Freedom Is On The March

The man's clinically insane.

 

That's what they said about Kim Jong Il

 

All nonsense.
And the study is not about combat deaths. Read the damn thing.
And, as the study makes quite clear, the 600K is the high end. If it's only 200K, does that mean we've succeeded. And The Lancet is -- with the NEJM -- one of the pre-eminent medical journals in the world, and it specializes in epidemiological studies like this one. It has the credentials, regardless of what your favorite bloggers are telling you.

 

Regarding Dr. Horton and the Lancet I'm not dening the credentials just stating facts, this study received a fast track to publication - FACT, Dr. Horton has been a vociferous opponent to the war in Iraq - FACT, it appeared weeks before a major U.S. election, just as the 2004 study did - FACT, the 2004 study was widely criticised by respected academics- FACT. As for Dr. Hortons time at the Lancet, it has hardly been uneventful ...
http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1842560.ece

Regarding the combat deaths, I'm not quite sure I understand your point. One would suspect that the WWII numbers would be significantly HIGHER than the Iraq number BECAUSE they include combat deaths in addition to deaths from violence, disease, famine, etc. over a longer time period. Based on the Lancet numbers, they are not. Again, the Allies fire bombed the major cities of Japan and dropped two Atomic bombs. Those deaths PLUS those from the increased violence, disease and famine associated with WWII are of the same magnitude as those calculated for Iraq in the Lancet study which I find troubling. I'm also troubled that the Lancet study apparently makes no effort to differentiate between civilian and insurgent/army/police casualties (and yes I've read the study, if you can tell me where it does I'd be glad to know). And yes the numbers do matter when they are artificially inflated for political purposes.

 

Hey Junkie, after reading this and the post that precedes it, I thought of a political figure who's right up your alley ...



Vive le ignorance!

 

Why aren't you bitching?

We're watching US citizens die day after day and innocent Iraqis die at a genocide-esque rate and we can't answer even the simplest of the questions: Why are we there? What good can possibly come from what we're doing and what we've done? How does this make any of our lives -- us and the Iraqis -- any better?

You act as if not bitching is some sort of noble stance. It's not.

You also act as if the real problem here is the fact Dems don't have an answer for a problem this shitty administration created. I don't understand that. I simply can't comprehend how anyone could look at this as anything other than a tremendous screwup, an overwhelming failure and an international embarrassment the likes we've never before seen. Because it's all of that, and then some.

It was created, sold and operated by the men and women currently occupying the White House. The other side had very little to do with it. Sure, maybe they should've stood up at the start and voiced their disapproval, but it wouldn't have mattered. This administration was selling this absolute load of shit on the American people by playing on fear and patriotism and anyone who dared question the suggestion was immediately branded unpatriotic and a friend of the terrorists. None of that is opinion. It's precisely what went down and it's why we're in the predicament we're in.

And now, after this group has so utterly screwed shit up, now they're criticizing the other side for not presenting the right solutions to clean it all up.

Just once -- in just one damn press conference, during just one briefing, at just one photo op -- it sure would be nice if one of these people would show even a hint of embarrassment or shame for what they've done. But they don't. They keep spinning and continue to sell their brand of bullshit. And you all snap it right up and run with it.

"600,000 dead? Well, how many would Saddam have killed? At least they're not starving."

"More US deaths? Nobody said war was pretty."

"Pull out now? What's the matter, you can't stomach a fight? Good thing we didn't have your kind leading this country in WWII."

"Creating terrorists? We're fighting terrorism one dead terrorist at a time."

"Losing control of the country? Absolutely not. The liberal media just isn't reporting the progress."

"The administration sold us a lie? Hey, the Dems saw the same intelligence."

"No WMDs? We removed an evil dictator -- that's an accomplishment."


I could go on, but there's no need. Take a good hard look at this ignorant shit, because every damn one of these has been used multiple times by Republicans throughout the country, and ask yourself just how we all could have been so son-of-a-bitchin' stupid that we trusted the bumbling moron in office and the band of crooks surrounding him.

 

"I'm also troubled that the Lancet study apparently makes no effort to differentiate between civilian and insurgent/army/police casualties (and yes I've read the study, if you can tell me where it does I'd be glad to know). And yes the numbers do matter when they are artificially inflated for political purposes."

As for the former, the study shouldn't differentiate. We invaded the country. We demolished most of the infrastructure. We now3 occupy the land. We're in charge. If people are dying of thirst and disease, it's on OUR WATCH. As to the last sentence, you don't have a lick of proof, and you know it.

 

Dog, great post. You're now on my Christmas card list. Oh, wait. You probably worship satan, you gay-loving left-winger!

Really, I've heard the same words from the mouth of Georgie Boy so many times that I'm beginning to think he's like one of my son's toys. You push a button, and he rattles off some bullshit.

Here's my favorite Bush line:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

He should be great speaking Korean at the mult-party negotiations. How exactly do you say nucular in Korean anyway?

 

From the study ....

“Deaths were recorded only if the person dying had lived in the household continuously for three months before the event. In cases of death, additional questions were asked in order to establish the cause and circumstances of deaths (while considering family sensitivities). At the conclusion of the interview in a household where a death was reported, the interviewers were to ask for a copy of the death certificate. In 92% of instances when this was asked, a death certificate was present.”

If this is true, that 92% of the Lancet deaths could be verified with death certificates, then there should be approximately 550,000 extra death certificates floating around out there so the mortality rates calculated in the Lancet study should be verifiable. I won't hold my breath waiting for verification.

 

The methodology used here has been used elsewhere with demonstrable accuracy. What you have now is a bunch of halfbright bloggers and radio hosts who don;t know enough about statistical analysis to throw to a cat blowing smoke. Accelerated peer-review is nothing more than peer-review with the procrastination factor taken out. (Any competent scientific journalist will tell you that peer-review always takes a lot longer than it should because the people doing it are usually working their day jobs as well.) Choose not to believe it, if you wish, but don't tell me that the numbers were inflated for political purposes without a lick of proof. You look silly.

 

You can't have a rational argument with the clown side because they're willfully unable
to draw any rational, adult conclusions
from the innumerable mistakes W and his thugs have made.

It's like W acting shocked that we won't go over the cliff with him, because after all, he's the Decider.

Too many of us have seen quite enough of the end results of his deciding.

This . . . must . . . all . . . END.

 

By the way, the Army says that the cakewalk in Iraq's going on until at least 2010.
I'm sure the candy and flowers will be forthcoming some time before then.