Top Ten GOP Excuses Regarding the Casualty Estimates

Tim (excuse me, Grima Wormtongue) discussed this last night in depth, and Glenn Greenwald has more today, but this story certainly will be the topic of much discussion:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq’s government.

It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

Rather than debate the idea that we have lost Iraq, that we have no real plan other than ‘staying the course,’ and various other issues of importance (despite the ‘seriousness’ of the GOP), you can bet that all that will be done is an attack on the procedures of this study. As we all know the instinctive Republican response when confronted with things they don’t like is to blame the media, Democrats, or both, it is just a matter of time before the assault on this data begins (and to be fair, I know I did my best to ‘debunk’ the first study). Who knows- maybe by the time Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are done dissecting the stats in this study, we will find out that it actually proves global warming isn’t happening.

At any rate, rather than sit back and wait for the inevitable bullshit to fly, let’s help them out. With that in mind, here are the top ten GOP excuses for an estimate of a half million+ dead Iraqi’s:

10. At least when we kill civilians, it is an accident. Saddam intentionally killed civilians.

9. No one could have predicted there would be civilian casualties.

8. We tried to come up with a plan to win this war without killing civilians, but obstructionist Democrats made it too hard.

7. How many innocent civilians did FDR and Truman kill? (Excuse used partially used with a reference to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.)

6. Why all the fuss? The Iraqi people can ‘tolerate’ a few dead. (Excuse actually used by Bush in his presser.)

5. Freedom isn’t Free. Freedom is messy.

4. Better to have collateral damage over there than to have it over here.

3. The terrorists don’t care if they kill innocent civilians.

2. Brian Ross and the media have known people are dying in Iraq for a long while. Why did they wait until right before an election to tell us? (Excuse actually used here at Red State)

1. Epidemiologists?!? What the hell do skin doctors know about waging war? (Excuse partially used here: “So somewhere between 8 and 194 thousand, good lord I hope I never get treated by one of these quacks.”)

Feel free to add your own in the comments (and if you have links to these made-up excuses being actually used, please forward them).

*** Update ***

Majikthese compiles the list of reactions so I don’t have to.

144 replies
  1. 1
    Mike S says:

    “It’s Clinton’s fault.”

  2. 2

    At least Bush hasn’t bombed the Chinese embassy in Baghdad!

    Thousands of people die in America every day, and you don’t hear the media making a fuss about that.

    Look, this is the first we’ve heard about this. I think if someone had told me about it sooner we would have done something.

    These civilian deaths were caused by foreign countries attempting to make the United States look bad.

  3. 3
    John S. says:

    Tim (excuse me, Grima Wormtongue)

    That is really funny.

    I guess that makes you Saruman, John? Just remember, Orthanc (West Virginia) is an impenetrable stronghold as long as you don’t fuck with the trees (conservatives?). If you do, the Ents (GOP bloggers) will come and dismantle your fortress.

    Boy, those LOTR references can get out of control.

  4. 4
    Pb says:

    John Cole, corrupted by Sauron’s influence through the Palantír of Orthancviewing liberal blogs on his Dell–how tragic.

  5. 5
    Pb says:

    Oh, and while we’re at it… Detroit is *way* more deadly–invade Detroit!

  6. 6
    neil says:

    US OUT OF DETROIT!

  7. 7
    ThymeZone says:

    “The methodology of the study has been, you know, pretty well, you know, dis … you know, credited ….. and that’s why I am taking a minimum of several years to come up with our own estimates on this, you know, figure, which will be something to be dealt with, you know, by a future, you know, president.”

  8. 8
    Pb says:

    Ok. Dumbest (real!) one I’ve seen yet:

    The other question I’d just love to have somebody ask is: “How many Iraqi’s have died to deliberately write bloody headlines for the New York Times …?”

  9. 9
    ThymeZone says:

    5. Freedom isn’t Free. Freedom is messy.

    5a. Freedom is hard.

  10. 10

    Just curious…

    It seems the US state department has been able to track the number of people killed in the Sudan.

    Anybody know why they are having such a hard time with Iraq? Is it possible the State Dept would be embarassed if people started calling for UN intervention?

  11. 11
    Tsulagi says:

    Yep, our fart leader of the free world was dead on in marveling at the level of violence Iraqis tolerate for his vision of freedom. But, don’t forget about democracy!

    Here’s one Iraqi mother’s take in July in her blog on what Bush’s vision of freedom and democracy means for her and her family…

    freedom means free to kill, democracy means you have the right to leave the country

    Hello
    Our family friend’s daughter was murdered last week; she was a pharmacist. She was shot by some merciless men inside her car just after she had shut down her pharmacy…

    She continues her story saying the police sat in the car watching her being shot, excuse me, peppered. They continued watching while the gunmen stuck around threatening anyone who came near her while she died.

    She writes that typically families don’t retrieve bodies from morgues as gunmen wait there to kill them too. Funerals too, which is why the dead woman’s relatives and friends didn’t attend. They left the country.

  12. 12
    neil says:

    More interesting than the question of why Democrats are inclined to believe it, I think, is why Republicans are inclined to _not_ believe it. It seems to fall into a pattern of things that Republicans have been inclined not to believe until long past they were obvious.

  13. 13
    Pixie says:

    Hmm ok I’ll try my hand at this:

    1. They all want to kill us anyway!!!

    2. This would have never happened if Clinton hadn’t left Saddam in power!

    3. 600,000+ dead only means less terrorists who want to kill you and me!

    4. We don’t have enough secret prisons to detain them all!

    5. That’s what Iraq gets for causing 9/11!

    Shall I go on? =P

  14. 14

    Pb – wizbangblog is the gift that keeps on giving.

  15. 15
    neil says:

    TOS: That Sudan study uses the same methodology as that used in the Lancet study. Except probably with a smaller sample size.

    Why isn’t Wizbang posting about the Darfur lie?

  16. 16

    More interesting than the question of why Democrats are inclined to believe it, I think, is why Republicans are inclined to not believe it. It seems to fall into a pattern of things that Republicans have been inclined not to believe until long past they were obvious.

    It wasn’t reported by Fox News.

  17. 17
    ThymeZone says:

    5. That’s what Iraq gets for causing 9/11!

    Best line of the day so far.

  18. 18

    That Sudan study uses the same methodology as that used in the Lancet study. Except probably with a smaller sample size.

    Interesting, isn’t it?

    And those Sudan numbers came right from the State Departments website.

  19. 19
    Tony J says:

    Since US forces in Iraq only target terrorists, many of these dead folks will be bad-guys, so the rest will be either victims of terrorism (if the Liberal Media’s hatchet job on news from Iraq is to be believed) or natural wastage. So the numbers say we’re winning.

    or

    (Solemn face)

    New information reveals that Iraqis are sacrificing their lives in the hundreds of thousands for the cause of freedom.

    (Stern pause)

    The enemies of freedom think we don’t understand this.

    (Shake of the head)

    They’re wrong.

    (Smirk)

    Iraq is the front-line in the War on Terror.

    (Rapid nodding)

    Our Iraqi allies understand this.

    (Pleased expression)

    The Democrats want us to abandon the Iraqi People to the terrorists.

    (Shake of the head)

    But they don’t understand the American People anymore than the terrorists do.

    (Assume meaningful stance)

    This Administration won’t cut-and-run.

    (Smirk)

    We won’t let them make this sacrifice alone.

    (Wait for applause)

  20. 20
    RSA says:

    The other question I’d just love to have somebody ask is: “How many Iraqi’s have died to deliberately write bloody headlines for the New York Times …?”

    I love this, Pb. Posthumous headline writing.

    On the top ten excuses, I think Pixie hit the nail on the head with “600K dead Iraqis = 600K fewer terrorists.” I’ll add:

    That’s 600K fewer Iraqis to be on America’s welfare rolls.

    Given birth rates in the Third World, 600K is a drop in the bucket.

    Those 600K died as free men, women, or children, rather than in Saddam’s chains.

  21. 21
    RSA says:

    Off topic, but did anyone else get a chuckle reading the front page of the LA Times online today? Top headline: Bush Unwilling to Live With a Nuclear North Korea. If only.

  22. 22
    Germ says:

    “If they don’t like it, they should get off our oil.”

  23. 23
    Steven Donegal says:

    Freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.

    that about sums up the situation

  24. 24
    Punchy says:

    3. The terrorists don’t care if they kill innocent civilians.

    Excuse actually used by Sean Hannity at least 100 times over…

  25. 25
    jaime says:

    “It’s Clinton’s fault.”

    Uhhhh…Chappaquiddick

  26. 26
    Pb says:

    Those 600K died as free men, women, or children, rather than in Saddam’s chains.

    Indeed.

  27. 27
    Paul L. says:

    How about the study is BS. Mr strawman.

    A MOST GHOULISH DEBATE

    This is the same crew whose 2004 study showing 100,000 Iraqi dead was thoroughly debunked by a wide variety of experts from both sides of the debate.

    In other words, the researchers were able to discover and confirm 547 dead in the post invasion period by interviewing a little more than 1800 families. And from that sample, they extrapolate 600,000 dead.

  28. 28
    Vladi G says:

    My favorite was from Rick Moran:

    In fact, the study makes absolutely no effort to differentiate between civilians and insurgents

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m guessing there wouldn’t be insurgents if there was not a foreign army present. The point of the study is to identify excess deaths.

    Also good:

    If they are using the same criteria as the 2004 study, some of these causes of death include:

    * Malnourishment due to bad economic conditions as a result of the invasion.

    * Illness due to degraded health care infrastructure.

    * Deaths due to domestic violence.

    * Deaths due to criminal activity unrelated to the insurgency.

    * And “… civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.”

    Right, if we blow up all of your hospitals and places to get food, and places of employment so that you can’t work, eat, or get medical care, those deaths don’t count as excess, because, hell, I don’t know, aliens might have come along and done the same thing. Maybe the domestic violence bit is stretching it, but otherwise, sheesh, what an idiot.

  29. 29
    Dave says:

    Thank you John for reading Redstate so I don’t have to.

  30. 30
    Steve says:

    Oh, here’s Paul, the guy who thinks women enjoy getting abortions. What’s up, asshole?

    This is the same crew whose 2004 study showing 100,000 Iraqi dead was thoroughly debunked by a wide variety of experts from both sides of the debate.

    From what I’ve seen, “a wide variety of experts” actually means a bunch of right-wing bloggers and one liberal from Slate. And of course, to believe they “debunked” the study, you have to basically read their criticisms, say “Wow, what a zinger!” and stop paying attention at that point.

    I think it’s clear that people like Paul are firmly wedded to the things they want to believe and nothing further (“Global warming is a myth. Look, I have a link that says so!”). Put enough people like that together, and you get a Republican majority. Hey, have you heard, there’s no civil war in Iraq?

  31. 31
    cd6 says:

    Imagine the outrage on the right if it was “600,000 aborted festuses”

  32. 32
    cd6 says:

    Or would it be “600,000 aborted feti”?

    Somebody should look into this.

  33. 33

    Paul L – Would you care to comment on the Sudan study I linked to at the State department?

    Is it also BS?

  34. 34
    jaime says:

    It is an unseemly thing to be debating how many Iraqis have died as a result of the invasion and occupation by US troops.

    This is the position he starts with? That even debating the casualties is icky? I guess when you focus your energies on attempting to debunk a causalty estimate you don’t have to think about the actual dead people.

    600,000 is absurd, but 100,000 is just fucking peachy?

  35. 35
    Pb says:

    In other words, the researchers were able to discover and confirm 547 dead in the post invasion period by interviewing a little more than 1800 families. And from that sample, they extrapolate 600,000 dead.

    Amazingly, this is how all surveys work. Statistics, man, it’s crazy stuff. And about that first study:

    JUAN GONZALEZ: Your study, when it came out, came under enormous attack, especially from conservative forces here in the United States. Do you still stand by the methodology, and could you talk a little bit about that methodology?

    LES ROBERTS: Sure. What we did was the standard way of estimating malnutrition and immunization coverage and mortality in the developing world. We got a list of how many people lived in what cities and towns and villages. We randomly allocated 33 points, in which we would go visit, and we went out to the villages or towns and picked up that point, and visited the 30 houses close. We’ve got 33 neighborhoods. We visited 30 houses in each one. And we asked people: Who lives here now? Who lived here the first of January, 2002? Had anyone been born? Had anyone died? And at the end of the interview, if they had reported someone dead, on a sub-sample, we asked, can you show us the death certificate? And about 82% of the time, they could do that. And we found that the death rate after the invasion was far, far higher than before.

    The criticism of our report isn’t in the method. It isn’t in the validity of our conclusion that mortality is up. It’s in the imprecision. And the reason that the imprecision was so high was in part because one of the randomly picked neighborhoods was in the city of Fallujah, and while in most neighborhoods about 2% of the population had died, in Fallujah about a quarter of the population in those houses left, where we knocked on the door, had died. And as a result, we had this really huge death toll attributable to Fallujah, less than that in our other 32 neighborhoods. So, what we did was we said, okay. We’re going to set that Fallujah number aside and report that we think in all of those other neighborhoods, essentially, outside of Anbar Province, we think 100,000 are dead. And we’re only 90% sure it’s more than 44,000. So there’s a distribution around that, and it’s possible it could have been 90, and it’s possible it could have been 110. But we said, well, when you consider then Anbar Province, as well, the chances that it’s under 100,000 are very, very low.

    That was a little nuance, I think, for the press to pick it up as a sound bite. And so, those who attacked us did not attack us for our methods. In fact, I think, if you read the reviews in the Wall Street Journal or The Economist, of what we did, the scientific community is quite soundly behind our approach. The criticism is of the imprecision. But realize the imprecision is: Was it 100,000 or was it 200,000? The question wasn’t: Was it only 30 or 40? There’s no chance it could have been only 30 or 40.

  36. 36
    SeesThroughIt says:

    US OUT OF DETROIT!

    I would like to see this adopted as a common retort to right-wing stupidity. Bravo!

    Also:

    “Why should I care that there are 600,000 fewer Islamofacists out there who want to come chop my head off?”

  37. 37
    jaime says:

    US OUT OF DETROIT!

    Being a Yankee fan, I couldn’t agree more.

  38. 38
    Ryan S. says:

    OT
    Does anybody know what kind of plane crashed in NYC today? When they say small plane? how small single engine prop? or small commuter?

  39. 39
    Fledermaus says:

    Oh, c’mon John. Don’t you know that this study was done by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It’s just more of liberal acedemia opressing conservative thought. Where’s David Horrowitz when you need him.

    And it was done at the request of the UN. The UN, John!

  40. 40
    RSA says:

    From the Moran post:

    In other words, the researchers were able to discover and confirm 547 dead in the post invasion period by interviewing a little more than 1800 families. And from that sample, they extrapolate 600,000 dead.

    This kind of basic ignorance of statistics seems common on the right; for example, “Polls showing that President Bush is deeply unpopular are not to be trusted–they only ask maybe 1000 people!” And:

    Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

    The fact that those three percentages totalled up equal 101% isn’t as ridiculous as 31% of deaths were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes.

    Someone who doesn’t understand rounding error is criticizing the study. Hoo boy. By the way, it seems obvious that some people, including Moran, haven’t read the study (thanks, neil), not even its abstract. The 600K is actually excess deaths.

  41. 41
    RSA says:

    Oops, Pb beat me to the punch on my first quote.

  42. 42
    Paul L. says:

    Steve Says:

    Oh, here’s Paul, the guy who thinks women enjoy getting abortions. What’s up, asshole?

    No, I would say Pro-choice liberal Feminists enjoy getting abortions.
    Since you brought it up I have a retort to Pb that in supporting a in man’s right to choose/ men’s reproductive rights means I am against personal responsibility.

    It is not taking personal responsibility if the government forced you to take responsibility.

    Someone with personal responsibility would support the child without the courts being involved.

    Question how many were killed in Kosavo? I can not find any studies on that.

  43. 43
    Pixie says:

    It looks like a very small plane…they think it could be that or a chopper

  44. 44
    Punchy says:

    Does anybody know what kind of plane crashed in NYC today?

    Some idiot T-boned an apartment building in his small Cessna plane. Meanwhile, America collectively Goes Fucking Nuts over an accident.

  45. 45
    Punchy says:

    they think it could be that or a chopper

    Damn…does that mean we lost one witty, funny, and mightly prescient B-J commenter?

  46. 46
    ET says:

    Mike beat me to it in the very first post no less……

  47. 47
    jaime says:

    It’s being reported as a fixed wing aircraft.

  48. 48
    Perry Como says:

    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

    Funded by George Soros.

  49. 49
    cd6 says:

    If God didn’t want the Iraqis to be killed, then He wouldn’t have made them so killable.

  50. 50
    jaime says:

    From Drudge:

    STOCKS DIVE ON NEWS… DEVELOPING

    Motherf***er has his priorities, don’t he?

  51. 51
    Tsulagi says:

    A short drive by on LGF seemed to show they’re mainly pissed at The Lancet for publishing the study. One comment…

    This isn’t the first time The Lancet has been involved in American politics. They are a consistent, vocal opponent of our 2nd Amendment rights. Anti-gun to the core.

    Yeah that’s it. They hate us for our gun rights. Be afraid, be very very afraid, it’s a conspiracy to take your gun.

  52. 52
    jaime says:

    , it’s a conspiracy to take your gun.

    Are they aware that Saddam Hussein allowed every house in Iraq to have a gun?

  53. 53
    Krista says:

    No, I would say Pro-choice liberal Feminists enjoy getting abortions.

    Christ, you’re beyond retarded. You based that opinion on two things:

    1. One woman on a blog who’s getting an abortion (and will be glad to have it done and over with) because she was given the runaround on the morning-after pill,

    2. One magazine encouraging women who’ve had abortions to stop being ashamed of it (not being ashamed of having done something is NOT the same thing as enjoying having done it.)

    Using your logic, I could say that slender, sandy-haired North American men enjoy mass murder, and I’d actually have a stronger case than you do.

  54. 54
    BlogReeder says:

    Rather than debate the idea that we have lost Iraq, that we have no real plan other than ‘staying the course,’ and various other issues of importance

    John..John.. Tim F. I can understand but YOU?…

    Let’s see… 655,000 / 1300 = 503. So in order to believe this figure you have to accept this. Has there yet been such a tragic day when this many Iraqis have been reported killed? This would be average, some are more and some are less. 503 x 30 = 15000. This many would have had to die each month to support that figure.

    This estimate just seems too high and to release this right before an election is highly suspicious.

  55. 55
    chopper says:

    No, I would say Pro-choice liberal Feminists enjoy getting abortions

    i’m a pro-choice liberal feminist. and i enjoy the hell out of getting abortions.

  56. 56
    ThymeZone says:

    This estimate just seems too high and to release this right before an election is highly suspicious.

    That’s right. I am going to go with the US Government’s estimates.

    Oh wait … THEY DON’T FUCKING HAVE ONE.

    How can that be? Iraq, the most inmportant country on earth if you believe the assholes in charge of the US, and our own government has no reviewable estimate of casualties?

    How the HELL can they conduct a war, and manage an “emerging democracy” if they don’t know this?

    How the HELL can you believe anything they say on the subject AT ALL if they have no formal estimate of their own?

  57. 57
    Ryan S. says:

    This estimate just seems too high and to release this right before an election is highly suspicious.

    503 seems like a reasonable number to me. You have to remember that there are 26000000 people in Iraq so 503 isn’t too unplausible.

  58. 58
    Pb says:

    Paul L.,

    I would say Pro-choice liberal Feminists enjoy getting abortions.

    And to that I would say that you’re an idiot. Really, can you back that nonsense up *at all*?

    Since you brought it up I have a retort to Pb that in supporting a in man’s right to choose/ men’s reproductive rights means I am against personal responsibility.

    It is not taking personal responsibility if the government forced you to take responsibility.

    Someone with personal responsibility would support the child without the courts being involved.

    I’m not quite sure where you’re going with this, but… I will say that of course it’s better if you can do these things without the courts being involved, if you have a good relationship built on trust with the woman in question. But ultimately she does have both rights *and* responsibilities that men do not have, because of her unique biological role. And frankly, I think that’s a lot more realistic and fair than the Old Testament wisdom on this (Genesis 3:16), back when men had the rights, and women had the responsibilities:

    Unto the woman he said,
    I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
    in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
    and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
    and he shall rule over thee.

  59. 59
    Paul L. says:

    2. One magazine encouraging women who’ve had abortions to stop being ashamed of it (not being ashamed of having done something is NOT the same thing as enjoying having done it.)

    Using your logic, I could say that slender, sandy-haired North American men enjoy mass murder, and I’d actually have a stronger case than you do.

    So what magazine is encouraging men who mass murder to stop being ashamed of it.

    Unless you are counting video game magazines.

  60. 60
    RSA says:

    You have to remember that there are 26000000 people in Iraq so 503 isn’t too unplausible.

    To me either. I think some people are just having a hard time wrapping their heads around numbers that are too large to be familiar. For example, if you were to ask a random person on the street how many people die in the U.S. every day, over all causes, what kinds of answers would you get? I’d bet only a vanishingly small number of responses would be in the neighborhood of 7000, which is not far from the real value (about 2.5 million deaths in the U.S. per year).

  61. 61
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Getting back to the Wormtongue business: I see that “NeverYetMelted” provides further proof of Walter Cronkite’s dictum: “Until I started surfing the net, I had no idea there we so many idiots in this country.” Note that he thinks (A) that our mistake in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars was not going for “total victory” (thereby almost certainly getting into atomic wars with Russia in the first case and China in the second), and (B) that every American should be “hard, stoic, isolate, and a killer.” Obviously, what did melt quite a while back is his brain.

  62. 62
    Joey says:

    Question how many were killed in Kosovo? I can not (sic) find any studies on that

    Good question, but it doesn’t make the point you think it does. The Kosovo intervention wasn’t based on one giant lie. It was an international attempt to stop an ongoing genocide. Try as you like, Kosovo and Iraq have very little in common, outside of the US military being involved.

  63. 63
    chopper says:

    Damn…does that mean we lost one witty, funny, and mightly prescient B-J commenter?

    don’t forget ‘good looking’.

  64. 64
    Joey says:

    And according to Wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt, I suppose) 12,000 ethnic Albanians were killed and 3,000 Serbs were killed, civilian and military.

  65. 65
    Pb says:

    RSA,

    And assuming everyone’s numbers are right, note that 503/26,000,000

  66. 66
    Pb says:

    Argh. Frickin’ HTML. Nevermind.

  67. 67
    Steve says:

    No, I would say Pro-choice liberal Feminists enjoy getting abortions.

    No, what you said is that the idea that “women agonize over the decision to have a abortion” is nothing but a “talking point.” That’s pure asshole talk.

  68. 68
    Larv says:

    Blogreeder,

    Has there yet been such a tragic day when this many Iraqis have been reported killed?

    The whole point of using a household survey like the Hopkins team did is that it captures unreported deaths. This is why their estimate is so much higher than those that rely on reported deaths, like IBC.

    This estimate just seems too high and to release this right before an election is highly suspicious.

    It seems too high? Okay, everyone, we can just do away with the whole field of statistical forecasting. From now on, whenever there’s a question that you would normally try to answer with polls or surveys, just ask Blogreeder what number seems right. He apparently has some sort of sixth sense for these things.
    Seriously, on what basis does it seem too high? I’ve heard this a lot today, and it’s just mind-boggling to hear someone make such a claim without any kind of support.

  69. 69
    Paul L. says:

    The Kosovo intervention wasn’t based on one giant lie.

    Other than Ethnic cleaning and Mass graves. Where are the over 100,000 dead in mass graves?

    No, what you said is that the idea that “women agonize over the decision to have a abortion” is nothing but a “talking point.”

    It is a talking point. Not all women who get a abortion agonize over the decision. There are some pro-choicers who view getting a abortion the same as getting a boob-job or taking a birth control pill. A Medical Procedure.

    As a after-thought, I should not have say that all Pro-choice liberal Feminists enjoy abortion. I am sure no one would “enjoy” getting a abortion or boob-job. They might be happy with the results. But the procedure is uncomfortable. (However I am guessing this since I have had neither procedure)
    I was trying to be flip and failed. But it was fun to invoke the outrage.
    However, Feminists do seem have a very casual attitude towards abortion.

  70. 70
    HyperIon says:

    However, Feminists do seem have a very casual attitude towards abortion.

    but not as casual as Paul L’s attitude toward the truth.

  71. 71
    RSA says:

    Where are the over 100,000 dead in mass graves?

    What’s the margin of error on that estimate, by the way? And is it possible that “this estimate just seems too high”?

  72. 72
    BlogReeder says:

    He apparently has some sort of sixth sense for these things.
    Seriously, on what basis does it seem too high? I’ve heard this a lot today, and it’s just mind-boggling to hear someone make such a claim without any kind of support.

    Wouldn’t the daily bombings and/or body counts be higher than they are? I’m basing my belief on the lack of independent supporting reporting in support of this report.

  73. 73
    Vladi G says:

    There are some pro-choicers who view getting a abortion the same as getting a boob-job or taking a birth control pill. A Medical Procedure.

    There are some Republicans who like to bugger young boys. So using Paul’s example, I can extrapolate that to mean that the Republican party stands up for the right of grown men to bugger little boys.

  74. 74
    BlogReeder says:

    503 seems like a reasonable number to me. You have to remember that there are 26000000 people in Iraq so 503 isn’t too unplausible.

    What would the normal attrition rate be in such a population?
    We shouldn’t attribute All Iraqi deaths due to the war.

  75. 75
    Paul L. says:

    RSA Says:

    Where are the over 100,000 dead in mass graves?

    What’s the margin of error on that estimate, by the way? And is it possible that “this estimate just seems too high”?

    Ask William Cohen. He said it

    but not as casual as Paul L’s attitude toward the truth.

    As in 9/11 truth?

    There are some Republicans who like to bugger young boys. So using Paul’s example, I can extrapolate that to mean that the Republican party stands up for the right of grown men to bugger little boys.

    And this bugger little boys contingent, they are a vocal part of the Republican party? They have marches from buggering little boys.
    i.e.
    NOW/NARAL

  76. 76
    John S. says:

    Folks, you know Paul is an idiot. His blog is called Kingdom of Idiots. He has declared himself the king of this kingdom.

    What more do you need to know?

  77. 77
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Yeah that’s it. They hate us for our gun rights.

    I remember a few months ago when the UN announced that program to curb the acquisition of assault rifles by terrorist groups and the like, Stephen Colbert did a predictably awesome bit about it on his show. In character, he announced that the damn dirty UN just wanted to “take away our guns!” he then read a clip from the UN program statement saying, “This is not an effort to take guns from law-abiding citizens,” then retorted, in character, “They’re trying to take our guns!” He then read yet another clip from the UN reiterating that it was not an attempt to override the second amendment, yadda yadda yadda, and followed that up with, “My god, they’re trying to take our guns!

    What were the wingnuts screeching the following day? “The UN is trying to take our guns!” It was like the entire thing had been scripted and enacted perfectly.

    Say, Paul, did you notice the lovely comments the abortion-getting blogger got from fine, upstanding individuals who share your views? Here’s a sampling:

    Your life is fucking worthless you goddamn slut

    Please kill yourself now bitch

    If I ever met you I’d fucking kill you like you murdered your baby, fucking whore

    Die you fucking slut

    Why don’t you just kill yourself now. People like you don’t deserve to live

    Stupid whore. You spread your legs and now you want to murder a baby. I hope you get raped and murdered. Maybe then you’ll feel what that innocent life felt

    Lovely people, those wingers, eh Paul? Fine slices of humanity.

  78. 78
    Pb says:

    BlogReeder,

    What would the normal attrition rate be in such a population?

    Probably the rate they computed from their initial survey, which covered both pre-war and post-war deaths.

    We shouldn’t attribute All Iraqi deaths due to the war.

    Indeed. But we should read the study first, because that’s an excellent example of exactly what they didn’t do.

  79. 79
    Pb says:

    SeesThroughIt,

    My understanding was that Stephen Colbert got to that one a bit late, and the reason the UN made all those statements was because of the reaction they got from unhinged wingnuts. But in any case, yeah, it was brilliant.

  80. 80
    DougJ says:

    That’s 600,000 less people who want to behead us all.

  81. 81
    Retief says:

    THEY DON’T FUCKING HAVE ONE.

    That’s not entirely true. The CIA world factbook estimates that the deathrate in Iraq is 5.37 deaths/1,000 population, pretty much exactly what it was before the invasion. In a population of 26,783,383 that gives us a total of deaths in Iraq from any cause estimated for 2006 of ~143,827 dead people. Their methodology section seems to suggest that they just pulled this number out by looking at the age of the population. It seems low to me. Of course the CIA also claims that net migration for Iraq is zero for this year which seems unlikely.

    The same source also gives us a birth rate of 31.98 births/1,000 population and an Infant mortality rate 48.64 deaths/1,000 live births. 31.98/1000 times a population of 26,783,383 gives you ~856,533 babies born in Iraq. multiply that by 48.64/1000 and you get ~41,662 dead babies in Iraq this year. This means that only 100,000 of the other 25.9 million non-babies in Iraq could die this year for all these numbers to add up. Maybe that’s right in a young population like this one but it seems silly to claim that the deathrate during the current war there is the same as it was with no war.

    So certainly they don’t have a coherent one.

    The CIA’s 5.37/1000 is not so different from the 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people that the study found durring the preinvasion period. In the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people. Clearly mortality is higher than before, as one would expect with a freaking war going on. If mortality roughly doubled that gives about an extra 140,000 deaths a year (if the ~5/1000 rate is right) for three years is 420,000 more dead for whatever reasons than would have been true had the rate stayed the same. If it’s more like 2.3 times what it was, you go up from there. And if you start with a higher rate pre-invasion that just makes the absolute numbers bigger if you generalize the results of these guys found.

    People seem to be getting excited about the 600,000 nubmer but in a population of 26 million over the course of three and a half years it’s not outrageous. If the death rate had stayed identical at 5.37/1000 you’d have ~500,000 deaths during those three an a half years. Is it so hard to believe that the death rate has increased during the invasion and susequent violence?

  82. 82
    Tsulagi says:

    Say, Paul, did you notice the lovely comments the abortion-getting blogger got from fine, upstanding individuals who share your views? Here’s a sampling:

    Your life is fucking worthless you goddamn slut

    Please kill yourself now bitch

    If I ever met you I’d fucking kill you like you murdered your baby, fucking whore

    Die you fucking slut

    Why don’t you just kill yourself now. People like you don’t deserve to live

    Stupid whore. You spread your legs and now you want to murder a baby. I hope you get raped and murdered. Maybe then you’ll feel what that innocent life felt

    I really, really wish Darwin would get to work on these idiots. How about helping the process along and send these fine, upstanding Christians to Baghdad to share their message of love. Let them hand out flyers outside mosques preaching about the evils of abortion. That’ll work.

    Why not be a modern day Paul, Paul? Lead your like-minded flock to Baghdad to do good work. Just like another day at Disneyland.

  83. 83
    ThymeZone says:

    That’s not entirely true. The CIA world factbook estimates that the deathrate in Iraq is 5.37 deaths/1,000 population, pretty much exactly what it was before the invasion. In a population of 26,783,383 that gives us a total of deaths in Iraq from any cause estimated for 2006 of ~143,827 dead people. Their methodology section seems to suggest that they just pulled this number out by looking at the age of the population. It seems low to me. Of course the CIA also claims that net migration for Iraq is zero for this year which seems unlikely.

    I know, I am one of those weird people who actually read the CIA factbook pages.

    My assertion was based on today’s response from Spud Chump, President of the United States, when he was asked about the death toll. From the transcript I can only conclude that he, and his pals, have abolutely no clue whatever. If they have one, they are covering it up.

  84. 84
    r€nato says:

    The CIA world factbook estimates that the deathrate in Iraq is 5.37 deaths/1,000 population, pretty much exactly what it was before the invasion.

    I believe the Lancet study was addressing the 600,000 figure as excess deaths, that is, those not due to ordinary causes of death such as old age.

  85. 85
    Retief says:

    No clue whatever. I’d have to agree with you there.

  86. 86
    bud says:

    It’s a study produced by the same people who brought you the October 2004 study – who admitted that they timed the release to influence the election, and, hey, it’s October again – which was thoroughly debunked. Give it a couple of weeks to let everybody analyze it, and we’ll probably see the same.

    Oh, wait, you wanted hokey reasoning. Nevermind.

  87. 87
    Retief says:

    r€nato,

    I believe the Lancet study was addressing the 600,000 figure as excess deaths, that is, those not due to ordinary causes of death such as old age.

    Precisely, because in the households they interviewed the deathrate more than doubled. What is your guestimate of the change in the deathrate in Iraq due to the invasion deaths and the continuing violence. From 5.5/1000 to what? 11/1000? 8/1000? 6.5/1000? Even if your guess is a low 6.5/1000 that’s 91,000 “excess” dead versus the baseline.

  88. 88
    phillytales says:

    5. Freedom isn’t Free. Freedom is messy.

    5a. Freedom is hard.

    Freedom is hard work.

  89. 89
    demimondian says:

    Um, bud? You don’t know what you’re talking about. You might go read the studies in question — registration is free — and look at the method the investigators used, and then decide what you can challenge without looking like an idiot.

    Regrettably, you’ll find that the number of things you can challenge without leaving your mom’s basement is small. You’d need to go to Baltimore to look at the primary source material.

  90. 90
    Steve says:

    It’s a study produced by the same people who brought you the October 2004 study – who admitted that they timed the release to influence the election, and, hey, it’s October again – which was thoroughly debunked. Give it a couple of weeks to let everybody analyze it, and we’ll probably see the same.

    Thoroughly debunked! It was THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED! I don’t know how, I don’t know why, but I read some blog posts that seemed to really really criticize it, and that’s how I know it was THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED! One of the world’s most respected medical journals printed a new study using the same methodology because they enjoy enhancing their reputation by running THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED materials!

    I’d cite you chapter and verse as to how it was THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED, but there’s obviously no need, as all my friends in the righty blogosphere already know that it’s THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED!

  91. 91
  92. 92

    […] John Cole has studied the sort of people who can make such arguments longer than I have, and he has a Top 10 List of justifications for the carnage in Iraq. This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 11th, 2006 at 8:46 pm and is filed under Middle East, Idiocy, Lies, Iraq, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Home» […]

  93. 93
    demimondian says:

    You know, Steve, you’re right. David Zincavage has also pointed out that the study is THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED. He would be glad to tell you why, but he really is too busy explaining about how the THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED people from Johns Hopkins would be peeing their pants in fear if they visited a dangerous place like Iraq. Or Rwanda, during and after the genocide. Or Zaire/Congo during and after the fall of Mobotu. Or…any of a bunch of other places where brutal people had recently committed terrible acts.

    Oh, and which they’d visited. Just so that their measurements could be THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED by ad hominem wielding ankle biters who want to scare the rest of the world enough that they don’t feel like cowards.

  94. 94
    John Cole says:

    Thank you David. The most precious part of that THOROUGH DEBUNKING was the insinuation from Omar that by citing the study I am playing on the suffering of Iraqi’s:

    Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people.

    Special.

  95. 95
    Steve says:

    I confess, I’m so desperate for someone to attempt an actual critique of the merits of the Lancer study, I went and read that whole post, at the blog with the pretentious Trevino-esque name. Guess what? Tons of rhetoric about dishonest leftists, not a single substantive point!

    But the post did link to three other blogs which have responded to the study, so I followed those links as well. Guess what? Tons of rhetoric about dishonest leftists, not a single substantive point!

    Maybe I was too hard on Mac for arguing that the 2004 Lancet study overcounted by including Fallujah (it didn’t). I mean, he may have been wrong, but a) he admitted it and b) he’s the only one all day who’s even TRIED!

    The righty blogs do seem to be getting a kick out of quoting this one Iraqi who’s offended by the dishonest motives of the leftists behind this study. All I can say is, I hope John enjoyed this attempt to play the absolute moral authority card!

  96. 96
    Pb says:

    The righty blogs do seem to be getting a kick out of quoting this one Iraqi who’s offended by the dishonest motives of the leftists behind this study.

    Yes, “this one Iraqi” who just happens to be one of the Middle East Editors of Pajamas Media. Here’s an interview:

    MG: Besides your Blog, are there any other Blogs you like to read?

    Omar: I check about 60 or 70 blogs twice everyday but I especially enjoy reading a number of blogs like Instapundit, Buzz Machine, Chrenkoff, Roger Simon and Harry’s Place as well as a number of military blogs and Iraqi blogs written in English and in Arabic.

    And here’s Howie Kurtz:

    Omar Fadhil says the media are painting far too dark a portrait of Iraq.

    Outsiders “think there is fighting at every corner, people can’t walk the streets, the economy is devastated and people are starving,” he says. “No one is showing the good news coming from Iraq. That’s usually ignored. Things are difficult, but life is going on.”

    Fadhil, 24, is a dentist in Baghdad. He and his two brothers are doing more than just griping about the coverage; they are at the forefront of the first wave of Iraqi Internet bloggers, engaging in a form of expression that was impossible under Saddam Hussein.

    On a visit to Washington earlier this month, Omar and his sibling Mohammed, 35, who is also a dentist, found themselves ushered into the Oval Office for a meeting with President Bush after a last-minute invitation. The president asked their views on Iraqi politics and assured them that the United States will not leave until the job is done.

  97. 97
    Steve says:

    Are these the two guys from Iraq the Model? I mean, I respect their opinion, but when the wingnuts constantly trot out the same two guys to back up everything they say, you kinda start to wonder.

  98. 98
    Pb says:

    Steve,

    Are these the two guys from Iraq the Model?

    Bingo.

  99. 99
    demimondian says:

    There are legitimate critiques possible of this study. One could go back to the houses in question and check death certificates. One would need to recruit Iraqi colleagues to attend, but it could be done. One could run a a parallel study. If the authors of the study are genuinely dishonest — that is, if this is actually a hack job — then you’d expect to be able to come back with a solid refutation.

    The problem is that the method used is standard, and so the estimate can only be “wrong” if it’s fed bad data or if the math is incorrectly performed. It’s perfectly possible that the study is, in fact, wrong: the authors could have selectively chosen data, their volunteers could have brought in fake data, they could have run the wrong analysis, etc.

    And what do you do if you go out and come back with similar numbers? Suppress them? Or publish them, and expose yourself to the right-wing wolves?

  100. 100
    tBone says:

    One could go back to the houses in question and check death certificates. One would need to recruit Iraqi colleagues to attend, but it could be done.

    This sounds like a perfect job for the Debunkers in the rightwing blogosphere. What do you say, fellas? Airline tickets on me.

    And what do you do if you go out and come back with similar numbers? Suppress them? Or publish them, and expose yourself to the right-wing wolves?

    Personally I’d suppress them. Wolves are scary. I saw a commercial about it a couple of years ago.

  101. 101
    Ryan S. says:

    Here’s a good post from an actual math person.

  102. 102
    Kurt says:

    Hey, whats a few lives, at least they got that “Flag Burning” bill passed, and we don’t have to worry about that happening anymore. Good job Congress.

  103. 103
    amreiakgulag says:

    These people were dead when we got there.

    Saddam did it!

  104. 104
    willie says:

    this is a time tested jem of a republican excuse,
    “well i haven’t seen that report so i really can’t comment on it.”

  105. 105
    Ben says:

    2 more GOP deflections:

    1) Most of those killed are either brown or gay, no loss

    2) What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want the US to stay in Iraq. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality and so many of the people in the area are, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this–this death is working very well for them.

  106. 106
    Steve says:

    This sounds like a perfect job for the Debunkers in the rightwing blogosphere. What do you say, fellas? Airline tickets on me.

    Knowing how those guys do business, they’ll probably start publishing the pictures and contact info of the Iraqi families on the web.

    Anyway, I finally found a blog post that raises some thoughtful points about the survey. Mind you, I had to go to Daily Kos to find it!

    It’s increasingly seeming to me that the only way these results are not reasonably accurate is if there was actual fraud in the data-gathering process.

  107. 107
    hit_escape says:

    Freedom means never having to say you’re sorry.

  108. 108
    Soony says:

    So, that is what Rumsfield meant when he said ” They (Iraqis) will get tired of dying.” I never could understand how someone can get TIRED of dying. He made that statement about two years ago when the estimate of Iraqis killed was between 250.000 to 300.000.

  109. 109
    Mark says:

    Civilian deaths! Hell, all terrorists are civilians!
    That sure looks like we’re definitely winning the war on terror and we’re just getting started. Just wait till we get the nukes online.

  110. 110
    sulphurdunn says:

    If the mean daily death toll from violence over the past two years is set at 100 (not unreasonable), then 73,000 people have been killed directly in just the past 48 months. Non-violent deaths from war related causes can be reasonably expected to have been at least four times that number (again not unreasonable). If demographic data on pre-war death rates justifies doubling that figure…so be it.

  111. 111
    jay walker says:

    650,000?

    That’s just a comma.

  112. 112
    Hedley Lamarr says:

    Freedom is “slow and cumbersome” and besides, we got diverted over the problem of salted peanuts.

  113. 113
    Gerhardt says:

    According to our administration, the lower limit is 30,000 killed. This report says the upper limit is 600,000 killed.

    Regardless of whether one supports or defends the administration, a reasonable person would say this equation is true:

    600,000 > x > 30,000
    where x = # Iraqi sons and daughters killed

    Another item a reasonable person would find valid is that these deaths occurred under our control. We run Iraq. We have the largest military there, we control the government, we control the oil, etc.

    The question for me is: why is “x” amount of people killed by violent means under our watch acceptible?

    I posit that arguing about the limits of this equation is a sign of tacit admission of the failure of the operation.

  114. 114
    DC Exile says:

    How ’bout Lenin’s old quote on why it was necessary to kill so many people to institute the Soviet state (also very appropriate to those modern-day Trotskyites, Neo-cons): “Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.” It’s pithy, dismissive and incredibly arrogant in the face of such human tragedy. Perfect for Neo-cons of all political stripes.

  115. 115
    Martin says:

    Don’t forget Donny’s infamous “In a free society, people can do what they want” (referring to post-invasion looting) I guess that covers being kidnapped, tortured, blown up etc..

  116. 116
    KansasKowboy says:

    If you adjusted the ratio of that to the population of the USA and if those deaths would have happened here, the count would be over 6,000,000. So if 6,000,000 people killed each other in this country with the help of a foriegn occcupying army over the last three years, wouldn’t we think that there was something seriously wrong?

  117. 117
    jman says:

    The number one reason should blame Clinton.

  118. 118
    Freakaloin says:

    but remember…an iraqi is only considered 2/5th of a person so its not nearly as bad you think. isn’t that right wingnuts?

  119. 119
    Timtimes says:

    What sulphurdnn said. Then there’s always common sense that would bring about the same conclusion, but Thugtards only say what they get paid to say by
    the office of strategic information.

    Remember that the Thug rats are being PAID to be vocal SHILLS. They value
    the money uber alle.

    Enjoy.

  120. 120
    {õ£õ} says:

    Here is the report.
    http://www.thelancet.com/webfi.....694919.pdf
    It may be thick for the amerikan idol crowd but it is available for peer review and casual viewing
    That’s more than can be said about the US rummy numberz which are plucked from the drudges of the pond.

    Daily body counts? Are you crazy? The US now only counts homicides by certain methods, like gunfire. Getting blown up by a bomb is out of fashion and no longer counts.

    The study simply determined the death rate in Iraq by comparing the number of deaths from ALL causes before and since the March 2003 US invasion/occupation.

    Prior to the invasion, the death rate was 5.5 death per 1000 per year. Since the invasion, the death rate was 13.3 for the 40 month period of the study.

    The only thing not believable about the 655K murders to me is that 13.3 per 1000 per year seems a bit low.

  121. 121
    Thomas Mc says:

    Gerry Studds.

    And Bill Clinton. If he’d just arrested Dubya, Cheney & Rumsfeld in 2000 when he had a chance, none of this could have happened. It’s all his fault.

  122. 122
    David B. says:

    First the Republicans get blasted for UNDERPERFORMING Democrats on virtually every aspect of American life that matters and NOW you’re blasting them for OUTPERFORMING Democrats on unnecessarily killing innocent civilians.

    Why can’t you Lib/Dems make up your minds?

  123. 123
    brooksfoe says:

    “We were attacked!”

  124. 124
    Ed Drone says:

    “5. Freedom isn’t Free. Freedom is messy.

    5a. Freedom is hard.”

    No need to separate them — make it a mantra:

    5. Freedom isn’t Free. Freedom is messy. Freedom is hard work. Freedom is for those who can tolerate a small amount of death and destruction.

    Ed

  125. 125
    brooksfoe says:

    One could go back to the houses in question and check death certificates. One would need to recruit Iraqi colleagues to attend, but it could be done.

    Yeah, one could — but the researchers already did that. 92% of those asked produced the death certificate. Which is pretty good, considering that heading down to town hall for a death certificate isn’t usually your top priority when you’re scrounging about for enough money to buy a couple of meals a day and there’s shooting in the streets.

  126. 126
    Bluestocking says:

    Good lord…entry #1 on this Top Ten list would almost be laughable if it didn’t demonstrate such a jaw-dropping level of utterly wanton ignorance on the part of the anonymous author. In this day and age of the internet, anyone who isn’t altogether clear on what an epidemiologist does has no excuse for not looking it up. If this chucklehead (there’s no other word for a person like this) had done that, they would have discovered that an epidemiologist specializes in infectious disease and that it’s not the same as a dermatologist!

  127. 127
    Salo says:

    “9/11 changed everything.”

  128. 128

    […] A (possibly disillusioned) conservative offers up the following top ten list: 10. At least when we kill civilians, it is an accident. Saddam intentionally killed civilians. […]

  129. 129
    FastMovingCloud says:

    Tony J,

    You aren’t, by any chance, a speech writer for the Shrub, are you? You even have the expressions and gestures he should use. Without those, he would be bound to do something completely inappropriate (more so than usual, I mean).

  130. 130
    squiddy says:

    uhh, how about:

    -“Not true, they were 655,000 unrelated acts of passion.”

  131. 131
    john says:

    Here is my coulter impression: They killed 3000 people in the WTC attack…that means the life of an american is worth about 218 iraqis. We should be happy that our value is increasing.

  132. 132
    Emilym says:

    600,000 people who weren’t even american citizens? OH, I am so sick of the world being broken down for the simple consumption of those who matter, and those who simply don’t. Obviously those who don’t are ‘tolerating’ this genocide because they choose ‘freedom’. American freedom to do whatever America wants. Read Bush. And by the way, for those still braying American superiority, folks like Paul L., you’re not free anymore either, fool, you just don’t get it yet.

  133. 133
  134. 134

    […] Der er links til “venstreorienterede/liberale” US-bloggere, der skriver om sagen her, her og her. De linker videre til “højreorienterede/konservative” US-bloggere, og så kan man jo læse og danne sig et billede. […]

  135. 135
    Phoenician in a time of Romans says:

    Has there yet been such a tragic day when this many Iraqis have been reported killed?

    Have you in the US seen any story about someone in Ireland dying, this year? At all? I mean, since we’re assuming that the American media is in the business of reporting every death in a foreign country.

    This goes to show that people in Ireland live forever.

  136. 136
    BC says:

    1. It’s Clinton’s fault.
    2. That 665,000 isn’t a count of civilians, its a count of terrorists.

    =my2c

  137. 137

    The War on Terror = 911 Response

    On 9/15/06 Bush said on the White House lawn that he found out about explosives placed high in the WTC buildings on 911. He said he found this out by torturing an Arab whom he called the mastermind of the 911 attacks, KSM.

    For 5 years, the testimony of the FDNY regarding the explosives in the WTC was called conspiracy theory.

    half a million dead? Al Qaeda did it! 19 Boxcutter-Wielding Highjackers did it!

  138. 138
    bert says:

    It’s the UN, stupid.

  139. 139
    Tony J says:

    Fastmovingcloud,

    The scary thing is, I wrote that speech before reading the text of El Residente’s latest Press Conference.

    I was taking the piss. But then the brainless waste-of-skin goes and says more or less the same bloody thing.

    Yeah. That’s scary.

  140. 140
    Dean's World says:

    600,000 dead in Iraq is a reasonable estimate

    The Lancet study (PDF) that estimated deaths in Iraq at 600,000 is coming under

  141. 141
    Nancy says:

    It’s the capitalist way: outsourcing death. We kill them over there so that we don’t have to kill them here. We give them liberty and give them death at the same time, with apologies to Patrick Henry.

  142. 142
    Lawrence says:

    “Top Ten GOP Excuses Regarding the Casualty Estimates”

    Number 11: It’s a partisan hit piece on the administration in which the casualty count was deliberately overestimated by 625 thousand.

    “Moreover, the report’s authors have been revealed as anti-war partisans. One is a former Democrat congressional candidate, the other recently made outlandish accusations about the motivations of the governments leading the war effort”

    http://newsbusters.org/node/8310

  143. 143
    grendelkhan says:

    Actual quote from Hot Air commenter Gregor:

    I ask … why do we care?

    Discounting the victims of the terrorists and insurgents themselves … I say the higher the number, the better. The high number seems to be portrayed as a BAD thing.

    Remember that this is not a war against 18 innocent kids as most previous wars have been. For the most part, these are radical insurgents and terrorists who if not killed now … would surely kill others at a later date – war or no war.

    The “War on Terror” can never be complete if even one “terrorist” is left alive.

  144. 144

    Valtrex.

    Valtrex. Side effects of valtrex. Generic valtrex.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Valtrex.

    Valtrex. Side effects of valtrex. Generic valtrex.

  2. Dean's World says:

    600,000 dead in Iraq is a reasonable estimate

    The Lancet study (PDF) that estimated deaths in Iraq at 600,000 is coming under

  3. […] Der er links til “venstreorienterede/liberale” US-bloggere, der skriver om sagen her, her og her. De linker videre til “højreorienterede/konservative” US-bloggere, og så kan man jo læse og danne sig et billede. […]

  4. […] A (possibly disillusioned) conservative offers up the following top ten list: 10. At least when we kill civilians, it is an accident. Saddam intentionally killed civilians. […]

  5. […] John Cole has studied the sort of people who can make such arguments longer than I have, and he has a Top 10 List of justifications for the carnage in Iraq. This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 11th, 2006 at 8:46 pm and is filed under Middle East, Idiocy, Lies, Iraq, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Home» […]

Comments are closed.