Saturday, October 14, 2006

INSTEAD OF A LAWSUIT, FORGIVENESS

Shooter's wife thanks Amish community

Sat. Oct 14, 2:28 PM ET

LANCASTER, Pa. - The wife of a gunman who killed five girls and injured five others at an Amish school released a statement thanking the Amish and others in the Lancaster County community for their "forgiveness, grace and mercy."

In the letter, released by a family spokesman and addressed to Amish friends, neighbors and the local community, Marie Roberts says she and her three young children have been overwhelmed by the community support since the Oct. 2 shootings.

"Your love for our family has helped to provide the healing we so desperately need," she wrote. "Gifts you've given have touched our hearts in a way no words can describe. ... Your compassion has reached beyond our family, beyond our community, and is changing our world, and for this we sincerely thank you."

Since the shooting, members of the Amish community have said they forgive Charles Carl Roberts IV, who killed himself as police closed in on the West Nickel Mines Amish School.

Before he committed suicide, the 32-year-old milk truck driver said he was angry at God for the November 1997 death of his infant daughter. He also said he was driven by memories of molesting two young relatives 20 years ago, a claim investigators have not substantiated.

"Please know that our hearts have been broken by all that has happened," Marie Roberts wrote. "We are filled with sorrow for all of our Amish neighbors whom we have loved and continue to love."

Contractors tore down the bloodstained schoolhouse on Thursday, a step that community members hope will help them move on. Funds also have been set up for the families of the Amish children, as well as the Roberts family.

Marie Roberts said she hopes the community also looks to God for support in the coming days, months and years.

"We know there are many hard days ahead for all the families who lost loved ones, and so we will continue to put our hope and trust in the God of all comfort, as we all seek to rebuild our lives," she wrote.

437 comments:

  1. Cool. I get first post....LOL

    ReplyDelete
  2. Democrats sue over notices about ballot
    By Michael C. Bender
    Saturday, October 14, 2006


    The Florida Democratic Party filed a lawsuit Friday in hopes of keeping notices out of polling places that would inform voters that ballots cast for former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley will count for fellow Republican Joe Negron.

    The eight county elections supervisors who will record the outcome in the 16th Congressional District agreed this week to print a notice that would be posted at registration tables and handed to voters who had questions about the race.

    Foley resigned Sept. 29 - too late to print new ballots - and was replaced as the Republican candidate by Negron, a state lawmaker from Stuart. Negron will receive any votes cast for Foley, according to state law.

    When Negron was picked as Foley's replacement, Florida Division of Elections Director Dawn Roberts asked the supervisors to mail a notice about the change with absentee ballots and to post the notice inside individual voting booths. Supervisors decided against her recommendation but agreed this week to make a notice available in case of voter confusion.

    The attorney for the Florida State Supervisors of Elections gave local supervisors recommended language for the notice, which also would tell voters that votes cast for Democrat Tim Mahoney will count for Mahoney and votes cast for Emmie Ross, who has no party affiliation, will count for Ross.

    But Democrats said giving voters this information at the polling place is illegal. Democratic attorneys cite a Florida statute that states: "No precinct officer may favor any political party, candidate or issue."

    "This plain English statute specifically prohibits any (election supervisor) from passing out at a polling location any information whatsoever that identifies Negron replacing Foley," the complaint states. "That would clearly and prejudicially constitute favoritism for both the Republican Party and Negron."

    The eight county supervisors - including Arthur Anderson in Palm Beach, Vicki Davis in Martin and Gertrude Walker in St. Lucie - and Secretary of State Sue Cobb were named as defendants in the lawsuit, which was filed in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in Leon County. Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman is the plaintiff...

    The Democrat party continues to show its fear and loathing for fair elections and its ceaseless contempt for the truth in general.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yea thats bs what they're doing there. I don't agree with any of that crap.

    No one should be screwing with elections.

    Of course, a overt act like that pales in comparison to the Cuban like shennanigans that went on in Florida in 2000.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dolty, if the GOP can't educate their minions before an election, an education which the MSM has pointed out Foley's name is really a vote for Negron, well they just have to deal with the backwash they play to.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Iraq sectarian spree kills 83 in 2 days
    By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
    Associated Press Writer
    29 minutes ago

    BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 83 people were killed during a two-day spree of sectarian revenge killings, as Iraq's government said Sunday it was indefinitely postponing a much-anticipated national reconciliation conference.

    Separately, the U.S. military reported the deaths of a Marine and four soldiers

    ReplyDelete
  6. But nice of you son, to just IGNORE the thread about FORGIVENESS and launch into a diatribe aboyut how bad it is that your party of pedaphiles and child predator protectors have to educate their minions that this guy is NOT the child predator you all coddled and protectede all these years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5 GIs DEAD, in just TWO days.

    5 more young lives that won't be around to debate the correctness of the Iraq war.

    5 more guys who won't get to march in the parade when they come home.

    And right wingers want them to "stay the course".

    Understand, the right wing themselves don't want to stay the course.

    They want these guys, other peoples sons and daughters, to stay the course.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When Bush talks about staying the course, he is not talking about himself.

    He is talking about everyone who is there staying the course.

    He's asking them to stay there until they get killed.

    Then one day maybe he'll build them a monument or something.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maybe we should start thinking about forgiving Iraqi insurgents.

    After all, they didn't do anything to us until we came there, blew up their homes, killed their women and children and hauled off thousands of them to prison to be beaten, humiliated and tortured.

    Maybe we should think about forgiving them for fighting back, just like any of us would've done if someone came to our country and did all these things.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One thing is certain.

    There will never be stability in Iraq until we provide amnesty to all insurgents in Iraq.

    Thats a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And the quicker we come to the realization that EVERYONE in Iraq is an insurgent, the easier that will be to do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hard words I know.

    Most Americans would rather kill their enemies than understand them, let alone think about forgiving them.

    But acknowledging that most Iraqi's are fighting us, and that we would do the same thing if we were in their shoes, will be the first real sign that some hope is on the horizon for real healing from this hell Bush and the republicans made.

    Iraqi's know they are literally stuck between "Iraq and a hard place". We put them there.

    Either they assist the insurgency, which is pretty much everybody they know, and risk being killed or imprisoned by the US, or they become collaborators, and huddle behind American guns hoping not to get killed by their own.

    I know if I were an Iraqi, I wouldn't be hiding behind some foreign countries guns turning in my fellow countrymen to the invaders.

    I would see such a person as a coward, a traitor, and I would help my fellow countrymen, kill the traitor, and the enemy he supports.

    I have yet to hear a republican answer what they would do in such a sitution.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Iraq IS not radical Islam, just 25 million people who do not want the style of democracy BUSH offers, one that comes at the point of a gun, and includes Bush ET AL setting the conditions of who is acceptable as leaders, and choosing who to rendition. Most of them want the US to go home so they can rebuild iraq, after we BROKE it.

    Kind of reminds me in some ways of some people in a set of british colonies way back say 1776

    ReplyDelete
  14. From Talkingpointsmemo

    At the risk of being mocked for my naivete, let me say that I was under the impression that U.S. air strikes in Iraq had dwindled to only very occasional, discreet sorties months if not years ago. Fighting an insurgency with air strikes is like performing heart surgery with a chain saw. Apparently, though, that's exactly what we are doing.

    Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, hinted at ongoing air strikes this week when he told a group of military reporters that in a war with North Korea the United States would be hampered by the fact that so many guidance and intelligence assets are in use in the Middle East. As reported by the LA Times:

    Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be "as clean as we would like," he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East.

    "You wouldn't have the precision in combat going to a second theater of war that you would if you were only going to the first theater of war," Pace told a group of military reporters. "You end up dropping more bombs potentially to get the job done, and it would mean more brute force."

    Although Pace did not name specific guidance and intelligence systems, Air Force officers have said they do not have surveillance aircraft such as Global Hawk and Predator reconnaissance drones available for East Asia because of their heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unmanned aircraft are used to spy on enemy territory.


    Such recon assets are not used solely for air strikes; they support ground forces, too. But the report last week in the Lancet on the estimated number of Iraqi casualties (an astonishing 655,000 souls) also suggests ongoing aerial bombardment. Crooked Timber crunches the numbers (h/t to Ygelsias):

    One number that is striking, but hasn’t attracted a lot of attention is the estimated death rate from air strikes, 13 per cent of the total or between 50,000 and 100,000 people. Around half the estimated deaths in the last year of the survey, from June 2005 to June 2006. That’s at least 25,000 deaths, or more than 70 per day.

    Yet reports of such deaths are very rare. If you relied on media reports you could easily conclude that total deaths from air strikes would only be a few thousand for the entire war. . . .

    The best source turns out to be the US Air Force Command itself. For October and November 2005, the US Air Force recorded 120 or more air strikes, and this number was on an increasing trend. Most of the strikes appear to be in or near urban areas, and the recorded examples include Hellfire missiles fired by Predators, an F-16 firing a thousand 20mm cannon rounds and an F-15 reported to have fired three GBU-38s, the new satellite-guided 500-pound bomb designed for support of ground troops in close combat. . . .


    This sort of reliance on air strikes to combat the insurgency (which is becoming supplanted by sectarian violence, which our forces may or may not be in a position to distinguish) is a classic example of tactics divorced from strategy.

    My own sense for some time has been that our inability to secure the peace--largely the result of our inadequate force size--has been the biggest obstacle to a political solution in Iraq. Obviously, many other factors come into play, and even achieving security, especially at this late date, does not ensure that a political solution is achieved. But persistent violence, and protecting oneself from it, has a way of trumping all other consideration for a civilian populace. If what we are doing in Iraq militarily still involves heavy use of air strikes, then we are a major source and cause of that violence to an even greater extent than I had imagined, and in a random and indiscriminate way which undermines anything we try to accomplish in Iraq politically.
    -- TPM Reader DK

    ReplyDelete
  15. clif said...


    Kind of reminds me in some ways of some people in a set of british colonies way back say 1776


    Yea, who were those guys again?

    The Star Spangled something or others.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There was a guy with with a fife I think.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And there was that guy that makes the beer...you know, that Sam Adams dude.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Some of those guys must have made money, cause it has their pictures on it.

    Otherwise why put Them on our money?

    ReplyDelete
  19. As the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report. And the lead researcher of that report, Les Roberts, said the liberation of Iraq was done "under unsupportable, and probably illegal, pretenses.", Even Human Rights Watch said the earlier report by these same researchers was "certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting"

    This group's October 2004 report claimed 100,000 Iraqis casualties as a result of Iraq's liberation, and now claim that number is up to 655,000, or more than 550,000 casualties in the last two years alone. But as the authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise." (Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005). And an article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study's authors, only a "rough indicator," and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000


    [So somewhere between 8 and 194 thousand, good lord I hope I never get treated by one of these quacks. Take 30 to 5000 pills 3 or 750 times daily.]

    While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.

    [So they are sure they got it right because they are just as wrong this time as they were the first time.]

    Notated edition from Blackfive.net

    ReplyDelete
  20. October 12, 2006, 0:14 p.m.

    Fixed Findings -
    Another cooked up study from the Lancet.


    By Richard Nadler


    In the current online Lancet, a team of Johns Hopkins authors headed by Gilbert Burnham presents a calculation of Iraqi civilian casualties ten times greater than that of the Brooking Institute and twenty times greater than that of the Pentagon.

    "We estimate," write the authors, "that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war."

    This is not the first October surprise hatched by researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health, and published by the Lancet in the heat of an American election cycle. A predecessor piece, rushed to press on October 29, 2004, reached conclusions of similar magnitude. In that case, Hopkins's Les Roberts, the lead author of the report, admitted that the timing was deliberate. And Lancet editor Richard Horton clarified the political intent, editorializing:

    The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population.

    Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer. This political and military failure continues to cause scores of casualties among non-combatants. It is a failure that deserves to be a serious subject for research. But this report is more than a piece of academic investigation.

    Methodologically, the authors of the current study surveyed 12,801 Iraqi residents in 1,849 household from May through early July, 2006. They recorded respondents' recollections of household deaths, supported (in most instances) by death certificates. The researchers divided the respondents' recollections into two periods: the 14 months preceding the invasion, and the 40 months after. The total number of deaths recorded in the household sample was 82 in the 14 pre-invasion months, and 547 in the 40 post-invasion months. Comparing the death rates in the two time frames, they concluded that the death rate in Iraq has increased by a factor of 2.5. Extrapolating the death rates in the pre- and post-invasion periods over the entire nation, they conclude that roughly 655,000 more Iraqis have died under the democracy than would have died under the Saddam-era baseline - excess deaths, as they say.

    As in 2004, the Lancet study has garnered a great deal of press. And as in 2004, the study's conclusions have been widely dismissed by serious researchers. The most obvious reason is that the Hopkins researchers don't record 655,000 extra casualties - they extrapolate them.

    Other organizations, many of them anti-war, maintain comprehensive databases that track civilian casualties in post-Baathist Iraq death-by-death. The Brookings Institute's Saban Center updates its database weekly, based on several sources:

    Iraq Body Count, whose meticulous tally is compiled from deaths reported in the Iraqi and international press;

    Reports from the Iraqi health ministry and the Baghdad Medico-Legal Institute; and

    Numbers compiled by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq.

    Using these sources, Brookings published a "low" estimate of 43,300 civilian casualties of the post-war, and a "high" estimate of 62,000, cumulative through summer, 2006. The primary ambiguity is less "Who died?" than "How?" When crime-induced deaths are subtracted from the total, the low end of the range results; and conversely when they are not.

    Brookings has recently concluded that it is no longer possible to separate crime-based violence from sectarian-based violence. It therefore favors the higher estimate. But even this higher number is less than one tenth the number of civilian fatalities calculated by the Lancet authors.

    Anthony Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh Burke chair in strategy at the Center for International and Strategic Studies (and no friend to the Bush administration), maintains that the sectarian conflict in Iraq now constitutes a civil war. Cordesman, however, termed the Lancet estimates "certainly way too high."

    "This is not analysis," he told the Associated Press. "This is politics."

    How did the Lancet calculate a civilian death number that exceeded that of other war critics by an order of magnitude?

    Burnham and colleagues defend their statistically extrapolated estimate of "excess death" with reference to the purported imperfection of observation-based methods. "Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher," they write in the Lancet, "than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures. This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted, and fatal events could be intentionally hidden."

    Under what circumstances are "passive" methods unreliable? Are we to distrust direct observation universally? If they are ever to be trusted - or, more precisely, if they are not to be dismissed as being inaccurate by an order of magnitude - the conditions for such (modest) trust surely seem to obtain in Iraq.

    In Saddam's Iraq, there were no commercial TV stations, no commercial radio stations, and no independent print organs. Today, there are, respectively, 54, 114, and 268. If one doubts the significance of these numbers,pick up an SRDS media guide for California - a state of comparable to Iraq in area and population. The media choices of multi-cultural Angelos are less varied than those of Baghdadis.

    In contemporary Iraq, every party, every faction, every sect, has its own organ of communication, each eager to state its claims and air its grievances in the public square. Atrocity stories - deaths, kidnappings, disappearances - are the daily stuff of screaming headlines and prime-time TV. To accept the claims of the Hopkins researchers, one must first assume that the press of Iraq - free, diverse, and ubiquitous - misses nine out of ten killings on its own turf. No other research group shares this assumption.

    Yet if the violence in Iraq is well known, and fulsomely reported, a nagging question remains: Why shouldn't a careful extrapolation, à la Lancet, approximate the numbers compiled by passive (i.e. surveillance-based) means?

    Baseline Bungling
    The conditions in which passive morbidity calculations should be rejected do not exist in Iraq right now; but they certainly existed under the Baath. Scholars of civilian mortality place the daily Saddam-era toll of regime-caused deaths between 75 and 125 citizens per day - roughly double-to-triple the average post-war mortality reported by the body-counters. (The death toll of the past two months, unusually bloody in four of Iraq's 14 provinces, has matched this range.)

    The variability in scholarly opinion on the Baath-era death-rate has two roots. First, when Saddam's Makhabaret was trundling dead Kurds and Shiites into group graves en masse, it was hard to maintain a precise registry. Stalin, Saddam's idol, had the same problem in the Ukraine.

    Second, scholars debate which corpses should count. Just as there are arguments over the status of street-crime victims in post war Iraq, so too there are debates over how to classify the half-million troops who died in Saddam's wars. Researchers generally exclude fallen Iraqi conscripts from Saddam's body-count, leaving Baathist hands somewhat less bloody. Yet these certainly were victims of polity; the invasions of Iran and Kuwait were "wars of choice."

    The Hopkins researchers chose their "base-line" for pre-invasion Iraq carefully: January 2002 through March 2003. They chose a period of time in which Baathist violence against the Kurds was restrained by a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone in the north; a period of time after the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Shia and Marsh Arabs in the south.

    Burnham and associates carved out a brief period of enforced peace within a 25-year regime singularly dedicated to war and internal slaughter. They called it a "baseline," and they compared that baseline against a period of war.

    As a result, 300 of the 302 conflict-related deaths they report are "post-invasion."

    One wonders, though: Had they established a baseline that included the Anfal operation in the Kurdish north - a months-long assault in 1988 that demolished thousands of villages and killed hundreds of thousands of peasants - whether Kurdish respondents might have recollected more than a death or two; and, had they extended their "pre-war" baseline to the end of Desert Storm, whether the families of Basra and Muthana mightn't have recalled another loved one lost.

    A remarkably small number of additional pre-war deaths recollected by the 12,801 interviewees would have wiped out the "findings" of this study altogether.

    The Lancet authors consciously manipulated their pre-war baseline to advance their pre-selected post-war conclusion - that Saddam's Iraq was less violent than Bush's U.S. or Blair's U.K. All they have actually proved is that Excel reliably performs multiplication operations on data fed through it.

    The pity is that this flawed John Hopkins study, widely ignored by war scholars, will be mindlessly cited by the anti-American minions of the mainstream press. But that, after all, was its purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yea. Johns Hopkins. Theres a real shady group.

    Only one of the best hospitals in the world.

    Theres a real bad group.

    Better trust Rush Limpballs.

    He's no brain surgeon but he is a "good ole boy" cause he talks tough, and thats good enuf fer me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well Worfy,

    The study authors ADMIT they are politically biased, and also TIME their releases in order to try and affect the elections.

    Not to mention that most other investigators cast aspersions on their methodology.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This group's October 2004 report claimed 100,000 Iraqis casualties as a result of Iraq's liberation, and now claim that number is up to 655,000, or more than 550,000 casualties in the last two years alone. But as the authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise." (Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005). And an article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study's authors, only a "rough indicator," and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000

    (So somewhere between 8 and 194 thousand, good lord I hope I never get treated by one of these quacks. Take 30 to 5000 pills 3 or 750 times daily.)

    from Blackfive

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The pity is that this flawed John Hopkins study, widely ignored by war scholars, will be mindlessly cited by the anti-American minions of the mainstream press. But that, after all, was its purpose."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well the US military who is only going on body count has up getting close to 100k dead.

    I am curious how that number passes as absolution to a conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Look at poor Dolt, reduced to quoting right wing political hacks to counter one of the oldest and MOST RESPECTED medical journals in the world.

    Nadler is a famous misquoting right wing activist who I wouldn't believe a weather report from, much less his so called "scientific review" contradicting one of the oldest and most well respected medical publications in the world.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't know about "absolution".

    But there IS a difference between accidental civilian casualties in a war and a partisan study attempting to show mindless disregard for innocents.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry Dolt, but even if I did by Nadler and his sack of horsecrap, 50,000, or 500,000, its still mass murder.

    You're not getting off that easy slim.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Partisan study?

    You're calling Johns Hopkins, the BEST hospital in the United States partisan, and the Lancet, one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world partisan, while YOU quote from that right wing sack of shit Nadler?

    LMFAO.

    What a loser.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Quit bothering me. I'm watching yours and TT's movie on TBS.

    Dumb and Dumber.

    ReplyDelete
  31. the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report. And the lead researcher of that report, Les Roberts, said the liberation of Iraq was done "under unsupportable, and probably illegal, pretenses."

    the authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise." (Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005).

    an article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study's authors, only a "rough indicator," and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000

    There's your RESPECTED group...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well we know it wasn't 8,000 dumb ass.

    The military already counted over 30,000 bodies by that time.

    Get a clue genius. You're quoting from your Nadler rag.

    Go turn on Rush Limpballs so he can tell you about the new Master Race.

    ReplyDelete
  33. the group has admitted to a political motivation

    "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."

    "rough indicator,"

    range or their findings
    between 8,000 and 194,000

    pretty WIDE spread there eh slick?
    How accurate do you think they are?

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Lancet

    From Wikipedia

    The Lancet is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, published weekly by Elsevier, part of Reed Elsevier.

    It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet, as well as an arched window ("to let in light").

    ReplyDelete
  35. And THOSE ARE FACTS.

    It doesn't matter who I'm quoting, HE'S quoting the AP, The Lancet and the Guardian.

    Too easily verifiable to be lies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. From SourceWatch

    Richard Nadler is president of the nonprofit think tank Americas Majority and co-editor of Daily Dispatch, "a military blog reporting on events in Iraq."

    Rich Nadler, according to an April 6, 2006, article in The Pitch by Eric Barton, is a Kansas City "conservative pundit" who "runs an activist group called Americas Majority".

    ReplyDelete
  37. "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise." (Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005).

    ReplyDelete
  38. Like I said dudley, blow it out your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  39. So even if I did buy your right wing bullshit, which I don't, 50,000 dead bodies is a number that lets you sleep at night?

    Hope you have fun in hell.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dude. You can quote the "indeed imprecise" all you want. I've quoted that before too.

    We KNOW its imprecise. Its not a exact number.

    But what sick, twisted pathetic shits like you never seem to get is that even if they're remotely close, we've been responsible for the deaths of a lot of human beings.

    And you're facilitating it.

    So be sure to keep that Nadler article handy.

    I'm sure Jesus will be impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Have YOU read the actual report Worfy?

    I DID. I registered and all just so I could do that. They claim the escalation of the deaths is NOT because of US military actions.
    Those deaths have actully gone down.
    (Now I'm sure THERE'S something in this "study" you won't believe...)


    When will you quit blaming US and put the blame on terrorists where it belongs?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yea. I read it. About a year ago.

    And it says the MAJORITY of deaths in Iraq were cause by "COALITON AIR STRIKES".


    Curious though.

    You just said the report and the authors were left wing partisan hacks.

    Or was it quacks?

    Anyway, now you're quoting it as authoritative?

    You boggle my mind.

    ReplyDelete
  43. When will you grow up and accept responsibility that everyone in the world attributes to you, including more than half your own country, except you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Being a man volt, is more than "talking tough" about other people killing other people.

    Its about understanding your responsibility for the deaths caused by your irresponsible, unjustified, and criminal actions.

    Anyway don't tell it to me. Tell it to Jesus, or whoever you worship.

    ReplyDelete
  45. And lets face it.

    "Stay the course" really means letting someone elses kids "stay the course".

    You're not staying anything, other than safe.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Yea. I read it. About a year ago."

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.
    And it was done between May and July, 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And BTW,

    I'M not quoting it as authoritative.

    But since I'm talking to YOU and YOU SEEM TO THINK IT IS...

    ReplyDelete
  48. You're an idiot Volt.

    The original Lancet report on deaths caused by the coalition in Iraq, which estimated 99,000 dead at that time, came out in early 04.

    Look folks.

    Voltaire found a right wing hack article and thinks he knows something, LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  49. NIMROD Said;

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.
    And it was done between May and July, 2006.

    5:58 PM



    Funny.

    Then why did the BBC report this figure in October 2004?

    Iraq Body Count: 14-16,000
    Brookings Inst: 10-27,000
    UK foreign secretary: >10,000
    People's Kifah >37,000
    Lancet: >100,000



    I didn't know the BBC was capable of time travel and can see the future.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I read the report back when I first logged on to TP, about a year and a half ago. I read it in PDF format, where I downloaded it.

    Sorry shorty, but your wrong as usual.

    Next time before you quote some right wing activist hack, you might want to do your homework first.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Air America Bankrupted, by George!

    Air America filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy today. They vow to valiantly remain on the airwaves in case somebody accidentally tunes in, but I fear it’s only a matter of time before they hang up their microphones for good. It is truly a sad day for Free Speech in this country.

    Air America was a vital educational resource, so it should have been completely taxpayer-funded instead of forced to compete for listeners on the open market. Once again, the GOP has used capitalism to silence the lone liberal voice in the conservative-dominated radio wilderness. Now all we progressives have left to counter the Right-Wing Noise Machine is ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, TBS, NPR, CNN, BBC, HBO, HSN, MTV, VH1, Showtime, The Abortion Channel, Gore TV, Reuters, The Associated Press, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The New Republic, the Nation, The New Yorker, TV Guide, People Magazine, Teen People, Us Magazine, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, Oprah Magazine, Ladies Home Journal, Woman’s Day, The Advocate, Esquire, Vogue, Cosmopolitian, Humpty Dumpty, Architectural Digest, Cat Fancy, Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Swank, Sugar Tits Quarterly, the Harvard Perspective, High Times, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Times, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Weekly, The Boston Globe, The Village Voice, The San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, USA Today, The Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Arizona Daily Star, The Anniston Star , The Decatur Daily, Montgomery Advertiser, The Tuscaloosa News, Anchorage Daily News Arkansas Time, Tuscon Daily Star, The Alameda Times-Star, Contra Costa Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, The Fresno Bee, Marin Independent Journal, Merced Sun-Star, The Modesto Bee, The Monterey County Herald, The Oakland Tribune, La Opinion, The Santa Rose Press Democrat, The Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, San Mateo County Times, Santa Cruz Sentinel, The Valejo Times-Herald, The Eureka Times Standard, The Ventura County Star, Aspen Daily News, The Boulder Daily Camera, Durango Herald, Fort Collins Coloradoan, Greeley Daily Tribune, The Stamford Advocate, The Wilmington News Journal, Bradenton Herald, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Florida Today, The Gainesville Sun, The Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, St Petersburg Times, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Treasure Coast News/Press-Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Macon Telegraph, The Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Bonner County Daily Bee, The Idaho Statesman, Chicago Defender, Chicago Sun-Times, Edwardsville Intelligencer,Rockford Register, Lafayatte Journal and Courier, The Des Moines Register, Iowa City Press-Citizen, Quad City Times, The Storm Lake Tribune, The Hutchinson News, Lexington Herald-Leader, The Louisville Courier-Journal, Teen Lexington Herald-Leader, Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, The Shreveport Times, Bangor Daily News. the Kennebec Journal, Portland Press Herald, The Baltimore Sun, The Berkshire Eagle, The Framingham MetroWest Daily News, Milford Daily News. The Springfield Republican, The New Bedford Standard-Times, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, The Argus-Press, The Bay City Times, The Battle Creek Enquirer, the Detroit Free Press, The Flint Journal, the Lansing State Journal, Livingston County Daily Press & Argus, The Muskegon Chronicle, Parasites Weekly, Petoskey News-Review, The Saginaw News, the Port Huron Times Herald, Traverse City Record-Eagle, Duluth News Tribune, The Mankato Free Press, St. Cloud Times, the Columbia Daily Tribune, The Kansas City Star, St. Louis American, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Springfield News-Leader, Billings Gazette, Las Vegas Mercury, the Las Vegas Sun, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Nevada Appeal, the Reno Gazette-Journal, the Concord Monitor, The Keene Sentinel, the Portsmouth Herald, The Nashua Telegraph, the Lebanon-Hanover Valley News, The Bergen Record, the Burlington County Times, the Bridgewater Courier News, the Camden Courier-Post, The Vineland Daily Journal, the Parsippany Daily Record, The Jersey Journal, The Gloucester County Times, The Hackensack Record, the Newark Star-Ledger The Trenton Times, the Albuquerque Tribune, The Santa Fe New Mexican, The Buffalo News: “News for Discerning Buffalo”, the Oneonta Daily Star, The Ithaca Journal The White Plains Journal-News, The Corning Leader, Newsday, The Glen Falls Post-Star, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, the Elmira Star-Gazette, the Staten Island Advance, the Albany Times-Union, Willie the Wino’s Grand Central Station Restroom Scribblings, the Asheville Citizen Times, The Charlotte Observer, the Elizabeth City Daily Advance, The Greenville Daily Reflector, The Raleigh News & Observer, the Greensboro News & Record, The Southern Pines Pilot, the Wilimgton Star-News, The Bismarck Tribune, the Grand Forks Herald, the Akron Beacon Journal, The Toledo Blade, the Dayton Daily News, the Zanesville Times Recorder, The Daily Astorian, the East Oregonian, the Medford Mail Tribune, the Portland Oregonian, The Eugene Register-Guard, the Salem Statesman Journal, The Coos Bay World, The Beaver County Times, The Bucks County Courier Times, the Wilkes-Barre
    Citizen's Voice, The Doylestown Intelligencer, the Uniontown Herald-Standard, The Allentown Morning Call, the Washington Observer-Reporter, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, the Anderson Independent-Mail, The Myrtle Beach Sun News, The Memphis Commercial-Appeal, The Jackson Sun, Nashville Scene, The Tennessean,
    The Berkeley Daily Planet, Berkeley Voice, The Berkeleyan, ¡Berkemundo!, The Baytown Sun (11,374), the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the Lone Star Iconoclast, the Longview News-Journal, The Lufkin Daily News, the Waco Tribune-Herald, the Bennington Banner, the Brattleboro Reformer, The Burlington Free Press, the Rutland Herald, The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, the Newport Daily Press, The Roanoke Times, The Virginian-Pilot, The Everett, The Olympian, The Tacoma News Tribune, The Bremerton Sun, the Tri-City Herald, the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, the Boston Phoenix, the Charleston Gazette, the Huntington Herald-Dispatch, Howard Stern, the Madison Capital Times, The Green Bay News-Chronicle, the Racine Journal Times, the Kenosha News, the La Crosse Tribune, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Sheboygan Press, The Wausau Daily Herald, The Guardian, The Independent, the Paris Daily Snivel, Der Spiegel, Democracy Now. The Huffington Post, The Progressive Review, Alternet, Dissident Voice, AntiWar.com, Common Dreams, Truthout.org, MoveOn.org, TomPaine.com, Counterpunch, The People’s Kool-Aid, BlameBush!, Mother Jones, High Times, The Progressive, New Internationalist, Multinational Monitor, Covert Action Quarterly, The American Prospect, Dollars and Sense, The Progressive Populist, The Weekly Standard, New Left Review, Pacifica Radio, Progressive Mind, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, YouTube, Marvel Comics, The Weekly World News, Indymedia, DailyKos, Wonkette, DemocraticUnderground, The Prairie Home Companion, Coast to Coast with George Noory, Pravda, Granma, and Al Jazeera.

    So much for that right-wing myth about the “liberal media!”

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hurry volt.

    Google hard.

    You'll find out I'm right.

    In fact, I could even post a link to the .pdf that I have saved in my favorites, that was published online at the Lancet on October 29th, 2004, where you can read the actual report, not your little right wing rag by Nadler the goon.

    I could post it.

    If I weren't such an asshole.

    But I'd rather make you hunt first, before finding out what a fool you just made of yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And aren't you glad I posted your stupid comment, just so you couldn't delete it once you figure out what a right wing buffoon you really are?

    Wasn't that nice of me?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh look. Dumb ass texan suddenly appears to save his little buddy from looking like a fool.

    Suddenly, the DOLT is noticably quiet, and TT is posting long bullshit to bury his little butt buddies folly.

    How sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Here Dolt.

    Let me post some excerpts from the study published in 04, just to make you look stupid.

    I know you don't need my help, but I'll help anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  56. We assessed the
    relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months
    after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.
    Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6–4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period.

    Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja.

    If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1–2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98 000 more deaths than expected (8000–194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.

    The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction,cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death.

    Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces.

    Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.

    The risk of death from violence in
    the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war.

    From the Lancet Study of Mortality in Iraq, published online, October 29, 2004 (for ANYONE to read)

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anyone apparently other than Voltaire, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Interpretation Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.



    From the Lancet study "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq", published online for everyone to read (except Voltaire), October 29th, 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Well, I guess your clocks about as clean as I can get it for now Volt old buddy.

    I'll pop in later to see how you're doing, and after you've replaced that wireless keyboard you just smashed into a million tiny peices.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Worf, YES the ORIGINAL article WAS 2004.

    BUT the one YOU GUYS are trying to make hay with which quotes 655,000 killed is from THIS YEAR.

    DUMBASS.

    My POINT in quoting from the ORIGINAL was to show how faulty the methodology used, and how partisan the study IS.

    AND the latest one is from THE
    SAME GROUP USING THE SAME METHODOLOGY.

    (and it DOES say that US military caused deaths are down...)

    ReplyDelete
  61. The only clock cleaned was your own since you can't seem to comprehend much.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dolty, why not just accept you cheering for the most corrupt AND incompetent administration EVER. lead by the Worst President ever.....EVER....of all time.

    The only president who ever became a JOKE to the entire WORLD, a sad pathetic JOKE.

    Get over it SON, you morons picked the wrong Idiot to front for you, and he is gonna hurt you clowns worse in the next two years than he alreadyt hurt you all in the last six.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
    -Ronald Reagan

    ReplyDelete
  64. It isn't that repugs are Hypocrites, they just do not follow the mantras they preach to everybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 600,000 Questions

    By Bangor Daily News Staff

    For the second time in two years, the highly regarded British medical journal The Lancet has reported that civilian deaths in Iraq far exceed official estimates. A study in the publication now estimates that more than 600,000 civilians have died in violence following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The number — 20 times higher than President Bush last year speculated the civilian death toll to be — was immediately questioned.

    Rather than simply dismissing the numbers as unbelievable, this report should prompt lawmakers, military leaders and the public to closely examine the consequences of the Iraq war and to ask if a better strategy for securing the country should be pursued.

    For The Lancet study, American and Iraqi public health researchers surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across the country. Among these families, 547 deaths were reported since the invasion, compared to 82 in the 14 months before March 2003. The mortality rate before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people annually compared to 13.3 since. The difference between these two are "excess" deaths, deaths above what would be expected under pre-invasion conditions.

    Extrapolating their findings to the country as a whole, the researchers estimate that between 426,000 and 794,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since March 2003, with 601,000 due to violence, most often gunfire. These killings are mostly the result of sectarian violence, not coalition forces.

    In 2004, the researchers, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 100,000 excess Iraq death has occurred since the invasion.

    Statisticians said the team’s approach appeared valid. Similar surveys have been used to calculate civilian deaths in Rwanda and Kosovo.

    Quantifying and discussing the number of civilian casualties in Iraq, or any conflict, is difficult. Talking about the deaths of children, women and men in terms of mere numbers sounds callous. According to United Nations estimates, based on figures from Iraqi morgues, about 100 people a day are killed in Iraq. Is this number acceptable, but the 500 a day calculated by The Lancet is not?

    On a practical level, counting dead civilians in a war zone is imprecise. Reporters, largely confined to the Green Zone in Baghdad because of the daily violence, are unable to talk with families or comrades of those who are killed. Families, fearful of revenge if they are seen talking with American or Iraqi authorities, often quickly bury their dead without notifying the government or taking the deceased to the morgue.

    Last month, the Iraqi government stopped the Health Ministry and the central morgue in Baghdad from releasing death figures to the media. This report may fill in these gaps.

    The report and its troubling findings offer just one more reason to reconsider the current path in Iraq and demand better alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hmmm.

    Lets see. Only took you an hour to come up with that bellycrawl.

    Lets see how it stands up.

    Dolt said;

    Worf, YES the ORIGINAL article WAS 2004.

    BUT the one YOU GUYS are trying to make hay with which quotes 655,000 killed is from THIS YEAR.



    Hmmm..

    I wasn't making hay of anything at the moment. You were.

    THEN DOLT SAID;

    My POINT in quoting from the ORIGINAL was to show how faulty the methodology used, and how partisan the study IS.


    Hmmmmm.

    So you just ADMITTED after an hour of googling, that the Study was published in 2004.

    But now you say you were quoting the "original" article, however earlier you said when I honestly and accurately told you I had read it about a year ago.

    DOLT SAID;

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.
    And it was done between May and July, 2006.


    Hmm..

    Not looking good buddy.

    Even the most casual and impartial observer can clearly see you didn't know anything about the Lancet Study (the thing you keep referring to as an article), that you clearly and unequivocably claimed came out in 2006.

    It did not. What you are seeing in your right wing rag is the updated figures from the Lancet study, that was commissioned in 03, and first published in 04.

    Now, after an hour of pondering and scheming with your buddy TT, you come back with this pathetic waffling bullshit.

    You're a chump. You just got your ass handed to you and your not even man enough to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Voltaire said...

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.
    And it was done between May and July, 2006.

    5:58 PM



    LMAO.

    You're such a practiced liar, you no longer see your own bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Here. The quote so nice I'll quote it twice.

    Voltaire said...

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.
    And it was done between May and July, 2006.

    5:58 PM


    The truth?

    He admitted that later after a half hour of googling.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Nice parsing worf.

    updated, recent, whatever, semantics.

    You KNEW what I was talking about.

    AND YES I KNEW ABOUT THE ORIGINAL STUDY IN 2004.

    If you go back and look I took Cliffy to task over the very same.

    If the best you can do is hide behind your parsing and semantics then I already won.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The "Interpretation" of the data from the Lancet study.

    Making CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.


    From the Lancet study "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq", published online for everyone to read (except Voltaire), October 29th, 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  71. All you did dolt is scream about it, exactly what your doing right now, YOU and the assclowns you QUOTE have NEVER proven either study false. LIKE the LIES of Bush ET AL were proven false about the Iraqi war.

    Scream away dolt, November 7ty is a commin' and maybe you should look up that number Worfeus was offering you sycophants.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Voltaire said;

    AND YES I KNEW ABOUT THE ORIGINAL STUDY IN 2004.


    But earlier, before he actually googled the study, Voltaire said;

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.
    And it was done between May and July, 2006.



    Hmmm.

    We'd like to believe you buddy but you these words, which are quoted in their entirety, say otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Extrapolating their findings to the country as a whole, the researchers estimate that between 426,000 and 794,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since March 2003, with 601,000 due to violence, most often gunfire. These killings are mostly the result of sectarian violence, not coalition forces."

    From the update...


    You can always tell when Worfy gets his clock cleaned, he starts playing semantic games and parsing words...

    LOL@Worf!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Voltaire said...
    updated, recent, whatever, semantics.


    No its not bozo.

    The Study you are referring to has been going on since the war began.

    You're so stupid you're still demonstrating your clear lack of knowledge about the study you tried to sound smarter than.

    Tried and failed.

    ReplyDelete
  75. See Dolty polstrers can interview 1000 people here(out of almost 300,000,000) and predict the outcome of an election with amasing accuracy.

    But you want to dismiss a survey of over 13,000 in a country of 25,000,000.

    Just because it LOOKS bad for you PNAC supporting assclowns.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Voltaire said...


    You KNEW what I was talking about.


    How could I?

    You didn't even know what you were talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  77. DOLT SAID;

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.


    And it was done between May and July, 2006.



    Show me where I "parsed" that.

    Is that what you said or not?

    ReplyDelete
  78. "See Dolty polstrers can interview 1000 people here(out of almost 300,000,000) and predict the outcome of an election with amasing accuracy."

    Yeah? They had Kerry winning the last election didn't they?

    ReplyDelete
  79. What happened tonight Clif, is Voltaire stumbled upon a right wing hack named Nadler, and read his bullshit attempt to discredit a study by one of the most respected medical journals in the world, and thought he'd come in here and try to sound smart.

    He got caught, clearly knowing nothing of the study, not even when it was commissioned.

    Now, after smashing his keyboard and a half hour of googling, and consulting with the other idiot, TT, he comes back with this, I SAID ONE THING BUT MEANT SOMETHING ELSE defense.

    Its pathetic, and a waste of my time.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Worf, if I want to play word games I'll just sit down and do the New York Times crossword. (the only part of the paper worth looking at)

    And if you want to call it "ongoing" fine, but they've only done their survey TWICE. Once in 04 and again in 06. They've only reported their "findings" TWICE. Once in 04 and again in 06. And when they publish the next "findings" probably in 08, we can have this lovely discussion again.

    So play on.

    Your boring the hell out of me and I'm going to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  81. The last election was a difference of 4% points, which in this survey would be less than 24,000 people son. So your still an A$$CLOWN as usual.

    Try something intelligent to say and maybe you would haver a valid point, but GOP talking points and smear from reichwingnut sites do NOT invalidate the survey just expose your ignorance and delusional thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Voltaire said...
    Worf, if I want to play word games


    What word games am I playing?

    I quoted you in your entirety.

    You said the study was done in a couple of months in 2006.

    The REAL study, has been going on since 2003, and is STILL going on.

    How does your stating a complete fallacy, then my quoting it IN FULL, constitute my playing word games?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Go to bed loser.

    You're the one who said it was done it 06.

    Here, let me republish you IN FULL once more.

    Voltaire said... "Yea. I read it. About a year ago."

    BULLSHIT!

    It just recently came out.
    And it was done between May and July, 2006.

    5:58 PM



    So trying to claim I couldn'tve read the study a year ago, you showed us you didn't know the recent figures and segments of the study you pulled off your right wing rag site were just updates to an ongoing study.

    Otherwise why would you claim I couldn'tve read the study

    ReplyDelete
  84. That is, if you knew the study had been out for years?


    Sorry slappy.

    Doesn't add up.

    ReplyDelete
  85. But the real tragedy here is that you somehow think if you can just prove that instead of half a million people killed in Iraq because of our presence there, only a quarter of a million were killed because of our presence there, that somehow you'll be absolved.

    That somehow, 100,000 more or less is the differnece between salvation and damnation.

    By your logic, if Charles Manson can just convince the judge that he killed on 10 people, instead of 20, that we should let him go free.

    Boggles the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Worf.

    From my FIRST damn post (at 3:36pm) regarding the subject:

    "As the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report".

    "This group's October 2004 report claimed 100,000 Iraqis casualties as a result of Iraq's liberation, and now claim that number is up to 655,000,"

    "The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey,"


    SO CLEARLY (to everyone but worf)
    I KNEW OF THE EARLIER SURVEY.

    Good job though of burying the facts about that study.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Actually, Worf, Volt is quite capable of holding his own against both of you without my help, as he did today and this evening.

    Worf, you need to formulate arguments that don't open yourself up to the attack of using double standards, which you have done quite a lot recently. We both know that if Bush were caught, in flagrante delicto, in the Oval Office, you'd be right there condemning it.

    If Foley had been a Democrat and drowned a young woman in his Delta 88, you'd be right there defending him. Mary Jo didn't die of drowning, but of asphixiation, and her death took 45 agonizing minutes. (Go read the book Senatorial Privilege.) And what did you Dems do? You re-elected him. Just like you re-elected Gerry Studds, the former congressman who actually had sex with an underage page. Funny, you have no condemnatory words for him.

    ReplyDelete
  88. TT Volt isn't capable of tying his shoes without written instructions.

    As for you, A TEXAS LIAR SAID;
    We both know that if Bush were caught, in flagrante delicto, in the Oval Office, you'd be right there condemning it.


    You're a liar.

    You don't know crap about me pal, and I would never condemn Bush, or anyone else for following the call of the schlong. We're men. Its what we do.

    Better come up with more than inventing my positions for me if you don't want to look as stupid as your butt companion.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The LYING TEXAN said;

    If Foley had been a Democrat and drowned a young woman in his Delta 88, you'd be right there defending him

    Wrong again.

    Now if he were drowning you, or perhaps your mother prior to your birth, then ok, you might have a point there.

    But as for defending a child molester?

    I'm afraid that is your peoples department.


    A fact that is growing more public every day.

    ReplyDelete
  90. AND THOSE FACTS ARE:

    "Other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report."

    "The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."

    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005

    An article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study's authors, only a "rough indicator," and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000

    Now as to the OH SO RESPECTED authors of the study at Johns Hopkins, If YOUR doctor gave you odds like that regarding your personal health you'd run like hell for a second opinion I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Now, having CLEARLY proven Worf's parsing and semantics are a cover for his weak ass defense and to bury any facts regarding the survey, I am again off to bed.

    Good Night.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Yes Volt. I saw your 3:36 post.

    And I also saw your 5:58 post, where when I told you I had read the Lancet study a year ago, you said BULLSHIT. It didn't come out to 2006!

    So lets see. If we are to believe you, that you actually READ what you posted at 3:36, and UNDERSTOOD what you cut and pasted at 3:36, then we must conclude, that you KNEW I could have read the study in 05.

    Yet you chose to say BULLSHIT.

    Clearly showing you were "playing word games".

    On the other hand, if thats NOT what happened, then the only other option to conclude is that you were ignorant of the study you were quoting from, and don't know what you're talking about.


    A or B?

    Please check one of the above.

    ReplyDelete
  93. But since the hypocrite calling himself Voltaire likes to accuse others of "word games", lets take a look at the games he plays with the FACTS.

    Notice how a right wing hack tries to pass off RIGHT WING BULLSHIT from a RIGHT WING ACTIVIST as scientific data from the LANCET.

    Behold the LIE.

    Voltaire said...
    AND THOSE FACTS ARE:

    "Other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report."

    "The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005


    Notice how he attributes the above passages to The LANCET.

    But in reality?

    Out of the 44 words he posts above, signing them to the LANCET, only TEN of them actually are quoted from the LANCET.

    The rest are from an AP news article.

    He claims to be quoting the LANCET, but he's not.

    This is a common trick of Voltaires, and why he is not to be believed.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Yea TT.

    He sure is holding his own.

    ReplyDelete
  95. In fact, I bet he "holding" onto it right now.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Voltaire posts other peoples articles, and passes it off as quotes he found in the LANCET to try and prove his point.

    And that is quite a point he has there too.

    Maybe if he combs his hair over it no one will notice.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Have YOU read the actual report Worfy?

    I DID. I registered and all just so I could do that. "They claim the escalation of the deaths is NOT because of US military actions.
    Those deaths have actully gone down."

    -My post 5:27pm

    Yea. I read it. About a year ago.

    And it says the MAJORITY of deaths in Iraq were cause by "COALITON AIR STRIKES".

    -Worf 5:50pm

    "BULLSHIT!"
    -Me at 5:58

    "Extrapolating their findings to the country as a whole, the researchers estimate that between 426,000 and 794,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since March 2003, with 601,000 due to violence, most often gunfire. These killings are mostly the result of sectarian violence, not coalition forces."
    -The Lancet (2006 update)


    So who is ignorant here?

    WORF was obviously totally unaware that the study had been updated.

    Once he found out about the recent update he started his smoke screen to cover his ass.

    ReplyDelete
  98. In fact, I just found Voltaires so called article from the LANCET, and guess where I found it?

    Thats right.

    On another right wing rag site.

    Update 12:37 by Matthew Sheffield. Over at the Corner, a reader emails Kathryn Lopez some info about the group behind this "study:"




    As the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report. And the lead researcher of that report, Les Roberts, said the liberation of Iraq was done “under unsupportable, and probably illegal, pretenses.” Even Human Rights Watch said the earlier report by these same researchers was “certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting”

    This group’s October 2004 report claimed 100,000 Iraqis casualties as a result of Iraq’s liberation, and now claim that number is up to 655,000, or more than 550,000 casualties in the last two years alone. But as the authors wrote in an “author’s reply” following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, “The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise.” (Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005). And an article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study’s authors, only a “rough indicator,” and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000.


    This was taken from the right wing media site, NEWSBUSTERS, whose motto on the front pages states:
    "Exposing and combatting liberal media bias".

    This is what Voltaire signs THE LANCET.

    BUSTED

    ReplyDelete
  99. Again with the lies Worffy...

    Here is what I posted regarding the Lancet:

    "The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005

    Now I suppose I could've left out the explanation regarding WHO it was that said the study was IMPRECISE. Or that they said it because of concerns raised about METHODOLOGY. Or what YEAR was being talked about.

    But what is in quotation marks "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    IS INDEED WHAT WAS PUBLISHED BY THAT JOURNAL.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Dolt said;
    WORF was obviously totally unaware that the study had been updated.

    And now as all right wingers do when they get their clocks cleaned, they turn their sin back on their accuser.

    Sorry volt.

    I've talked about the LANCET for the last year, and I even pointed out the night Lydia posted the update that I haden't seen it, but was shocked on learning of it.

    I'd say nice try, but it wasn't even that.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Dolt said;

    But what is in quotation marks "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    IS INDEED WHAT WAS PUBLISHED BY THAT JOURNAL.


    Thats right jackass. A fact you were clearly trying to muddy, without crossing the line of removing the quote marks, in case someone was sharp enough to catch you on your bullshit.

    I read you like a book.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Worf about that comprehension problem...

    Did I not credit "blackfive.net" with my original post? Never saw the Newsmax piece, evidently blackfive got it from there.

    And do they NOT credit the AP, The Guardian and the Lancet where applicable?

    So bust yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  103. One things for sure.

    Once I called you on the date of the lancet, it took a half an hour of googling before you came back with an answer.

    Since we were posting back and forth, I know you didn't just walk away without telling me.

    You clearly had no answer, and you clearly had to search to come up with some argument to combat the fact I just caught you.

    And now you're stil tap dancing trying to hide your folly. Just like tt did.

    But I do admire your footwork.

    ReplyDelete
  104. And one more things for sure.

    You know you got busted because you're still here half an hour after you said you were going to bed, trying to cover your own folly.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Dolt said;

    And do they NOT credit the AP, The Guardian and the Lancet where applicable?


    Yea.

    But you didn't.

    You quoted Blackfive, but you POSTED the quote like it was from the LANCET.

    Here. Lets examine it once more.

    I will post your ENTIRE post up till your showing it as coming from the LANCET.



    Voltaire said...
    AND THOSE FACTS ARE:

    "Other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report."

    "The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005

    ReplyDelete
  106. JUST SO WE DON'T KEEP BURYING THOSE FACTS:

    And so there is no confusion for weak minds I'll post these two FIRST.

    The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005

    "Extrapolating their findings to the country as a whole, the researchers estimate that between 426,000 and 794,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since March 2003, with 601,000 due to violence, most often gunfire. These killings are mostly the result of sectarian violence, not coalition forces."
    -The Lancet (2006 update)

    And for nimrods who can't tell these are from OTHER SOURCES:

    the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report.

    An article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study's authors, only a "rough indicator," and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000

    ReplyDelete
  107. Now anyone reading that, including myself when I first looked at it, would think that you were quoting something from some update to the LANCET study.

    But you weren't.

    You were doing what I said you were doing from the moment you started posting.

    Posting one line from the LANCET, and a paragraph from a right wing rag, and then tributing it ALL to the LANCET.

    Like I said.

    I read you like a book.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Worf,

    That half hour (and probably longer) is the time it took me to get home.

    I was visiting "some kid I used to babysit", Then he had to go to work, gave me a hug and told me he loved me. And then I came home and began posting again from here.

    If you'll notice my posts are slower now since I'm no longer on broadband and back to dial up.

    ReplyDelete
  109. You might fool some people in here Volt, if you hadn't also said this.

    Voltaire said...
    Well Worfy,

    The study authors ADMIT they are politically biased, and also TIME their releases in order to try and affect the elections.



    AFTER quoting from a long winded RIGHT WING HACK ARTCILE.

    You just said, and I am QUOTING YOU NOW, "The study authors ADMIT they are politically biased".

    Ahhhh.

    But the "STUDY AUTHORS" had said NO SUCH THING, had they.

    No, instead it was a RIGHT WING HACK who said those things, and you quoted them like they said it.

    Nice try though. You really danced up quite a little storm tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Note the separation of paragraphs there Worfy?

    Almost like I was posting them as DIFFERENT facts?

    COMPREHENSION.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Voltaire said...
    Worf,

    That half hour (and probably longer) is the time it took me to get home.


    Sure buddy, sure. Suddenly you just got up and walked out in the middle of a discussion with me, without a word.

    Sorry pal.

    Ain't buying it. At THAT particular moment, you just suddenly left.

    How convenient.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Voltaire the fabricator said;

    I was visiting "some kid I used to babysit", Then he had to go to work, gave me a hug and told me he loved me. And then I came home and began posting again from here.

    Touching story.

    Little kids caught in lies also invent wild and descriptive and always innocent sounding peripheral tales to reinforce their stories.

    Cute.

    But if I were you, I wouldn't talk about hugging kids you used to "babysit".

    In fact, I wouldn't talk about "babysitting" anyone.

    Don't want to give anyone the wrong impression.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Now you say you "seperate" the sentences to demonstrate two different sources.


    Hmmm....gee....you didn't do that here.

    The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005


    So you only do that sometimes I guess, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  114. And I was quoting the AP:

    "the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report."

    ReplyDelete
  115. Any normal person reading that "paragraph" would assume the entire thing came from the source you attributed it to.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Voltaire said...
    And I was quoting the AP:

    "the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report."


    You're even lying now?

    You can't even get your mis-quotes straight.

    You weren't quoting the AP.

    Your RIGHT WING RAG was.

    You were quoting the right wing RAG.

    (Hint: The AP doesn't reference itself by stating-the AP report points out)

    ReplyDelete
  117. "The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report,..."

    Exactly what is partisan or misleading about this description Worf?

    Does it change the meaning at all of this?:

    "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005

    Like I said earlier:

    "Now I suppose I could've left out the explanation regarding WHO it was that said the study was IMPRECISE. Or that they said it because of concerns raised about METHODOLOGY. Or what YEAR was being talked about."

    But then THAT gives NO CONTEXT to the Lancet quote now does it?

    ReplyDelete
  118. It all comes back to what I orginally said.

    Voltaire stumbled across a right wing hack story trying to discredit the LANCET study, and tried pushing his right wing bullshit aritcle off as actual findings on the Lancet. He uses right wing interpretations of an obscure AP article trying to make it look like some of the smartest people in the world are wrong, and the cheap right wing idiot hacks, are right.

    This is 3 hours of my life I'm never going to get back.

    ReplyDelete
  119. What are you talking about?

    YOU QUOTED THIS

    The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."

    THEN YOU SIGNED IT WITH THIS!!!

    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005


    You can lie, squirm, and spew dribble all night long loser, but THATS WHAT YOU QUOTED, and THATS HOW YOU QUOTED IT.

    AND NOTHING you say will change that.

    Go to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  120. And here's the original AP quote as printed in the Washington Post:

    "The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study _ that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate."

    sounds pretty biased to me...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001576.html

    Also from the same:

    An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

    "They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

    "This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said."

    ReplyDelete
  121. JUST SO WE DON'T KEEP BURYING THOSE FACTS:

    And so there is no confusion for weak minds I'll post these two FIRST.

    The authors wrote in an "author's reply" following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, (so COMPLETE IDIOTS can understand the context) "The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise."
    Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005

    "Extrapolating their findings to the country as a whole, the researchers estimate that between 426,000 and 794,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since March 2003, with 601,000 due to violence, most often gunfire. These killings are mostly the result of sectarian violence, not coalition forces."
    -The Lancet (2006 update)

    And for nimrods who can't tell these are from OTHER SOURCES:

    the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report.

    An article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study's authors, only a "rough indicator," and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000


    Good Night!

    ReplyDelete
  122. The Lancet study asserting that the Iraq conflict has cost the lives of between 420,000 and 780,000 Iraqis continues to generate controversy. But Dan Murphy of the CSM quotes public health officials pointing out that its methodology was sound, contrary to what Presiden Bush asserted. Murphy's article also puts its finger on the likely source of the discrepancy between the Lancet numbers and those of the Iraqi ministry of health: The ministry employees cannot travel easily to places like Baqubah and Kut and Ramadi to collect death statistics from local officials. I can remember talking recently to a Shiite from Baghdad who said that virtually no one routinely goes to Najaf from the capital any more because the roads are too unsafe. Najaf was only an hour's drive from Baghdad in the old days.


    Juancole.com

    ReplyDelete
  123. osted by Juan @ 10/12/2006 12:49:00 AM 3 comments

    Wednesday, October 11, 2006

    655,000 Dead in Iraq since Bush Invasion

    It is a big news day. Don't miss my interview with veteran Iraq reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran, below.

    Among other things, on Tuesday guerrillas blew up a bakery in Baghdad and killed and wounded a lot of people; police found over 50 bodies in the streets of the capital; guerillas claimed to have hit a US ammunition depot with mortar shells, setting off huge explosions that rocked Baghdad for hours but were not known to have killed anyone; and 5 US soldiers were reported killed in separate incidents.

    But the big news is a big new Johns Hopkins study published in The Lancet that suggests that the US misadventure in Iraq is responsible for setting off the killing of twice as many civilians as Saddam managed to polish off in 25 years.

    A careful Johns Hopkins study has estimated that between 420,000 and 790,000 Iraqis have died as a result of war and political violence since the beginning of the US invasion in March, 2003.

    Interesting conclusions are that we are wrong to focus so much on suicide car bombings. The real action is just shooting enemies down with bullets. Only 30 percent of the deaths have been caused by the US military, and that percentage has declined this year because of the sectarian war.

    And, folks, this is a major civil war, with something close to 200,000 dying every year.

    I once warned that a precipitate US withdrawal could result in a million dead a la Cambodia or Afghanistan. Little did I know that the conditions created by the US invasion and occupation have all along been driving toward that number anyway!

    This study is going to have a hard ride. In part it is because many of us in the information business are not statistically literate enough to judge the sampling techniques. Many will tend to dismiss the findings as implausible without a full appreciation of how low the margin of error is this time. Second, it is a projection, and all projections are subject to possible error, and journalists, being hardnosed people, are wary of them.

    The New York Times report has already made a serious error, saying that deaths in the Saddam period were covered up. The families interviewed knew whether their loved ones were disappearing in 2001 and 2002 and had no reason to cover it up if they were. The survey established the baseline with a contemporary questionnaire. It wasn't depending on Iraqi government statistics.

    Another reason for the hard ride is that the Republican Party and a significant fraction of the business elite in this country is very invested in the Iraq War, and they will try to discredit the study. Can you imagine the profits being made by the military-industrial complex on all this? Do they really want the US public to know the truth about what the weapons they produce have done to Iraqis? When you see someone waxing cynical about the study, ask yourself: Does this person know what a chi square is? And, who does this person work for, really?

    Then Anthony Cordesmann told AP that the timing and content of the study were political. But is he saying that 1800 households from all over Iraq conspired to lie to Johns Hopkins University researchers for the purpose of defeating Republicans in US elections this November? Does that make any sense? And, if Cordesmann has evidence that the authors and editor set their timetable for completion and publication according to the US political calendar, he should provide it. If he cannot, he should retract.

    Ironically enough, the same journalists who will question this study will accept without query the estimates for deaths in Darfur, e.g., which are generated by exactly the same techniques, and which are almost certainly not as solid.

    The study concludes that an average of 470 Iraqis per day have likely died as a result of political violence since March 19, 2003, though the number could be as low as 350 per day if the margin of error skewed to the low side. United Nations estimates based on figures from Iraqi morgues are more like 100 per day.

    I follow the violence in Iraq carefully and daily, and I find the results plausible.

    First of all, Iraqi Muslims don't believe in embalming or open casket funerals days later. They believe that the body should be buried by sunset the day of death, in a plain wooden box. So there is no reason to expect them to take the body to the morgue. Although there are benefits to registering with the government for a death certificate, there are also disadvantages. Many families who have had someone killed believe that the government or the Americans were involved, and will have wanted to avoid drawing further attention to themselves by filling out state forms and giving their address.

    Personally, I believe very large numbers of Iraqi families quietly bury their dead without telling the government of all people anything about it. Another large number of those killed is dumped in the Tigris river by their killers. A fisherman on the Tigris looking for lunch recently caught the corpse of a woman. The only remarkable thing about it is that he let it be known to the newspapers. I'm sure the Tigris fishermen throw back unwanted corpses every day.

    Not to mention that for substantial periods of time since 2003 it has been dangerous in about half the country just to move around, much less to move around with dead bodies.

    There is heavy fighting almost every day at Ramadi in al-Anbar province, among guerrillas, townspeople, tribes, Marines and Iraqi police and army. We almost never get a report of these skirmishes and we almost never are told about Iraqi casualties in Ramadi. Does 1 person a day die there of political violence? Is it more like 4? 10? What about Samarra? Tikrit? No one is saying. Since they aren't, on what basis do we say that the Lancet study is impossible?

    There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq. If we subtract Baghdad, where about 100 a day die, that still leaves 89. If an average of 4 or so are killed in each of those 89, then the study's results are correct. Of course, 4 is an average. Cities in areas dominated by the guerrilla movement will have more than 4 killed daily, sleepy Kurdish towns will have no one killed.

    If 470 were dying every day, what would that look like?

    West Baghdad is roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. It is certainly generating 47 dead a day. Same for Sadr City, same proportions. So to argue against the study you have to assume that Baquba, Hilla, Kirkuk, Kut, Amara, Samarra, etc., are not producing deaths at the same rate as the two halves of Baghad. But it is perfectly plausible that rough places like Kut and Amara, with their displaced Marsh Arab populations, are keeping up their end. Four dead a day in Kut or Amara at the hands of militiamen or politicized tribesmen? Is that really hard to believe? Have you been reading this column the last three years?

    Or let's take the city of Basra, which is also roughly 10% of the Iraqi population. Proportionally speaking, you'd expect on the order of 40 persons to be dying of political violence there every day. We don't see 40 persons from Basra reported dead in the wire services on a daily basis.

    But last May, the government authorities in Basra came out and admitted that security had collapsed in the city and that for the previous month, one person had been assassinated every hour. Now, that is 24 dead a day, just from political assassination. Apparently these persons were being killed in faction fighting among Shiite militias and Marsh Arab tribes. We never saw any of those 24 deaths a day reported in the Western press. And we never see any deaths from Basra reported in the wire services on a daily basis even now. Has security improved since May? No one seems even to be reporting on it, yes or no.

    So if 24 Iraqis can be shot down every day in Basra for a month (or for many months?) and no one notices, the Lancet results are perfectly plausible.

    The abstract for the study says:

    ' Methods: Between May and July 2006 a national cluster survey was conducted in Iraq to assess deaths occurring during the period from January 1, 2002, through the time of survey in 2006. Information on deaths from 1,849 households containing 12,801 persons was collected. This survey followed a similar but smaller survey conducted in Iraq in 2004. Both surveys used standard methods for estimating deaths in conflict situations, using population-based methods.

    Key Findings: Death rates were 5.5/1000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate—in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.
    The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, though the actual numbers have increased each year. Gunfire remains the most common reason for death, though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005. Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44 years. '


    More on the techniques from the text:

    ' The surveyors from the School of Medicine of Al Mustansiria University in Baghdad conducted a national survey between May and July 2006. In this survey, sites were collected according to the population size and the geographic distribution in Iraq. The survey included 16 of the 18 governates in Iraq, with larger population areas having more sample sites. The sites were selected entirely at random, so all households had an equal chance of being included. The survey used a standard cluster survey method, which is a recommended method for measuring deaths in conflict situations. The survey team visited 50 randomly selected sites in Iraq, and at each site interviewed 40 households about deaths which had occurred from January 1, 2002, until the date of the interview in July 2006. We selected this time frame to compare results with our previous
    Human Cost of Iraq War survey, which covered the period between January 2002 and September 2004. In all, information was collected from 1,849 households completing the survey, containing 12,801 persons.

    This sample size was selected to be able to statistically detect death rates with 95% probability of obtaining the correct result. When the preliminary results were reviewed, it was apparent three clusters were misattributed. These were dropped from the data for analysis, giving a final total of 47 clusters, which are the basis of this study. '
    posted by Juan @ 10/11/2006 06:38:00 AM 30 comments

    ReplyDelete
  124. In fact lets just focus on this portion of the article and then consider Dolty's pathetic attempt at spin:

    "nother reason for the hard ride is that the Republican Party and a significant fraction of the business elite in this country is very invested in the Iraq War, and they will try to discredit the study. Can you imagine the profits being made by the military-industrial complex on all this? Do they really want the US public to know the truth about what the weapons they produce have done to Iraqis? When you see someone waxing cynical about the study, ask yourself: Does this person know what a chi square is? And, who does this person work for, really?

    Then Anthony Cordesmann told AP that the timing and content of the study were political. But is he saying that 1800 households from all over Iraq conspired to lie to Johns Hopkins University researchers for the purpose of defeating Republicans in US elections this November? Does that make any sense? And, if Cordesmann has evidence that the authors and editor set their timetable for completion and publication according to the US political calendar, he should provide it. If he cannot, he should retract. "

    ReplyDelete
  125. "the discrepancy between the Lancet numbers and those of the Iraqi ministry of health: The ministry employees cannot travel easily to places like Baqubah and Kut and Ramadi to collect death statistics from local officials."

    But Johns Hopkins researchers can!

    ReplyDelete
  126. Nice try Dolt........better luck next time

    "oh what a tangled web we weave, when we spin and practice to deceive Aye Dolty?"

    ReplyDelete
  127. "if Cordesmann has evidence that the authors and editor set their timetable for completion and publication according to the US political calendar, he should provide it. If he cannot, he should retract. "

    "The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study _ that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001576.html

    ReplyDelete
  128. If your partisan hack cant prove his accusations, then he should retract as shold you Dolt.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Like I said earlier Mike.

    Regardless of whose statistics you want to accept, its hubris for Voltaire to think that if he can just convince people that instead of 500,000, only 100,000 are dead, that somehow makes it all better.

    Hubris.

    Imperial hubris.

    ReplyDelete
  130. If Goering could've proven at Nuremburg, that the Jewish death toll was overinflated, and that instead of 6 million Jews, they only killed 1 million, does anyone think it would've made a difference?

    Get a clue Volt.

    The only difference between you and the the militants killing people in Darfur, is that you're doing it from the comfort of your easy chair.

    Mass murder is mass murder, and thats what you support.

    ReplyDelete
  131. AND like I said before, It may not make it better, but it shows a difference between civilian casualties during wartime and a massive disregard for innocents.

    And the "massive disregard" is what you REALLY want to believe now isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  132. I'm gonna let you guys claim "victory" be default.

    My ass is gonna be draggin tomorrow the way it is.

    ReplyDelete
  133. No it doesn't.

    The LANCET study you kept claiming to quote shows that MOST violent deaths in Iraq were caused originally by coalition air strikes.

    Now insurgents are killing people, and OUR presence there is what is fueling the insurgency.

    Bottom line is, Iraq is a clusterfuck of YOUR making.

    And now you want to debate whether we are responsible for the deaths of 100,000 or half a million.

    Like I said earlier.

    Boggles the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  134. No Dolt, Cordesmann man an unsubstantiated accusion just like that lying fool Ann Coulter does with no facts to back it up, I see a lot of unsubstantiated spin by the Right Wing claiming it was political but no EVIDENCE OR FACTS, you Rightys dont much care for evidence or facts do ya, they have not been to kind to you the last 4 years.

    You fools also claim the Foley scandal is political, but in reality it is YOU REPUGS that are being political with the Foley Chikd molesting scandal, you repugs tried to cover for him and enable him to keep on molesting children all in a pathetic attempt to cling to power.

    Your halfwit troll associate Moo Moo even tried to say that many 14 year olds are very mature and we should be more open minded about a congressman preying on 14 year olds after all its not that bad according to you I mean Bill Clinton got a BJ how can we condemn a 50 year old Congressman stalking young boys after something like that, I mean a president getting a consensual ,BJ from an adult woman is so reprehensible that we should pardon all repug child molestors and sexiual deviants for the next 100 and never talk about it and address it right Dolt?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Hey Mike.

    Imagine for a moment Volt "won" the debate as he puts it.

    Imagine he convinced us, that instead of the whopping 655,000 dead Iraqi's estimated by the LANCET study, that he convinced us there were only 100,000 dead bodies over there thanks to us.

    Would that make you suddenly sleep better knowing our genocide was in the low 6 figures, instead of the upper middle?

    Would 100,000 dead somehow seem more "reasonable" and "justified"?

    ReplyDelete
  136. If Foley only molested 10 pages, instead of 20, would we suddenly feel "good" about it?

    If the DC sniper only shot 5 people instead of 15, would we let him go?

    If the Japenese only sunk half of the ships they sunk at Pearl Harbor, would we have just let them off the hook?

    Voltaire seems to feel that quantifying killing somehow justifies killing.

    It doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  137. I can see Voltaire now, standing before the judge.

    no no your honor, your facts are all wrong. I didn't steal 10 million dollars.

    It was only about 4.75 million at the most.

    Can I leave now?....

    ReplyDelete
  138. 2 GOP senators urge new Iraq strategy

    By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
    Sun Oct 15, 6:56 PM ET

    WASHINGTON - Two leading Republican senators called Sunday for a new strategy in Iraq, saying the situation in getting worse and leaving the United States with few options.

    Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia are part of the growing list of Republicans who are speaking out against President Bush's current plan for Iraq as U.S. casualties rise.

    ReplyDelete
  139. In just 15 days, just over 2 weeks, we have lost FIFTY THREE US SOLDIERS.

    FIFTY THREE DEAD AMERICANS THIS MONTH ALREADY.

    And the month is only half over.

    And Voltaire wants to "stay the course".

    ReplyDelete
  140. Oh wait a second.

    Voltaire doesn't want to stay the course.

    He wants OTHER PEOPLE to stay the course.

    He just wants to stay "safe".

    ReplyDelete
  141. 53 Americans died in two weeks.

    53 young people who will never see another sunset.

    53 Americans, who never got to go back home, and who will never see their homes again.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Voltaire "appreciates" their sacrifice.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Voltaire understands that war is "tough".

    But they need to stay the course so he can stay safe.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Worfeus this is BAD but they repugs in the DOD are holding back in Baghdad until AFTER the election, and then they are proly going to try ONE last time before accepting Jim Baker assesment. Too bad for all those troops they have to go through HELL to prove to the IDIOT that HE blew it BIG time in 2003.

    ReplyDelete
  145. We're letting the young men and women who believed in our country down by repeating the EXACT SAME MISTAKES we made in Viet Nam.

    They are in pretty much the same position to.

    Walking around with targets painted on them, trying to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

    We're letting them down.

    ReplyDelete
  146. All to serve a smug and pompous national pride.

    ReplyDelete
  147. On a lighter note, I can't believe how much I am enjoying my Too Close for Comfort DVD's.

    I haven't seen that show in years, and its taking me back to some happier times.

    I know Volt would like going back to those times. Reagan was President.

    It actually was a funny show, but Ted Knight was too mean all the time. They should have done a spin off with just the two girls, and maybe that ding dong Munro for a zany sidekick. I love my TCFC DVD's.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Hey Lydia. How did Muriel pull that table cloth out from that table?

    It looked like she really did it.

    Did she or was it a trick table cloth

    ReplyDelete
  149. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  150. The missing link just stepped up to the table again lets see if we take them seriously or just dismiss them like we did last time

    Iraqi insurgent group invites negotiation

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/15/iraq.main/index.html

    Last time we pushed them away with our tired ass line, "We dont negotiate with terrorists." Well, they aren't terrorists they are the force fighting our occupation of their country so maybe we or the puppet government would do well to talk to them and at least see what their conditions are. I mean, what the Hell have we got to lose but more American and Iraqi lives?
    What we've been missing is someone to speak on behalf of the Sunni MINORITY as a whole. They dont feel they are properly represented in the Parliament. They have the Sunni equivalent of Joe Liebermann in the parliament and they dont feel he is actually speaking on their behalf and working towards what they want out of the new country.
    We can either go talk to them or let them disappear and kill more Shia and Americans in the Sunni Triangle and Anbar province until they prove their point and resurface again and try to negotiate. I think they are seeing we want out and they want us out.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Marcus, do you think the Pentagon will try ONE more time (after the election is over) to subdue Baghdad and other areas of unrest in Iraq before they and the White House admit that baker's group is right and we have to find a way OUT without fixing the mess we created?

    ReplyDelete
  152. I dont see any difference between the low and high estimate of the JHU survey. An inumerable amount of indigenous people have been killed in a war of counter-insurgency, or what we call SASO (Stability and Support Operations). Doesnt make much sense that people are dying in SASO, or we're using F-16/F-18 airstrikes but we have to use the firepower were own.
    And the Reichwing is attacking this survey saying that it attacks our troops, well, it doesnt say we killed them just said this is the number of people that have died as a result of the war. I think it breaks down to a pretty small fraction actually being killed by Americans. Most of these deaths have been the result of the sectarian violence. We're not killing 50-100 Iraqis a day, Iraqis are.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Worf - I'm in Indiana doing some newspaper interviews and radio shows.

    I don't remember that scene where Muriel pulled the tablecloth. Oh yeah, I think a magician was on the set and trained her. It's coming back to me now

    Refresh my memory, what episode was it - Season 2 right?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Worf said "If Foley only molested 10 pages, instead of 20, would we suddenly feel "good" about it?

    If the DC sniper only shot 5 people instead of 15, would we let him go?

    If the Japenese only sunk half of the ships they sunk at Pearl Harbor, would we have just let them off the hook?

    Voltaire seems to feel that quantifying killing somehow justifies killing.

    It doesn't."


    thats exactly what it seems like Worf, it seems like the fools are saying its "OK" because there were "only 100,000 just like they are saying that "yeah what Foley and the repugs that covered for him did was inappropriate but.....Clinton had an affair so it aint that bad in fact we should all just ignore and any one who thinks there is a problem with people molesting children and those enabling and defending them is a partisan trying to smear the poor repugs right before the election.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Worf said "On a lighter note, I can't believe how much I am enjoying my Too Close for Comfort DVD's.

    I haven't seen that show in years, and its taking me back to some happier times.

    I know Volt would like going back to those times. Reagan was President.

    It actually was a funny show, but Ted Knight was too mean all the time. They should have done a spin off with just the two girls, and maybe that ding dong Munro for a zany sidekick. I love my TCFC DVD's."

    hey Worf did Muriel pull that table cloth out at the end of the episode I kinda sorta remember that, TCFC was one of my all time favorite Sitcoms, along with happydays and Threes Company, but yeah I watched about 2/3 of the episodes back then, i'll probably watch it again around the holidays i always do the retro movie/tv marathons around the holidays.

    Every episode on that show was fantastic, I LMAO when i watch it, but I liked the episodes where it was Henry and Muriel's anniversary and Monroe was over their house for dinner and they brought out the fine crystal glasses that muriel's grandmother gave her and monroe chugged the wine and smashed the crystal glass in the fireplace, I also liked the one where Sara/lydia stuffed a piece of pizza in jackies purse when they were fighting (I was hugery when I saw thaqt and immediately ordered a pizza myself), the pilot was also great.

    I actually liked Ted Knight's mean and zany personality, I thought he had great chemistry with the girls, I think a spin off with the girls would have been good, far better than the Ted Knight spin off but they would have lost the weird chemistry and awekward interaction between a waccky overprotective father and his daughters. they lost me when they did the Ted Knight show without the girls, I stopped watching.

    ReplyDelete
  156. allow me to digress for one more moment before we get back to serious business:

    Hey Worf did you know Rocky 6 is coming out this Christmas, thats the first movie i'm actually excited about since Chronicles of Narnia The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe came out last Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Hey Lydia, two of my coworkers/friends just got married and went to Vegas for their Honeymoon and they saw the Amazing Jonathan and said the show was great and they liked him alot.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Dolt said "I'm gonna let you guys claim "victory" be default.

    My ass is gonna be draggin tomorrow the way it is.'


    translation, i'm admitting defeat and going to concentrate my efforsts on spinning something else to defend my incompetent lying masters.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Hey Worf, Clif, BG etc.., Saturday night I was playing cards with and hanging out with a younger crowd about 25 years old, and they really blew me out of the water and surprised me, we got into a discussion about gas prices going down and EVERYONE there stated that prices were only going down as an election ploy to keep the repugs in power and that they would go right back up after the election, these kids were actually angry about it and fed up with the repug leadership and said they were going to actually vote and vote democrat.

    Why is that significant you might ask, its signifificant because these were average joes who didnt even think about politics who became motivated to take a stand, most 25 year olds, my self included at that age dont even give politics a second thought, their main concern is getting laid, money for beer, cards, concerts, riding motorcycles etc... not politics.

    See the repugs thought that if gas prices came down right before the election people would kiss theie a$$ and say what a great job they are doing, just like in Iraq how they ASSumed the irai's would greet them as liberators and throw rose petals at their feet, this just shows how out of touch with reality their delusional expectations are, they never thought people would get angry when gas prices came down and say "hey this is just an election ploy, why were prices high for SO LONG to begin with. Everyone thinks this is an election ploy and that prices will shoot right back up after the election.

    This just shows that repugs have no credibility with the average joe, they are losing the under 30 crowd that they won over with their tough guy talk in 2002 and they are losing the military as well, the repugs will be done in Novemver and may very well be done for a generation, their arrogance blinds them to reality, and reality wont be too kind to them in November.

    ReplyDelete
  160. A cautionary view of the current milieu
    In times like this, when it seems as though madness abounds and one feels out of sync for noting problems that seem so serious and tangible, it's interesting to see comments from other people who agree with you yet travel in completely different circles.

    In this case, it's a Sept. 7 interview with Clinton-era Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin that was just released by Citigroup's (C, news, msgs) Global Economic & Market Analysis group. While he doesn't specifically talk about a dislocation, Rubin's comments do echo what I have been saying:

    "Most people seem to think that the problem is somewhere down the road. I think the markets are remarkably complacent. It's curious to me that economists, with an exception here or there, are as sanguine as they seem to be. They talk about a cooling off or a soft landing or whatever it may be, but generally seem to attach very low probabilities to really serious, adverse developments. Most of the people I know in the national security world, and there are many, seem deeply troubled about a variety of matters: nuclear proliferation, Islamic radicalism, the endgame in Iraq, instability in countries that mean a great deal to us in the Middle East, what's going to happen in Pakistan and many other issues as well. And the markets do not reflect this."

    I'm sorry for being a broken record, but at some point, all of this lunacy -- exacerbated by the combination of wanton premium-selling in options and "financial dark matter" derivatives, as well as 10,000 hedge funds -- will end in a dislocation, and no other way. Just because it hasn't happened thus far does not mean that the odds have diminished. In fact, as the reckless behavior continues, the risks have only increased.

    When 'Bubbleonians' roamed the Earth
    I suspect that when the history books are written on this particular moment in time -- and, for what it's worth, right now "feels" to me like a cross between September 1987/early 2000 -- people will look back and shake their heads in wonderment at how the market could have done what it did. Just as anyone would think, looking back to the autumn of 1973 or any other inflection point: Wow, how could market operators have been so blind?

    Well, that's what the madness of crowds is all about: always wrong at the inflection points but driving you nuts as you try to exploit the opportunity.

    At the time of publication, Bill Fleckenstein did not own or control shares of companies mentioned in this column.

    ReplyDelete
  161. THE COMING CORRECTION

    Bill Bonner and Addison Wiggin

    Tout passé, tout casse say the French. Everything goes away. Everything breaks down. Nothing is born that does not die. Nothing begins that does not end. There is no morning without an evening, and no silver lining without a cloud. Empires come. Empires go.

    In the financial markets, the "going" phase is called a correction. It is intended to correct the excesses and mistakes of the expansion phase. In a bull market, there are corrections that bring extraordinary gains down to more modest ones. In a bear market, corrections - which soften extraordinary losses into more ordinary ones - are known as rallies.

    Generally, the force of a correction is equal and opposite to the trend that precedes it. And the pain it causes is directly proportional to the pleasant deception that went before it.

    As a practical formula, this does little to help us. We still do not know when or how the correction will come. And, to borrow an idea from Lord Keynes, the deception can last a lot longer than you can remain solvent betting against it. And yet, it is even more dangerous to bet on it.

    America's empire of debt rests on many huge deceptions that we have described in this book:

    That one generation can consume - and stick the next with the bill.
    That you can get something for nothing.
    That the rest of the world will take American IOUs forever - no questions asked.
    That house prices will forever go up.
    That American labor is inherently more valuable than foreign labor.
    That the American capitalist system is freer, more dynamic, and more productive than other systems.
    That other countries want to be more like America, even if it is forced on them.
    That the virtues that made America rich and powerful are no longer required to keep it rich and powerful.
    That domestic savings and capital investment are no longer necessary.
    That the United States no longer needs to make things for export.
    The deception that sent credit expansion soaring between 2001 and 2005 came eagerly from America's own central bank. By setting its key lending rate below the current inflation rate, the Fed misled almost everyone.

    Throughout the boom years of 2002 to 2005, the Great Deceiver, Alan Greenspan, appeared before the U.S. Senate and dissembled. Not only did inflation present no clear and present danger, neither did Americans' debt loads, nor did the negative numbers in the current account. Mr. Greenspan, who surely must have known better, found nothing to dislike and nothing to worry about.

    So, we stop, draw breath, and wonder.

    The deception is so large, we wonder how it could ever be fully corrected. We speak not merely of Mr. Greenspan's perjury before Congress, but of the larger deception, in which Mr. Greenspan plays a leading role.

    The promise of American capitalism is that it makes people richer, freer, and more independent. But since the introduction of the Fed and the rise of the empire, the currency in which Americans keep score has so addled the figures, we scarcely know if we are winning or losing. The dollar we knew as a child - in the 1950s - is only worth a tenth as much today.

    The average household today has far more of them than we did. In 1950, U.S. household debt to disposable income, which is basically after-tax income, was 34 percent (if disposable income was $10,000, households had $3,400 in outstanding debt). Today, the average American household has learned to live large - on an imperial scale. Its house is worth more dollars.

    It has a bigger car. It eats out more often. It has a wider TV screen with a clearer picture. It has more employment insurance. More health insurance. More Social Security Insurance. More protection offered by more government employees than ever before. It has many more credit cards, with much larger lines of credit. It has more clothes. More toys.

    More gadgets, gizmos, and whatchmacallits. It has more debt. More obligations. More chains.

    Almost every American believes he is richer. Certainly, compared with the Old World, Americans have no doubt that the rise of their empire improved every subject's life. Is it true?

    We pause to deliver a shocking update.

    People love myth, fraud, and claptrap - especially when it flatters them. Maybe their food, life expectancy, crime rates, transportation, liquor, women, and architecture are nothing to brag about, say Americans to each other, but when they grub for money, they grub good. "Old Europe," they say, making a comparison, "is too rigid, fossilized, hidebound...a museum."

    And yet, even this is a fraud. Despite Laffer's curve, Greenspan's Bubbles and Reagan's revolution, the U.S. economy has done no better than Europe.

    The Economist examined the evidence. Everybody believes that America grew a lot faster than Europe over the past 10 years. But the figures, in terms of GDP/person are very close - 2.1 percent per year for America against 1.8 percent for Europe. Take out Germany - which has struggled with absorbing its formerly communist cousins from the East - and the two regions are exactly the same.

    And productivity? A study by Kevin Daly, an economist at Goldman Sachs, finds that, after adjusting for differences in their economic cycles, trend productivity growth in the euro area has been slightly faster than that in America over the past 10 years.

    What about jobs? America is the greatest jobs machine on the planet, right? Again, excluding Germany, jobs in the rest of Europe grew at the same pace as in America. And more jobs have been created in the euro.

    It's true that Americans earn more and spend more than Europeans...but they work a lot more hours. Europeans simply enjoy leisure more.

    But what about the post-2001 "recovery?" Hasn't it been much more vigorous in America than in Europe? Well, only on the surface. Spiked up by the biggest dose of fiscal and monetary juice in history, America's economy has slightly outpaced Europe's.

    But the figures are hard to compare. Europe calculates GDP growth more conservatively than America...and understates the truth, rather than overstates it, as they do at the Labor Department. More importantly, America's jolt of growth has come at great cost. While Europe got no net stimulus, America has gotten enough to give it the shakes.

    "Super-lax policies of the past few years have left behind large economic and financial imbalances that cast doubt on the sustainability of America's growth," says the Economist. "From a position of surplus before 2000, the structural budget deficit (including state and local governments) now stands at almost 5 percent of GDP, three times as big as that in the euro area.

    America has a current-account deficit of 5 percent of GDP, while the euro area has a small surplus. American households now save less than 2 percent of their disposable income; the savings rate in the euro area stands at a comfortable 12 percent. Total household debt in America mounts to 84 percent of GDP, compared with only 50 percent in the euro zone."

    Barely has the twenty-first century begun and America finds itself in a remarkable position. It has, what it believes is, the world's most powerful economy . . . and the world's most powerful military force. Like the defunct Soviet Union, it has a sickle in one hand and a hammer in the other. The sickle, alas, has an awkward bend in it.

    Since 1990, income for the average American household has risen only 11 percent while average household spending has jumped 30 percent. How could people spend so much more money without earning more?

    Outstanding household debt doubled to more than $10 trillion between 1992 and 2004, even adjusted for inflation. And in Utah last year, 28 of every 1,000 households declared bankruptcy, almost three times the rate of a decade earlier.

    People are determined to live large and live better than they can afford. They do this by what economists call smoothing income. Anticipating higher incomes in the future, young families spend the money now (e.g., buying bigger houses than they can afford). Nationwide, house sizes have grown 30 percent since 1980, says Cornell economist Robert Frank.

    And now even people in their 50s and 60s look forward to either higher incomes or miracles. Some economists refer to the whole phenomenon as the "democratization of credit." "Innovation and deregulation have vastly expanded credit availability to virtually all income classes," says the Fed chief. He did not mention his own role in this democratic revolution. He is too modest. He is a Danton and Robespierre put together.

    The Fed chairman accomplished more than all the nation's innovators and deregulators put together. Dropping the price of credit below the inf lation rate, he offered the entire world something for nothing. Now, everyman could get himself into financial trouble, not just kings, speculators, and financiers. He made it possible for lending institutions to extend such a long rope of credit to the common man that millions are sure to hang themselves.

    We don't know what to make of it, so we turn to the dead for an opinion. But it is hopeless, the corpses know even less than we do. They can't even imagine what is happening. Borrow against your house when you don't have to? Buy a house as an "investment?" Take out "equity?" "Depend on foreigners to balance your budget?" "Live beyond your means and expect Third World wage earners to make up the difference?" The ideas that Americans once took for absurd, they now take for granted.

    What was wrong with our parents, grandparents, and long-dead ancestors? Why weren't they smart enough to realize that they could have a brand-new house with all the modern conveniences without paying for it? Why didn't they figure out that they could all get rich by buying each others' houses? But now, thank God, we are all geniuses.

    The baby born when the empire began in 1913 came into the world with nothing. But he owed nothing. Now, he comes into the world owing his share of 37 trillion; that's about $128,560 with his name on it. Is he richer? Is he better off? What would the dead say? That doesn't include his share of Federal obligations and commitments that he'll have to pay, which could add $100,000 more.



    Bill Bonner
    The Daily Reckoning
    www.dailyreckoning.com

    13 October 2006

    ReplyDelete
  162. An Obscene Breach of Trust

    The Optimist

    For all those who despair that Congress does nothing positive or useful, the Optimist has good news to share. Congress has crafted a new phrase that will live in infamy throughout the future of the USA.

    An obscene breach of trust. What could be a better summation of our nation's financial history over the past century? Consider how precisely that phrase defines the events below


    Massive overspending by LBJ on guns (Vietnam) and butter (Great Society and welfare) 40 years ago ignited the great inflation of the following decade;


    The 1971 declaration of USA functional bankruptcy when Richard Nixon closed the gold window and thereby asserted that the USA will never again repay its debts with real money;


    Ronald Reagan rolled the dice in a "Riverboat Gamble" 24 years ago and turned the mighty USA economy from the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor in the world;


    G.H.W. Bush (the first) recognized that Reagan's philosophy of cutting taxes and increasing debt was "voodoo economics", and he saw the damage that was being done to the nation's economic strength, but he continued to push the debt pedal to the metal as he raced for reelection;


    G.W. Bush (the second) refused to encourage conservation, but instead actively pursued drilling and exploration in previously protected areas so the USA could sustain its love affair with SUVs. The USA continued to ratchet up the temperature of global warming. This President is also the first who could not find a spending bill that was worth a veto;


    The CPI once was an acronym for the Consumer Price Index on which we based adjustments to salaries and senior citizens' income to proudly honor our promises. With the advent of exclusions (energy, food, etc.) and hedonics in recent years, the CPI now stands for Consistent Price Immobility;

    ReplyDelete
  163. Militarism

    Don Stott

    As America goes down the drain economically, and the buck loses ever more value and purchasing power, there are many reasons for it. We have discussed the huge problem of overseas jobs, and how some of it comes about by tinkering with tariffs. But there are other serious things, which debilitate the dollar, causing it to shrink in value. Among them is the fact that America has become an extremely militaristic nation.

    Many are now comparing us to the Roman Empire, which self bankrupted itself by means of expansionism and militarism, which the Romans could not pay for, and which caused them to fail and fall. Chalmers Johnson's book, "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic," illustrates the situation very clearly, and he especially takes it out on the military. Economics is the thing which we all live and die by, and economics is the main thrust of "Militarism." According to the Federation of American Scientists, since the beginning of WW II, America has used military force in other nations, 201 times, and in most cases we were the instigator of the use of force. We have never succeeded in creating a single democratic institution in any of these forays. This leads the rest of the world to believe that we are an imperialist power, a new Rome, an out of control military society, fully determined to dominate the rest of the world.

    40% of the military budget is "black," or secret, even from most members of Congress. The Black Budget, as an example, constructed a $300 million National Reconnaissance Office building without anyone knowing about it, even though it was plainly visible on Route 28, west of D.C. Elegant Lady, Tractor Rose, Forest Green, Senior Citizen, island Sun, and Black Light, White Cloud, and Classic Wizard, are all black budget items, which few outside of the military know how much they cost, or what they are. They cost hundreds of millions of paper dollars, all run off the printing presses, which decay the dollar. Johnson says, "We don't manufacture that much in this country any more, are the largest single weapons manufacturer on earth, and will sell weapons to practically anyone who wants them. We like to pretend that this is capitalism, but it isn't. It has only one customer, and the industry is extremely concentrated. According to the Pentagon's own count, we currently have 737 American military bases located in other countries. It took 300 years for the Roman Empire to succumb. In my lifetime, I've seen the collapse of the Nazi, Imperial Japanese, British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and Soviet Empires. If you and I were talking in 1985, and I said to you that four years from now, the Soviet Union would disappear, you'd have thought he's probably daydreaming, but now it's gone." Very observant fellow.

    America today, thanks to trade imbalances, welfare expenditures of various types, huge military expeditions, and the various black budget items, has unfunded but committed expenditures of $70 TRILLION DOLLARS, which obviously are un-payable. We have become dependent on foreign nations to buy our debt, in order to keep us trading with them. China knowingly holds hundreds of millions of US debt paper, and it well knows we are bankrupt. China and other nations keep buying our debt because we spend the dollars with them, which fosters their development and liquidity with un-backed pieces of paper. Both sides are participating in a game of musical chairs, except the public doesn't know the game is on-going. The public, thanks to the bought and paid for media, keep telling us that the economy us wonderful, and Bush has announced that he has cut the deficit by 50% as he promised. The "official" government figures on everything to do with economics are fairy tales, but everyone believes them.


    SUDDENLY

    That was a '50s movie with Frank Sinatra, and well worth a rent and watch, but has nothing to do with today. Suddenly, is how things can happen, be it an auto accident, explosion, or collapse. Think about it and remember how suddenly the World Trade Center thing happened, school shootings, blowing up a US ammunition dump in Iraq two days ago, A Yankee Pitcher slamming his plane into a NY upper east side apartment building, or a collapse of a nation's economy. Boom! And it's over, sometimes in an instant. Not to again mention a thing past, but the reichsmark was worth a quarter in 1922, and two years later, it was a ratio of 5 million to one US dollar, at which point it was used to start fires or wipe one's behind. If China, or some other sucker nation decided that they no longer needed to prop up the US fragile economy, and stopped buying our irrational debt, we would come down just like Humpty Dumpty's falling off the wall. Remember when the stock market took its dive in just a few days? The mighty Soviet Union collapsed like a deck of cards in a very short period of time, and all of its subservient nations became independent immediately.

    How many marriages have instantly dissolved, when one of the mates discovered that the other had been cheating, maybe for years? America has been cheating for years by printing un-backed dollars with no limits of any kind, and spending itself into obscurity, but like the cheating mate, no one has exposed it. When the truth was found, the marriage dissolved instantly, and the Soviet was no more. The Soviets had been bankrupt for years, just like America, and they had been cheating, and deceiving for a long time, but when the truth came out, they were suddenly kaput. It is not difficult to think of 'suddenly' things. A slip of a hammer or saw, a miscount of dollars, a bad check, a falling building, a fire or explosion, a car wreck, a bankrupt retail chain, or a host of other unexpected, but in retrospect, obvious faults. Chains or retail establishments often hide debts and cook the books to hope that they can pull themselves out of the fire. When it is no longer possible, all the stores close immediately, everyone is fired, and the creditors can only hope for the best.

    Why is it so difficult to realize that the U.S. economy is far worse than any chain of retail establishments, failing marriages, or a firetrap building. The U.S. economy is holding together by the sheerest of threads. The Dow rushes ahead to new highs, while its P/E ratio is 22 to 1, or double what it should be, and the black budget items continue to grow and steal. With a $70 trillion debt which is committed and unavoidable, and the presses running night and day, why does it take a few truthful people such as myself to point this out, while the media ignores it completely? Are we in error? Are we exaggerating? Are we lying? Is Stott's law, which states that the more of anything there is, the less they are worth, including dollars, a falsehood?

    Ike warned about the military-industrial complex, but then he partook by feeding it lavishly while he was in office. Succeeding presidents and Congress have fed and fed and fed that complex, and we are now on the bankrupting, militaristic path which Rome, Greece, Egypt, and all previous world powers and empires have trod, with their inevitable and unavoidable collapse. There's no way the citizenry can correct what the D.C. Gang has wrought for decades, even by voting correctly The least thing informed people can do is protect themselves by not saving any surplus assets in the currency of the failing nation, but rather by saving in historic money, which is silver and gold. It makes so much sense, but it is impossible for the average public school graduate to contemplate, and especially when the gods of the media are either ignorant of the facts, or are in league with the D.C. Gang, and hope to prop it up as long as possible. It all looks so nice now. The fall is upon us, and the leaves are brilliant in their colors. The stock market is up, and all are happy, except for the record bankruptcies, foreclosures, and job losses to China and Mexico. A client just bought gold from me as I am writing this, and a news broadcast he just heard, said that there are over 400,000 illegals in Houston, not counting the refugees from Katrina. Is this a sign of insolvency, with the illegals getting free medical and many social benefits, plus breeding new babies which are automatically citizens? Can America print to feed and care for the lazy, illegal, and worthless forever, without officially declaring what it is, and that is bankrupt? How long can a falsehood be maintained? You tell me, but in the mean time, protect yourself.



    October 12, 2006

    ReplyDelete
  164. Monday, 16 October 2006
    The "October Surprise" Comes Nov. 5?
    There's brewing speculation that Saddam Hussein's verdict, due on Sunday, November 5, has been planned to refocus Americans' attention on the war on terror and on one of the "victories" of the Iraq war. TeacherKen, one of my favorite diarists at Daily Kos and a professor in the Washington, D.C. area, writes, "I wonder if this could be the October Surprise, designed to dominate the final news cycles, with Bush on Monday the 6th making an address to the nation (he is not officially on the ballot) about how this is yet another success on the war on terror."

    Are Americans that gullible? Can they be swayed enough to change how they're going to vote on Tuesday, November 7? (If so, I give up. Well ... I should, dammit.)

    As long as we're theorizing conspiratorially, I must also comment on the NPR news, just announced, that Negroponte has confirmed that the North Korean test was indeed a nuclear device. I have to wonder if, even if U.S. intelligence had still been unable to determine if the test was nuclear or not, they would still come out and assert that it was. Because it's SCARY.

    http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/the_october_sur.html#comments

    ReplyDelete
  165. Musharraf Survives Islamist Coup
    Steven D has the scoop: "Makes me feel so secure to know that President Musharraf of Pakistan has apparently managed to fend off a coup attempt from Islamist military officers, this time." "This time" is right. Shudders

    A good thing, they foiled it, a VERY BAD thing they tried.

    The people who attempted this coup have a problem with Musharraf's policies, and since his support for BUSH in the GWOT, I would suspect that just might be it. Which means that given the fact that some in Pakistani society and military obviously support Osama, and they are NOT going to stop trying to kill Musharraf, I would suggest that Pakistani Nukes are a much greater danger to the US and it's allies than North Koreas DUDS will ever be.

    If the Pakistani's ever get their new heavy water reactor online, and it falls into the hands of those who support Osama, we will have NO option but to take it and the pro-Osama Pakistani government out.

    Too bad The IDIOT wasted most of our military and credibility in Iraq on a fooles errand, taking out Saddam and using a gun to try to make enemies friends and get along, just to furfill the PNAC wetdream.

    The fall out of his incompetence will haunt this country for decades.

    Posted by: Clif | Saturday, 14 October 2006 at 22:13

    ReplyDelete
  166. George Allen In Jeopardy? Veterans Weigh In
    "Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) and Democratic challenger James Webb are virtually tied in a race that could shift the balance of power in Washington," reports today's Washington Post.

    Webb, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote a prescient WaPo op-ed, "Heading for Trouble: Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?," on September 4, 2002 -- six months before the invasion.

    Is there an absolutely vital national interest that should lead us from containment to unilateral war and a long-term occupation of Iraq? And would such a war and its aftermath actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism? [...]
    America's best military leaders know that they are accountable to history not only for how they fight wars, but also for how they prevent them. ... [T]hey are conscious of two realities that seem to have been lost in the narrow debate about Saddam Hussein himself. The first reality is that wars often have unintended consequences ... The second is that a long-term occupation of Iraq would beyond doubt require an adjustment of force levels elsewhere, and could eventually diminish American influence in other parts of the world.

    Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. [...]

    In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets. Read all.


    Couldn't the U.S. Senate have used some of that prescience in 2002? And how about Webb's warnings of a "strategic failure" if we invaded Iraq -- in 1990?


    Continue reading "George Allen In Jeopardy? Veterans Weigh In" »

    Posted by SusanUnPC on Sunday, 15 October 2006 at 12:41 | Permalink | Comments (17) |

    ReplyDelete
  167. Updated: 01:53 PM EDT
    IM This E-mail This

    Ex-Aide Says Evangelicals Mocked in White House

    By Jake Tapper and Kendall Evans, ABCNews.com

    (Oct. 16) - For the White House, the charges coming their way this morning in the new book "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction" must seem anything but heaven-sent.

    The accusations are coming from an unlikely source: David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, which channels federal dollars to religious charities.

    Kuo says the office was misused to rally evangelical Christians, the Republican base voters, to get GOP politicians elected. Not only that, Kuo claims Bush officials mocked evangelical leaders behind their backs, alleging that in the office of political guru Karl Rove they were called "the nuts."

    "National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous', 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy,' " Kuo writes.

    "You name the important Christian leader, and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places," Kuo told "60 Minutes" Sunday night.


    Wedge Issues
    The Iraq war. Gay marriage. Abortion. Smoking. Which key issues will sway races this November?· Check Out the Elections Blog

    That mockery, he added, included the Rev. Pat Robertson being called "insane," the Rev. Jerry Falwell being called "ridiculous" and comments that Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family "had to be controlled."


    Kuo also claims the White House used the taxpayer-funded Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to hold events designed to rally the evangelical conservative GOP members in 20 targeted races in 2002.

    Kuo says Ken Mehlman -- then the political director of the White House, now the chairman of the Republican National Committee -- embraced the idea, though he wanted to make sure such events didn't seem to originate from campaigns. Kuo told "60 Minutes" that Mehlman was "thrilled."



    "He just whipped off a bunch a names of particular races and said, 'We need to go there, there, there, there and there,'" Kuo said. In his book, Kuo writes that Mehlman said, "It needs to come from the congressional offices" so it didn't look too political.

    "We'll take care of that by having our guys call the office to request the visit," Mehlman said, according to Kuo's book.

    Kuo says Republicans won 19 out of those 20 races, and he credits Preasident Bush's victory in the key swing state of Ohio that year "to the conferences we had launched two years before."

    It was "spiritually wrong," Kuo told "60 Minutes." "You're taking the sacred and you're making it profane. You're taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy."

    Mehlman could not be reached for comment, but Towey, who left the White House to become president of St. Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa., said it is not a fair portrayal of history.


    We need to spend more time studying Jesus, and less time trying to get people elected," Kuo writes.

    Kuo told "60 Minutes" that the "message that has been sent out to Christians for a long time now that Jesus came primarily for a political agenda, and recently primarily a right-wing political agenda -- as if this culture war is a war for God. And it's not a war for God, it's a war for politics. And that's a huge difference."

    He said he wrote the book because he had "this burden on my heart that … the name of God is being destroyed in the name of politics."

    He said "of course" the White House would attack him, perhaps by saying, "He's really a liberal," or, "Oh, maybe that brain tumor really messed up his head."

    Kuo is not the first official from the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to question the sincerity of the White House officials regarding the program, and to accuse them of being overly political. In a MEMO to journalist Ron Suskind in October 2002, the first director of that office, John DiIulio, wrote that the White House was more interested in writing a bill that would never pass the Senate but could be used for political purposes.

    "[T]hey basically rejected any idea that the president's best political interests -- not to mention the best policy for the country -- could be served by letting centrist Senate Democrats in on the issue. … They winked at the most far-right House Republicans who, in turn, drafted a so-called faith bill (H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act) that (or so they thought) satisfied certain fundamentalist leaders and beltway libertarians but bore few marks of 'compassionate conservatism' and was, as anybody could tell, an absolute political non-starter. It could pass the House only on a virtual party-line vote, and it could never pass the Senate.

    "Not only that," DiIulio continued, "but it reflected neither the president's own previous rhetoric on the idea, nor any of the actual empirical evidence that recommended policies promoting greater public/private partnerships involving community-serving religious organizations. I said so, wrote memos, and so on for the first six weeks. But, hey, what's that fat, out-of-the-loop professor guy know; besides, he says he'll be gone in six months. As one senior staff member chided me at a meeting at which many junior staff were present and all ears, 'John, get a faith bill, any faith bill.' "

    Kuo recounts similar anecdotes in his book, with various officials asking him to prepare anything faith-related for public consumption, with little apparent concern for the substance of the matter, in Kuo's recounting of events.

    ReplyDelete
  168. anyone see Meet The Press yesterday, that woman Democrat really cleaned the repugs clock, he tried to smear her and she refuted all his arguments by the end of the interview he was just sitting there quietly because everytime he opened his mouth she made him look stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Hey Worf did you happen to see the commentaies on the TCFC DVD, where Lyd and Deb are talking and commenting while the episode is playing, I thought that was pretty cool, whats sad is they dont make any good sitcoms anymore, that was probably the the last one I seriously watched, I watched 8 Simple rules for a little while because I was a John Ritter fan, but stopped watching when he died.

    ReplyDelete
  170. TomPaine said;

    And the Reichwing is attacking this survey saying that it attacks our troops, well, it doesnt say we killed them just said this is the number of people that have died as a result of the war.

    Of course it doesn't attack the troops. How can the troops be guilty of following orders?

    The troops, (except those guilty of crimes, a small handful to be sure) are blameless in any war, and the republicans trying to say the study blames the troops must believe their is a reason to blame the troops.

    And they're wrong.

    Soldiers don't start wars. Politicians start wars.

    Soldiers are bound to follow orders, and soldiers will go where they are deployed. There is not much they can do about that, and they hold ZERO accountability in this matter.

    ZERO.

    Bush started this war, Bush and his cronies, and those who support him. They sit back comfortably (like I'm doing now) and scream "stay the course" while 53 soldiers die in 2 weeks.

    But staying the course is NOT what they are doing.

    They are making the troops stay the course.

    They're just staying safe.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Sara Rush said;

    Refresh my memory, what episode was it - Season 2 right?

    Yes. It was season two, the episode where Muriel finds out she's pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Mike said;

    When 'Bubbleonians' roamed the Earth

    LMFAO!

    ReplyDelete
  173. Didn't they make a movie out of that one Mike? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Mike said;

    Hey Worf did you happen to see the commentaies on the TCFC DVD, where Lyd and Deb are talking and commenting while the episode is playing,

    No. I haven't seen those yet but I will. I am still getting over how smokin hot Lydia was on that show.

    LOL.

    No, I liked that show and watching the videos again I remember why I liked it. Because it was happy, simple and the girls were fun to look at.

    I remember watching it back in the 80's and I always couldn't wait until the camera went downstairs to the girls apt. Things were kinda boring upstairs to me, but when the camera went downstairs to the girls apt, it was cool, like thats where all the fun was.

    I also liked the opening when they showed their big red house. It was just kind of homey looking, although that weird stripe they painted through the inside of the house, the racing stripe, still freaks me out, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Mike said...
    anyone see Meet The Press yesterday, that woman Democrat really cleaned the repugs clock,


    Yea. She did ok, although I didn't like her talking about her support for the Enabli, err, I mean the Patriot Act.

    ReplyDelete
  176. I wonder if they filmed the show in that big red house, or did they do it in a studio?

    ReplyDelete
  177. And speaking of letting the soldiers down (I was earlier), if Bush doesn't do something to fund the VA to deal with all the Iraq vets, then how can anyone say he is a good military President?

    How can anyone honestly believe he supports the men and women he is sending off into harms way?

    The VA needs a lot more money than what Bush is allocating. It is underfunded and understaffed.

    If Bush really cared about US GI's, he would be spending 3 times what he's currently allocating for the VA.

    ReplyDelete
  178. worf said "Yea. She did ok, although I didn't like her talking about her support for the Enabli, err, I mean the Patriot Act."

    I must have missed that part, any one who supports the Patriot Act or warrantless sping on americans lost me right there.

    ReplyDelete
  179. I am pretty sure they filmed it at the house Worf, because in the commentaries Lydia and deb were talking about different sets and modifications they did to the house.

    ReplyDelete
  180. They do need to fund the VA, my father goes to the VA, so i know how important it is, but I doubt they will, I think soldiers are nothing more than tools to the Neo Cons.

    Like I said the other day if there are over 3000 Americans dead and 655,000 iraqis, just think how many Americans are injured either physically or psychologically and require medical care, and Bush cut VA projected funding before and during a war, now that we are several years into a war the funding needs will increase exponentially but yet we hear very little about that from the MSM, it was always expected that the military was heavily for the repugs, I think after almost 4 years with Bush that will change probably for decades, people are starting to see right through these selfish liars, they have no more credibility and their ability to manipulate has been greatly reduced.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Mike said...
    I am pretty sure they filmed it at the house Worf, because in the commentaries Lydia and deb were talking about different sets and modifications they did to the house.


    Thats pretty cool. I liked that house.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Mike,
    crikey, I can't keep up with all your posts, what were you smoking while playing poker? Have you been hanging out with those Canadian troops?
    :D

    It's great to see the younglings are not so easily fooled these days. I think people are generally becoming savvy at earlier ages. High or low fuel prices are irrelevant now, they've been too high for too long, they'll vote with their feet on the 7th so Dems win either way.

    Did you know we pay over $6/gallon here in Britain? Have done for years. One of the greatest tricks our No11 occupant ever played on us, selling petrol in litres rather than gallons. Every year the price used to increase by a few pence a gallon. Now it increases by a couple of pennies per litre, or 10's of pennies per gallon.
    Watch out for that one if you currently buy petrol/gallon - I don't know. Given the cars you seem to drive I think you buy it by the swimming pool.

    ReplyDelete
  183. No BG I dont smoke, but I was drinking Plenty of Captain Morgan and Guiness Stout.

    I usually play with 2 different crowds one is about 35-55 and mostly coworkers and military people, the other is about 25 years old.

    And you are absolutly right, it is refreshing to see the younger generation open their eyes and not be fooled by the manipulators and deceivers.

    As for Britain I have been aware that you have been paying over $5 a gallon for gas for a decade or two now, as for us over here, the big huge SUV sales are starting to plummet, that trend has ran its course and people are starting to look at more fuel efficient cars, although they still like the fast performance cars.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Cool, it looks like Kaye wrote a blog about that iraqi Woman RiverBend and her blog that I posted about last week

    riverbendblog.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  185. Yea, I just read that Mike. Thanks for posting it.

    Here is an excerpt.

    You cannot in any way rely on Americans or the government. You can only hope your family and friends will remain alive- not safe, not secure- just alive. That’s good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Its really an interesting blog, because you get a chance to hear a locals perspective living through whats actually happening firsthand.

    ReplyDelete
  187. Mike"the big huge SUV sales are starting to plummet, that trend has ran its course and people are starting to look at more fuel efficient cars, although they still like the fast performance cars."

    I think there was an attempt at being reassuring in there somewhere. So you're down to selling only ~1 million SUV's/week now? LOL At least people are substituting them with V26 Mustangs....*holding head in hands*

    Hey Mike, on a cultural note, I just watched a Colbert clip on AlterNet where he does a skit with Jane Fonda and harps on about Apple Pies being the 'great American dessert'.

    I often read references to this, so I checked Wikipedia and found an English recipe for Apple Pie dating back to 1381. Please can you explain how a dessert we've been making for at least 625 years i.e. BEFORE we even discovered your country, is a 'great AMERICAN dessert'? Cheeky sods........

    ReplyDelete
  188. Whats wrong with that woman?

    She should be grateful for us liberating her.

    ReplyDelete
  189. BG said;

    Please can you explain how a dessert we've been making for at least 625 years i.e. BEFORE we even discovered your country, is a 'great AMERICAN dessert'?

    Sure.

    When we opened a can of whoopass on you back at Yorktown we took the pie too.

    ReplyDelete
  190. as for that House i've never been to San Fran, but i'd like to plan a trip to California some time in the next few years to drive up the Coast, see the Giant redwoods and Yosemite National Park, and i'd probably try to drive by that house if it wasnt too hard to find as well.

    When Lydia and Deb where talking one of them (I think Lyd) said they would like to drive by and sign their name on the house.

    ReplyDelete
  191. New Poll.

    More than 61 percent of Americans DISAPPROVE of President Bushs overall job performance.

    More than 70 PERCENT, thats right, 70 PERCENT of Americans think the war in Iraq is making it harder to fight the war on terror.

    70 percent.

    Yet listen to the poor trolls, talking like they have a mandate, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Worf,
    there's something about having King George's in power.......you just lose everything.......

    ReplyDelete