BS: Proof that Bush lied

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:17 PM

BeardedBruse:

One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of "main street bias" – that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that "there was no main street bias" and later amended their reply to "no evidence of a main street bias".

The Lancet authors described their methodology, and refuted the "main street bias" accusation (one made without any factual basis). If Professor Spagat thinks there was indeed "main street bias", he should publish a (peer-reviewed) paper that demonstrates this. Not only that, but as I pointed out in a prior incarnation of this "debate", while Prof. Spagat suggests that there was such a bias, and while he claims that such a bias would over-report deaths, he provides no facts for either assertion.

Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, ...

Where? But FWIW, their numbers didn't come from "mortality figures suggested by other organisations".

an inaccurate graph, ...

Where? And?!?!?

... the use of the word "casualties" to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, ...

Assuming arguendo this is true, how does this change their results?

... and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen....

Ummmm, science is reporting what you find, not what you think you should have found.

... Using the "three-to-one rule" – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports.

And Prof. Spagat's evidence for this "rule"?

"The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions," contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed....

No. They discuss the other estimates. Their numbers are based on their data and their methodology.

... "They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated."...

Prof. Spagat's evidence for this is _________?!?!?

... The paper had "no scientific standing"....

.... says Prof. Spagat. SFW? If Prof. Spagat has better data and better numbers, ho ought to publish them.

... Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? "No."

Does he have any evidence for fraud?!?!? No. "I'm not saying you're a communist, but....."

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 03:26 PM

BeardedBruce:

"Iraq Body Count relies on passive surveillance, counting civilian deaths from at least two independent reports from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers....

Which obviously misses some deaths. That is to say, it is most assuredly an undercount.

Don Firth:

Bush probably didn't lie per se.

Yes, he did (repeatedly). See my quote and link in my first post above.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 06:23 PM

Problem comes when people quote the figures as fact.

Bobert and others wave this figure of 650,000 around like a flag. The study itself is more careful in its language the phrase "may have died" is used as opposed to the blunt statement "have died". Bobert and others ignore the range that the study details, lowest just over 392,000 compared to a highest of just over 942,500, both figures the study claims are just estimated numbers of people who may have died. From this the median figure of 650,000 is derived.

Iraq Body Count also provides a range of lowest and highest. The lowest are deaths confirmed independently by two sources, the highest are deaths that are only confirmed by one source. Their figures are undoubtedly understated, but never to the extent that would come within range of the figures arrived at by the "batch sampling" carried out by John Hopkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 09:20 PM

Okay6, T-bird... Your post indicates the lw figure is 392,000... Right??? You okay with that figure???

Last time we were having this discussion you were at 14,000 and change so if even if yer willin' to accept the 392,000 it don't take no rocket surgeon to tell ya' that you were way off... And that was when I was usin' the 100,000 figure???

Yet you want to use me as the poster boy for exaggeration when it come to overstatin' body counts???

Now it don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell that you are either sufferin' from a Scotter Libby monment 'er yer full of bull...

Don't much matter to me...

Now yer bud, bb, is prolly still stuck at 14,000 an' change but no one really takes a guy too seriously who thinks that by SCREAMING at folks that makes him right... Might of fact, quite the opposite...

(BTW, T, maybe you could take him unner yer arm and tell him what an assh*le he sounds like when he gose into his vein-poppin'-outta-the-forehead SCREAMING spells 'cause he is hurtin' yer side big time with his poor communication skills...)

I know, you couldn't give a rat's arse about bb... Now, T-zer, that ain't no way to be... Hey, there aren't mnay of you Bushite?blairites left so ya' gotta bring up the rear... It's the least that you could do...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:56 PM

Amos:

Entire famlies, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, murdered because they spoke up against Saddam. People having their tongues cut out. People's children in jail to control their parents. Kids raped in front of their parents. Parents forced to rape their kids.


CNN Refrained From Reporting Atrocities about Saddam Hussein Until After the War in Iraq

New York Times

...Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

In my opinion, even without chem or bio or nuke weapons, the atrocities in Iraq is justification to remove Saddam from power. It was reason enough with Milosovich and no-one complained.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:00 PM

The question is more basic than that. True, IMO, that Saddam had to go--and should have been gone long before. But why send an army when a team could have accomplished the same thing: Saddam dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 11:01 PM

Teribus-

As I said, context counts.   Maybe you'll learn that eventually.

You may perhaps not have noticed that other comments came after "no" in the famous (infamous?) Cheney answer (of 8 Sept 2002) you love so much.

I really didn't mean to destroy your ego. But all you had to do was pick a more seaworthy vessel before lashing yourself to the mast. Maybe you'll learn that eventually.

And maybe not.


Or you could even admit that you were wrong. We all make mistakes.

(Yeah, I know--the day after hell freezes over.)

Looking forward to your typically well-reasoned, even-tempered response.

Sorry you're not sleeping well--you really don't have to fire back at 6:53 AM. Take your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:03 AM

"Now yer bud, bb, is prolly still stuck at 14,000 an' change but no one really takes a guy too seriously who thinks that by SCREAMING at folks that makes him right... Might of fact, quite the opposite..."

So, you will stop lying if I stop using caps to repeat what I have stated, and provided evidence for, before, only to have its existance ignored?

If you want to say "over 100,000 Iraqis killed, I would agree. If you say 200,000, I will not argue. Now admit that the US and coallition have not killed the majority, by a large amount: The ones you would leave in place, as native Iraqis and other terrorists form the region, who are fighting the coallition, have killed the vast majority. If the US were not there, the best estimate is that far more would be killed then the present number of dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

bb - This does not make sense.

"The ones you would leave in place, as native Iraqis and other terrorists form the region, who are fighting the coallition, have killed the vast majority. If the US were not there, the best estimate is that far more would be killed then the present number of dead."

If the US were not there, nobody would be fighting the coalition.

Enough said.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

"If the US were not there, nobody would be fighting the coalition."

Straw man argument- I never said the dead Iraqis were because of fighting the coalition. The fact that the large majority of those killed are other Iraqis, most NOT affiliated with the government, shows that they are NOT trying to drive out the US. If you want to accept Bobert's claims ( which I do not) there are 200 Iraqis killed for each US death.

The sectarian violence would be even worse if we were not there. They would still be killing each other. If you think it requires US efforts for groups in the same country to kill each other, think about Rwanda, Sudan, India/Pakistan, Bosnia...

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM

I sure is difficult to have it both way. The game plan was to

1) oust Saddam
2) find WMDs

Saddam is gone and the WMDs aren't there.

The Iraqis were killing themselves quite efficiently at a rate of about 150 per day. That doesn't not include the Kurds who were gassed. The problem now as I see it is one of leaving the place with a stable government and police/military sufficiently balanced and strong enough to keep order until whatever form of government they agree to is in place and functioning. I do not see a plan in place. Years ago I didn't see a plan, and neither did anyone here. (Invasion or 'shock and awe' is NOT a plan.) So, while the 'how many folks have died' is a neat game to play for 100 posts (I didn't count, but it sure feels like at least 10,000 posts by now), it doesn't come close to addressing the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 08:24 PM

I think its pretty much a safe bet that US troops will be there for years (maybe mostly in Kuwait, perhaps some in Tikrit and/or Kurdistan)

since wwII this region has been of strategic importance no matter what US administration is in charge. And it will remain to be even if we switch to renewable energy - because by controlling it you can deny power to others.

like Noam said, if the majority of the worlds oil supply were in the south pacific, and not the middle east and the principal export of Iraq was dates, would the US be in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Mar 07 - 11:08 PM

Peace - 08 Mar 07 - 12:59 PM

"I (am)sure is difficult to have it both way(s). The game plan was to

1) oust Saddam
2) find WMDs

Game Plan? What on earth are you talking about?

1) Oust Saddam - Official US Government Policy since 1998 - True? Please don't argue that is simply a matter of record.

2) Find WMD's - Well not exactly, I actually believe that it was to ensure that they (Iraq) didn't have any, or didn't have the capacity to produce them, weaponise them, deliver them. All of which, according to the UN Security Council Resolution, was to be done with the full, unstinting and pro-active co-operation of the Iraqi Government, which of course UNMOVIC never got - Ref Dr. Hans Blix's reports to the UNSC.

Now then Peace you sign up to that as the common understanding of how things were supposed to be be and ther is a basis for discussion

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:09 AM

If Iraq had WMD, don't you think they would have been used on American troops?

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 12:42 AM

"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers...

... On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:26 AM

They didn't use them in 1991 dianavan, when we knew for certain that they did possess WMD. Propably had something to do with the possible repercussions.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

Well, T, if the puepose of the invasion was to "insure" that Iraq didn't have any WMDs then why did the Bush/Blaei Wra Machine pull the plug on the inspectors just days after Hans Blix reported to the UN that the Iraqi's were cooperating with the inspectors???

And can you answer this without bring yet another dime-a-dozen UN Resolution into the discussion but just from common sense???

(Probably not, Bobert... Common sense is way out of T comfy zone...)

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:38 AM

Common sense, Bobert?

Why would Saddam keep the inspectors out until March, if he was NOT hiding WMD programs? Maybe he decided to let them in because he had hidden/removed all the evidence between November and March, and still believed ( because of people like YOU) that he did not have to comply with those "dime-a-dozen UN Resolution(s)".

Maybe, huh? THAT would be common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:53 AM

"Maybe he decided to let them in because he had hidden/removed all the evidence between November and March, and still believed ( because of people like YOU) that he did not have to comply with those "dime-a-dozen UN Resolution(s)". - bb

Common sense tells me that if I were attacked and I had WMD, I would bring them out of hiding and use them on my enemy. You would have us believe that it was more important to hide them than use them. Does that make sense to you?

Fact is, there were no WMD.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM

"Common sense tells me that if I were attacked and I had WMD, I would bring them out of hiding and use them on my enemy. You would have us believe that it was more important to hide them than use them. Does that make sense to you?

Fact is, there were no WMD. "

1. Straw man argument- The point was prohibited programs of WMD development.

2. So you believe that the entire concept of MAD, which was in effect from 1956 to the present, is invalid?

"Common sense tells me that if I were attacked and I had WMD, I would bring them out of hiding and use them on my enemy."


Good thing you have never been in a responsible position. The USE of WMD would be met by retaliation of kind- and the US has more WMD than anyone except the former Soviet Union.


Fact is, there WERE programs of WMD development, and we don't know what material or devices were actually developed.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush CRIED
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:02 AM

Bush does not cry.

However hundreds of people tried to get a glimpse of him today with tears in their eyes.

The Bush motorcade plowed through clouds of tear gas in San Paolo Brazil today as demonstrators were admonished for getting to close with dozens of tear gas cannisters. Only a hundred or so "specators" were seriously injured.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:28 PM

Is it my imagination or is bearded bruce moving beyond being a bush apologist and now seems willing to defend W and Dick policies with his life.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 01:33 PM

Is it my imagination or is donuel moving beyond being a devote liberal and now seems willing to anyone who dares disagree with him?.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 02:03 PM

I think George W Bush is a disaster as President of the USA. Y'all can do better, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Arne
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 04:43 PM

Teribus:

Bobert and others wave this figure of 650,000 around like a flag. The study itself is more careful in its language the phrase "may have died" is used as opposed to the blunt statement "have died". Bobert and others ignore the range that the study details, lowest just over 392,000 compared to a highest of just over 942,500, both figures the study claims are just estimated numbers of people who may have died. From this the median figure of 650,000 is derived.

Actually, it's the other way around: The mean is estimated, and then the SEM applied for the confidence intervals.

Iraq Body Count also provides a range of lowest and highest. The lowest are deaths confirmed independently by two sources, the highest are deaths that are only confirmed by one source.

And the "high end" here is obviously missing those that were not confirmed by one "report[] from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers". IOW, the "high end" is just the "high end" of those reported under those restrictive conditions.

Game Plan? What on earth are you talking about?

1) Oust Saddam - Official US Government Policy since 1998 - True? Please don't argue that is simply a matter of record.

Ummmm, ousting rulers we don't like (even those that are pretty malign, such as Rummy's friend Saddam was) through military invasion is not exactly legal and/or proper. But perhaps some humanitarian countries might get together and relieve us of the Long National Nightmare we're labouring under, using the Iraq invasion as precedent. Say, do you think that Dubya's head would snap off? What a YouTube hit that would be....

BeardedBrucie is having another hallucination:

Why would Saddam keep the inspectors out until March, if he was NOT hiding WMD programs?

He didn't. They were there on the ground Nov. 18th, 2002. You're welcome to your own hallucinations (but titrating the Haldol up a notch might help there), but not your own "facts".

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 07:53 PM

and when the Iraqis started cooperating with the inspectors..
Bush and his crew changed tack and now wanted a Regime Change..

what UN resolution authorized that? and unless the US was willing to put it to the UN to vote - which they didnt -- they withdrew since they knew full well it would get vetoed, dont bother quoting any UN resolutions in favor of invading Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 08:28 PM

Thanks, Arne...

Seems as if there are a few knotheads here who think that, oh horrors, if 650,000 Iraqia had actaully died as a result of Bush/Blair invasion then that might mean that, ahhhhh, maybe the decison was wrong???

I mean, what's that all about???

Hey, what is the bodycount threshold where these folks would say "Hey, you guys were right... This is a dumbass war???"

I mean, hey, I mention 650K and they squeal like stuck pigs...

I mean, what if it was 350,000, 400,000??? Waht is it about these folks that is so humng up on the numbers before they throw up their hands and say, "Okay, we were wrong???"...

Yet they would love nuthin' more than to divert the discussion to one of methodology in the body-count where folks are no longer discussing the morality of the war but some academic discussion about how the dead are counted??? This is some very messed up tinking but I understand it... ****They*** stood by and not only allowed this war to happen but were the cheerleaders...

That is what this is all about... The blood, be it one child or 650,000 women and kids, is on their hands...

They were given alternative sources about the lies behind the justification for this war and they just didn't want to be bothered and now??? Yeah, they want to argue methodology of how the dead are counted???

These are some very sick people and they know who they are and we do to...

...we were right and you folks were ****very***** wrong...

Reducing the absolute horror of a 6 years old who has just witnessed his or her mother's body being blown to pieces to an acadmeic exercize is the sickest of the sick...

Shame on all of you who are unwilling to look at what you have supported and cheerred for... You like yer "Shock 'n Awe" now that it has come down to the reality that, what??? 100,000??? 200,000??? 600,000??? people gettin' blown to pieces so you could get yer jollies with all those "Shock 'n Awe" pictures traversed yer TV screens while you chugged one Budweizer after another in pure entertainment???

That's the way it looks from here 'cause after every friggin' excuse for the war has evaporated like some mirage on a highway you people have bought into the new 'n improved reason to blow up yet another mother, child, old person, college kid...


And TO WIT: Now you wnat us to belive that if we don't kill these kids, mothers and 'ol folks that they will attacking the US???

What absolute stupidity...

Beam me up, Scottie... There are way too many stupid people here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 10:32 PM

Bobert, wait up....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Dickey
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:33 PM

If some knot heads could convince other knotheads that 650,000 people died in Iraq, they might be able to convince other that the war is wrong.

How about the 4 million that left Iraq while Saddam was in power? I didn't hear any outcry from the 650,000 killed knothead camp then.

Well, at least that 4 million can return when the terrorists who killed what ever number the knotheads claim are dead, are defeated. That is if the 650,000 killed knothead camp want them to be able to return.

Subject: RE: BS: Proof that Bush lied
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 07 - 12:00 AM

The war was wrong, wrong from the beginning, launched on fraud and greed and stpid, blind ambition, with human lives paid for the game. War is always wrong, even when you cannot get out of it. More important, it is extraordinarily more wrong when you don't have to go into it, but choose to do so anyway. All the justifications, rationalization, weighty analyses of who said what, is not going to bring any of those wasted lives back or unspill any of the blood in the sands of Mesopotamia. ANd it was blood that did not have to be spilled. It was spilled because the men of the Bush power circle could not communicate and would not think. So they infected the world with their own, meat-headed bloody-mindedness and dragged nations into the abyss with them.

A