to do with 9/11 they became the primary targets of America's war on international terrorism because (1) they were both rogue "State Sponsors of International Terrorism" and (2) because they both harbored international terrorists, including al Qaeda members.

If only it could be argued that 9/11 was a "crime" and NOT an "act of war" than your basic premise that all of America's actions in the Mid-east post-9/11 would have been wrong and unwarranted, ergo "criminal."

Of course the "Bush Doctrine" puts any nation that harbors, sponsors, supports or otherwise assists international terrorism "at war with America." That is now, for better, or worse, the law of our land, thus state sponsored international terrorism is no longer seen as a "crime," but "an act of war."

JMK: I think a lot of the points you make are documented here.

Trust me, Blue, I'm not a 'neocon' (new conservative...wow...souhnds so insidious), buit if you will kindly take the time to look back at your past arguments, you have often made the point of saying things must be true because someone said so. Now tell me I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

Ahahahahaha! You walked right into that one, that guy!

A brief history of the Neocon.

The Neo-Conservative movement started in the late 1960s and gained strength throughout the 1970s and 1980s. It was started by disaffected members of the American Left, most notably, Norman Podheretz and David Horowitz (the former editor of the CPUSA funded Ramparts Magazine) and was strengthened and carried on by the likes of William Crystal and Charles Krauthammer.

The reason this movement came into being was that by the late 1960s the previously ignored atrocities committed by "Leftist," and thus "more acceptable" tyrants, like Mao & Stalin came into much clearer focus.

So clear in fact, that both those figures dwarfed even Hitler (in the minds of the Left, "the most evil tyrant ever") when it came to shear, senseless mass murder.

Moreover, those who abandoned the Left also noted an all too obvious pro-totalitarian strain among those on the Left, from backing violent and genocidal endorsing black separatists, to espousing the virtues of Mao, Castro and other "people's dictators."

Most true Conservatives were (many still are) suspicious of the Neo-Conservatives, who were largely former radical, atheistic Jews who now claimed to support traditional and Conservative ideals.

To their credit, most Neo-Conservatives have embraced Supply-Side economics, especially "tax cuts as a way to raise revenues," though most Conservatives and many Libertarians insist on tax cuts that actually REDUCE revenues (tax cuts below that 25% barrier).

Today, traditional Conservatives differ or disagree with Neo-Conservatives largely only in degree, that is, while traditional Conservatives still want to shrink government (eradicate the Departments of Education, Energy, etc) and leaving these vital tasks to local and private entities, Neo-Conservatives seem to support "better," or "more efficient" government, rather than "less" or "smaller" government.

Rudy Guiliani, for instance, is a favorite of Neo-Conservatives. Patrick J Buchanan is a favorite of mine and many traditional Conservatives.

For traditional Conservatives, there may be small differences of opinion between the Neo-Conservatives and ourselves, but they are largely few and often minor. So much so that one could almost say that "We are ALL Neo-cons now."

I suppose the Neo-Conservatives can take heart in that, just as they can take heart in the fact that America remains a largely Conservative nation, where people who consider themselves "Strongly Liberal," number about 11%, while those who consider themselves "strongly Conservative" number about 27%, with most of the middle falling more to the Conservative side of that spectrum.

In fact, the current administration's poll numbers haven't fallen on anything Liberal/Conservative issues (which would show a growing Liberal base), but they fell on issues in which the administration offended/ignored their Conservative base - post-Katrina when gasoline prices spiked, and during the Miers nomination. Before that this President's poll numbers were remarkably stable for a man who refused to articulate the need for and the mission of America's rightful war on global terrorism.

Just wanted to bump this thread into triple digits.

Should we try to bring it to 200?

Barry -- Is this software Comment200 compliant?

I hear that if a comment thread reaches 200 on Cynical nation, all the world's banks will shut down.

JMK: The funniest thing I've ever read about Neocons came from Lawrence Simon, in a post entitled "Ok, enough with the slurs against conservative Hispanics, Blacks and Asians. We need more slurs against Neoconservative Jews."

The quote that gets me every time is:
"But what about Jewish conservatives? I mean, there's the term "neocon" that's thrown around, but the moment it's mentioned you get ten thousand retractions and statements saying how they didn't mean "Jew" when they said "neocon," their best friend is a Jew, they married a Jew, they love Woody Allen films, and so on."

Classic...

Adam,
I have news for you. At least 80-90% of the Jews are democrats and in fact liberal democrats (just in case you forgot).

Adam, that's the real problem with the idiotic term "Neocon" - most of those who use it, especially those on the anti-Semetic, far Left don't even know what it means.

The Neo-Conservative movement was certainly started largely by Jews who'd become disaffected with America's hard Left in the late 1960s and early 70's, with some exceptions.

But as you point out, in recent years, Conservative Blacks, Asians and Hispanics have also been inanely branded "Neocons" by Liberal dolts.

People new to Conservativism may well be "New Conservatives," but ONLY former hardcore Leftists/Liberals are truly "Neocons."

Moreover, there is much variance and a lot of debate among Neocons from William Crystal to Charles Krauthammer, but largely they are more federalist and less in favor of States Rights than traditional Conservatives and more in favor of tax cuts to spur investment and increase revenues, rather than on cuts meant to cut revenues and reduce the size and scope of government.

At home they often support Guiliani styled "big government Conservativism" and abroad they support an American agenda of "Actively promoting American styled freedom across the globe."

Traditional Conservatives usually are more in favor of less government and less federalism at home and a more isolationist stance in foreign policy.

Though there are many many Jews who support the traditional Conservative agenda (especially among Orthodox Jews), there are many ethnic Catholics, some blacks, Hispanics and other ethnics who support the Neoconservative agenda, one that has ruled the day in "Liberal olde New York City" since 1993.

Lately "Neocon" has become some sort of epithet hurled by know-nothing Leftists, who consider anyone from Bill Buckley (an "old school" traditional Conservative who actually supports both the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act here at home)) to Bob Novak (a past darling of the REAL Neocons, who opposes the Iraq war) to be a "Neocon."

The epithet "Neocon" is the latest bit of anti-Semitism to bubble up on the hard Left. Coupled with the many movements supporting divestiture from Israel on many American College campuses, it creates an interesting portrait of the bigoted Left.

I may have walked into it, but my point stands.

Actually BW, about 80% of the Orthodox Jews are Conservative. Their political leaders, like Dov Hikind are also Conservatives.

True Neocons like David Horowitz turned away from the Left because of the horrors he saw in that movement first hand. A woman he knew was murdered by the Black Panthers because they feared her betrayal (she was a bookeeper for that group).

Horowitz has really turned his life around, from depraved, anti-social Liberal/Socialist to a revered and well respected, pro-Capitalist, pro-American (they go hand-in-hand) who has really contributed to the deconstruction of the radical Left in America.

This nation really owes him and those like him a great debt.

Yeah, it was great of him to destroy the middle class and enrich the mega-wealthy elite -- just like Jesus!

In other words, he is a disenchanted hippie who finally sold his soul.

Neocon = Jew = Anti-Semitism? Ahahaha, dream on Fascists. You will do anything to try and shake your new, fitting label.

I am a true conservative. That is why I hate Bush and everything he stands for: cowardice, greed, theft, lying, and every other form of corruption in general -- and that famous frat-boy mentality of his.

While I don't completely agree with William Buckley on everything, maybe 90%, I agree with someone like Ruth Bader Ginsberg no more than 1%.

I voted for Bush over Gore because I honestly thought Gore might be insane. But look at what Bush has done. He used conservatism as a vehicle for his greed. He is destroying the conservative movement. Conservative silence on his corrupt ways is hurting all true conservative. Conservatism is strongly identified with this drunken, coked-up, fake-Christian frat boy. He is going to take it all down with him.

Who will ever listen to conservatives after this BS?

Bush only uses the Neocon agenda to hide his astonishing acts of greed and treason. The Neocon agenda is just world plutocracy instead of world socialism. Maybe since the Jews thought it up it is just another attempt to take over the world ... by a bunch of Jews. You know how they are.

"Yeah, it was great of him to destroy the middle class and enrich the mega-wealthy elite -- just like Jesus!"

In other words, he is a disenchanted hippie who finally sold his soul.

(BH)

David Horowitz' conversion destroyed the Middle Class?!

That bastard!

So heeee's the guy, eh.

BH, I think you're as insane as you suspected AlGore to be.

"The Neocon agenda is just world plutocracy instead of world socialism. Maybe since the Jews thought it up it is just another attempt to take over the world ... by a bunch of Jews. You know how they are." (BH)

That's not at all out of character for you. A strong underlying anti-social, anti-human attitude seems to run through most of your posts here.

Blue Wind: It seems you have solid numbers on your side.

But I would like to counter your claim by pointing out that 78.479% of all statistics are pulled out of my ass in order to justify whatever point I happen to be making at that moment.

Just a thought.

Adam,
What do you mean? Do you dispute what I said? There is no question that the vast majority of Jews are democrats. I am sure you know that. Come on now.

Well, we Jews do tend to have this tendency towards groupthink.

How else would the diabolical international zionists conspiracy be so effective?

"There is no question that the vast majority of Jews are democrats. I am sure you know that."

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone started demonizing the Jews.

Adam,
You know well that what I said is a fact. Of course and there is no "groupthinking" and I never implied that. In any case, let me assure you that you are one of the very few republicans (

Adam,
You know well that what I said is a fact. Of course and there is no "groupthinking" and I never implied that. In any case, let me assure you that you are one of the very few republicans (

Adam,
For some reason my sentence was deleted. I was saying that you are one of the very few republicans (less than 20%). But we will not hold that against you. You are a good guy otherwise. Cheers.

Wow, 116 comments.

You folks know that there is a discussion forum linked with this site, right?

http://www.cynicalnation.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi

Psh, discussion forum. That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of.

We're not going to get to 200 comments with that attitude, CRB!

oh, and Blue: I was only screwing around. I don't really care how many of any particular demographic subscribes to either party.

No 200+ conga line of personal opinion can be complete without someone mentioning The Zionist Conspiracy.

I have one Jewish friend. He's very conservative, and usually Republican, but he still agrees with my views on Bush 100%. Bush is not Reagan. Bush is a lying, thieving cheerleader for the mega-rich.

I also have one Chinese friend. He says Bush "is not very good."

There, that's 100% of Jews and Chinese AGAINST BUSH.

Bailey -- You wouldn't happen to be the guy I saw the other day wondering around First Avenue near 28th street wearing nothing but a bathrobe and slippers, would you?

If you are, I'm glad to see the meds haven't broken your spirit.

How can you call Bush a cheerleader? There no way that he could make the mini-skirt look work for him.

That's all I'm sayin'.

Bush, in fact, WAS a cheerleader in college. Haven't you seen the picture?

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/1703988_comment.php

Aha, that's your boy.

You all know this thread will never make it to 200 without me, so insult away. I know you need me.

I don't know about that, Adam. I've seen pictures of Dubya in running shorts.

The red side quit, so I guess we won't make it to 200. The red side lacks backbone and doesn't have the character to see this thread through. They hate America, and they are against our troops. By not posting to this thread, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

We are simply exercising an operational pause. It is the blue side that cut and run like a bunch of girlie-men with tickets to a Barbra Streisand concert (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Boo-yah Red!