Today on Blogcritics
Home » Democrats Re-Writing History? Where Are The WMDs Mr. Bush?

Democrats Re-Writing History? Where Are The WMDs Mr. Bush?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

liberal blogPresident George W. Bush is accusing his Iraq War critics of rewriting history and endangering U.S. troops. In a Veterans Day speech at an Army depot in Pennsylvania, the president said Democrats and other critics who claim he manipulated pre-war intelligence to justify war are flinging “false charges.” He called them “baseless attacks,” and said they send the wrong signal to U.S. troops in Iraq, as well as an enemy bent on shaking America’s will.
No wonder a majority of American’s think Bush is a liar. He simply cannot stop lying. It is without dispute that his administration lied America into Iraq. There were no WMD there as he claimed, there were no nukes there as he claimed, there were no ties to Al-Qaeda as he claimed, Iraq did not attack us on 9-11 as he claimed, the war was not going to make us safer as he claimed, and muslims were not going to embrace American imposed Democracy as he claimed.

For a proven liar to mount a “comeback” by continuing the same lies when time has proven them false is sickening. For Bush and Cheney to use the troops for this campaign style activity on Veteran’s Day, and to speak for them, when both of them ran like cowards from the front line is even more sickening.

The fact that many Democrats and other Americans once believed his wild claims about the need for a pre-emptive war does not prove that Bush was right, it proves that Bush is an effective liar.

Alpha Liberal: Recommended Diaries

More liberal politics at Alpha Liberal Blog, News, and Opinion.

Powered by

About Balletshooz

  • http://www.djradiohead.com DJRadiohead

    In the spirit of Eric’s wishes that we comment on the posts we read… I don’t agree with all (or necessarily even most) of your post but I also don’t want to get into any flaming arguments. I generally shy away from the Politics section (although there are these times when I allow myself to be sucked in).

    Anyway… I appreciate your taking the time to make your voice heard. I know many share your sentiments even if I am not one of them.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    Well, really lay your views on the line, dontcha?

  • Mark

    The intelligence, as every Democrat also believed, showed WMD and Saddam said he had WMD. We have found cyclosarin and other WMD. The others may easily have been moved. We have found enriched uranium, Iraq, as even Joe Wilson found WAS trying to buy uranium in Africa. So, no lies there.

    Well, yes there were ties to Al-Qaeda and terror. Saddam was paying for suicide bombers, his son was named as representative to Al-Qaeda, and Zarqawi was training and living there, with Abu Nidal. The 1993 World Trade Center bombers were living in Baghdad and traveled on Iraqi passports.

    Iraq did not attack us on 9-11 as he claimed. Why are you lying? He didn’t EVER make this claim.

    Can you see the future? We were attacked because we did nothing when hit through the ’90’s. The war is making us much safer.

    The Iraqis did greet our soldiers as liberators and most still do want them there for a while. They are adapting to Western style democracy quite well.

    So, maybe you should look in the mirror before calling someone a liar.

  • http://www.alphaliberal.com balletshooz

    “The intelligence, as every Democrat also believed”

    I guess you didnt bother reading the post. Bush LIED, Some Democrats believed him –not all. It is proven he hid intelligence he didnt like, so since he was succesful in lying to the Democrats, this is evidence he is not a liar? sounds far-fetched to me.

  • David

    When Bush accuses his Iraq War critics of rewriting history, lying and endangering U.S. troops, you can bet it is BUSH who has been re-writing history, lying and endangering US troops. A common Karl Rove tactic is to loudly and repeatedly accuse others of what they themselves are doing. No wonder 57% of Americans think Bush is dishonest.

    Balletshooz: “It is without dispute that his administration lied America into Iraq. There were no WMD there as he claimed, there were no nukes there as he claimed, there were no ties to Al-Qaeda as he claimed, Iraq did not attack us on 9-11 as he claimed, the war was not going to make us safer as he claimed, and muslims were not going to embrace American imposed Democracy as he claimed.”

    Bush lied and defrauded Congress about why he took the US to war. Read George Bush’s official Presidential Letter to Congress on March 18, 2003 to declare war on Iraq Compare it with what we know today that the Bush admin probably knew long before that date.

    Bush’s fraudulent letter was based on lies and other false impressions. These facts were all available to the Bush administration before March 18, 2003:
    – In March 2003, Iraq was not a threat or continuing threat to the US national security (even Iraq’s neighbors, including Kuwait, said Iraq was not a threat anymore; Colin Powell and Condi Rice said something similar in 2001).
    – Iraq had not been involved in 9/11.
    – Iraq had no relationship with al Qaeda and terrorist organizations (the major terrorist group in Iraq was operating in the Northern no-fly zone area under US and Kurdish control).
    – Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (virtually all destroyed in 1991 and 1992; the UN Inspectors, CIA and MI-5 interogated Iraq’s WMD program chief in the mid 1990s in Jordan).
    – Virtually all UN Security Council resolutions were fulfilled before the war (the few outstanding issues required only a few months from being completely fulfilled according to the UN inspectors).
    – The UN and its weapons inspectors said that diplomatic and other peaceful means had been working reasonably well with Iraq in March 2003.
    – To avoid war, Saddam Hussein had even tried to make a deal with the US before the war (give the US whatever it wanted including oil rights and go to exile in Qatar or another country) but the Bush admin rejected Saddam’s offer.

    Now the Bush admin is setting up a case to invade Syria and/or Iran. Who benefits most? Osama Bin Laden is sitting in a cave laughing. So is Israel, which has been encouraging the US to attack all three countries. The consequences so far are that the probability of terrorism has increased for innocent Americans and Britons.

  • http://redtard@hotmail.com RedTard

    “A common Karl Rove tactic is to loudly and repeatedly accuse others of what they themselves are doing. No wonder 57% of Americans think Bush is dishonest.”

    How strange, I had picked that as your tactic. Keep repeating the phrase “Bush lied” until all the left wing sheep believe it. By the way, you are doing a great job, opinion has started to shift against the prez. Some of your real loons even protest at military funerals and harass disabled vets. Not even Rush Limbaugh has gotten the right to sink that low…yet.

    The world goes round on lies and extremist propaganda. Isn’t it a great place!

  • David

    If anyone is still not convinced that the Bush admin defrauded Americans and the UN about Iraq’s non-existent WMDs:

    Yes the Bush admin lied on WMDs

    I have more information that proves the Bush admin should have known that Iraq had no WMDs.

    As for some of Mark’s comments:

    – Saddam didn’t say he had WMDs prior to the illegal US-led invasion. Saddam kept repeating that he didn’t have any, but the Bush admin kept claiming Saddam was lying. Saddam Hussein did disclose, in the fall of 2002, detailed documentation regarding the destruction of his WMDs, WMD programs, and offensive delivery systems as required. In addition, the U.S. government now admits that Saddam had in fact disarmed as much as a decade earlier. So, at the time of the invasion, the Iraqi government had already disclosed and disarmed, and was thereby in compliance with the major provisions of UN Security Council resolution 1441. Diplomacy had, in fact, worked. Who is the liar today? It’s difficult to say this, but Saddam Hussein has become more honest than George Bush.

    – The Democrats, who should have been more critical, were duped by the Bush admin. In any case, Congress was not given the full intelligence, which contained the dissents and caveats. The Bush admin further exaggerated the already exaggerated intelligence on Iraq’s non-existent WMDs. There were contradictory intelligence and numerous dissentors in the intelligence community who were shut out because the Bush admin had already decided to go to war regardless of the intelligence. The Bush admin failed to show any evidence that Iraq still had chemical weapons or any other WMDs for at least five years prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion. Rolf Ekeus, former head of UNMOVIC’s predecessor agency, the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), declared that Iraq was ‘fundamentally disarmed’ as early as 1996. Given that it was only as a result of the import of technology and raw materials from the United States, Britain, Russia, Germany and France that Iraq was able to develop its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs in the 1980s in the first place, the Bush admin was never able to make a credible case how Iraq could reconstitute such programs, as long as sanctions remained in effect.

    – Where did the US find cyclosarin? Are you talking about the one sarin chemical artillery shell that the US military found rigged as an improvised explosive device? That sarin shell is not part of a secret WMD cache. It is believed to have been a dud fired a long time ago, a single left over from the past. Remember that Iraq once had a chemical weapons program and used such weapons against the Iranians – so Iraq is an archaeological site for such shells. There have been many claims of sarin and other chemical weapons finds trumpeted in the news, but later all have been quietly shown to be negative. So many people still believe Judy Millers lies about chemical weapons finds. No hidden sarin has been found as far as I recall. What is the source or details of your story, Mark?

    – Even if chemical weapons were moved and hidden, they would be useless after a few years bacuse they have a short shelf live. So once Iraq’s chemical weapons factories were destroyed in the early 1990s, any hidden chemical weapons have become useless a long time ago.

    – Where did the US find enriched uranium in Iraq that was not under UN protection? There is no evidence of Iraqis hid enriched uranium from the UN in 2003.

    – Joe Wilson did not find any evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Is the Weekly Standard still pimping those forged documents claiming he did?

    – There is no evidence to support the Bush admin’s claims that Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda, and they were forced to stop using that lie. However, incredibly, Dick Cheney still kept repeating the lies for several more months.

    – Saddam had no known ties to operational terrorist groups in recent years. According to both U.S. government agencies and independent researchers, Iraqi support for terrorism primarily took place in the 1980s, when the United States was quietly supporting the regime, and had dropped off dramatically since then. No significant Iraqi links have been found to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that currently threaten the United States. The terror group that the Bush admin claims has ties to Saddam operated in Northern Iraqi in the no-fly zone areas under the control of the Kurds and US airforce. Saddam had no control over them.

    – Saddam did not pay suicide bombers, that was also a Bush admin lie. Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinians killed by Israelis after the individuals were killed and houses demolished, regardless of who the killed people were (most were not suicide bombers). The money Saddam Hussein transferred to the Arab Liberation Front – the tiny Palestinian faction that passed some funds on to families of suicide bombers – was relatively insignificant: it went to only a small minority of the families, it was less than what they generally received from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. What a charitable man.

    – What evidence do you have that Saddam’s son was named as representative to Al-Qaeda? All evidence points to the lack of a relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime.

    – The Bush admin misled you when they said Zarqawi was training and living there. First of all, the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers were not based in Baghdad, but in the far northeastern corner of Iraq inside the Kurdish safe havens established by the United Nations in 1991 and US no-fly zones, well beyond the control of the Saddam’s government. The only evidence the Bush Administration has been able to put forward linking the al-Zarqawi terror network to the Iraqi capital was a brief stay that al-Zarqawi had in a Baghdad hospital at the end of 2001, apparently having been smuggled by supporters into the country from Iran and smuggled out days later. Secondly, not only was the Khurmal area in Kurdish areas far outside of Saddam’s reach, but journalists who visited the supposed poisons factory within hours of it being identified by Bush Administration officials from satellite photos found nothing remotely resembling such a facility. U.S. Special Forces that seized control of the area weeks later came to a similar conclusion. Finally, Zarqawi and his followers established a presence in Baghdad only after U.S. forces overthrew the Iraqi government in March 2003. In other words, the Bush led invasion brought Zarqawi to life. Good work George Bush, you created a very big terrorist.

    – Saddam Hussein had Abu Nidal killed in his Baghdad apartment in 2002. At the time, Abu Nidal was retired and the Abu Nidal’s group was inactive for over a decade. Here is the hypocrisy: At the height of Iraq’s support for Abu Nidal, during the mid-1980s, the Reagan Administration dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism in order to sell arms and technology to Saddam Hussein’s regime that would have otherwise been illegal. So why is the Bush admin making a terrorist mountain out of a dead molehill?

    – Mark: “The 1993 World Trade Center bombers were living in Baghdad and traveled on Iraqi passports” You got me there. Do you know which bombers lived in which of Saddam’s palaces, how long they lived there, and whether they had real or forged passports?

    – The Bush admin may not have directly said “Iraq attacked the US on 9-11″ but they deliberately and repeated mentioned Iraq and 9/11 in in one breath to create a clear mental association. It’s the same beer commercial trick — beer bottles, boobs, beer bottles, boobs, sexy girls, beer, party time, beer… get it? Polls showed that the majority of Americans mistakenly believed Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

    – The US was attacked by Arabs/Muslims on 9/11 because the US has been attacking or interfering in the Middle East for decades, supporting Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, exploiting their oil and resources, putting in power and supporting the Arab dictators, killing 1.5 milion Iraqis with sanctions, keeping a massive Us military force in the Middle East, etc.

    – The war has not made Americans much safer. Most terrorism experts agree that the threat of terrorism has dramatically increased because of the illegal US invasion and occupation of Iraq. You just need 1% of the world’s 1.2 billion muslims and Arabs to be angry to have 12 million potental terrorists. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that Bush’s actions have pissed far more than 12 milion Muslims.

    – Initially, some Iraqis greeted US soldiers as liberators and others greeted them as occupiers. Within months, the US occupying force’s own polls showed that Iraqis considered US troops to be occupiers and wanted them out. In the poll of who they would elect Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein was ranked third.
    – The majority of Iraqis are not interested in Western-style democracy, they are simply trying to survive — food, shelter, jobs, electricity, etc. all of which have worsened since the invasion. The democractic process so far has been a sham in many respects, but that’s another issue.

    – The Bush admin is hypocritical about the elections. In 2003, the Bush admin tried to delay elections in Iraq but Grand Ayatollah Sistani sent thousands of Iraqis to protest in the streets and threatened to issue a fatwa against the US puppet council. If the Shiites pulled out that would have been the end for the US so that’s why elections were even held. Why did Sistani want elections? Because he knew his majority Shiites would win power in Iraq.

    – The US invasion and subsequent elections have brought into power a fundamentalist Shiite Muslim government in Iraq allied with Iran, and whose key leaders were exiles in Iran before the invasion. In Saddam’s secular Iraq, woman’s rights were the most advanced in the Arab world.

    Yup, the Bush administration is chockfull of liars who got the US into a mess in Iraq.

  • http://ezsgblog.com/vtdawson/index.php Bennett

    David – Comment #7 – YOU, need to start a blog and then start writing for BC. Or if you have a blog, get in here!

    My two cents.

    Great comment.

  • Bennett

    btw – Balleshooz – that animated gif is SO disturbing!!!

    :-[

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    In all fairness, David, there was an underlying sentiment that anyone who dared criticize the Administration would suffer from voter retribution. Most Democrats feared losing their constituencies and exercised caution by going along with poll numbers. The Democrats have failed America on a Federal level. The GOP hasn’t done much better especially when it comes to budget matters. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, denied an appeal by Democrat members to have oil executives swear an oath before his committee met to question the executives about rising energy prices. What is it that Ted Stevens has to hide? This is the same Senator who refused to turn back the millions of dollars allocated for that bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Anyone who thinks that the WMD issue is even vaguely relevant at this point is totally blinded by a partisan agenda which doesn’t take the best interests of America, the Iraqi people or the world into account in even the slightest way.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I don’t know why we’re so preoccupied with uncovering whatever lies were told to get us into Iraq. Sooner or later Hussein had to go. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that point. We’re there now. We’re invested in Iraq – militarily, financially and morally. There’s plenty of time down the road to assign blame, if there need be any to dole out. In the meantime, however, we owe it to the Iraqi people and to ourselves to finish the job we started and leave them in better political shape than they were previously.

  • TheKid

    If one says that Bush lied, and therefore mislead all the poor Democrates, where does that leave Bill Clinton’s assertions that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. two years before Bush took office?

    Saddam was identified as a threat before 9/11, and before Bush took office. There is a rather long list of U.N. resolutions and sanctions that existed before the current Bush administration to back that up.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Silas, I guess the question for some is whether going into Iraq was something we would ever have done had it not been for the WMD issue. But the truth is that someone would have had to deal with Iraq eventually, and it would likely have been us no matter what. Bush chose to take up that burden, and is paying the price for it. The unfortunate thing is that he’s being pilloried by people who apparently don’t acknowledge the idea that these problems have to be dealt with at all.

    Dave

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com alienboy

    Anyone who thinks that the WMD issue is not even vaguely relevant at this point is totally blinded by a partisan agenda which doesn’t take the best interests of America, the Iraqi people or the world into account in even the slightest way.

  • http://gkurtz@hotmail.com Dr. Kurt

    Some excellent info here.
    Many of us are glad to see Saddam gone; I would’ve given everything I owned for the chance to shoot the bastard myself. The problem, indeed, is the hypocricy and distortions. We armed and supported Saddam. We destroyed democracy in Iran (read your history). We should be embarrased by the actions of our servants, who continue to disemble and, in the process, bankrupt us.
    We could have helped the Iraqi people to help themselves – money, communications equipment, and weapons. Instead, we took their nation and their pride away from them. Does anyone really think that our ancestors would have meekly allowed the French to do that to/for us in 1777? Our public servants have shown stupidity and arrogance; we need to acknowledge that, and make things right.

  • Michael

    Here are my opinions:

    This was a “War of Choice”, there was no imminent threat to the United States.

    Saddam Hussein was “cooperating” with weapon inspectors, which given time, would have stated Iraq has not reconstituted its weapons of mass destruction program.

    Being patient and using war as A LAST RESORT (bush lie), congress and the american people would not have chosen to go to war because someday saddam would be a threat.

    In all accounts, saddam was powerless and was puffing his chest.

    Diligence would have saved American troops from death and mutilation.

    Congress gave authority to deal with Saddam, war as A LAST RESORT.

    We have lost the sympathy that we received after 9/11 to be seen as an imperliast, crusader to the muslim world. That is a complete utter failure by this administration to understand the world stage.

    And to use Vetrans Day, Mr. Bus, please make that same speech in front of all the families that have lost sons and daughters next time.

    War as a last resort, what complete bullshit!

  • voltairean

    Those damn democrats are always distorting the truth!

    Iraq is the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,”
    William E. Odom, Three star general and head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration

    Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us, and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.

    Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world have been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of Al Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed is filling up.

    Pat Buchanan Nov. 10, 2005

    “To this day I still don’t know why we went to war in Iraq.”
    Richard Haass, director of the policy-planning staff at the State Department

    “I can go through all the things we listed, from WMD to human rights to – I can go through it – terrorism, but I really can’t sit here and tell you, why we went to war in Iraq.”
    COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON, USA (RET.)
    FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 2002-2005

    “In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption.”
    Retired General Anthony Zinni

    “But he wasn’t really a threat. His Army was weak, and the country hadn’t recovered from sanctions.”

    “This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism,”
    Brent Scowcroft

  • Baronius

    In all accounts, saddam was powerless and was puffing his chest.

    All accounts except for US, British, French, German, Israeli, and Russian intelligence (and the UN inspectors who found repeated violations when they were allowed in).

  • David

    #8 Bennett:
    Your comments are very appreciated. Thanks. I don’t have a blog, because I don’t have consistent time to cultivate it. And if I did, I would probably have to write shorter comments, behave more cordially and be more facilitative rather than writing what’s necessary. I wish I could just start an occasional blog topic here, but I don’t think it’s allowed.

    For example, it would be great to start a blog on the US military’s use of chemical weapons against Iraqi rebels and civilians in 2004 (click link to see video). Or Winston Churchill’s use of chemical weapons against Iraqi rebels in the early 1920s. After all, that mother of all evil, Saddam Hussein, also used his Western-acquired chemical weapons against insurgents and rebels to his regime during the 1980s, with the Reagan admin’s acquiescence. He too used the same reasons as the US military is using.

    Or the use and impact of radioactive weapons by the US military in Iraq.
    http://www.traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_children.html

    How different is the US regime from Saddam’s regime? Which is worse?

  • Anthony Grande

    Any Repulican, Democrat or Libertarian who claims that Clinton had a good presidency is re-writing history.

  • David

    #10 Silas Kain:
    Silas, first of all, let me say that the Bush admin is the primary culprit who failed America. Most, not all, Congress people. military leaders and mainstream press who deliberately pimped the war knowing that it was unjustified are the secondary culprits who failed America and the world.

    Imagine your neighbor, a Mafia family, tells you that they want to murder someone named John Smith because he has been molesting children in your neighborhood. You encourage and support what the Mafia family wants to do and keep silent even though you don’t believe their claims. Your other neighbors also urge, encourage and support the Mafia family out of fear or because they see the Mafia family going to church and praying to God every Sunday. A few days later, John Smith’s mutilated body is found floating in a nearby lake. You and your neighbors all abetted that grave crime. Of course, the primary criminals are the Mafia family who committed the murder, and we should never forget that. But they can’t defend their crime by saying that their neighbors supported them.

    Regardless, the Democrat politicians abetted grave war crimes and failed their constitutional responsibilities. Before the Iraq invasion and before even the Congressional vote, Congress members were informed by Traprock and other anti-war groups that the Bush admin’s claims were at least dubious or even lies. Traprock used reports or dossiers written by Dr. Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge university expert who had done one of the most comprehensive and well researched analysis on Iraq’s alleged WMDs (See Counter Dossier II in the link). Virtually all of his analysis is proven to be correct today, which means the information was available long before the invasion. On September 30, 2002, before Congress voted to give Bush power to declare war on Iraq, Traprock lobbyists visited the offices of most Congress members – Republicans and Democrats – to give them the facts and truth (e.g., Counter Dossier II) about the Bush admin’s false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It’s open to debate whether particular Members of Congress believed Bush’s lies, or whether they voted for war for their own political reasons. But it is not debatable that they were clearly warned the Bush admin’s claims were lies and misrepresentations.

    It’s true that Democrat Congress people, if they criticized the Bush admin in 2002 – 2003, feared retribution from voters. American voters were brainwashed by the Bush Administration’s massive advertising public relations campaign to demonize Saddam’s regime and build support for the war. The administration spent a few hundred million on that psyops campaign on Americans. But it was also easy for most Democrats to acquiesce because they had powerful political lobbies lobbying them to invade Iraq such as Israel, certain mega corporations and ant-Saddam Iraqi groups.

    It’s a sad state of affairs: the US is a pathetic example of a democracy. US citizens have no alternative except the Republicans and Democrats, and Ralph Nader sucks. The US political system is more a polyarchy, in which two political parties serve similar economic and political special interests. Citizens are manipulated and controlled with public relations campaigns and a relatively compliant mainstream press that helped create support for an unjustified invasion that even I knew was unjustified at the time.
    _________________________________________________

    #12 Silas Kain:
    On the contrary, you should be preoccupied with uncovering whatever lies were told to get the US into an illegal, unjustified, unprovoked, costly, deadly and mass destructive invasion of a defenseless Iraq. Lies are the stuff of war criminals such as Adolf Hitler, and you don’t want America to be in that evil league do you? After all, Hitler used similar lies to justify his invasions in Europe.

    Saddam Hussein was a CIA agent in the early 1960s and was supported by the Reagan and Carter administrations in the 1980s. Whether or not Saddam “had to go” sooner or later is for the Iraqi people to decide, not the US through an illegal war of aggression. I don’t care for Saddam’s brutal methods, but it is clear that the US military applied as bad or worse methods in many cases, for similar reasons as Saddam did against Shiite and Kurdish rebels. Most people don’t even know that during the 1980s, at the height of his atrocities with US help, secular Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was considered one of the most advanced Arab countries in terms of health, education, social and women’s rights. Unlike most Arab countries, Saddam actually spent some oil money on Iraqis, partly to keep them from getting too unhappy. Today, Iraq is worse in basic necessities than even during Saddam’s last days.

    Let’s not kid ourselves that we owe it to the Iraqi people to finish the job. Simon Jenkins writes: “No statement about Iraq is more absurd than that ‘we must stay to finish the job.’ What job? A dozen more Fallujahs? The thesis that leaving Iraq would plunge it into anarchy and warlordism defies the facts on the ground. Iraq south of Kurdistan is in a state of anarchy already, a land of suicide bombings, kidnapping, hijackings and gangland mayhem. There is no law or order, no public administration or police or proper banking. Its streets are Wild West. The occupying force is entombed in bases it can barely defend or supply. Occasional patrols are target practice for terrorists. Iraq is a desert in which the Americans and British rule nothing but their forts, like the French Foreign Legion in the Sahara.” The unjustified job is done, and many Iraqis want the US military out of their country. The US military is simply mass murdering Sunni Iraqi Arabs for the Kurds and Shiites.

    The US may be “there now. We’re invested in Iraq – militarily, financially and morally” (you really mean “immorally”) but that’s not the point. The US needs to pay Iraq massive reparations, probably $200 billion, for the mess created. The US and Britain, as the aggressors, should be immediately removed from Iraq. Grave international war crimes of aggression were committed by US and British leaders and those people who committed them should be brought to justice under international law, just like the Nazis were. Responsibility for the country should be handed to the UN, which has far more experience in such matters. Remember Vietnam didn’t disintegrate after the US left, and still managed to climb back on its feet inspite of isolation imposed by the US after that war.

    The Job is Done: The British Prime Minister Must Accept That Most British People Want the Troops Out of Iraq
    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0509-26.htm

  • David

    #19 Baronius: “‘In all accounts, saddam was powerless and was puffing his chest.’ All accounts except for US, British, French, German, Israeli, and Russian intelligence (and the UN inspectors who found repeated violations when they were allowed in)”

    Iraq was powerless before the war, and Saddam wasn’t even puffing his chest. According to John Pilger: Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat – to America, Europe or the Middle East. In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: “He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.” This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public. Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of “containment” that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator – again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years”. America, he said, had been successful in keeping him “in a box”. Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. “Saddam does not control the northern part of the country,” she said. “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” So here were two of Bush’s most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government’s propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq.

    If you don’t believe it, you can watch Colin Powell and Condi Rice saying those exact things in this link to the John Pilger video: “Breaking The Silence.

    Before MArch 2003, the UN did not find repeated violations, just a few minor ones that were resolved. It was the Bush admin and the war pimps who were claiming that the UN found repeated violations. In fact Saddam’s Iraq was cooperating with the UN before March 2003, and the UN was just a few months away from completing their work. If that happened, the Bush admin would have no excuse left to go to war, so that’s why they pushed the UN aside and invaded at the time. UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal. Blair’s defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector.

    The US, Israeli and British intelligence were pimping questionable or false intelligence, aided by other European intelligence agencies. Almost everything they brought about was found to be questionable by other experts. Remember the forgered Niger documents claiming Iraq wanted to buy uranium?

  • Dave Nalle

    “Imagine your neighbor, a Mafia family, tells you that they want to murder someone named John Smith because he has been molesting children in your neighborhood. You encourage and support what the Mafia family wants to do and keep silent even though you don’t believe their claims. Your other neighbors also urge, encourage and support the Mafia family out of fear or because they see the Mafia family going to church and praying to God every Sunday. A few days later, John Smith’s mutilated body is found floating in a nearby lake. You and your neighbors all abetted that grave crime. Of course, the primary criminals are the Mafia family who committed the murder, and we should never forget that. But they can’t defend their crime by saying that their neighbors supported them.”

    Nice example. Now replace ‘mafia family’ with ‘local judicial system’ and keep in mind that the guy is a proven child molestor. That makes the example just a bit more accurate.

    BTW, David. I find your entire comment absolutely reprehensible – so much so that I can hardly bring myself to read it again in order to respond. It shows such a callous disregard for human life and such an outrageous distortion of the realities behind the Iraq war that I can’t imagine what benefit you gain from such naked, twisted hatred. Is there no distortion and attack from the extreme left which you don’t accept at face value?

    Dave

  • David

    Also see, The 36 Lies That Launched the Iraq War for examples of how the Bush and Blair governments misused the UN Weapons Inspection to justify their false case for war.

    Finally, for those people bringing up Bill Clinton’s assertions that Saddam was a threat before Bush took office. Yes, Clinton also lied to keep pressure on Saddam. Clinton’s illegal, massive missile attack on Baghdad in 1998 was based on bullshit reasons, because they already knew Saddam was disarmed and weak, and the UN weapons inspectors were about to say so. That’s how the Bush admin knew that Saddam was disarmed and weak – from the Clinton admin’s good work in disarming Saddam in early 1990s. But, unlike Bush, Clinton did not take America into an illegal, unjustified, unprovoked, aggressive, costly, deadly and mass destructive invasion of a defenseless Iraq. Instead, Clinton just killed over one million Iraqis, half of them children, with his genocidal economic sanctions to motivate the Iraqi people to topple Saddam themselves. It didn’t work, as the Iraqi weren’t angry enough at Sadam to want to topple him.

  • Daid

    Dave Nalle: “Nice example. Now replace ‘mafia family’ with ‘local judicial system’ and keep in mind that the guy is a proven child molestor. That makes the example just a bit more accurate.
    BTW, David. I find your entire comment absolutely reprehensible – so much so that I can hardly bring myself to read it again in order to respond. It shows such a callous disregard for human life and such an outrageous distortion of the realities behind the Iraq war that I can’t imagine what benefit you gain from such naked, twisted hatred. Is there no distortion and attack from the extreme left which you don’t accept at face value?”

    Dave, if you can’t bring yourself to read the truth, then don’t read it. The hypocrisy from the neocons and war pimps is incredible. When Saddam committed his worst atrocities, it was in the 1980s with US acquiescence and help. You want me to give you details? By 2003, Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t as bad in terms of its human rights violations. Now the US military in 2.5 years has outdone almost anything Saddam’s regime has done in any 2.5 year period since 1979. The only distortions and bigger disregard for human life has come from the neocons and war pimps who have pimped an illegal invasion and occupation that has led to the mass murder of over 100,000 Iraqi civlians. There is mass death and destruction in Iraq. Clinton’s economic sanctions kiled over a million Iraqis. George H W Bush’s first Gulf war killed over 200,000 Iraqis. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan supported Saddam’s war against Iran which killed over a million Iraqis and Iranians.

    Let’s try to be more honest, can we Dave? Is it possible. You want me to list what the US has done in Iraq?

  • http://whitesnow99@msn.com Patricia , New Mexico

    After reading this entire thread, I now realize how naive I am…but, can someone answer this question for me? Every step taken in Iraq meant to establish a democracy has only resulted in more blood shed and obviously is not being effective. Why are we at war with a country which has endless insurgency? The insurgency is NOT going away, and I think it never will. Why are we at war with a country consumed by islamic fundamentalism? Is it our right to force democracy upon every country whether they want it or not? Would it not have been more sensible and effective to try diplomacy (let’s face it, Bush had no interest in diplomacy)…and to spend those billions (trillions?) of dollars on homeland security. Please…won’t some of you pundits give me some simple, understandable reasons for this fiasco we are in?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, if you can’t bring yourself to read the truth, then don’t read it.

    I have no problem reading the truth, but I’m tired of having to deal with the same lies over and over again.

    The hypocrisy from the neocons and war pimps is incredible. When Saddam committed his worst atrocities, it was in the 1980s with US acquiescence and help. You want me to give you details? By 2003, Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t as bad in terms of its human rights violations.

    So an average of 500 murders, abductions and rapes a month is an improvement over genocidally gassing mass populations. I guess you have a point. Why don’t you go tell the families of the women raped and murdered by Uday and Kusay in 2002 that their deaths weren’t bad human rights violations. You need to spend some time – a LOT of time – on Massgraves.info. BTW, it was in the late 1990s that Uday had members of the Iraqi national soccer team tortured – some of them to death.

    Now the US military in 2.5 years has outdone almost anything Saddam’s regime has done in any 2.5 year period since 1979.

    You sure you want to use that time frame? In the first 2.5 years of that period he killed over 250,000 people, including 180,000 Kurds.

    The only distortions and bigger disregard for human life has come from the neocons and war pimps who have pimped an illegal invasion and occupation that has led to the mass murder of over 100,000 Iraqi civlians.

    Give me an accurate citation for that figure, because I know for a fact that it is incorrect. You’re picking up the Lancet figure which has been repeatedly debunked. An accurate figure for civilian casualties since the start of the invasion resulting from coalition action is under 10,000.

    There is mass death and destruction in Iraq.

    Yes, caused almost entirely by terrorists who are targeting the civilian population.

    Clinton’s economic sanctions kiled over a million Iraqis.

    Again, give me a citation. The highest figure I’ve ever seen is 500,000 dead because of sanctions, and that’s almost certainly inflated. In addition, those deaths were the result of the humanitarian aid money being misdirected in the oil for food scandal, which was not part of the Clinton plan for sanctions.

    George H W Bush’s first Gulf war killed over 200,000 Iraqis.

    The highest death count estimate from Desert Storm is 100,000 Iraqis, almost all soldiers, and that’s not supported by direct observation – it’s more or less an inflated guess.

    Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan supported Saddam’s war against Iran which killed over a million Iraqis and Iranians.

    And you’d have preferred that we support Iran?

    Dave

  • IgnatiusReilly

    “Anyone who thinks that the WMD issue is even vaguely relevant at this point is totally blinded by a partisan agenda”

    MEET THE PRESS
    Sunday, March 16, 2003

    Russert: What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

    VP Cheney: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

    This administration planted stories in the NY Times and then referred to newspaper accounts about Iraq to bolster their case. It is just as believable that they planted information that made the rounds of all our allies’ intelligence agencies so they could then say everyone had the same information. We have yet to hear how the phony Italian documents came into existence.

    “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
    Voltaire

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Did you catch the “at this point” in the sentence you quoted. Is it currently March 16th 2003 – I don’t think so.

    “This administration planted stories in the NY Times and then referred to newspaper accounts about Iraq to bolster their case.”

    Ok, so?

    ” It is just as believable that they planted information that made the rounds of all our allies’ intelligence agencies so they could then say everyone had the same information.”

    And you have evidence of this? You can prove it? Because the issue has been raised before with no proof and dismissed.

    “We have yet to hear how the phony Italian documents came into existence.”

    The questionable nature of these documents was known before congress voted to take military action in Iraq. In addition, the documents refer to the Niger yellowcake which was NOT one of the issues used as a justification for the war in Iraq despite what you may have been told. There is no reference, specific or general, to Iraqi purchases of yellowcake from Niger in the resolution authorizing force. Read it for yourself: link.

    Dave

    [Please co-operate with the no arrowheads thing, Dave. Comments Editor]

  • David

    Good questions, Patricia. You aren’t naïve. Most people were victims of lying politicians and a compliant mainstream press. I’ll try to answer a couple of your questions first.

    Patricia: “Every step taken in Iraq meant to establish a democracy has only resulted in more blood shed and obviously is not being effective.”

    Why has there been so much bloodshed?

    One, nationalism – many Iraqis consider the US as a foreign imperial occupying power humiliating and exploiting Iraq. Most Iraqis want US and foreign forces out of Iraq. The US has no credibility within Iraq and in the Middle East and the Islamic world.

    Two, the bitter divisions among Iraqi religious and ethnic groups are key obstacles to any sort of political pluralism necessary for democracy.

    Three, the Sunnis, who were installed in power by the British in the 1920s and kept in power by the US before 1991, realized that they were losing power in Iraq. The US was giving their power to the Shiites and Kurds using “democracy”, while killing Sunnis on behalf of the Shiites and Kurds.

    Four, the Sunnis and some Shiites such as Moqdata al Sadr don’t see the process as fair. They see the US was supporting those Iraqis who were willing to be US allies, while arresting, pressuring or killing those Iraqis who were against the US invasion and occupation. In other words, they saw the US as fixing the Iraqi democratic process to put into power pro-US Iraqis. Elections under hostile occupations typically aim to entrench the occupier’s interests. And so on….

    “Democracy” in Iraq under the US-led occupation is big joke. In 2003, after the Iraq invasion, even though the Bush admin proclaimed their mission to introduce democracy and human rights in Iraq, they fought against demands for early elections. General Jay Garner, the US general who was fired as Iraq’s first occupation administrator after a month in the job, says he fell out with the Bush admin because he wanted free elections and rejected a US- imposed program of privatization (which enabled US companies to steal Iraqi assets).

    It really was Grand Ayatollah Sistani, allied to Iran, who forced the elections out of the Bush admin by getting tens of thousands of Shiites to demonstrate in the streets to demand elections at the end of 2003 or early 2004. Ayatollah Sistani threatened to issue a fatwa depriving the US-hand picked puppet governing council of its legitimacy if the US didn’t agree to free and fair elections. Sistani is the most powerful Shiite figure, and the last thing the US occupiers wanted was a confrontation with the majority Shiites. The Bush admin had no choice but allow the elections to proceed.

    The Bush admin was more concerned about putting into power Iraqis who were loyal to them than picking Iraqis who would be the best leaders for Iraq. The necons in the Bush admin initially wanted to install Ahmad Chalabi as Iraq’s next leader. Chalabi is the person who provided false intelligence on Iraq and who was convicted of embezzling millions from a major Jordanian bank. That failed.

    Bush later said that the interim government would be picked by Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN representative, who spent weeks in Iraq consulting dozens of groups about who should lead Iraq. But on the day the interim government was to be appointed, the US struck a deal, behind Brahimi’s back, to appoint the CIA-linked Iyad Allawi as interim prime minister. Brahimi and the UN was not even consulted about this appointment.

    Iyad Allawi is almost as brutal as Saddam Hussein. Allawi’s group, the Iraqi National Accord, committed acts of terrorism in Iraq using car bombs and other explosive devices in movie theatres, school buses and government facilities in the early 1990s. Ex-CIA officer Robert Baer, recalled that an Allawi group bombing “blew up a school bus; schoolchildren were killed.” Both Chalabi and Allawi received money from the US or British government before 2003 to fight Saddam Hussein.

    The US management of the election process was another failure due to the US hidden agenda. Before the January elections, the Bush admin maneuvered to put into place a caucus system where appointees of hand-picked American appointees would choose the new government. That failed.

    The January election itself was a joke. Iraqi election candidates were afraid to be seen in public and campaigned from underground cells, with many afraid to even link their names to their faces in the media. There were no public rallies where voters might learn about candidates. One voter told CNN that he would prefer to vote for singer George Michael, since he knows more about him than any of the election candidates.
    __________________________________

    Patricia: “Would it not have been more sensible and effective to try diplomacy (let’s face it, Bush had no interest in diplomacy)…and to spend those billions (trillions?) of dollars on homeland security.”

    Diplomacy with Iraq was actually effective. The UN was successful in the fall of 2002 in getting Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to return and have access to anywhere they wanted to go. Saddam Hussein did disclose, in the fall of 2002, detailed documentation regarding the destruction of his WMDs, WMD programs, and offensive delivery systems as required. In addition, the U.S. government now admits that he had in fact disarmed Iraq as much as a decade earlier.

    Beginning in late 2002 until the US forced them out in anticipation of the invasion, the UN weapons inspectors did not report any systematic deception by the Iraqis of UN inspectors. So, at the time of the invasion, the Iraqi government had already disclosed and disarmed, and was thereby in compliance with the major provisions of UN Security Council resolution 1441.

    In addition, Saddam was even willing to make a deal to leave Iraq and go to exile in another country, allow CIA WMD inspectors into Iraq, sell oil at special prices to the US, etc., but the Bush admin rejected his offers (even though Bush publicly demanded Saddam’s exile). The US even bugged and spied on the UN officials and used the information to hinder UN diplomacy.

    The Bush admin lied that diplomacy did not work and did everything possible to thwart diplomacy so the US could invade Iraq. It is now well-known that Bush had decided to invade Iraq long before going to the United Nations. The Bush administration tried to use “diplomacy” to create a war out of thin air, making no attempt to negotiate with Iraq. In fact, as Iraq made concession after concession – as it became increasingly clear that whatever pitiful weapons Iraq had could be found if UN inspections were allowed to continue – the Bush administration’s attempts to strong-arm other countries into supporting the war became increasingly coercive.

    It would have been far more effective to spend the $200 billion wasted on the Iraq war on homeland security. Even better, had the Bush admin invested part of that money in helping people in Arab-Muslim countries and changed US foreign policies toward such countries, it would have cut the legs of anti-US terrorism from those areas. The biggest complaint from Arabs and Muslims is US foreign policies, and even President Eisenhower knew about this issue in the 1950s.

    I’ll try to answer your other questions tomorrow.
    _______________________________________

    Don’t worry Dave Nalle, I haven’t forgotten you. Will correct your bad facts in post #28 tommorrow. You rehashed mostly dubious and discredited claims used to justify the invasion.

    Btw, regarding your attempt to deflect from the issue: “Anyone who thinks that the WMD issue is even vaguely relevant at this point is totally blinded by a partisan agenda”

    Why? It’s called ACCOUNTABILITY in a democracy. See my post in #5. The Bush admin brazenly misled Congress about its reasons for invading Iraq, a serious crime, as well as misled the American people. Americans need to know that their leaders aren’t going to lie again and break international law again. Only Bush partisans are scared of the truth revealing them to have lied and misled America, and therefore have a partisan agenda to cover up the truth.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    After reading this entire thread, I now realize how naive I am…but, can someone answer this question for me? Every step taken in Iraq meant to establish a democracy has only resulted in more blood shed and obviously is not being effective.

    This is because we have created a situation where they have to fight us or fail. If we succeed in freeing and democratizing Iraq then radical Islam loses legitimacy with the Arab people, many of whom are looking for an excuse to move in a more moderate direction.

    Why are we at war with a country which has endless insurgency? The insurgency is NOT going away, and I think it never will.

    Iraq doesn’t HAVE an insurgency at all. What we have in Iraq is an effort by external extremist forces who are in league with the remnants of the old regime to bully the Iraqi people into submission as part of an effort to fight the United States and block us from changing the political patterns in the region.

    Why are we at war with a country consumed by islamic fundamentalism?

    Do you mean Iran or Afghanistan here? Iraq is a mostly secular not highly fundamentalist society, with the exception of small minority groups. That’s the one positive legacy of Saddam’s rule.

    Is it our right to force democracy upon every country whether they want it or not?

    We’re not forcing anything on them. We’re using democracy as a fair way to allow them to pick their own form of government. And this is being done under the oversight and guidance of a UN sponsored electoral group, not the US.

    Would it not have been more sensible and effective to try diplomacy (let’s face it, Bush had no interest in diplomacy)

    What Diplomacy? It was impossible to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. Nothing we could offer was enough for him, and we couldn’t give him the things he’d actually want. Plus he wasn’t about to remove himself from power. You were right earlier when you said you were naive.

    …and to spend those billions (trillions?) of dollars on homeland security.

    Like taking away more of our rights with the Patriot Act and stronger enforcement to go with it. No thanks.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Don’t worry Dave Nalle, I haven’t forgotten you. Will correct your bad facts in post #28 tommorrow. You rehashed mostly dubious and discredited claim used to justify the invasion.

    LOL, every word I posted is backed by actual documentary evidence. I’m eager to see the proof to back up some of your laughable claims.

    Btw, regarding your attempt to deflect from the issue: “Anyone who thinks that the WMD issue is even vaguely relevant at this point is totally blinded by a partisan agenda”

    Why? It’s called ACCOUNTABILITY in a democracy. See my post in #5.

    Fine then, hold him accountable – if you can prove intent, which you can’t. Accountability for past actions is entirely separate from the curren situation.

    The Bush admin brazenly misled Congress about its reasons for invading Iraq, a serious crime, as well as misled the American people. Americans need to know that their leaders aren’t going to lie again and break international law again.

    Ok, let’s see some evidence of deliberate lies. I’m tired of partisan strifemongers trotting out the ‘bush lied’ cannard and then never being able to follow it up with any concrete evidence. All Bush did was present a case for the invasion to the congress and with access to his recommendations and to all the sources he used, they decided to authorize him to act. Yes, Bush made his case more effective by presenting mostly supporting data. That’s what you do when trying to sell something. But the other info was out there. As you yourself pointed out, Congress had access to lots of other opinions on the facts. Read the actual resolution I cited before sometime. Very little of it is based on the belief that Iraq had active clearly demonstrated WMD programs. It’s based on Iraq’s unwillingness to commit to stopping all WMD research and cooperate with the UN and in particular it’s based on the 1998 resolution on Iraq passed by congress under Bill Clinton.

    Oh, and I’ll deal with your deceptive and ill-informed responses to Patricia later as well.

    Dave

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are in the Middle East. Condie Rice and Hillary are speaking at a service for Rabin in Israel. The Clintons have toured the Radisson in Aaman, Jordan today. Ladies and Gentlemen, President Clinton is now consolidating her support in the Middle East.

    I’m with Dave on accountability. We have little or no accountability for politicians in America. All this crap about God in the classroom; traditional family values and other fundamentalist dreck cannot be achieved without first making accountability and personal responsibility the priority.

  • troll

    Dave Nalle: *Give me an accurate citation for that figure [100,000 civilian dead], because I know for a fact that it is incorrect. You’re picking up the Lancet figure which has been repeatedly debunked. An accurate figure for civilian casualties since the start of the invasion resulting from coalition action is under 10,000.*

    the Lancet work has not been ‘debunked’ if by that you mean ‘proved false’ and Roberts’ data remain to be explained – the study needs to be replicated before we can draw any conclusion legitimately

    until then…prejudice rules

    troll

  • Nancy

    Soooo…in the end we get right back to my basic question, which is always, HOW do we go about forcing politicians to be accountable – besides voting them out, which they have managed to hedge to the point that it is virtually impossible to dislodge an incumbent these days? If you suggest the congressional oversight committee, I just might laugh to death.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    the Lancet work has not been ‘debunked’ if by that you mean ‘proved false’ and Roberts’ data remain to be explained – the study needs to be replicated before we can draw any conclusion legitimately

    The methodology has been demonstrated to be so inexact as to be worthless, so the study isn’t much use. The result they got was laughable – somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 casualties? How is that any kind of accurate result? And just taking that top number and dividing it in half doesn’t make a believable result either. Plus it’s a statistical extrapolation based on a very limited number of selected cities and not including a full representation of areas where death counts have been low, so the result is massively inflated. It’s a joke and the fact that the left has latched on to it and takes it seriously and tries to actually use it is very revealing of their agenda.

    Dave

  • http://whitesnow99@msn.com Patricia , New Mexico

    David & Dave…After reading comments from both of you I know I must read them again and again to clear my mind….even though it is obvious to me that David is more objective. Yes, Dave, I am somewhat naive, but not so naive that I can’t see that Bush had no earthly idea what the consequences of this war would be, nor how we would win it. His “mission accomplished” show is proof of just how uninformed and ignorant he is as well as uncaring. Sending our troops to war with inadequate armor just tells me he doesn’t give a damn how many young men and women die. One more question – do you think we can win this war?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I would suggest that David is only ‘more objective’ because he agrees with your position.

    His “mission accomplished” show is proof of just how uninformed and ignorant he is as well as uncaring.

    You are basically repeating propaganda you’ve been spoon fed by the left. The “Mission Accomplished” banner referred to the active military phase of combat associated with the invasion of Iraq. At the time that mission had been accomplished, and it made perfect sense. Taking it out of that context is deceptive and disingenuous and typical of the disinformation spread by the left.

    Sending our troops to war with inadequate armor just tells me he doesn’t give a damn how many young men and women die.

    There you go again, imputing motives to an action over which he had little or no control. The soldiers had armor, they just didn’t have the new generation of armor which had not been deployed yet. The pentagon made the decision to deploy the troops rather than wait for the armor because the armor was not available. You make it sound like Bush took away their armor or refused to let them have armor. He sent them with the best that was available at the time.

    One more question – do you think we can win this war?

    The war as a war was over more than 18 months ago. There is no longer a war as such, there’s just a country with a high level of terrorist activity. How that situation is resolved depends on our ability to help the Iraqis suppress the terrorists so Iraq can continue on their path towards building a government and providing for its own defense. It is a situation where the only way we could lose would be if we were to cut and run before the inevitable objective of a fully functional self-maintaining government is achieved.

    Dave

  • David

    LOL. Dave Nalle, I would suggest that David is only ‘more objective’ because he uses sound arguments and facts, while you have to resort to personally attacking David because you don’t have good arguments or facts.

    You’re using the same old exaggerated and false information used to hype the case for war. Do you realize that most of the Bush admin, except for a few brazen liars like Cheney, have stopped repeating those lies nowadays? Why do you think? Yet some people are still willing to play the gopher role of Scotty McClellan, defending those liars who got Americans into this fraudulent war. Can I make it any more objective than that?

    Now to something more productive — Patricia’s intelligent questions — before I correct your bad arguments and facts.
    ___________________________

    #27 Patricia: “Why are we at war with a country which has endless insurgency? The insurgency is NOT going away, and I think it never will.”

    The Bush admin is essentially trying to put down a nationalist, home-grown insurgency that resists US control and occupation of Iraq through its Iraqi allies

    There was no large-scale insurgency in Iraq until after the US invaded in March 2003. The insurgency and terrorist violence which followed was a reaction to that foreign invasion and occupation of their country. Most of the insurgents are local Iraqis, mainly Sunnis, who conduct thousands of attacks each month.

    Most experts, except Bush, believe that only a small percentage of the resistance against U.S. forces in Iraq are foreign fighters who had come from various Islamic countries, including the mysterious Abu Musab al Zaqawi’s “Monotheism and Holy War” group (what the Bush admin calls al Qaeda in Iraq).

    Most foreign fighters did not come to Iraq to die so as to “fight the advance of peace and freedom.” Foreign fighters are in Iraq for the reason many foreign fighters were in Afghanistan during the 1980s: to repel a foreign army which had invaded an Islamic country, overthrown its government, and set up a new regime that the foreign US occupier hoped would be more compliant with US strategic and economic interests.

    Bush’s rhetoric is to make a stand in Iraq and defeat the terrorists (Bush’s invasion created) in Iraq “before they attack us at home.” This is a similar to the long-discredited slogan during the 1960s and 1970s used to justify the Vietnam war: “If we don’t fight them over there, we will have to fight them here.” Not once in the 30 years since the North Vietnamese marched into Saigon has the US had to fight the Vietnamese or any other Communists on US soil. The Vietnamese stopped killing Americans when foreign US soldiers left their country.

    Presumably, Iraqis would also do the same, especially if the US gets out now, apologizes sincerely to Iraqis, gives massive reparations for the death and destruction, and prosecutes the war criminals who led this illegal invasion.

    Based on Iraq’s history, the Iraqi insurgency would probably also dissipate. Further US interference in the snowballing mess it created will only make things worse. Regardless, there is unlikely to be a civil war in Iraq. Iraq has never had a civil war.

    Yet, In 1920, British Prime Minister Lloyd George warned of civil war in Iraq if the British Military left Iraq, just as the Bush admin now threatens Iraq with civil war if they leave. Iraq is not a sectarian state; it is a tribal nation. Iraqi men and women marry by religion (e.g., Sunnis and Shiites inter-marry) rather than by affiliation.

    In the meantime, many other countries are quite content to see US power weaken fighting in this Iraq quagmire. They are hoping that this would discourage the US from pursuing it’s neocon-imperialist plans in the Middle East – invading Syria, Iran, etc.
    _______________________________________

    Patricia: “Why are we at war with a country consumed by islamic fundamentalism?”

    You can thank George Bush for the Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq today. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was relatively secular before the US invaded. Saddam was very concerned about Islamic fundamentalists because it threatened his power, so he kept them in check. In particular, he didn’t want the Sunni-based al Qaeda to infiltrate his military.

    There was virtually no fanatical Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism,or organized groups affiliated with al-Qaida and like-minded Sunni Islamist extremists in Iraq until nearly two years after the 9/11 attacks on the United States (i.e., after the Iraq invasion). The rise of radical movements and large-scale terrorism in Iraq was a direct consequence of the U.S. invasion and the overthrow of Iraq’s long secular nationalist government.

    Imagine if the US was invaded and occupied by Muslim armies led by Osamam bin Laden. Christian fundamentalism would be the glue to motivate many Americans to attack the Muslim invaders and drive them off the land. So it is with the Sunnis in Iraq. They have become relatively more fundamentalist over the past two years.

    And the Shiites have also grown more fundamentalist in recent years. Before the invasion in 2003, the US cultivated ties with exiled Iraqi Shiite leaders, some of whom were in exile in Iran and elsewhere, to get them to support the invasion. Naturally, after the US invasion, these Shiite religious leaders returned to Iraq and Shiite Iraqis gravitated to these religious authorities such as Grand Ayatollah Sistani. After the January elections, the Iraqi political group which got into power is mainly Islamic Shiite fundamentalists who are allied to Iran (many of them lived in Iran while they were in exile from Saddam’s regime).

    By destroying Saddam’s administration and the Baath Party, the Bush admin removed the glue holding the Iraqi nation together as a secular state. As Middle East history professor Gary Leupp remarked: “The present chaos and threat of civil war in occupied Iraq, as well as the attacks on the rights of women, Christians and others make the era of iron-fisted Baath rule appear in contrast, at least in some respects, progressive and benign. Under the old regime girls walked to public schools to receive their secular educations, unconcerned about Islamic dress regulations and the threat of attack, abduction, and rape.

    Owners of liquor stores and video shops operated without having to worry about fundamentalist Muslim gangs enforcing religious law. Churches enjoyed the protection of the state, and Christian Assyrian-Iraqis saw no need to flee Iraq in fear. Surely Saddam can mutter in his cell, ‘It’s because I kept the lid on with my harsh rule, based on intimidation, fear and the demonstration of ferocious vengeance on my enemies that Iraq remained stable and secular. Then the Americans, my former allies, for their own imperial purposes, decided to lift the lid, empowering the clerics, pitting communities against one another, and inflicting chaos on my country!”
    ____________________________________

    Patricia: “Is it our right to force democracy upon every country whether they want it or not?”

    No. The US does not have a “right”. Forcing democracy or any other political system upon a country through an illegal invasion, even if the Bush admin genuinely wanted it, is illegal under international law. The only legal route, regardless of the morality, is to get a UN security council resolution to do change a regime and impose a political system.

    For centuries, Western imperial powers have been using the excuse of democracy, liberation, civilizing mission and/or freedom to justify and sell their imperial actions. That’s what the US was saying about the Philippines around the year 1900 after taking it from the Spanish, in the process killing about 200,000 Filipinos.

    On the other hand, developing countries are usually less interested in democracy (which often shifts power from a dictator who is an individual to exploitative special interest groups, instead of giving genuine power to the people) than they are with the basic necessities – food, water, shelter, electricity, jobs, education, etc. At the end of the day, you have to judge the value of a political system by its ability to meet people’s needs (the ends).

    When they do use “democracy”, imperial powers have a history of rigging the system to elect a puppet leader who is compliant. It’s not difficult because the occupying power has control of TV, newspapers, agenda and security. In Iraq the Bush admin initially wanted to use democracy to try to legitimize which puppet (like Ahmad Chalabi, Iyad Allawi or one of Saddam’s generals) they wanted to install in power, but their plan backfired when powerful Shiite clerics forced them into an earlier election than intended.

    For the January election, it leaked out that the Bush admin had plans to support the campaign of Iyad Allawi. But even with Allawi’s dominant newsmedia and campaign appearances, the Iraqis did not want the unpopular US puppet Allawi. According to an occupation authority poll in 2003 or 2004, Saddam Hussein would have had won the third most votes if he was allowed to run in an election.

    The US has been hypocritical about democracy when it does not suit US interests. For example, The 1991 view of the first Bush admin, many of whom are in the current admin, was that “the best of all worlds” would be “an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein” that would rule as Saddam did. The current Bush admin has tried to remove Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez from power, even though he was democratically elected more than once.

    In 1954, the US and Britain organized a coup to remove Iran’s democratically elected leader and install a brutal dictator in his place. There are other examples. In Iraq, the US military has closed down newspapers that were against the US occupation, and tortured people who resist the US. In any case, the US is not a good example of a democracy as political power is concentrated in only two political parties whose similar agenda is influenced by similar special interest groups. That’s why both the Republicans and Democrats wanted to invade Iraq.

    The real reasons that Bush originally invaded Iraq were not for democracy and freedom, but to control Iraq’s oil, to benefit Israel, build military bases on Iraq, put a compliant leader in power, loot Iraq’s other resources/assets through privatization, benefit US companies with ties to the Bush admin like Haliburton and weapons manufacturers, jump start the US economy through war, etc.

    For example, “prior to his departure, (head of the US occupation Paul) Bremer established a series of Transitional Administrative Laws, which included the privatization of much of the country’s public assets, unrestricted foreign investment and repatriation of profits, and other controversial economic measures that are almost impossible for the new government to overturn. U.S. citizens in Iraq continue to enjoy extraterritorial rights, meaning they cannot be prosecuted in Iraq for any crime, no matter how serious.

    U.S. forces can move and attack at will anywhere in the country without the government’s assent. Americans have a major presence in virtually every Iraqi government ministry and largely control their budgets. U.S. appointees with terms lasting through 2009 are in charge of ‘control commissions’ which oversee fiscal policy, the media, and other important regulatory areas. U.S. appointees also dominate the judiciary, which has the power to overturn government laws.”

    It becomes clearer why there is an insurgency Iraq. And a “fiasco” as you so accurately put it.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    You’re just regurgitating the spin the neocons added, David Nalle, after they realized that the mission had not been accomplished.

    Proof is provided by arch-neocon Richard Perle who, on the day after the Flyboy Photo Op nearly wet his pants gushing on and on about how the war had been won:

    2 May 2003

    “‘Relax, Celebrate Victory,’ By Richard Perle

    Richard Perle op-ed article in USA Today

    “This byliner by Richard Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, first appeared in USA Today May 2 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.

    “From start to finish, President Bush has led the United States and its coalition partners to the most important military victory since World War II. And like the allied victory over the axis powers, the liberation of Iraq is more than the end of a brutal dictatorship: It is the foundation for a decent, humane government that will represent all the people of Iraq.

    “This was a war worth fighting. It ended quickly with few civilian casualties and with little damage to Iraq’s cities, towns or infrastructure. It ended without the Arab world rising up against us, as the war’s critics feared, without the quagmire they predicted, without the heavy losses in house-to-house fighting they warned us to expect.” [Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute site]

    How much clearer than “It ended quickly” does it have to be?

    Trying to spin it is “deceptive and disingenuous [otherwise know as ‘lying by omission’] and typical of the disinformation spread by the” right. “You are basically repeating propaganda you’ve been spoon fed” and accepted in the face of facts to the contrary.

    The necons got it all wrong – just as Perle did – and have been trying to cover their tracks since (“the concept was good, the execution was wrong”).

    Sorry, wingies. It just doesn’t wash.

  • http://parodieslost.typepad.com Mark Schannon

    One almost hesitates to jump into this shark-infested pool. As a hard-core liberal (whatever the hell that means these days,) I recognized that Hussein ranked right up there among some of the most evil dictators the world has seen & I’m happy to seem him apparently losing his marbles in court.

    I also was concerned about WPD and believed that if it could be demonstrated that old Saddam either had them or could have them shortly, that would be a justification for the same multi-national effort formed after 9/11 and led to a relatively more successful incursion into Afghanistan.

    Remember that both France and Germany pleaded with Bush to allow the inspectors to finish and if the evidence was there, they’d back that multi-lateral force to go to war. That just wasn’t convenient politically with Bush’s re-election coming up.)

    It’s irrelevant to the issue of the war today whether the intelligence was just bad or distorted, although Congress may actually figure that out. (Excuse me while I wet my pants, laughing my ass off–hey can I personally attack myself?)

    What is relevant is that numerous high-level members of the military, diplomatic, intelligence community–not your normal lefty, pinko, grass-eating, green, liberal America haters–continue to question the timing, planning, and conduct of the war. Bush is losing his Republican/conservative allies because of incompetence, not incontenance. (Makes no sense, I know, but I liked the rhyme.)

    One would think that anyone with the slightest knowledge of fighting these kinds of wars would have realized that winning the military battle would be the easy part. But everything I’ve read tells the same story: the Bush folk (Cheney & Rumsfeld in particular) had no interest in the post-war rebuilding effort, resulting in an inadequate military force in the first place, and no concept of how to win the peace after the battle.

    That, I believe, is why even his own supporters are turning against Bush. It didn’t have to be this way. He could’ve been somebody…he could’ve been a contender.

    In Jamesons Veritas

  • voltairean

    Nancy in #36 wrote: “Soooo…in the end we get right back to my basic question, which is always, HOW do we go about forcing politicians to be accountable”

    first there needs to be major reform in the election process including iimiting the amount of funds that can be spent. http://www.fairelections.us has some good ideas that have actually been implemented and worked. this will help eliminate the incumbency problem you state and give voters the ability to kick out the bad pols.

    second congress needs to do its other major job outside of making laws which is oversight. rules need to be changed that currently allow the majority party to prevent investigations and limit subpoena powers of the minority party. i don’t know how to limit the misuse of this power with frivolous investigations like we saw with White Water, but i will take more investigations and a bogged down gov’t anyday over one that is unchecked.

    third, enforce old media rules like the fairness doctrine and breakup media conglomerates. the media is almost entirely owned by a few corporations whose ethical duty is to make money for its shareholders. this is counter to the media duty to report the truth to the public. as a result we often get a media either in bed with pols or unwilling to rock the boat. this is bad for democracy.

    fourth, get rid of gerrymandering. by mapping out solely liberal or conservative districts, we get much more radical politicians who barely break a sweat worrying about accountability. currently there are some districts that lean so far left or right that they would likely reelect a child molesting murderer than someone from the other side. this would not be the case with a more natural mix of parties in a district.

    these four would be a good start. but it will take someone pretty amazing to get any of this done. it is not often that people work against their own self interest. and all of these suggestions would decrease the job security of all members of congress. thus, i am not holding my breath.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Hmmm it’s not my thread. Perhaps I should just let the socialist conspiracy mongers have a party here. At least it keeps them away from the sensible discussions…

    Dave

  • David

    David: “The hypocrisy from the neocons and war pimps is incredible. When Saddam committed his worst atrocities, it was in the 1980s with US acquiescence and help. You want me to give you details? By 2003, Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t as bad in terms of its human rights violations.”

    Dave Nalle: “So an average of 500 murders, abductions and rapes a month is an improvement over genocidally gassing mass populations. I guess you have a point. Why don’t you go tell the families of the women raped and murdered by Uday and Kusay in 2002 that their deaths weren’t bad human rights violations. You need to spend some time – a LOT of time – on Massgraves.info. BTW, it was in the late 1990s that Uday had members of the Iraqi national soccer team tortured – some of them to death.”

    Dave, I did spend a lot of time on your site massgraves.info, then I realized that it did not provide information on the website creators. It’s just a bunch of pictures and a poem without supporting info. Is this the kind of info you rely on? Then I remembered that before the US invasion, a lot of anti-Saddam propaganda websites were suddenly popping up mysteriously, probably created by anti Saddam Iraqi groups and by neocon groups trying to build support for the invasion. No doubt there really are mass graves in Saddam’s Iraq, many for the 1980s Iran-Iraq war (over one million Iraqis and Iranians died) and for 1991 US-led Gulf War (200,000 Iraqis died), but the numbers of mass graves of genuine victims of Saddam’s brutal regime are much less than the fairytales and bullshit fed to us by the war pimps and neocons. How many mass graves do you think have been created since March 2003 for the Iraqi victims of the US invasion?

    Okay, Dave, now it’s your turn to spend time on facing the facts and reality. LOT and LOTs of time in your case.

    British newspaper Observer: British PM Tony Blair admits mass graves claim ‘untrue’
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6509.htm

    “(British PM Tony Blair’s office) has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that ‘400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves’ is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered…a US government pamphlet on Iraq’s mass graves… – Iraq’s Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: ‘We’ve already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.’ …Of 270 suspected grave sites identified in the last year, 55 have now been examined, revealing, according to the best estimates that The Observer has been able to obtain, around 5,000 bodies…And while few have any doubts that Saddam’s regime was responsible for serious crimes against humanity, the exact scale of those crimes has become increasingly politicised in both Washington and London…It is an issue that Human Rights Watch was acutely aware of when it compiled its own pre-invasion research – admitting that it had to reduce estimates for the al-Anfal campaign produced by Kurds by over a third, as they believed the numbers they had been given were inflated…Hania Mufti, one of the researchers that produced that estimate, said: ‘Our estimates were based on estimates. The eventual figure was based in part on circumstantial information gathered over the years.’ ‘Witnesses were often likely to have unrealistic ideas of the numbers of people in grave areas that they knew about,’ said Jonathan Forrest. ‘Local people would tell us of 10,000s of people buried at single grave sites and when we would get there they would be in multiple hundreds.’ ”

    How many of the Iraqis in mass graves were Iraqi casualties from US airforce criminally straffing the defeated Iraqi army and civilians on the “Highway of Death in the 1991 Gulf War? “U.S. planes immobilized the (Iraqi) convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being (pictured above) suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incendiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawal from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who “are out of combat.” There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending siege of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the “highway of death.” The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indiscriminate and excessive use of force.”

    In addition, you brought up Saddam’s gassing of Iraqis, but what do you think of the US military’s use of chemical/incendiary weapons, cluster bombs, uranium weapons, cruise missiles, etc. against Iraqis? In a previous post, I posted a link to a video on the US military’s use of chemical weapons against Iraqi rebels and civilians in Fallujah in 2004. What the US has done to Fallujah probably outdid anything Saddam’s military did to any Iraqi city. If you haven’t seen it, just ask me for the link. Both Saddam and the US military did it for the same reasons – to put down insurgencies and intimidate the rebelling population. So Dave, why don’t you go tell the families of the women and children murdered, tortured, sodomized, raped and/or maimed by US forces and their Iraqi allies that their deaths weren’t bad human rights violations?

    In Saddam’s case, in one instance, he was alleged to have gassed Halabja Kurdish insurgents who were allies of Iran at a time when Iraq and Iran were at war. Death toll was estimated to be a few hundred to up to 5,000, depending on who you want to believe. Saddam got his chemical weapons from the US and other Western allies, who knew what he would be using them for. When Saddam gassed the Halabja Kurds, the U.S. State Department instructed its diplomats to blame Iran, not Iraq. Declassified State Department document prove that US diplomats received instructions to say this to US allies. The neocons are such hypocrites to use Halabja today against Saddam, when they were denying it in 1988.

    According to journalist Robert Fisk, July 2005 was the bloodiest month in Baghdad’s modern history. In all, 1,100 bodies were brought to the city’s mortuary; executed for the most part, eviscerated, stabbed, bludgeoned, tortured to death. Of the dead, 963 were men – many with their hands bound, their eyes taped and bullets in their heads – and 137 women. In July 2003 – three months after the invasion – 700 corpses were brought to the mortuary in Baghdad. In July of 2004, this rose to around 800. The mortuary records the violent death toll for June of this year as 879 – 764 of them male, 115 female. Of the men, 480 had been killed by firearms, along with 25 of the women. By comparison, equivalent figures for July 1997, 1998 and 1999, when Baghdad was still under Saddam’s control, were all below 200.

    Finally, could you stop trying to exploit the Iraqi soccer team? Regarding last year’s Olympic Games, Sports Illustrated reported that Iraqi national soccer players had a special message for “U.S. president George W. Bush, who is using the Iraqi Olympic team in his latest re-election campaign advertisements.” The Iraqi soccer players said: “Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign…He can find another way to advertise himself.” Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder had an even stronger response when asked about Bush’s TV advertisement. “How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?” Manajid told me. “He has committed so many crimes.” “My problems are not with the American people,” says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. “They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?” “I want the violence and the war to go away from the city,” says Sadir, 21. “We don’t wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away.” Manajid, 22, who nearly scored his own goal with a driven header on Wednesday, hails from the city of Fallujah. He says coalition forces killed Manajid’s cousin, Omar Jabbar al-Aziz, who was fighting as an insurgent, and several of his friends. In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would “for sure” be fighting as part of the resistance. “I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?” Manajid says. “Everyone (in Fallujah) has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq.”
    _____________________________________________________

    David: “Now the US military in 2.5 years has outdone almost anything Saddam’s regime has done in any 2.5 year period since 1979.”

    Dave Nalle: “You sure you want to use that time frame? In the first 2.5 years of that period he killed over 250,000 people, including 180,000 Kurds.”

    Dave, I’ll give you an opportunity to retract this. Otherwise, what’s your evidence that Saddam killed over 250,000 people in the 2.5 years after 1979? Did it comes from the neocon paper The Weekly Standard or from Fox News? Are you talking about the Iran-Iraq war casualties before 1982, in which Iraqis suffered massive losses from human-wave attacks by Iran, and Iraq also inflicted massive losses on the Iranians? That’s a war, and both Jimmy Carter and Margaret Thatcher gave Saddam the green light to invade Iran in 1980.

    Nuff said… I am trying to remain objective here. But, Dave, when you started exploiting the Iraqi national soccer team (see four paragraphs ago) to justify the Bush admin’s lies and crimes in Iraq, I can’t take it any longer! I need some time off to recover from the Bush mountain of lies… We’ve all been so… neo-conned.

  • Baronius

    “The US, Israeli and British intelligence were pimping questionable or false intelligence, aided by other European intelligence agencies. Almost everything they brought about was found to be questionable by other experts.”

    David, “pimping”? What?

    I realize that much of the intelligence was wrong, but that’s got to fall on Hussein. He was responsible for obstructing the weapons inspectors.

    “the UN did not find repeated violations, just a few minor ones that were resolved”

    What’s the difference between “repeated” violations and “a few” violations?

    winning the military battle would be the easy part

    Mark, this is one of the most overlooked aspects of the war. We did everything we could to keep the body count low; in retrospect, we should have killed far more enemy combatants. Many of the terrorists have come from the old military and government. There really wasn’t much we could do about the Baathist government officials, but the military leadership should have been pursued.

    Accountability

    I remember a political cartoon a few years back, with two rebel leaders standing in front of a burning Presidential palace, with all the military now saluting the rebel leaders. One says to the other, “on the other hand, maybe we shouldn’t return power to the people”.

    One of the biggest disappointments for me has been the abandonment of term limits by the Republicans ever since they gained power. I’ve been appalled by the hypocrisy of Democrats who just discovered that power corrupts, after a generation of controlling Congress. Don’t get me wrong; I oppose term limits and always have. But a lot of people have changed their positions out of opportunism.

    Maybe in our 49%/49% system, the people are getting what they want. Party posturing and individual corruption aside, the system kinda works. And out of curiousity, Voltairean, did you consider the Clinton impeachment to be an example of accountability or bogging down?

  • http://whitesnow99@msn.com Patricia , New Mexico

    Dave Nalle: Hmmm, I’m beginning to wonder if you aren’t the naive one! And I am totally convinced now that David is the objective one.

    Re “mission accomplished” – No, I have not been spoon fed any propaganda. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the mission is not accomplished. You know very well that Bush thought all we would have to do was go in, do a little reconstruction, tell the Iraqi’s they were now democratized and get on with whatever purpose he had in rushing into this war. All the violence and destruction going on in Iraq right now might not be called war, but it surely looks like war on my TV. Just what was Bush celebrating that day? The fall of Saddam’s statue? No, he thought he had Iraq in his greedy little hands.

    Now, about sending our troops in with inadequate armor. Bush had complete, absolute control over that. Even if he was determined to attack Iraq, it was not urgent that it be done immediately. This is a preemptive war. There was nothing so critical that it had to be handled RIGHT NOW! Couldn’t he have waited until “new generation” armor was available and our troops were properly trained? Most of our National Guard units were deployed with absolute junk. My son is in Iraq, and I have spent several hundred dollars on equipment we felt would have an effect on his safety. Every young man and woman involved in this mess should have the very best…but, Bush and his cronies just could not wait, and now he has the blood of over 2,000 young Americans on his hands.

    So “the war as a war” is over? And, what did that war accomplish? It turned Iraq into a hot bed of terrorists, which is worse than the “war”. Are we making any headway in suppressing the terrorists? I don’t think so! In my opinion, Bush should be charged with war crimes.

    Yes, stricter homeland security would inconvenience all of us at times, but somehow that sounds so much better than nuclear attack.
    Speaking of rights…I came upon a site called “Blogs for Bush”. I entered a comment, which was, of course, anti-Bush. I received a note immediately rejecting my comment and saying “This is a Blogs For Bush site…with the word “for” underlined. I sent another comment and received the same rejection notice. I sent one more and have now been blocked from entering that site. I guess First Amendment Rights don’t exist if they are anti-Bush. If they are concerned about the comments of such an insignificant person as I am, I smell desperation! But, at least, it has been good for some laughs.

  • http://whitesnow99@msn.com Patricia , New Mexico

    David: Thank you for your knowledgable, sensible, thought-provoking comments. There is much food for thought in everything you say. It seems to me that Dave Nalle has a bad case of “tunnel vision”, which, of course, is usual with radical right wingers.

    Are you familiar with Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “The White Man’s Burden”? I think you would find it interesting and applicable to the events happening now.

  • http://whitesnow99@msn.com Patricia , New Mexico

    David…One more thing….Wouldn’t the fact that Bush ignored the effectiveness of UN diplomacy with Iraq actually render it ineffective?

  • David

    Patricia: Kipling’s poem, “The White Man’s Burden”? He, he. We know what happened to the Philippines, don’t we? Thanks for your kind comments.
    _________________________

    Dave Nalle: “Give me an accurate citation for that (Lancet) figure, because I know for a fact that it is incorrect. You’re picking up the Lancet figure which has been repeatedly debunked. An accurate figure for civilian casualties since the start of the invasion resulting from coalition action is under 10,000.”

    Nice try, but you got your facts wrong again. The pro-war groups have failed to debunk the Lancet study even though they claim they did, and their own low estimates of Iraqis killed are highly questionable and certainly inaccurate. I am assuming here that Dave Nalle’s 10,000 civilian casualty figure came from the inaccurate Iraq Body Count, which if you read the website carefully will indicate that the figure is inaccurate. Let me show you how easy it is to debunk your debunk…

    According to the Lancet study co-author, Prof. Les Roberts: “There are now at least 8 independent estimates of the number or rate of deaths induced by the invasion of Iraq. The source most favored by the war proponents (Iraqbodycount.org) is the lowest. Our (Lancet study) estimate is the third from highest. Four of the estimates place the death toll above 100,000.” In simple English: The Lancet study is one of four studies placing the Iraqi death toll above 100,000.

    Johns Hopkins University professor Les Roberts Discusses Media Spin on Civilian Iraqi Deaths: His Study Shows Numbers Have Increased Dramatically Since U.S. Invasion of Iraq Further information on why the Lancet is a superior scientific study is found in links at the bottom of this post.

    The US State Department had relied heavily on studies by Prof Les Roberts in the past. The Lancet study’s methodology is the standard way for estimating civilian deaths in post-conflict situations, e.g., Bosnia. In 2000 when Prof. Roberts, using similar techniques, calculated that about 1.7 million Africans had died in the Congo as the result of almost two years of armed conflict, the news media reported the story; the United Nations more than doubled its request for aid for the Congo, and the United States pledged an additional $10 million. In contrast, for Prof. Roberts’ Iraq study, there was mainly silence and critiques dismissing the study. Politicians and journalists even used the low Iraqbodycount figure to attack the Lancet study but, as you will see below, the Iraq Body Count is an inaccurate and unscientific method.

    What is the Lancet study that came up with the scientific figure of 100,000 “excess deaths” of Iraqi civilians between March 2003 and September 2004? In October 2004, the prestigious British scientific journal, the Lancet, published an independent, peer-reviewed study co-authored by one of the world’s top epidemiologists, John Hopkins University Professor Les Roberts.

    This Lancet study estimated that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians – mostly women and children – had died as a result of the US-led Iraq invasion based on ‘conservative assumptions’. It estimated that 84% of the deaths were caused by the actions of the Americans and the British, and 95% of these deaths (80%) were killed by US/UK air strikes and artillery fire, most of whom were women and children. The study found that the risk of death by violence for Iraqi civilians is now 58 times higher than before Bush began to liberate them in April 2003.

    The Lancet study was conducted in Baghdad by researchers from Columbia University and Johns Hopkins University in the US, and from Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Prof Les Roberts sneaked into Iraq by lying flat on the bed of an SUV and training survey observers on the scene.

    The actual total of civilian deaths due to the US-led invasion and occupation is likely to be higher than 100,000 due to two reasons.

    One, the Lancet study only covered the period March 2003 to September 2004, and didn’t cover deaths from October 2004 to present. The US military has launched some of its most deadly attacks during this period, including on the Fallujah and other towns immediately after Bush’s re-election.

    Two, the Lancet study erred on the side of caution by excluding data from Fallujah where deaths were unusually high as it is the most war-ravaged area from US attacks. Other cities experiencing extreme violence due to US attacks (ie, Ramadi, Tallafar, Najaf) were passed over in the sample by random chance.

    The editors of MediaLens (see the three “Burying The Lancet” links) observed the stampede to discredit this shocking news with skepticism and silence. With few exceptions, none of the scientists who compiled this rigorously peer-reviewed report was asked to explain their work. These experts know what they are talking about, whereas journalists and politicians do not. In contrast, no mainstream media questioned the methodology of the Iraqi Special Tribune, run by the US, which claimed that mass graves contain 300,000 victims of Saddam Hussein. To date much fewer mass grave bodies have been found.

    What is the Iraq Body Count study that Dave Nalle probably referred to? The Iraq Body Count web site reported that 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed between March, 2003 and March 2005. It found US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths (Dave Nalle’s less than 10,000 civilian casualties), with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9% (2,200 civilian casualties). Hey Dave, are you saying that your al Qaeda terrorists running around in Iraq killed only 2,200 Iraqis and the while and US and British terrorists killed four times as many Iraqi civilians?

    And I thought the US military is now claiming that insurgents murdered over 26,000 Iraqi civilians, which is over 11 times more than Iraq Body Count’s figure. If we extrapolate, does that mean that 110,000 Iraqi civilians (11 x 10,000) were murdered by US and British forces? In addition, we have to increase your figure by 30% since the statistics doesn’t include the last 8 months after March 2005.

    The Iraq Body Count is inaccurate and unscientific. Iraq Body Count’s method is simply to count only those Iraqi deaths reported by two or more Western news agencies. Their estimate is certainly an underestimate, since many more deaths are reported in the Iraqi press in Arabic than in the Western language wire services. The Iraq Body Count’s website cautions you about its figures: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.” Their report noted: “even our max(imum death toll) figure is likely to under-represent the full toll, given that not every death is officially recorded or reported.”

    Stop and imagine powerful American conventional and MK77 napalm bombs that obliterate human bodies, leaving nothing to be found. Think about how many deaths probably go unreported in war, regardless, as rotting bodies are never found. In simple English, the Iraq Body Count is inaccurate and underestimates the death toll.

    The Iraq Body Count’s method is inferior to the Lancet study, yet the pro-war campaigners use that lower figure rather than the more scientifically-accepted Lancet study. Well, at least it is better than the early days when pro-war pimps refused to acknowledge that many civilians were killed and rejected even the Iraq Body Count.

    “The adamant refusal of the U.S.A. and its partner countries to keep count of Iraqi deaths is a stance that renders farcical the Geneva Conventions’ principle that invading forces have a duty to make every effort to protect civilian lives,” said an editorial in this week’s issue of The Lancet. “How can the (US-led) coalition attest that it respects this obligation if it refuses to collect data to prove it?” “The U.S.-led Coalition that instigated the war claims to have acted on behalf of the Iraqi people,” The Lancet added. “At the very least, Iraq’s beleaguered citizens deserve to be told the true price–in numbers of lost human lives–they have paid for a conflict undertaken in their names.” The U.S. military’s refusal to keep an official Iraqi death count has been mirrored by the mainstream media, which dodges the question of how many Iraqi civilians have been killed.

    The next three articles are particularly excellent for supporting the Lancet study:
    Burying The Lancet – Part 1
    Burying The Lancet – Part 2

    Burying The Lancet – Update

    The Media Are Minimizing US and British War Crimes in Iraq

    Lancet Study Is Vindicated By the United Nations survey.

    Aid Worker Uncovered America’s Secret Tally of Iraqi Civilian Deaths

  • David

    Patricia: “David…One more thing….Wouldn’t the fact that Bush ignored the effectiveness of UN diplomacy with Iraq actually render it ineffective?”

    You’re absolutely right. If I hire you as a lawyer but then keep thwarting your work behind your back and rejecting your advice because I have a hidden agenda to accomplish the opposite outcome, then I make you ineffective. This is common sense to you I’m sure, but may not be so to others who have to defend that hidden agenda.
    _________________________________

    David: “There is mass death and destruction in Iraq.”

    Dave Nalle: “Yes, caused almost entirely by terrorists who are targeting the civilian population.”

    That’s not true at all according to you, Dave. See my last post. Your own low claims of Iraqi civilian deaths using the Iraq Body Count data means that your ‘terrorists’ have only killed 2,200 civilians. But your same data also indicates that the US-led coalition forces have killed almost 10,000 Iraqi civilians or four times as many civilians as your ‘terrorists.’ So clearly, without a doubt according to you, this civlian deaths are NOT entirely caused by your ‘terrorists’. Why are you so inconsistent in what you say?

    But we both know that you used the inaccurate and lowest Iraq Body Count of civilian casualties due to the US military’s actions. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by the US and coalition military. Why not admit that the US-led invasion has caused mass death and destruction?

    Iraqi deaths due to the US military are poorly reported. Not long after the US military invaded Fallujah for the second time (immediately after Bush’s re-election), “U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour called for an investigation into whether the Americans and their allies had engaged in “the deliberate targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, the killing of injured persons, and the use of human shields,” among other possible “grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions … considered war crimes” under federal law.

    More than 83 percent of Fallujah’s 300,000 residents fled the city. The US military refused safe passage to men between the ages of 15 and 45, and all who remained–about 50,000–were treated as enemy combatants. Numerous sources reported that coalition forces cut off water and electricity, seized the main hospital, shot at anyone who ventured out into the open, executed families waving white flags while trying to swim across the Euphrates River or otherwise flee the city, shot at ambulances, raided homes and killed people who didn’t understand English, rolled over injured people with tanks, and allowed corpses to rot in the streets and be eaten by dogs. Medical staff and others reported seeing people, dead and alive, with melted faces and limbs, injuries consistent with the use of phosphorous bombs.”

    I haven’t even discussed the mass destruction in Iraq created by the US military in Iraq, but common sense should tell you about the destructive power of US weapons. The Iraq Quagmire: Iraq War Costs Now Exceed Vietnam’s

    Continuing Collateral Damage: The health and environmental costs of war on Iraq

    Iraq Health Update

    [DAVE: Please format your links correctly and avoid the use of excessively long lines ___________ it throws out the page formatting. Thank you. Comments Editor]

  • David

    David: ‘Clinton’s economic sanctions kiled over a million Iraqis.’

    Dave Nalle: “Again, give me a citation. The highest figure I’ve ever seen is 500,000 dead because of sanctions, and that’s almost certainly inflated. In addition, those deaths were the result of the humanitarian aid money being misdirected in the oil for food scandal, which was not part of the Clinton plan for sanctions.”

    Your 500,000 figure is a 1996 which refers only to Iraqi children who have died between 1991 to 1996 due to the sanctions, and doesn’t include adults. When you include all the years of the sanctions, from 1991 to 2003, you’ll get over one million Iraqis who died because of the sanctions. I’ve read estimates as high as 1.5 million.

    In May 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then Clinton’s Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions: Albright, not challenging this figure, infamously replied: “We think the price is worth it.”

    Why did the US sanctions kills so many Iraqis? In 1990 the U.N. Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo. These sanctions caused malnutrition and health problems due to lack of medical supplies and food. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a “dual use” in potential weapons manufacture. The sanctions crippled the Iraqi economy during the time they were imposed, and much of Iraq’s infrastructure broke down from lack of materials. The sanctions continued until the UN saw the growing humanitarian crisis and initiated the Oil-for-Food Programme.

    Denis Halliday, UN Assistant Secretary General, was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq in 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In 1998 he resigned saying “I don’t want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide”. Halliday’s successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them.

    The US was aware of and abusing the Oil For Food program.

    Denis Halliday describes why the sanctions were so genocidal in three articles:

    The UN Failed the Iraqi People

    UN Sanctions Against Iraq Only Serve US Ambition

    It’s Called Genocide: The former UN humanitarian coordinator describes the sanctions as premeditated murder.

    ___________________________________

    David: ‘George H W Bush’s first Gulf war killed over 200,000 Iraqis.’

    Dave Nalle: “The highest death count estimate from Desert Storm is 100,000 Iraqis, almost all soldiers, and that’s not supported by direct observation – it’s more or less an inflated guess.”

    The war proponents typically cite lower figures, not wanting to show the mass murder that occurs. Here’s the international war crimes tribunal charges against the first Bush admin for the First Gulf War brought by former US attorney general Ramsey Clark It states that 125, 000 Iraqi civilians and 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed, which gives you more than 200,000. I’ve read an estimate as high as 300,000 Iraqis.
    ____________________________

    David: “Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan supported Saddam’s war against Iran which killed over a million Iraqis and Iranians.”

    Dave Nalle: “And you’d have preferred that we support Iran?”

    Ah, so you prefer Saddam. He’s not that bad after all is he? My unstated point is that the Bush admin once said that Saddam attacks his neighbors including Iran and Kuwait. They omit to tell you that Jimmy Carter gave Saddam the green light to invade Iran and Reagan did cartwheels to support his ally Saddam against Iran.

    Kuwait asked Iraq to protect it against Iran, while slant drilling to steal oil from Iraq. Oh, Israel even sold arms to Iran to defend against the Iraqis. Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam in Baghdad and Saddam’s then foreign minister Tariq Aziz visited the White House in the 1980s. What a cozy relationship and tangled web.

    [DAVE: Please put simple html links to external articles, without the bc re-direct in front. Simplicity is better. Thank you. Comments Editor]

  • David

    Hey, Dave Nalle, I too have links of pictures of US war crimes in Iraq… Spend LOTS of time on them. (Warning: Graphic images)

    Pictures of Destruction and Civilian Victims of the US-UK Aggression in Iraq

    A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

    Face of Iraq

  • Dave Nalle

    David, it’s become very clear that there’s no point in talking about this subject with you because all you do is regurgitate propaganda without listening to anything I’m saying or trying to take any facts into consideration which don’t match your preconceptions. In fact, you just seem to largely be quoting directly from a couple of radical left websites like Common Dreams which is one of the major outlets for propaganda from the SWP and CPUSA.

    How anyone with basic logic and math skill can look at the Lancet report and not spot the flaws in it immediately is beyond me. Have you actually READ the report? It’s so transparently bogus that it’s laughable. As for Roberts, this is the guy who overestimated deaths in the Congo by a factor of almost 3 to 1. He’s got a vanishingly small amount of credibility.

    Here’s a quote from Dr Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet: “One should openly acknowledge science is political and not be afraid to get stuck into the debate. To me that’s one of the failures of science. It sees itself as being very apolitical, and that’s just nonsense.” So basically Horton admits that the Lancet report was politically motivated and it’s clear that politics shaped the methodology.

    From your comments it sounds like you’re not even aware that the Lancet study includes a large number of deaths of soldiers and is not solely of civilian casualties. More than a third of the deaths reported in their small and selective sampling are probably combatants rather than civilians. You also seem to have missed basic facts about it like the way that it was stopped in process and then redone to eliminate certain areas because they had too few casualties – thereby eliminating the Kurdish regions and the area around Basra completely.

    You also bought into one of the standard lies about the report, that Fallujah was left out of the report because the body count there was so high. The fact is that the the survey that generated the data for the Lancet study was conducted BEFORE the attack on Fallujah, so in fact the death count in Fallujah would have been quite low.

    I’ll agree with you that IraqBodyCount is inaccurate. Since they count deaths from terrorism as caused by the coalition their figures are pretty bogus. If you take out the terrorist murders their count is about 9,000 which is pretty close to the relatively accurate count from a study done by the Brookings Institute, a non-partisan but left leaning think tank.

    I know I’m wasting my effort, but you really ought to read up on this subject from a more discerning source. There’s an excellent article on the flaws in the report called A Final Lancing. You should check it out.

    Dave

  • David

    Dave, What you’re really saying is that I’ve carefully listened to what you’ve said (it’s obvious from my replies), debunked in detail what you’ve said based on sound arguments and facts that show the truth, and now you’ve finally realized that I’m not willing to accept your unsound arguments and facts that represent your pre-conceived reality that was conceived by the Bush admin? Hey, I’ve even quoted from Fox News.
    _____________________________

    Dave Nalle: “Here’s a quote from Dr Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet: “One should openly acknowledge science is political and not be afraid to get stuck into the debate. To me that’s one of the failures of science. It sees itself as being very apolitical, and that’s just nonsense.” So basically Horton admits that the Lancet report was politically motivated and it’s clear that politics shaped the methodology.”

    This is a great example of how prowar spinners take an innocent statement out of context and change its meaning to mislead people about what it means. Dr. Richard Horton simply meant that science is a valid and active part of politics in real life. Scientific information can and should be used to inform political debate and decision making. It’s nonsense to believe that science isn’t part of politics (even the Bush admin misuses science to justify its claims). So, even if scientists see their science as apolitical, and are afraid to get stuck in political debates, in reality the scientific information is a necessary part of that debate.

    The pro-war spinning Dr. Horton’s comments started after the pro-war Observer British newspaper tried to intimate that the Lancet study was politicized, at the time the new scientific study was being baselessly attacked by pro-war supporters for their political reasons.

    It’s a pity you misrepresented what Dr. Horton said, Dave. If you read the pro-war Observer’s comments and then read Horton’s comments in the next paragraph of the same article, it is clear exactly what Horton meant. The Observer noted the fierce political storm and repercussions (by the pro-war spinners) caused after the Lancet report was released. Observer, the pro-war British newspaper

    “It was the (Lancet) report that saw science and politics clash, and the fallout is still being felt. A paper in the medical journal the Lancet which claimed that almost 100,000 people have died since the invasion of Iraq has prompted Jack Straw to launch an urgent inquiry into how casualty rates are calculated.

    Dr Richard Horton, the Lancet’s editor, staunchly defends the report and called on more scientists to debate such issues. ‘One should openly acknowledge science is political and not be afraid to get stuck into the debate,’ Horton said in his first interview since the report appeared. ‘To me that’s one of the failures of science. It sees itself as being very apolitical, and that’s just nonsense.’ ”

    It should be clear to most objective people exactly what Dr. Horton meant.
    ___________________________

    Dave Nalle: “How anyone with basic logic and math skill can look at the Lancet report and not spot the flaws in it immediately is beyond me. Have you actually READ the report? It’s so transparently bogus that it’s laughable. As for Roberts, this is the guy who overestimated deaths in the Congo by a factor of almost 3 to 1. He’s got a vanishingly small amount of credibility.”

    I’ve read the Lancet report, and understand statistics. Have you? Do you? The world’s top epidemiologists would agree that the Lancet report is valid. It’s laughable that anyone with statistical knowledge would even consider claiming that the report is ‘transparently bogus.’ Also, what is your credible source (not a massgraves.info type propaganda site, please) that Roberts overestimated the Congo deaths? Regardless, are you trying to tell me that 33% of 1.7 million African deaths is still not significant?

    Read my comments about the Lancet report, and read all the articles I provided to support what I said. You have not provided any sound arguments or facts to support your claims against Lancet. The reason why the Lancet report has been attacked by pro-war supporters is because it reveals that the deadly US and UK invasion and occupation murdered so many innocent Iraqis. Like most common murderers, mass murderers do not like to admit that they murdered so many human beings. If a mass murderer wants to murder, at least have the courage to stand up and accept how many innocent children, women and men have been murdered.

  • David

    Dave Nalle: “From your comments it sounds like you’re not even aware that the Lancet study includes a large number of deaths of soldiers and is not solely of civilian casualties. More than a third of the deaths reported in their small and selective sampling are probably combatants rather than civilians. You also seem to have missed basic facts about it like the way that it was stopped in process and then redone to eliminate certain areas because they had too few casualties – thereby eliminating the Kurdish regions and the area around Basra completely.”

    If you understand statistics, the sample size is in fact larger than is necessary, the sampling method is valid, and the methodology used was conservative and took into account the variables you mentioned. Read the articles I gave in my last post, as it answers your concerns.

    How would you classify this incident US TROOPS USED LIONS FOR TORTURE, if these Iraqis had died? Are these Iraqis soldiers or civilians or terrorists to you? Would the US soldiers have caused their deaths, or was it the hungry lions?
    _________________________________________________

    Dave Nalle: “You also bought into one of the standard lies about the report, that Fallujah was left out of the report because the body count there was so high. The fact is that the the survey that generated the data for the Lancet study was conducted BEFORE the attack on Fallujah, so in fact the death count in Fallujah would have been quite low.”

    No. There were multiple US attacks on Fallujah, before, during and after the study was done. The massive invasion of Fallujah immediately after Bush’s re-election was the second major attack on Fallujah. This shows that you haven’t read the Lancet study or are aware of the news about Fallujah, because it is such a basic fact.

    You can learn the facts from a pro-war newspaper. Even the prowar Observer newspaper I linked above tried to misrepresent the Fallujah statistics. Later the Observer newspaper printed a retraction (prowar spinners don’t read retractions): “In the article below, while discussing the Lancet’s survey of civilian deaths in Iraq, we say that ‘The report’s authors admit it drew heavily on the rebel stronghold of Falluja… Strip out Falluja, as the study itself acknowledged, and the mortality rate is reduced dramatically.’ This implies that the estimated mortality rate is reduced from 98,000 to something less if Falluja is not included. In fact, the figure of 98,000 is the result of removing Falluja from the reckoning. If Falluja had been included, the figure would have been considerably higher.”

  • http://www.rnc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Has anyone heard the clips of several prominent Democrats supporting Bush and the invasion and war in Iraq, including WMD claims?

    The hypocrisy: http://www.rnc.org/

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dave, What you’re really saying is that I’ve carefully listened to what you’ve said (it’s obvious from my replies), debunked in detail what you’ve said based on sound arguments and facts that show the truth, and now you’ve finally realized that I’m not willing to accept your unsound arguments and facts that represent your pre-conceived reality that was conceived by the Bush admin? Hey, I’ve even quoted from Fox News.

    And what you’re really saying is that because you deny the obvious accuracy of what I’ve said that’s the same as disproving it and that you’re not willing to consider any possibility that you might be wrong despite the overwhelming evidence. You proudly announce that your mind is completely closed, so what’s the point in trying to have a ‘discussion’ with you. I could use this time to discuss something more meaningful with a person who doesn’t deny basic reality.

    This is a great example of how prowar spinners take an innocent statement out of context and change its meaning to mislead people about what it means.

    Pro-war spinners? The quote from Horton is from an interview in The Guardian, which is notoriously left leaning, and it’s presented in its entirety, not out of context. Nice try.

    Dr. Richard Horton simply meant that science is a valid and active part of politics in real life. Scientific information can and should be used to inform political debate and decision making.

    This is clearly not what Horton said. He said that science should be used to serve political goals, which is what the Lancet is up to in a lot of their suspect ‘science’.

    It’s a pity you misrepresented what Dr. Horton said, Dave.

    All I did was quote him with an attribution. I didn’t ‘spin’ it at all.

    If you read the pro-war Observer’s comments and then read Horton’s comments in the next paragraph of the same article, it is clear exactly what Horton meant. The Observer noted the fierce political storm and repercussions (by the pro-war spinners) caused after the Lancet report was released. Observer, the pro-war British newspaper

    Yes, but my quote was from The Guardian, an anti-war British paper.

    It should be clear to most objective people exactly what Dr. Horton meant.

    That I can agree with. It’s abundantly clear that he meant that science should be used to advance political goals.

    I’ve read the Lancet report, and understand statistics. Have you? Do you?

    Yes and yes. I admit I only have 12 graduate hours in demographics and statistics, but even with that basic education it’s clear how totally suspect the methodology is.

    The world’s top epidemiologists would agree that the Lancet report is valid.

    Would they – could you show me some examples?

    It’s laughable that anyone with statistical knowledge would even consider claiming that the report is ‘transparently bogus.’ Also, what is your credible source (not a massgraves.info type propaganda site, please) that Roberts overestimated the Congo deaths? Regardless, are you trying to tell me that 33% of 1.7 million African deaths is still not significant?

    Did I say it wasn’t significant? I just said that once the French got to actually counting casualties there was a huge disparity with Roberts guesstimate.

    Read my comments about the Lancet report, and read all the articles I provided to support what I said. You have not provided any sound arguments or facts to support your claims against Lancet. The reason why the Lancet report has been attacked by pro-war supporters is because it reveals that the deadly US and UK invasion and occupation murdered so many innocent Iraqis.

    No, the reason why the Lancet report has been attacked is that it was rushed out for political reasons, isn’t accurate and uses bad methodology, just like the Lancet’s prior report which massively inflated the number of deaths under the Oil for Food program. There’s a pattern here of both the Lancet and Roberts overestimating deaths for political purposes.

    If you understand statistics, the sample size is in fact larger than is necessary, the sampling method is valid, and the methodology used was conservative and took into account the variables you mentioned. Read the articles I gave in my last post, as it answers your concerns.

    The fact that the Lancet describes it as ‘conservative’ doesn’t make it the truth. I don’t want a conservative or a generous estimate, I’d like to see one which uses a balanced sample from the entire country including Basra and Kurdistan, not just the area around Baghdad and a couple of other hotspots.

    How would you classify this incident US TROOPS USED LIONS FOR TORTURE, if these Iraqis had died? Are these Iraqis soldiers or civilians or terrorists to you? Would the US soldiers have caused their deaths, or was it the hungry lions?

    What on earth does that have to do with any of this? Distracting from the topic won’t shore up your unsupportable position.

    No. There were multiple US attacks on Fallujah, before, during and after the study was done. The massive invasion of Fallujah immediately after Bush’s re-election was the second major attack on Fallujah. This shows that you haven’t read the Lancet study or are aware of the news about Fallujah, because it is such a basic fact.

    I didn’t say the stats were from before all the attacks on Fallujah, but they were from before the land assault. They didn’t want to include data from the land assault because we have an exact body count on that period and using their bogus methods on an area where there’s an exact body count would demonstrate how flawed their study is.

    You can learn the facts from a pro-war newspaper.

    True enough. It’s pretty easy to ferret out the facts from biased reporting, even on some of the sights and sources you like to use.

    Even the prowar Observer newspaper I linked above tried to misrepresent the Fallujah statistics. Later the Observer newspaper printed a retraction (prowar spinners don’t read retractions): “In the article below, while discussing the Lancet’s survey of civilian deaths in Iraq, we say that ‘The report’s authors admit it drew heavily on the rebel stronghold of Falluja… Strip out Falluja, as the study itself acknowledged, and the mortality rate is reduced dramatically.’ This implies that the estimated mortality rate is reduced from 98,000 to something less if Falluja is not included. In fact, the figure of 98,000 is the result of removing Falluja from the reckoning. If Falluja had been included, the figure would have been considerably higher.”

    But they also eliminated all of the regions where there were virtually no civilian casualties, which more than outweighs Falluja. Have you LOOKED at a map of where they surveyed? Give me a break.

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see” – Jonathan Swift

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Jeez, you guys…get a freakin’ room!

  • triggerfish

    There were WMD’s in Iraq, period. They were moved out of the country because they had plenty of time prior to our justified attack. No matter what facts, situations or tough choices that President George W. Bush had to make in protecting the American people after 9-11; you progressives (whatever that means; an oxymoron), or liberals, your hatred, yes hatred for him so blinds you that cannot even try to compromise or understand what terrible choices he had to make. Maybe try reading his book, Decision Points. Oh, one last issue; waterboarding is NOT, torture. I was water boarded, I know. That is a FACT!!! It works, and works darn well! I am all for it. Frankly I think we need to do more of it. We would have a lot more valid information and a heck of a lot less loss of American lives! Maybe, you will grow up and find something called “common sense”. I know that is hard for you so called progressives. What a sad name, it is more like regressive. I feel sorry for you people, you are severely deluded and have your facts convoluted you have lowered yourselves to hating anyone who disagrees with you. May our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ grant you wisdom.

  • Boeke

    I guess the mighty Iraq navy hid the WMD in the Gulf Of Tonkin.