Comments are moderated. Please stay on topic.
Invariably, when Dems investigate Republicans the Dems end up looking worse by comparison. That's why the national leadership doesn't want this.
I say let the games begin. Heh.
Whatever you say, shitter242. It would be hard for anyone to look worse than this:
I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”
Oh, come on now d.jessup...don't tell me your gonna take Gen. Clarks word over an insider specialist (in what has been undetermined) like phooter?!?
Infuriating; another feather in the cap of conspiracists.
I cannot believe powerful Democrats would define their opposition in narrow, dishonest terms when there are countless other reasons why Bush and Cheney must be Impeached.
I conclude that our party fears how its votes for the Iraq war would look in Impeachment hearings as Bushco defended itself. Why take the risk, when leaving the war alone insures a political payoff next year?
Fat chance. If the markets tank for just a few more sessions, the certainty of recession; Bushco's lies about the economy; and its connection to the money pit of the Middle East War will yield the naked Emperor moment we've awaited for years.
When it finally hits us all in the purse -- and not just the Smiths across the street whose son came back minus a limb, nothing will stop our roll toward Impeachment*.
-*with the possible exceptions of an unprovoked U.S. attack on Iran; a false-flag casus belli; the sudden declaration of martial law in the U.S., or some yet unforeseen maiming of the U.S. Constitution.
I'd rather have a Congress in tatters than a bunch of rubber republicans and dud-o-crats sitting by as Bush continues to make mincemeat of the Constitution and kills or injures 700,000 more people.
Impeach NOW!
Doremus Jessup at 8:16 am
I saw that interview with Wesley Clark on Democracy Now!. I was less than impressed with Clark's performance. He does not believe in cutting off the funding for the war and stands fully behind the Army in trying to prosecute Lt. Ehren Watada, who has dared to point out an obvious truth, that the war/occupation in Iraq is illegal and immoral, as it has violated Article Six of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Army Field Manual, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Principles, such as Principle IV, which states that those in the military cannot hide behind the excuse that they were only following orders, and Principle VI, which focuses on crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humnanity.
It should be evident that even though Wesley Clark has become a civilian, he is still at heart a military man. It should also be evident that Clark is no friend of the anti-war movement.
I'd rather have a Congress in tatters than a bunch of rubber republicans and dud-o-crats sitting by as Bush continues to make mincemeat of the Constitution and kills or injures 700,000 more people.
Impeach NOW!
George | 03.05.07 - 9:48 am
Here we go, another exceptionally shaky talking point that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Statistics based on polls compiled by at least one Democratic office seeker, with a plus or minus factor of 3-400,000. More third hand information from a partisan group, issued for the second time just before the elections.
I recall the first effort at quantifying 100,000 casualties was actually a compromise. The range of possibilities went from 8,000 to 192,000. Oh yeah, that's real scientific. Heh.
shooter242 | 03.05.07 - 10:16 am | #
He's a killer. He thinks people go to heaven after they die - so it doesn't matter. You support him. That makes you an idiot.
Wake up, shooter.
With nothing more then criminal intent responsible for their behavior, does it matter how many Bush/co kills? 7, 70, 700,7,000 etc., et al.
(sung to the tune of "Sheena is a Punk Rocker")
Shooter is- a butt-muncher
Shooter is- a butt-muncher
Shooter is- a butt-muncher
Yeah!
He's a killer. He thinks people go to heaven after they die - so it doesn't matter. You support him. That makes you an idiot.
Wake up, shooter.
George | 03.05.07 - 10:23 am | #
------------
With nothing more then criminal intent responsible for their behavior, does it matter how many Bush/co kills? 7, 70, 700,7,000 etc., et al.
benmerc | 03.05.07 - 10:24 am | #
I've got bad news for you two. Every President is a killer, it comes with the territory. Clinton was pretty good at it himself, as was Truman, Johnson, Kennedy, and Carter. Are you planning on offering a Constitutional amendment excluding Presidents from defending the country?
shooter, please get off this thread before I ban you. One comment from you is enough.
He thinks people go to heaven after they die - so it doesn't matter.
Actually, he thinks most of the people he's killed are going to Hell to be tortured by Satan forever, and he STILL doesn't care.
That's the kind of morality he has. Completely depraved even with respect to his own belief system.
poputonian | 03.05.07 - 10:37 am
-THANK YOU
(the guy needs to get a job, or a hobby, or a girlfriend, or a LIFE)
Interesting.
I didn't even care what shooter said this time. I mean... he's gotten so off the deep end, sometimes I just don't connect with the propoganda he's flinging. Like, notice his complete lack of understanding of statistics. Or the complete dismissal of a large-scale, well-considered study simply because one of the people associated with the study is a Dem. Seriously, think of how unbelievably tight shooter's information filter is. It's stunning.
So check this out. shooter said, Invariably, when Dems investigate Republicans the Dems end up looking worse by comparison. That's why the national leadership doesn't want this.
I say let the games begin. Heh.
That's basically him saying Dems should go ahead and investigate. I say, let the games begin. Heh.
Every President's a killer, so says shooter. Well, in a way, yeah. But in a much bigger and more important way, no. And if anything, saying that "Every President's a killer," simply cheapens life, and the Office of the President.
Presidents aren't simply excused from taking life seriously. Presidents aren't allowed to value life less than other people. They aren't great because they're willing to throw people into a meatgrinder with a tough facade and no twinge of consciousness. That's not how greatness works. In fact, the great Presidents are given the worst choices because they value life, because they are often given so little choice but to act, and in so acting, they must sacrifice. The portraits of Lincoln, after four years of the Civil War, are testaments to the enormous sadness he felt, and the forgiveness he was willing to extend to the rebel states.
That's why being President is supposed to be difficult--because Presidents are supposed to have ethics, principles, morals, and a consciounce. They have lives, lots of lives, in their hands, and making choices that will lead to their early grave should be a terrible burden.
So, I don't think of Clinton as a murderer. He avoided wars. He avoided unnecessary bloodshed. Neither do I think of Truman, Kennedy, or Carter as murderers.
Others, like LBJ, I can see an argument there, but even LBJ cared deeply about the loss of life.
On the other hand, I do not hesitate in calling George Bush a murderer. He does not value life. He chose to throw away thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives, for the sake of his vanity, his ego, and his neuroses. He accomplished nothing positive, and all he has done is ruined what took decades to build.
George Bush, Jr., stands apart.
Are you planning on offering a Constitutional amendment excluding Presidents from defending the country?
shooter242 | 03.05.07 - 10:34 am | #
You think Bush defended "the country" by attacking Iraq?
Seriously?
What planet are you living on?
They made up a "global war" on terror to defend one thing: oil company profiteering.
Be realistic, shooter.
Unless you equate oil companies with the United States, we have a problem.
shooter, please get off this thread before I ban you. One comment from you is enough.
poputonian | 03.05.07 - 10:37 am
This is interesting. Based on what exactly? Do I get to answer questions, or am just allowed one comment per thread? Is contrary opinion to much for the group here?
The range of possibilities went from 8,000 to 192,000. Oh yeah, that's real scientific. Heh.
I've seen you get the smackdown on this topic I think TWICE before. I will explain it briefly and simply, you stupid fucking innummerate. This involves the concept of the 'standard deviation'.
Simply put, in the famous Lancet study there is an infintesimal channce that there were only 8000 or as many as 192,000 deaths. There is a huge chance (well over 95%, closer to 99%) that there were around 200,000 deaths.
I know this is more nuance than you are used to, since you are uncomfortable with any more than two realties to think about at once, but please try to bear with me and don't pretend you understand math that you SO CLEARLY FUCKING DON'T.
I must say I resent you putting my Rep. Inslee's name under a title "Dems without conscience." He's been on the correct side of all the issues I care about, not to mention he was the first to invite Joe Wilson to speak at a town meeting where the "frogmarching Rove" meme came from. I also happen to think he's right that tying up state and federal houses with impeachment garbage that won't go anywhere is a waste of time. Seems to me, the only way to get real evidence on the record so impeachment can procede in the future would be investigations, which are happening right now, but which no one seems interested in. After fighting for 4 years to get Dems in a majority again, it's only taken one and a half months for activists to decide they're not good enough because their pet issues aren't instantly solved. I understand people are dying daily, and will continue to do so, but really, folks, baby and bathwater here.
Of course, in my previous post, I meant "100,000", where I wrote "200,000".
I should also apologize for getting so mad, shooter's laughing dismissal of science he can't handle is infuriating.
"Yuh mean da Erf is round like a ball? Haw haw, mr. science man, I kin see fer meself it's flat!"
There is a huge chance (well over 95%, closer to 99%) that there were around 200,000 deaths.
It doesn't matter. If it were a million deaths, he wouldn't change his mind. One is too many.
"Cheney and Bush have killed and maimed more than 700,000 people...."
That is a lie. You shouldn't repeat a lie.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Jose Chung: Iraq Body Count only includes absolutely confirmed official deaths with names attached.
The higher estimates are based on statistical sampling. I know some people suddenly don't trust statistical sampling when it's politically uncomfortable, but we trust it for every single medical and product safety study done, not to mention things that do not bear on morality but only on cash like oil discovery.
The selective skepticism wrt mathematical methods is pathetic, it is indicative of a fear of reality that goes way beyond simply ignoring unpleasantries and into "2+2=5" territory.
Well, maybe you don't have much of a conscience either coyote, if you really consider the death and destruction of 700,000 innocent lives as someone else's "pet" issue. Inslee seeks to destroy Oemig's resolution at his own peril.
Yes, shooter one or two per thread. You are intellectually dishonest and disingenous. You need to study up on Jose Chung, who has never been banned from here.
Jill Bains and David Byron also present hard opposing views and they have never been banned. You need to learn from them as well.
The most appalling thing is:
The military cannot be bothered to record how many deaths they have caused.
"We don't do body counts on other people."
That's how little it matters to them.
I have no doubt Newt Gingrich would say - any bystander over there who gets killed is an uneducated moron who should have gotten out.
Blame the victims.
If they get blown up, it's their own damned fault.
"We don't do body counts on other people."
That's not even strictly true. They have pretty accurate projections of how many civilians will be killed by any individual bombing strike: if the number of lives lost as "collateral damage" doesn't outweigh the military's valuation of the strike, it goes through, and tough break for collateral humans.
Of course those figures are not publically released, people might start wondering how good us good guys are.
Haven't gone through all the comments, so I didn't see if somebody else caught this....What Sen. Murray and Rep. Inslee are talking about is the Washington State legislature, not the US Congress.
It is arguably a waste of time for any state legislature to do this, as it will probably have no effect. Has the New Mexico or any state legislation had any effect except to elicit grins from the punditocracy?
Our state legislature here in Wash. is part time, they have a lot on their plate, state infrastructure is crumbling, we have no state income tax, only highly regressive gas and sales taxes, and somethings gotta give. It will look to the residents of this state like a Democratic legislature is playing games while Rome burns.
Yes, shooter one or two per thread. You are intellectually dishonest and disingenous.
poputonian | 03.05.07 - 11:56 am
Excuse me? Intellectually dishonest and disingenuous? Hardly.
Snarky, yes. Dishonest? No.
For instance re: Lancet studies I refer you to this, this, and this.
You may disagree with these sources but they post quite enough info to back up my position. So, if you or anyone else have a problem with a comment I make, say so and I'll document it.
It's like the Democrats are sitting in a poker game holding four aces. And they're looking at their hand, and thinking "Jeez, all I've got is two pair."
And they're folding...
I reiterate my position, it is not the numerical value of some formulated death count ...7 or 700,000...
Bush/co's efforts in Iraq were premeditated, and contrary to his statement of no nation building under his watch. At this point it is well known that the case for this war was based on known incorrect data, and thrust forward by false flag propaganda and simple jingoistic appeal. By the way, as to your "source", why in the world would I take but with a grain of salt information dispensed by Wall St. Journal hacks? They are, as usual up to their eyeballs in blood at this point in time. Shooter, you and your ilk are the shadow puppet show of this empire as it devours the republic, and the democracy, such as it was. Yes, Pop is correct, you are disingenuous through and through.
shooter, be honest. You don't have the mathematical sophistication to determine which reviews of e.g. the Lancet study are valid and which ones aren't, so you pick the ones that are most palatable to you politically.
Isn't that right?
Roddy, or holding AKQJ10 (especially in one suit) and thinking 'I don't even have one pair'.
I start wanting to scream at them, because they come across as so f*cking clueless. They have evidence out of Bush's own mouth that should be used for impeachment (wiretaps, signing statements), and they don't seem to know it's there.
Shooter, yes, dishonest. You are, after all, the guy that tried to defend a Republican who skipped votes to go play golf by pointing to a Democrat who had missed many more votes. You neglected to point out that this was due to his Parkinson's disease (due to which he resigned his seat).
That's the height of something--either intellectual dishonesty or simple stupidity. We're frankly being generous in calling you dishonest.
As for the main post--if we do impeach, could we at least draw the process out a bit? If we slam impeachment through the House, it'll immediately fail in the Senate, and we'll be right back where we started. We need to leave time for Bush to fly completely off the rails and alienate enough Republicans for the Senate vote to at least cross 50-50.
The troop surge plan was the first time I had even a shred of hope that we might be able to be rid of Bush--when he took the rope the ISG was trying to throw him and set it on fire, several Republicans were shocked enough to initally make, "wow, that's a stupid plan," noises before reverting to form.
Of course, those same insane actions would draw Republican opposition precisely because they'd be disastrous for the country. I'm not sure which would be worse--two more years of run-of-the-mill bush incompetence, or six months of spectacularly insane governence followed by impeachment and removal.
poputonian has been right on the money regarding how the People can force an end to the criminal Bushevik regime, and about how we the People must do this thing if we are to preserve any shred of the Republic or restore any sense of national honor and morality at all.
And those in the House and Senate who continue to mewl that we mustn't do this can fuck off. And those who believe that States have more important things to do than talk about and pass resolutions demanding impeachment can fuck off.
Time to stop enabling.
Mentally, the Righties live in their own universe, with their own set of "facts", that is, myths that they sincerely believe to be facts. A few examples:
(1) "Intelligent design"
(2) "Global warming is not real, or at least not anthropogenic"
(3) "Tax cuts for the rich will solve all our economic problems"
(4) "The rich and the poor both deserve their respective positions in the world"
(5) "They hate us for our freedoms, not because our government props up their despots so US and multinational corporations can loot their countries"
(6) "Saddam was friendly with al-Qaida"
Et cetera, ad nauseam. The root of all this is: Starting in the 1970s, a clique of wealthy reactionaries and "neoconservative" propagandist intellectuals constructed a right-wing media disinformation network that took over the major news media, destroying its integrity and producing the Corporate McMedia. The rightists who post here are the pitiful victimes of that corrupt propaganda machine. They honestly don't know better. Much more on this can be found at consortiumnews.com.
If we, the sane, can gain control of our country, we must restore and expand the Fairness Doctrine (to cable as well as broadcast media), and use the anti-trust laws to shatter the Corporate McMedia. Selah.
You may disagree with these sources but they post quite enough info to back up my position. So, if you or anyone else have a problem with a comment I make, say so and I'll document it.
shooter242 | 03.05.07 - 12:31 pm
So then, if this thread were about the holocaust you'd be posting 'holocaust denial' links? And that would mean that we should take you as not being a disingenuous run of the mill jerk? Is that what you are asking for, Shooter?
Well, maybe you don't have much of a conscience either coyote
Excuse me?? Because I disagree with the methods to curb Bush's continued murdering of people around the globe, I am without conscience? Your method seems to be alienating people who would otherwise agree with you; how's that working out? Nope, no impeachment yet, and it's been a whole month and a half! Down with the Dems!!! Get a fucking grip.
As mikeinseattle says, we've got a lot of things on our plate, a non-binding bit of theatrics doesn't mean shit when people are struggling to keep their homes.
We are all working in our own way to fight the Bush regime, but it's becoming more and more difficult to side with progressives when people on our own side attack you for not mourning in the correct way, or not wallowing in guilt as much as you'd like us to, or we're not marching fast enough to make you feel better. I'm finding your attitude more and more around the blogs, and frankly, I'm not seeing much difference between the trolls and you anymore.
ONLY YOU, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, CAN FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH.
Shout it from the rooftops, 'cause if you don't, no-one else will. No cavalry is coming to the rescue.
Apologies for the typo in my last post; I meant "victims". 
[We need a goofy, tongue-out-grin smiley for times like this.]
Llelldorin | 03.05.07 - 12:59 pm
Shooter, yes, dishonest. You are, after all, the guy that tried to defend a Republican who skipped votes to go play golf by pointing to a Democrat who had missed many more votes. You neglected to point out that this was due to his Parkinson's disease (due to which he resigned his seat).
That's the height of something--either intellectual dishonesty or simple stupidity. We're frankly being generous in calling you dishonest.
I'm glad you brought this up as a case in point. Here is the original story about Rep Burton missing votes to play golf. So I wondered how his voting record stacked up against Democrats. You know my theory about how Democrats usually suffer by comparison. So this article lists vote missers in descending order.
Do you see the first four champion vote missers as Democrats?
Do you see any explanations as to why they missed all those votes?
Did you notice Burton's record waaaaaay down the list?
Do you remember that in addition to Evans I also listed Davis, Strickland, and Ford?
Does Evans illness have anything to do with Burton's voting attendance far surpassing those worthies?
So, Evans had a reason to miss votes. I'm sorry it's Parkinson's. What about all the other champion vote missers? Do you want to apologize for them too?
My point remains, compared to quite a few Democrats Burton does quite well in attendance. Trying to make me appear insensitive to sidestep an unpleasant fact is ad hominem at it's worst. You sir, are the dishonest one here.
No need to worry about shooter. He gets to PAY for all this just like the rest of us, as will his children, should he ever have any. He's just voicing his opinion, it's REALITY that shows whose right or wrong.
Hah, any inconvenient reality can be attributed to back-biting libruls in our own Dolchstosslegende.
We cannot afford to fritter away any more moral standing. By all means let's have investigations, especially juicy would be the wiretapping surveillance investigations. Exactly who were they looking at without FISA approval? What did they want NO ONE else to see?
But let us also be on record as being appalled by aggressive war, by the apparant war criminals we have deciding for us, let the record show that we protested to our elected representatives in the strongest possible terms, and sought to remove these tyrants as soon as their grip on our propaganda media was loosened.
I saw that interview with Wesley Clark on Democracy Now!. I was less than impressed with Clark's performance.
Yeah, there's plenty I'd love to argue about with Clark myself. However, I agree with Jon Schwarz - right now, I'm a little more interested in seeing Democrats demand to know more about the things he mentioned: war with Iraq being decided on as early as Sept. 2001, and that lunatic plan to invade seven countries in five years.
Kitt | 03.05.07 - 1:06 pm
So then, if this thread were about the holocaust you'd be posting 'holocaust denial' links?
Of course not. Would you?
And that would mean that we should take you as not being a disingenuous run of the mill jerk? Is that what you are asking for, Shooter?
If this thread were advocating Holocaust denial, should I quit presenting links to demonstrate the Holocaust was real? Holocaust deniers would likely ban me from the blog. How about you?
shooter Read your wall street articles and THEY HAVE NO ANSWER THENSELVES. Basically all they state is theie doubt of the other man's poll. Since NOBODY has any real numbers, it's another case of you getting smoke blown up your ass and running with it.
Impeach Alberto Gonzales!
Time for a complete Spring cleaning.
If this thread were advocating Holocaust denial, should I quit presenting links to demonstrate the Holocaust was real?
If you possessed links with statistical analyses that showed that estimates of Holocaust victims were too high, why shouldn't you or I post them?
It might be because the statistical analysis would be flawed, that the critique is not based on math, but on politics. This seems pretty plausible.
Shooter, I guarantee I can find statistical analyses of Holocaust estimates that are on a mathematical par with the links you posted critiquing the Lancet study.
If I posted them, would people doubt my motivations for doing so? Would people think that I chose to believe those analyses because of the political implications, and not because of the mathematical content?
Kitt | 03.05.07 - 1:06 pm
So then, if this thread were about the holocaust you'd be posting 'holocaust denial' links?
Of course not. Would you?
And that would mean that we should take you as not being a disingenuous run of the mill jerk? Is that what you are asking for, Shooter?
If this thread were advocating Holocaust denial, should I quit presenting links to demonstrate the Holocaust was real? Holocaust deniers would likely ban me from the blog. How about you?
shooter242 | 03.05.07 - 1:56 pm |
See, Shooter. You just don't answer a question honestly.
No blogger on this site would ever post that the holocaust didn't happen, and you know that. You also know that my question pertained to how vapid the links you posted in rebuttal to the Lancet Study were. You can't anwwer my question honestly because, as almost always is the case, your links and your dishonest post are fact free, which made it impossible for you answer without being nothing more than a dishonest smartass. Then you pretend that you have passed that off as intellingent conversation.
Shooter, why do you spend so much time here, anyways?
Oh, yes, let's look at that example. You couldn't really argue with the original discussion, as Burton's actions were indefensible. So, you decided to change the point to one that you thought that you could argue--one about missing votes in general. So, you did the minimal reasearch that such a subject change would require, and posted your little list.
Unfortunately, your research really was minimal--you're nothing if not intellectually lazy--so you didn't notice that you were launching an attack on a guy with Parkinson's disease (this isn't so much "insensitive" as it is indicative of poor research). Moreover, you did so precisely because you were ignoring the point of the original article. We weren't attacking Mr. Burton for missing votes in the abstract, we were attacking him for missing votes for a particularly absurd reason.
All missed votes aren't created equal. The entire point to the original post was that Burton had missed a vote for an indefensible reason unrelated to the public's business. Burton wasn't ill, and he wasn't running for higher office. He was playing a golf game, and so couldn't be bothered to attend even the meager schedule of a Repubican congress.
Non-extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts is admissible in federal court to impeach crediblity. I'm not "sidestepping" anything--I'm pointing out that we have more than enough reason not to take your lazily-constructed, feeble little arguments seriously by now.
Shooter, why do you spend so much time here, anyways?
Bribes | 03.05.07 - 2:40 pm
1) It's too cold to play golf.
2) I enjoy puncturing inflated egos.
I enjoy puncturing inflated egos.
You might try using something a bit sharper than your wit.
See, Shooter. You just don't answer a question honestly.
Kitt | 03.05.07 - 2:25 pm
Oh please. Did you really expect me to say... "yes, you should take me as a disingenuous run of the mill jerk."?
When you asked an honest question I gave you an honest answer.
About the Lancet study: let's be clear here. This was a survey done by professional statisticians in a refereed scientific journal.
What happens then is a number of political hacks working for a number of unrefereed "think tanks", who are paid to have the "correct" opinion, come out and say vague things like "Oh, I think that number is too high". They don't offer any precise, substantive criticisms of the methods used, they just indulge in smearing, character assassination, ad hominem attacks, and substanceless airs of arrogance.
The Lancet study was very conservative in the sense that it had an enormous margin of error. However, anybody who wants to criticize the paper needs to do something a bit more than
a) say "look at that enormous margin of error, you can't trust that study"!
That kind of comment displays innumeracy and a lack of understanding of what "margin of error" means. A larger margin of error is not less trustworthy than a smaller margin of error. It's just larger.
b) talk about other papers done in the same journal (which a lot of people do). This is an ad hominem attack, which is at best marginally relevant.
I do math for a living and work in the field of biostatistics. I do not, however, work in epidemiology and have not professionally reviewed the paper. But I do know enough about math, statistics, and science to know when bogus criticisms are offered, and all of the criticisms offered against the Lancet paper that I have read are without merit. They are plainly politically motivated by Bush supporters.
Particularly pathetic are the people who point to the Iraq Study Group website. The ISG body count lists only those deaths covered in media reports and verified by the Iraqi government. "Lower bound" doesn't begin to cover the status that this estimate has. If you think that every death in a war zone in a sectarian, lawless civil war is going to be neatly recorded, along with death certificate, by the government, then you don't know the first damned thing about war.
During the US Civil war, which lasted less than 4 years from Fort Sumter to Appomatox, it's estimated that between 600k and 700k people died. The number cited in the Lancet study is about that range. Of course, we are comparing apples and oranges: weapons today are considerably deadlier than was the case in the 1860s, but OTOH, disease was much deadliner in those days. Still, we need to keep in mind that Iraq is a nation without electricity for most of the day every day.
The ISG number for the entire Iraq war is about 60k. To put that in Civil War terms, that would be the figure for one particularly bloody battle.
Again, apples and oranges: people don't just line up in fields and shoot each other like they did in 1860. OTOH, the Civil War didn't feature ethnic massacres like Iraq has. (Or at least, if it did, those numbers aren't counted in the official totals.)
Basically, people who cite the ISG number as somehow being authoritative have their heads wedged firmly up their asses. The difference between the Lancet study and the ISG estimate is that the former represents statistics and the latter represents accounting. There is value in accounting, but to pretend that the only deaths that have happened are those reported in the media is utterly obtuse.
"If this thread were advocating Holocaust denial, should I quit presenting links to demonstrate the Holocaust was real?"
Oh, the irony. A man in denial of the massive scale of death in Iraq likens his critics to Holocaust denials, when that is exactly what he, himself, is up to.
Llelldorin | 03.05.07 - 2:45 pm
All missed votes aren't created equal. The entire point to the original post was that Burton had missed a vote for an indefensible reason unrelated to the public's business. Burton wasn't ill, and he wasn't running for higher office.
Oh brother. A missed vote is a missed vote. Are you anticipating that if I were to research the Democrats all missed votes would be for "defensible" reasons? You'd be among the few that would rely on the integrity of all the members of Congress.
The point was made that Burton missed votes to play golf. Big whoop, I demonstrated in one cite that missing votes was a Democrat specialty. You may not like that fact, but a fact it is.
shooter, please get off this thread before I ban you.
Well, whadayuno!
You'll notice that MY fat white ass is NOT in Iraq
Its cool when OTHER people do the fighting!
What do you expect from a man who in reponse to the concern for dying soldiers says...."make no mistake about it, I talk to famiiles who die."
And this is the leader of the once free world?
Consider this: 700,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed since the beginning of our military intervention and yet--and yet!--the Iraqi birth rate in that same period of time has actually INCREASED!
Does that make sense, or even seem possible?
The 700,000 figure is probably ten times greater than the actual number of dead. It's not even ball-park close. It is a lie, repeated by big-breasted arrogant rich Hollywood snobs like Susan Sarandon to fool the gullible little people.
The clearly intentional foot dragging and outright blocking done by the Democrats on the subjects of bringing the troops home and impeaching Bush indicate that they are signed on to the entire ruse that we have been presented with. Isn't it curious that Pelosi refrained from her "impeachment is off of the table" statement until *after* the elections were over? Isn't it curious that they seem to have lost all urgency with regard to stopping the impending war with Iran? Or that the Democratic front runners are the most belligerent voices calling for an attack on Iran? To hell with Murray and Inslee and their attempt to block every will of the people. If they can't aid us and seek to impede us, they should be shown the door. Move On (or some other big progressive net entity) needs to initiate a phone campaign to flood their offices with phone calls and emails to show them just how out of step they are with the thoughts of the voters that put them into office.
Oh please. Did you really expect me to say... "yes, you should take me as a disingenuous run of the mill jerk."?
When you asked an honest question I gave you an honest answer.
shooter242 | 03.05.07 - 2:53 pm
That would have been the only honest answer you could have given. You could have left out the jerk part if you wanted, but the disingenuous part,...there was no other way than that to have answered my question honestly.
This is insane. Imagine Gen. Turgidson from Dr. Strangelove telling us, "I'm not saying the Iraqis didn't get their hair mussed." As though one could draw a line! Such-and-so-many deaths are too many but we've killed fewer than that so my conscience is clear. Sick.
At least be fucking honest and say that you don't care, that you'd support this President and his bloodshed whether it killed ten thousand Iraqis, a hundred thousands, or five millions! I don't think you give a shit; I don't think Iraqi lives figure into your moral calculus at all.
Shooter, why do you spend so much time here, anyways?
I stick by my earlier contention that, if it weren't for people like us flaming him every day, he'd have no social contact with other people at all. You can't go through life without some kind of interaction with other people, and if the only reason that anyone will talk to you is to remind you at regular intervals that you're an asshole--well, hey, that's better than nothing. Probably it breaks up the boredom of a day otherwise spent only in eating and bottle-throttling.
Jose Chung : Does that make sense, or even seem possible?
Yes, it is possible and reasonable. You are not arguing from facts, you are arguing by rhetoric.
Birth rate and casualty rate have no reason to be linked, unless you suspect that pregnant women are unusually targetted or something weird like that.
Iraq has lost 10% of it's population to deaths and emigration now. If the birth rate figure is quoted as a percentage of population (you haven't cited a source), that alone is enough to cause the quoted birth rate to go up.
The 700,000 figure is probably ten times greater than the actual number of dead. It's not even ball-park close.
Give me any mathematical reason whatsoever to believe you. I don't care what Susan Sarandon thinks.
Jose Chung wrote,
Consider this: 700,000 innocent Iraqis have been killed since the beginning of our military intervention and yet--and yet!--the Iraqi birth rate in that same period of time has actually INCREASED!
Does that make sense, or even seem possible?
Yes, to both, Jose. You betray your lack of knowledge in the field.
Does that make sense, or even seem possible?
What doesn't seem possible, Jose, our little friend, is your continual disbelief of the hell that we've unleashed on innocent Iraqis. The original 600,000 figure was compiled by the Red Cross, this while Rumsfeld told reporters that we don't bother keeping track of how many civilians are murdered by our actions..."collateral damage", was the Pentagon-speak he used to avoid the term "civilian deaths". You do remember that, don't you Jose?
Poppy, just a couple off-topic things about trolls.
First off, why bother? Just ban the fucker. Either the poster is or is not a troll. There's no redemption period. There's no discussion about how honest or dishonest shitter is. No matter what, you lose when you go down that road. Ban the fucker or don't bother saying anything.
And that said, while I still read Hullabaloo many times per day, I comment much less here because of the trolling. Opposing points of view are fine but intelligent ones are few and far between (look what they have to defend). But trolling is just fucking annoying.
It's bad enough that there has to be ten posts to convince "jose" about ridiculous crap. Even if jose were right (which jose is not), 70k is an acceptable number? As someone said above, this recalls too much of Dr. Strangelove to be entertaining. And anyway, it's already been done.
Good point in the post poppy. Get rid of these assholes and let's move on.
Nope, no cavalry coming to rescue us, we're on our own.
if lefties pursue impeachment it will boost Bush's approvals thru the roof. Go for it, me hearties.
600,000...650,000...700,000 and counting?
These are made-up figures, they are imaginary, they are lies, and it is wrong to repeat such lies. In all decency you should not repeat them.
However, this IS a useful example to demonstrate how lies told about America, whether they come from far-left radicals or Muslim crazies, then spread and believed by the ignoramouses populating these backward countries hurt America's standing in the world.
However, this IS a useful example to demonstrate how lies told about America, whether they come from far-left radicals or Muslim crazies, then spread and believed by the ignoramouses populating these backward countries hurt America's standing in the world.
So the actions and words of Bush and Cheney have no effect on anyone? That demonstrates your ignorance, Jose. Or your gullibility.
Jose Chung, you have not presented the slightest shred of evidence that those numbers are wrong, other than your own incredulity.
Can you forgive some random internet person reading this thread for concluding that you don't know what you are talking about, that those numbers are in fact good estimates?
If you really believe that those numbers are lies, lies that are harming our country, it is your DUTY as an American citizen to correct the treasonous liberal propaganda and protect our troops. Present some valid mathematical/methodological arguments, and I will concede my position.
I guess the other possibility is that you think believing the "right" set of facts makes you a good person, and you will continue to do so no matter what facts or arguments get in your way. I would hate to think that about anybody, though.
"If we, the sane, can gain control of our country, we must restore and expand the Fairness Doctrine (to cable as well as broadcast media), and use the anti-trust laws to shatter the Corporate McMedia. Selah."
-(Ivory Bill Woodpecker )
-Shattering the Corporate media?
Ivory, you've been reading too much Jill Bains!
This sounds too wonderfully, shall we say, 'deranged' for these timid waters.
My only objections to this fine posting are two:
1. The phrase. "...we, the sane" is unecessasarily arrogant and perhaps somewhat inaccurate.It is offensive to impose sanity as a closed system, or as a line of demarcation.
2. The word "shattering" has the uneasy whiff of that sinister old saw 'eliminationism.' But of course, left wing 'elimination' or 'shattering' is, and most certainly can be (must be), qualitatively different than its fascist variant.
I have to second what's been raised in regard to Inslee, as he is also my congressman. If he is coming out against this move to impeach, then it is because he thinks that it will slow down the effort to end the war. He votes his conscience; and while I may disagree with him on this issue, I do not for a second believe that he made this move without serious consideration of its implications. Inslee has been against the war from the get-go, and he has earned the benefit-of-the-doubt from his constituents.
These are made-up figures, they are imaginary, they are lies, and it is wrong to repeat such lies. In all decency you should not repeat them.
Take it up with the Red Cross asshole. They compiled that 600,000 figure what, a year and a half ago? Did civilian deaths stop after that? No, they INCREASED in their rate of occurrence.
You owe it to yourself to check it out firsthand Jose.....after you volunteer to fight in the war you defend so often, be sure to drop us a note telling us how you've managed to control errant small arms fire to keep it from killing the innocent civilians that live in densely urban environs.
(By the way, if you aren't a "bot" of some college computer prof sent here as a spoof, you give a mighty good impression of one).
if lefties pursue impeachment it will boost Bush's approvals thru the roof. Go for it, me hearties.
Gorebasm | 03.05.07 - 4:49 pm | #
Why, exactly? Sympathy for the embattled President?
Endless circling of wagons by Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.?
Bringing Congress to a grinding halt?
Who cares! What's more important, doing the right thing, or sitting back while Little Lord W. sends ever more people into the Iraq slaughterhouse to drag out his doomed war?
We should impeach and he should resign and find a job he can handle.
Ditto on the quality of Inslee. I live in (literally, one of the corners of) his district and have found him to be quite a good rep ever since moving into the 1st. (Btw, he's also quite interested in energy issues, one of my "pet" things--was pushing the Apollo thing as far back as a couple of Congresses ago.)
Maybe ditto on the issue of other things needing to happen in the Washington legislature--folks above made plenty of good points about the mound of thorny issues we need to deal with out here--but I am also becoming convinced that impeachment is necessary sooner rather than later. So I feel kind of mixed about Oemig's efforts, and my opinion is morphing by the day, and along with JDG I'm unwilling to agree with Inslee straight up on this one, either.
--pr
As other commenters have noted, the Washington State legislature really has better things to do than debate impeachment resolutions. I live in Seattle, and the local situation in this state needs every moment of attention our local politicians can give. (I'm not saying that a state legislature has, or should have, no constitutional role in impeachment. I'm saying the Washington State legislature, right now, has much better things to do.)
That reasoning does NOT apply to Washington's Representatives in our federal House, nor to our Senators, all of whom do indeed have a constitutional duty to investigate any evidence of lawbreaking by our federal Executive. Since we have huge amounts of that evidence already, they need to get working. Perhaps they really do believe that they should govern in other ways first, but as a practical matter, the current Executive will not allow them to do their jobs anyway, so they should get right to their investigations.
I'll concede my "pet issues" remark seemed to trivialize all of the very important issues that are at once needing attention from the Dems. It wasn't meant that way; certainly not for the occupation of Iraq.
But I like Inslee a lot, so my umbrage was up, and I also don't believe impeachment should come before investigations - the more light on how badly things have been run, the better, as the Walter Reed story is showing. The public needs to know the results of this admin's policies.
I think the circus of impeachment (the media will make it one, I have no doubt) would overshadow all of the corruption and deliberate mishandling of all facets of government for profit the Republicans have indulged in all this time. As digby says above, the actions need to be tied to the consequences or they'll just do it all over again after the Dems have cleaned it up.
And I'll concede that Inslee probably has a conscience, but he put that fact at risk by intervening in this.
Oemig's resolution, by the way, calls for an investigation into probable cause, not directly for impeachment.
Peace.
Ms. Bains, I simply meant "We The People" should break apart ["shatter"="break apart"] the Corporate McMedia institutions into smaller units, less powerful as propaganda instruments, much as was done with the old trusts of the 19th Century and with AT&T a few decades ago. This, I think, would unplug the Right's Pretty Hate Machine [h/t Driftglass] without infringing anyone's civil liberties. I did not suggest any harm, or denial of liberty, be done to the people who staff them. Peace out.
When it comes to our two-party system, I think of the Democrats as the guys in a boxing match who are clearly the better fighters, but are nonetheless either paid off or ordered to take a fall.
That's why they never fight. That's why they fold in games of poker where they are holding 4 aces or a straight flush. They are a FAUX opposition party, meant to deceive the people into really believing that we have government "by and for the people," that Americans are "free", and that we are a democracy, when in reality, our system is nothing more than a plutocracy and/or oligarchy. They exist to channel off dissent, and dissapate it into compromise, inaction, co-operation, and overall betrayal.
Folks, it's a rigged game, and the only thing that will change it is a mass uprising . . . which, for a number of reasons, will never happen.
The only thing that will bring an end to this current madness, is when this empire completely implodes, or falls, or is defeated by another major power.
The Honorable Senator Patty Murray,
I read an opinion piece in Hullabaloo, one the Internet’s leading progressive blogs today titled “Democrats Without a Conscience: Undermining A Moral Imperative” referring to the SeattlePI article from February 27th titled “Stop impeach talk, legislators urged.”
I understand that you have asked state legislators to drop bills calling for impeachment investigations of Bush and against the troop surge in Iraq. I disagree with you and Mr. Inslee. There is nothing more important or more urgent than beginning investigations into the catastrophic and failed policies of the Bush/Cheney administration. I know you care deeply about our soldiers, veterans and especially our wounded and disabled troops. Please understand, that leaving the Bush Administration mired in Iraq and run amok in Iran will guarantee a steady stream of coffins and casualties. Please support our troops and make it stop.
If you would please be so kind and explain to the voters of Washington State how anything can possibly increase the current polarization and poisonous political environment in America today. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll conducted February 22-25 found that 63 percent of Americans cannot trust the Bush Administration to honestly and accurately report intelligence about possible threats from other countries. A Newsweek poll conducted January 24-25 found that 71 percent of Americans believe the Bush/Cheney administration will not have enough support over the next two years to get anything done and 58 percent of the people polled wished the Bush Presidency was over.
A York Times/CBS News Poll conducted February 23-27: shows 29 percent approve while 62 percent disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Only 25 percent approved of his handling of foreign policy and 75 percent said "things going badly" for the U.S. in Iraq. Finally, 68 percent said the US was on the wrong track.
Just last week, noted conservative columnist Ann Coulter, called Senator John Edwards a slanderous and derogatory name referring to him as a homosexual to a cheering conservative crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference. The Army Military Academy at West Point has asked Kiefer Sutherland, the star of the Fox TV hit “24” to explain to the West Point cadets that torture is wrong.
So please Senator Murray, tell the voters of Washington, what it is about the current political environment that you think is worth saving? Is this what you want our children to grow up with and listen to and learn by? If this matter is so important and the passage of the bill such a high risk, that a United States Senator and US Representative must join forces to intercede in the affairs of the State Legislature and ask the Legislature not to ask for an investigation, then won’t you please address these issues in one of your newsletters so the voters of Washington State can understand?
Would our children be much better served to witness their parents and United States Senators and US Representatives stand up for what is right and defend America and say this administration is out of order and wrong and it has to come to an end? What do you want our children to learn in ten years when they are in college or at university about what happened in America today? Please see the political cartoon at http://greenmountaindaily.com/sh....do?
diaryId=995 and please help us, the people of America, hold this Administration accountable.
From David Swanson’s testimony for the Washington State Senate Hearing:
“… we must impeach because if we do not, we will be rewriting the rules for all future administrations. The greatest concern of those who put impeachment in the Constitution was that an executive could needlessly take the nation into war. We now face a case in which the President and Vice President began a war in secret with misappropriated funds, intentionally misled the Congress and the public about the need for war, launched a war that is patently illegal under the U.N. charter and U.S. law, began the construction of permanent military bases in a foreign nation with no consultation with Congress and continued that construction after Congress forbade it. Through the course of this war, which US intelligence and international studies conclude has made the world far more dangerous and the United States far less popular, and which has put our great grandchildren into financial debt, the Bush Administration has sanctioned illegal spying, kidnapping, extraordinary rendition, detentions without charge, torture, murder, the use of illegal weapons, and the illegal targeting of civilians, hospitals, and journalists. Numerous attempts by Congress to temper these policies have been unconstitutionally reversed by presidential signing statements.”
As other commenters have noted, the Washington State legislature really has better things to do than debate impeachment resolutions.
The way I see it, none of us has the luxury of taking care of local issues first. If Cheney/Bush orders a nuclear strike on Iran, it won't be a minor blip, just another sin of these monsters, it will be the beginning of a very quick end of the United States of America.
I can't say whether that result would be a good thing or not, but it's for certain it would be traumatic clearly beyond your imagination. Whatever issues Washington state needs to address for itself, it pales in comparison to the murder of millions of innocent Iranians (and downwind Indians and Chinese, etc) and the myriad retaliations that would be directed against the US.
Impeachment may well be our only chance and your state is on the road to bringing it about. Tell Murray and Inslee to take an extended hike off of an abreviated pier, there are far more important things to do than what they propose, like saving civilization..... for instance.
Our state legislature here in Wash. is part time, they have a lot on their plate, state infrastructure is crumbling, we have no state income tax, only highly regressive gas and sales taxes, and somethings gotta give. It will look to the residents of this state like a Democratic legislature is playing games while Rome burns.
I also avoid the comments here because there's so many trolls and the trolls are debated instead of being ignored..
That said, I believe impeachment is nessessary not only because this administration is imoral, criminal, and incompetent, but they are also blocking money that should be going to the states to stimulate the economy, to pay for schools, and to support our troops. They are sending the money instead to their cronies in the form of no bid contracts; in short, they are fleecing the national treasury.
They are STEALING MY MONEY and I'm sick of it - sick I say!
Throw the bums in jail NOW!
linux gambling casino linux gambling casino linux gambling casino. secure internet gambling secure internet gambling secure internet gambling.
28 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
