Friday, October 05, 2007


Sometimes I wonder about Prescott Bush's ties to the Nazis, and why the supposedly "Liberal Media" never mentions it. Then I start thinking about the "light rain" in tonight's weather forecast. I hope it rains.


Vincent Waller said...

A Bush doing something moraly questionable? Oh I don't think so!
Next thing you'll be saying that the Bushies lie about torture, or reasons for going to war, or killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians under the pretext of giving them freedom.
A little rain would be nice, but I'd prefer a hard ran that would wash the garbage out of our goverment.

Vincent Waller said...

Nice crumple sky by the way.

Dominic said...

That reminds me of that old adage:

Shit doesn't fall far from the asshole.

I wasn't referring to the weather.

becky said...

Yeah, I like how you did the sky, too. That was realllly, really clever!

Anonymous said...

Apparently just mentioning bush whether in reference to a person or not really fires people up. Let's try this: Clinton, Maryland, or I paid a Bill yesterday. Is there as much vitriol for those words? I do agree, however, with two thoughts of Mr. Waller. The first is nice sky. The second is that the government is full of garbage. When the government wants to spill blood for oil or steal my money to pay for social programs, bridges or any menagerie of bills (there is that word again and plural) that makes people more dependent upon the government. I am tired of the victimization of America and how I am somehow responsible for other people's bad decisions. Either direction, Left or Right, leads to a foul dung heap of rotting refuse which only wants to stay in power and spend my hard earned money to accomplish it.



Anonymous said...

Clinton... I wish he was president now.
Maryland... a nice refuge for colonial Roman Catholics.
You paid a bill yesterday... good citizens always do, don't they?

Nope, not much vitriol there.

By the way: Where in any of the above comments did anyone blame you, Matt, for being "somehow responsible for other people's bad decisions?"

Apparently, just criticizing Bush brings out the apologists.


Anonymous said...

Mr. Alter Ego,
While Mr. Waller may not have placed the blame on me, the government does when it steals my money to give to people who, for whatever reason, feel they need my money rather than earn their own. As for Clinton, Bush or the other politicians; as I said they exist so they can take my money. While Republicans claim they won't, we have seen the biggest expansion of government under the helm of Bush and only recently has he found where the veto pen was stored. As for the current crop of Democrats, they make no bones about wanted to increase tax rates to expand government even more than Bush already has. As for apologies, I guess I should apologize for having been a Republican, but Bush cured me of that disease. As for any possibility of voting for a Clinton in the future, William Jefferson cured me of that. Call me an apologist if you want, but don't call me a Republican or a Bushie.



david gemmill said...

haha awesome drawing. nice crumple cloud effect, like others had mentioned. i agree. i hope it rains a lot, or gets more overcast. this hot sun is no fun.

Anonymous said...

As to Prescott Bush, Cecil Adams has a good column on it in The Straight Dope, just google it since the link doesn’t come out right.

Regarding liberal bias (without the scare quotes), why not just listen to what the members of the media say about it:

“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

“There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites’ have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg’s report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton’s health care plan ‘wacky?’...
“‘Reality Check’ suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: ‘Time Out!’ You’d have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else — like Albania.”
— CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004.

“Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’...”
“The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush’s justifications for the Iraq war....It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy....It remains fixated on the unemployment rate....The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.”
— From the February 10, 2004 edition of’s “The Note,” a daily political memo assembled by ABC News political director Mark Halperin and his staff.

“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.

“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.

“I think this is another reflection of the overwhelming journalistic tilt towards liberalism and those programs. Now, the question is whether that’s bad or not, and that’s another debate. But the idea that many of us, and my colleagues deny that there is this kind of bias is nuts, because there is in our world — I forget what the surveys show, but most of us are Democratic and probably most of us line up in the fairly liberal world.”
— Time Washington contributing editor Hugh Sidey responding to a caller who asked if journalists are in favor of affirmative action, July 21, 1995 C-SPAN Washington Journal.

“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”
— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”
— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball.

Anonymous said...

Vincent Waller:

If Bush lied about the reasons for going to war then so did these people:

"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

AlterEgo said...

Wow! A lot of people believed Bush's lies - even Democrats.

Anonymous said...

Alter Ego:

Apparently they even believed his lies in 1998 while he was Governor of Texas.

We can go even earlier in time as well.

Use this Google search: ""al gore" "george h. w. bush" over saddam"
and you can see a video of Al Gore from 1992 (two years before GWB was elected Governor of Texas) where Gore excoriates George Herbert Walker Bush for not taking the threat of Saddam seriously.

johnnybaffo said...

In the future could all you anonymous ranters try to make your point with a little bit more economy of language. I know you are very smart and informed but I don't have time to read your term paper responses.

As far a Prescott Bush being called out for doing businsess with Hitler and Germany he was'nt the only one. In Hitler's early rule he was considered a shinning example of a leader who helped pull his country from a deep depression. Many respected business men and politicians were freindly with Adolf untill he eventually exsposed his true evil nature. Henry Ford was at first a big fan of Hitler but when America entered the war he threw all of his industry into the war effort to defeat Hitler.

Anonymous said...


Sorry about the length--each paragraph is an individual quote so you can pick and choose as you like. I actually found overwhelming amounts of statements for each topic but edited out quite a few.

I reasoned it was better to go with the longer list rather than be accused of cherry picking one quote from one person.

johnnybaffo said...

Point taken, I am impressed by this collection of quotes reguarding the liberal media bias. I wonder how many members of the media that lean right and ultra right would admit that they do. Do you have any quotes from them?

As far as all the Dems that were on the anti Saddam wagon before the invasion how many do you think would have taken it as far as Bush has? They were in agreement that Saddam was bad news but I don't know if they were interested in taking over his country and installing Democracy in the middle east. The course of inspections and the shutting down of Iraqi air space seemed to be keeping them in check. Negotiations could have been pursued further, they seem to be working with north Korea but I guess that's what happens when you are forced to to work a diplomatic solution because your military is stretched to it's limit.

These are actual questions not challenges.

Anonymous said...


I’ll break my response into two sections. Here’s my response about media bias:

I have no quotes from anybody who is ultra right or right in the media that say there is a conservative bias, I have never seen one. Save for Brit Hume, nearly all the conservatives I can think of in the media (Rush, Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, Brooks, Dobbs, Krauthammer etc) are in the arena of opinion, not network news.

Conservatives being a small minority in media is nothing new---Lichter and Rothman’s book The Media Elite is almost 30 years old, and of the journalists they surveyed back then 80% had voted Democratic in every election between 1964 and 1976.

The idea that journalism is completely objective is actually fairly new. 100 years ago American papers all had their biases—and you knew it and that’s why you read it. UK papers wear their biases more openly—left to right they go: Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph. Now guess which paper the BBC advertises for employees in? The Guardian.

Bias in news doesn’t bother me, I’d just prefer they be open about it.

Here are some examples of bias in the last few days (if the links don’t post then Google them if you are interested):

Read today’s LA Times puff piece on Hillary Clinton. Remember these quotes come from a “straight” news story:

“,0,2762879.story?coll=la-home-center “

“Carol Levesque, a retired New Hampshire social worker, used to think Hillary Rodham Clinton was not cut out for the White House. Levesque looked askance at Clinton’s decision to run for the U.S. Senate. She was lukewarm about how Clinton conducted herself as first lady to an unfaithful husband.

Now, Levesque is an avid fan. After seeing Clinton three times, she was wowed by the New York Democrat’s apparent brainpower.”

“Levesque also cites a factor that Clinton says she often hears: “I really hoped someday I would live long enough to see a woman as president.”

“Levesque’s conversion offers a window into how Clinton has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination: One of the most demonized politicians in America has begun to win a second look from skeptics.

And among women and seniors, such as Levesque, she has built big leads over her rivals.”

"Yet she also has high negative ratings in some polls. For more than a decade, she has been attacked in a shelfload of books, on countless websites and in repeated direct-mail drives. Her detractors see her as a calculating opportunist with a crisis-ridden past."

“ And Clinton’s signature issue — healthcare — is a big draw for many women."

“It’s a problem for a lot of people’s families,” said Melanie Sowa, 40, a South Carolina homemaker who supports Clinton because of her gender as well as her pledge to make healthcare more affordable and accessible.”

Can you imagine the LA Times saying Bush had ever been “demonized”? That he had been “attacked” or that his opponents were “detractors”? Or that his tax cutting policy is a “big draw” for businessmen and entrepreneurs?

That article reads like it was faxed over from the campaign.

Every time some politician gets in trouble I always look for how long into the article it takes for the article to mention their party affiliation. Statistically, Republicans are mentioned much sooner than Democrats. I remember having to wade into the 13th paragraph of an article about William Jefferson hiding his bribe money in his freezer before learning he was a Democrat.

This week I have a new reigning champ:

In that article the Mayor of Atlantic City disappears after embellishing his Army record to receive higher benefits. The Associated Press wrote 22 paragraphs about it and never mention that he was a Democrat….at all!

Lastly, if you saw Howard Kurtz on CNN you may have seen journalists Robin Wright and Barbara Starr try and explain why the drop in combat deaths in Iraq is not newsworthy:

After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"

WRIGHT: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet.

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news.

Anonymous said...


About Iraq:

I don’t think any Democrat would have followed Bush on Iraq because it would not have been popular (think the Democratic Congress pulling support for South Vietnam, Clinton pulling out of Somalia in 93 after the Black Hawk Down incident rather than removing Mohammed Aideed)and because Democrats tend to see terrorism as purely a law enforcement matter (think the first bombing of the WTC, Khobar Towers and the attack on the Cole).

Perhaps the 9/11 dynamic would have changed that, but I doubt it.

I would disagree with you about sanctions and the air patrol keeping Saddam in check. Remember that the entire point of the multibillion dollar UN Oil for Food scandal was Saddam seeking to have sanctions lifted. And all the while he was maintaining Salman Pak as a terrorist training site, hosting Abu Nidal as his guest, paying $25,000 to every Palestinian suicide bomber, feeding dissidents into industrial shredders and presiding over a dictatorship that only exceeded at developing sites of mass graves.

I would also disagree with you that negotiations have worked with North Korea—if they actually abide by a deal I’d say it’s because their economic situation has deteriorated to the point where they have no choice. Remember that Jimmy Carter presided over a negotiated settlement over nukes with the North Koreans in 1994 and they started violating that treaty before the ink dried. Madeline Albright got cozy with Kim Jong Il in 2000 and he tested a nuclear device 6 years later. Color me skeptical.

My main point about Iraq is that hatred and opposition of GWB does not translate to good policy. Right now the Democratic Congress could defund the war—but then the defeat and probable horrific aftermath would be their fault. So they prefer to try and bring about defeat and hang it on Bush through timetables, troop rotation changes, and saying the "War is lost!" when the Surge was just beginning. (Harry Reid).

I don’t think there has been a party actually invested in America’s defeat like today’s Democrats, with the possible exception of the Copperheads during the Civil War:

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) told reporters yesterday. "Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

This is a proxy war against Iran and Syria, and the world’s energy comes from this region. Democracy or not we need to win this fight. What do you think the Middle East will look like if we retreat prematurely? Ahmadinejad has already said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. Do you think a nuclear Iran with no pro western counterbalance would stop there?

Peace is the ultimate dividend of victory. My feeling is that many Democrats would prefer defeat and diminution of American power, prestige and influence to having credit for winning inure to Bush.

johnnybaffo said...

I appreciate your informed opinion and research.
I've always known that for everything you read or hear there is another angle but it is too time consuming for the average american (me) to do all the research. The result is alot of kneejerk reactions based on what sort of funneled info we get.

Vincent Waller said...

Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians under the pretext of giving them freedom.

Anonymous said...

Vincent Waller:

How many Iraqi civilians do you think will die if the US pulls out prematurely?

What about the number of civilians killed by Saddam himself?

This is from China Daily on 12/9/03:

The deadliest atrocity associated with Saddam's government was the scorched-earth campaign known as the "Anfal," in which the government killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in Iraq's far north. Many were buried in mass graves far from home in the southern desert.

Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War.

Sandra Hodgkinson, director of the U.S.-led occupation authority's human rights office, estimated that some 50,000 others were executed during Saddam's reign, including Kurds killed in chemical attacks and political prisoners sent to execution.

That 50,000 figure also would include prisoners killed in Baghdad."

And before you start quoting hundred thousand increment body counts from the Lancet Study, know that it's methodology has been debunked, from Slate:

"The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

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

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

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

The authors of the first flawed study then upped the number to 650,000 deaths for the new Lancet article and that got debunked fairly quickly and easily as well, as noted by

"Iraq is not an inaccessible backwater. It has a modern communications infrastructure, as well as hospitals and morgues. It is simply unfeasible that 500 civilians could die everyday from violence without the morgues, news media, or the police knowing about it. One might also wonder why nearly a million other Iraqis would refuse to seek medical treatment for the serious injuries that they are alleged to have suffered (according to another part of the same report), since they never showed up in hospitals. Taken at face value, this would be about 1 in 5 residents of the Sunni triangle.

Both studies are based on an extremely small statistical sampling in the most violent areas of Iraq. So woefully unreliable was the methodology of the first that it actually begrudged a 92% margin of error - meaning that its conclusions could be closer to 8,000 deaths, which would have put it in line with reliable news sources. Again, however, the vast majority of casualties would have been at the hands of Islamic terrorists. Cluster bomb mishaps, for example, are both rare and highly publicized."

Civilian deaths are a horrible thing, but I would say that you will get much more of them with a premature pullout.

You may certainly differ, but make a statement about what you personally think should be done and what you personal on-the-record prediction for what the result of that action will be in Iraq and the region.

Vincent Waller said...

How many do you think would be dead if we had not invaded a country that wasn't a threat to us?

Dustin said...

Ron Paul

johnnybaffo said...


I think Anonymous already answered your question. I'm no fan of the Bush administration but according to all the reports, there were already 100s of thousands of deaths occuring in Iraq before the US invasion and no reason to believe that they would not continue if we did nothing. We can't lose sight of the fact that there were some good intentions in liberating the Iraqis from Saddam but there was and is also a hidden or not so hidden agenda by our current administration to bolster their own financial ties from the invasion. I don't know for certain if all the info about WMDs in iraq was faked by our government or if we were truely fooled, but there was a humanitarian crisis in Iraq under Saddam.

I used to live in Dearborn Michigan where the largest population of middle-easterners in the US now live. They were jublilant when the US entered Iraq. The majority of the people in Iraq were greatful for the US intervention initially but there are enough aggitators to keep the country from ever really recovering. The people that want to get on with their lives out number the ones who wish to blow people up but it only takes a few bad elements to ruin the community.

johnnybaffo said...

Just to clearify, when I say "few" I'm speaking in relative terms.

Vincent Waller said...

No, I don't think he did.
The Kurds were protected. Saddam's Air Force couldn't leave the ground.
Oh and he was no threat to us.

Anonymous said...


A couple things about WMD. We know Saddam had WMD because he used chemical weapons against Iran 1983-1988 and against the Kurds in 1988. The burden of proof was not on the US to find that Saddam still had WMD, Saddam was required to comply with the UN Inspection Program, comply with the 14+ Security Council Resolutions and the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War.

In my opinion, the biggest problem is that most people don’t want to really think about what to do now. Whether you have an incandescent hatred of GWB or not---the current situation in Iraq has great significance to this country and the world. There is no amount of hindsight or rear view mirror speculation that is going to direct the future outcome of this conflict—that’s why I ask people like Vincent to tell me what they would do and speculate on what the probable outcome would be.

Often they can’t.

GWB isn’t running for President, the next elected President will have the same set of problems: Al Qaeda in Iraq, Syria supporting the Sunni insurgency, Iran seeking to make Iraq a client state, Saudi Arabia spread Wahhabism in the west, Iran actively seeking the destruction of Israel, possible sectarian genocide in Iraq, etc etc.

What the US does now in Iraq will have repercussions for decades.

A couple notes about WMD. Did you see how Iraqi chemical samples were found recently at the UN offices in

"Sealed chemicals found at U.N. office

NEW YORK — U.N. weapons inspectors stumbled upon small amounts of "potentially hazardous" chemicals in their offices today and called the FBI to help remove them.
The box containing the sealed vials and tubes probably was shipped from Baghdad around 1996 and had been sitting unopened in the commission's offices, located until recently on the 30th floor of the U.N. headquarters, a commission official said.
"This stuff was all sealed and wrapped, yeah? We're not crazy," said spokesman Ewen Buchanan."

Lastly, this is from an op ed in the Washington Times by Ion Mihai Pacepa. Pacepa was head of the Romanian KGB and is the highest ranking defector from an Eastern Bloc country. Obviously this is speculation, so you can give it whatever weight you feel it deserves:

“As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take orders from the Soviet KGB, it is perfectly obvious to me that Russia is behind the evanescence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. After all, Russia helped Saddam get his hands on them in the first place. The Soviet Union and all its bloc states always had a standard operating procedure for deep sixing weapons of mass destruction in Romanian it was codenamed "Sarindar, meaning "emergency exit." I implemented it in Libya. It was for ridding Third World despots of all trace of their chemical weapons if the Western imperialists ever got near them. We wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with.

All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea. Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction. Chemical weapons, especially those produced in Third World countries, which lack sophisticated production facilities, often do not retain lethal properties after a few months on the shelf and are routinely dumped anyway. And all chemical weapons plants had a civilian cover making detection difficult, regardless of the circumstances.

The plan included an elaborate propaganda routine. Anyone accusing Moammar Gadhafi of possessing chemical weapons would be ridiculed. Lies, all lies! Come to Libya and see! Our Western left-wing organizations, like the World Peace Council, existed for sole purpose of spreading the propaganda we gave them. These very same groups bray the exact same themes to this day. We always relied on their expertise at organizing large street demonstrations in Western Europe over America's war-mongering whenever we wanted to distract world attention from the crimes of the vicious regimes we sponsored.

Iraq, in my view, had its own "Sarindar" plan in effect direct from Moscow. It certainly had one in the past. Nicolae Ceausescu told me so, and he heard it from Leonid Brezhnev. KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and later, Gen. Yevgeny Primakov, told me so too. In the late 1970s, Gen. Primakov ran Saddam's weapons programs. After that, as you may recall, he was promoted to head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service in 1990, to Russia's minister of foreign affairs in 1996, and in 1998, to prime minister. What you may not know is that Primakov hates Israel and has always championed Arab radicalism. He was a personal friend of Saddam's and has repeatedly visited Baghdad after 1991, quietly helping Saddam play his game of hide-and-seek.


The U.S. military in fact, has already found the only thing that would have been allowed to survive under the classic Soviet "Sarindar" plan to liquidate weapons arsenals in the event of defeat in war- the technological documents showing how to reproduce weapons stocks in just a few weeks. “

Honky D said...

Just to throw gas on the fire:

Anonymous, who has time to read all your stuff, and why do you have that much time to research and write it? Is this your JOB or something?

That's a sincere question. Though I recognize that if it really is your job, you will not provide a sincere answer.

Liberal media bias: my ass. Cite all you want, the so-called "liberal" media never questions the primacy of corporate power or the Imperial ambitions of the American superstate. Has this "liberal" media ever bothered to mention to you that we have 740 military bases NOT on American soil? Did you even know that? Have you considered how dwarfed the Roman Empire is by the scale of that apparatus?

But then I suppose asking about such things is not Liberal; it is radical, and heretical. We dare not speak its name!

The mainstream media has a pro-corporate bias, which is neither liberal nor conservative as is being discussed here, but profit-driven. As long as it does not interfere with their acquisiton of good quarterly numbers, they do not care who you are having sex with or what you prefer to drive to work; as long as you are going to work, and greasing the wheels of that perpetual motion machine called capitalism.

As to Prescott Bush: he was an opportunist, like many in his time. But unlike most of his contemporaries, even a declaration of war did not dissuade him from continuing to do business with the Third Reich. He, like his progeny, demonstrated all the moral thinking of a slug. May the lot of them strike gold in a salt mine.

Anonymous said...

honky d:

I own three businesses which I run through managers. So my time is my own. I occasionally wade into these arguments for the fun of it. I'm sorry my responses are long but I prefer them to be complete. You don't have to read them.

You should write your imperialist/corporate rant to the people I cited. I bet they have no idea how wrong they are. You can straighten them out.

Let me know what they say.

Honky D said...


I accept your apology.

Anonymous said...

honky d:

Here is your first mission:

Contact former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg, author of Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. He even has a message board too:

Let me know when you have posted on the message board, it says he often responds.

If you think mt previous response was an apology then I completely understand how you don't think there is a liberal bias in media even when reporters and network executives admit to it.

You know better--now get going!

Honky D said...


I misunderstood you on purpose. You need a hobby.

I won't do a single thing you instruct me to do, but I will annoy and contradict you.

Really though: don't we BOTH have something better to do? You have three businesses to run, o Anonymous, if that really is your name.

Seriously, though: THANKS for apologizing! I appreciate it.

To continue playing this stupid game, please reply.

johnnybaffo said...

OK, time for 20 questions.

What papers do you run ads in if any and or do you own any papers or news media?

Ans are you any relation to Randolf Hearst?

Anonymous said...

honky d:

*yawn* You are tiresome. You need to get out there and fight the corporate interests and bring down the imperial superstate. You add absolutely zero to the discussion.

I was interested in seeing what Vincent and Johnnybaffo thought, you are interested in making an ass out of yourself.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the discussion. I'm leaving the office and hitting the driving range. See you all next time.

Honky D said...

Yay! You replied. I win.

Honky D said...

Actually Anonymous, I think I did add something useful to the discussion. But I think you have no use for it.

I don't expect to convince you of anything. You've made it plain in your zillions of posts here how convinced you already are of your own opinion; you seem to be here to make to argue everyone else into the ground. Well, too bad, "Anonymous." Why don't you to go post at Free Republic where everyone will gladhand you.

That said, you really don't need to keep apologizing. It's kind of getting embarassing.

Anonymous said...

I'm out of here. I've got to brush my teeth, my breath smells like ass.

Anonymous said...

honky d: