For someone who is willing to kill for the false idol of democracy, Dubya sure flouts the will of the people.
Polls indicate most Americans want to see troops withdrawn from Iraq; Bush refuses to listen or obey his bosses.
A majority of Americans wants the bleeding on the Southwestern border stopped and immigration levels vastly reduced; Bush doesn’t and won’t hear of abiding by the people’s wishes.
The Associates Press (via Rational Report) reports that:
A “controversial new study contends that nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq—more than 10 times higher than other independent estimates of the toll.”
Dubya and his Oh-What-A-Wonderful-War contingent dispute these figures. And so they should.
The latest Lancet report has never claimed 655,000 civilian deaths total, but rather that, “An estimated 655,000 more Iraqis have died as a consequence of the March 2003 military invasion of Iraq than would have been expected in a non-conflict situation.”
What we have here, once again, is rotten reporting. When the first Lancet report appeared two year ago, mainstream press also fudged the facts. I think I was the only writer who made the necessary distinctions. I explained:
“In the final days of Saddam’s reign of terror, i.e., in the 15 months preceding the invasion, the primary causes of death in Iraq were natural: heart attack, stroke and chronic illness. Since Iraq became another neocon object lesson, the primary cause of death has been violence, according to the report.
Since March 2003, Iraqis have suffered from an excess of deaths, if you will. As Dr. Les Roberts, author of the study, told BBC News, ‘About 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.’
According to the study, “The relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months. But ‘the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the U.S.-led invasion.”
Update: My thanks to Bob Murphy and Sean Mercer for demanding further clarification: My point is non-ideological; I’d simply like to see accurate reporting. The 650,000 figure would include deaths due to a greater incidence of heart attacks, cancer, strokes, stress and displacement-related deaths, deaths associated with a lack of health care and potable water, etc. Thus, silly journalists build doubt into the report because they give the impression that this many people died directly because of the war. Rather, the figure represents both direct and indirect casualties of the invasion, which is why it’s believable.
It goes without saying that the report is a criminal indictment of the invasion. If not for the invasion, the leading cause of death in Iraqi would still be natural, as it was during Saddam’s suzerainty.
Don’t forget that at the time Bush was preparing to invade Iraq, he was giving North Korea room to maneuver freely on the axis of evil. While Iraqi palm dates were being subjected to strict trade embargoes, North Korean Scud missiles were allowed to safely reach their destinations: the jammed-with-Jihadist nations of Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Libya and Yemen.
In 2002, a North Korean vessel was not allegedly—but actually—apprehended in the Arabian Sea, carrying 15 well-concealed Scud missiles. At the time of its invasion, Iraq was suspected of hiding a total of 60 Scud-variant missiles. While Bush was revving up for war with Iraq, North Koreans were sailing the seas in search for markets for the equivalent of a fourth of the entire Iraqi arsenal.
You see, North Korea didn’t and apparently doesn’t sell missiles to Al-Qaida. While Iraq might have. That’s an important distinction.
The weapons inspectors, who were criss-crossing Iraq before the invasion, were not allowed to finish their uneventful task (Bush threw them out so he could invade). At the same time, Bush exempted North Korea’s Yongbyon research base from inspections, but not before bribing the North Koreans with $95m.
So long as you understand that North Korea’s belligerence is ultimately all Clinton’s fault.
Florida Rep. Mark Foley, a Republican, “abruptly quit Congress on Friday after reports surfaced that he had sent sexually charged electronic messages to boys working as pages,”reports the Washington Times. Foley is under the FBI’s criminal investigation, although it’s not clear what federal or state laws, if any, he has violated. (The Law Against Lowlifes in Politics?) It appears the agency is searching for that law. (The country’s journalists are incapable of writing a news lead, much less properly fleshing out a story.)
Foley, like Debra LaFave, another paragon of the public-sector, claimed one of those bogus illnesses: alcoholism (at the root of the diseasing of behavior is the eradication of good and bad). To quickly establish the presence of mitigating factors, Foley checked himself into a rehab facility. However, he doesn’t have slut appeal; so it probably won’t work.
If Democrats weren’t so dumb, they’d comment tersely on this sordid affair, and then move on post haste to the real corruption: Iraq. (Condi Rice—as fleet of foot as ever in evading responsibility for anything, really—has used the distraction to deny her contribution to the lack of preparedness for the 9/11 onslaught. She’s resurrecting the same excuses I deconstructed in “Hold their Feet to the Fire.”)
The Republicans don’t deserve to govern because of Iraq (and immigration), not Foley. But neither do the Democrats (a pox on both their houses). As for traditional conservatives, (as opposed establishment Republicans), at the very least, they ought to consider President Bush’s positions on mass immigration and the national identity, the debt, and the growth in the size and power of government inimical to conservatism. However, they rarely pipe up these days about the accretion of the state under Bush. If only their concept of good government extended beyond pious homilies to family values, faith and fetuses.