With US combat troops withdrawing from Iraq's cities it is time to compare the 4639 coalition casualties with the predictions made by warbloggers before the war:
John Hawkins: "Probably 300 or less"
Charles Johnson:"Very few"
Henry Hanks: "Less than 200"
Laurence Simon: "A Few hundred"
Rachael Lucas: "Less than three thousand"
Scott Ott: "Dozens"
Glenn Reynolds: "Fewer than 100"
Tim Blair: "Below 50"
Ken Layne: "a few hundred"
Steven Den Beste: "50-150"
And there were roughly a million excess Iraqi deaths.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The WikiLeaks Iraq archive, while incomplete, reveals many more previously unreported violent deaths in the Iraq war -- Iraq Body Count say that the archive reveals 15,000 people shot, blown up, had the heads cut off or killed in some other way that they had not recorded. So Tim Blair, who claimed…
If you haven't read my previous forty posts on the Lancet study, here is a handy index. All right, let's go.
First up, via Glenn Reynolds we have Andy S, who critiques the Lancet study despite not having read the thing. This is not a good idea, especially since he is relying on Kaplan's flawed…
As my readers know, the reason why the Lancet study and the ILCS give different numbers for deaths in Iraq is because the studies measured different things over a different time periods. Of course, that fact isn't going to stop pro-war columnists from claiming that the ILCS refutes the Lancet…
Via Suki Lombard I discover that the Australian government's position on Iraqi deaths because of the war is that the Lancet estimate of roughly 100,000 excess deaths is an exaggeration and we have no idea how many have died and no plans to find out. Govt seeking no information on…
Well, the defense that Republicans did for someone like our Indiana Governor Mich Daniels when he did his cost estimates for the war at around $50-60 billion, is that those estimates were "intended only for the first 6-month period." Which smacks in the face of the fact that the topic of cost was for the entire war.
Most of them were right. The war to overthrow Hussein's regime involved very few casualties. I expect that most of the predictions assumed that would be the end of the fighting, and the soldiers would be home soon after Mission Accomplished.
In that prediction they were wildly mistaken.
That 4639 is deaths, not casualties. Totally casualties is far higher, I think the WIA-KIA ratio for US troops is up around 8:1 for this war.
Ouch, that's whole basket of stupid on display at that linked piece. At least they all agreed Osama is dead.
In that prediction they were wildly mistaken.
You are being much too kind, Matt. All it took for me to conclude (on practical grounds, leaving aside any considerations about the morality or lack thereof of wars of choice) that invading Iraq was a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Idea was to ask myself what would happen after Saddam was ousted, and realize that our troops would likely end up in a civil war with both sides shooting at them. Which was more or less what actually did happen. I don't claim any particular expertise in Middle East politics, just a layman's knowledge of what groups were involved. The warbloggers, many of whom did claim such expertise, utterly failed to consider the consequences. Since the civil war was a direct consequence of the invasion, Tim is correct to count US soldier deaths during the civil war in the overall total. And as dhogaza points out, that number lowballs the casualty count: not only does it exclude the wounded, as he mentions, but it also excludes accidental deaths in theater, and suicides among returning soldiers (to say nothing of Iraqi casualties).
What exactly is a "warblogger"?
they were wrong on everything. again. anyone remember WMDs?
"are the majority of iraqis Sunni" would have been a good question. but i fear "right wing news" didn t know about the difference either....
As a non-specialist, all you needed to do is to remember why the Bush 1 administration stopped short of ousting Saddam. Colin Powell made no bones about it. When W started saber-rattling several members of his father's administration wrote editorials for the likes of the WaPo and NYT pointing out the dangers.
Nice to see Australia's own Tim Blair demonstrate himself to be wrong on almost everything ... yet again.
Once again it depends Tim. There is this thing called time.
A few more facts and a little less 'moralizing' thanks.
Did you say this to George W and the NeoCons in 2003 Billy Bob?
Interesting to see their other answers as well.
It's hard to predict the future, but these people often claim that they have the expertise to make qualified guesses, yet they are more often wrong than not. In this particular question more than usually though.
And somehow, they're always wrong in the same direction. Funny that...
Does that number include Michael Jackson?
-ls/cm
Many of the claims flying around prior to "Mission Accomplished" were absent any realistic consideration of what happens once Saddam is gone. I thought that Bush1.0 was rather smart in leaving the power structure intact, rather than storming Baghdad in a wild-eyed attempt to kill Saddam. However much it irritated the Hawks, it certainly allowed the USA to avoid a messy post-Saddam engagement. And since Bush2.0 went in and did exactly what Bush1.0 restrained himself from doing, we can perform something of a comparison. Personally, I think the US grunts copped a hiding to nowhere (in the sense that a lot of soldiers have been seriously injured, and will live with that for the rest of their lives); how it helped "defend" America I'm blowed if I know.
Then there is the cost to the Iraqi people. Saddam was a dictator with all the nasty, pathological violence that seems to entail. Will the current replacement be significantly better just because of elections? We can only hope.
PS: Keep up the good work Tim; great blogsite.
"they were wrong on everything. again. anyone remember WMDs?"
Sod, when you say "they", are you talking about Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright,Howard Dean and Sandy Berger in 1998.......or Nancy Pelosi,Jay Rockefeller,Joe Biden,Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton in 2002.....or John Edwards and Evan Bayh in 2003?
I'm guessing you meant Bill Clinton since he bombed Iraq twice.....what was the target again? I don't believe it was a carbon emissions factory, but I could be wrong.
I'm guessing you meant Bill Clinton since he bombed Iraq twice.....what was the target again? I don't believe it was a carbon emissions factory, but I could be wrong.
"Clinton did it too" is the best argument you have? pathetic.
apart from that, this is what [Former U.S. Army intelligence analyst William Arkin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) said about the chosen targets:
It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the U.S.-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM's inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the "degrading" of Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the "diminishing" of the Iraqi threat to its neighbours. But careful study of the target list tells another story. Thirty-five of the 100 targets were selected because of their role in Iraq's air defense system, an essential first step in any air war, because damage to those sites paves the way for other forces and minimizes casualties all around. Only 13 targets on the list are facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles, and three are southern Republican Guard bases that might be involved in a repeat invasion of Kuwait. The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organizations.[13]
oh, and what was the name of the President, who went to war against Iraq in 2003? based on false WMDs claims?
""Clinton did it too" is the best argument you have?"
A lot of rightwingers seem to think that way--if you criticize Bush when he killed Iraqis then you must have loved Clinton when he did so.
Well, no, not really.
Sod......
Bush claimed there were WMD's so Clinton is exempt from claiming there were WMD's? Is that your logic? As you would say.....pathetic.
Because I state a fact.....that an extensive list of Democrats claimed Iraq had WMD's......many before Bush was President, and many while he was President, doesn't mean I'm defending Bush. I'm just stating a fact.
That you choose to ingnore facts based on some ideological stance says a lot.
I notice you didn't mention Albright or Dean or Biden or Berger or Pelosi or Rockefeller or Reid.
I understand the anger comes from an impeachment and then a lost election......that was years ago. Get over it and face the facts.
Betula says "I understand the anger comes from an impeachment and then a lost election......that was years ago. Get over it and face the facts."
Ah, Betula, I'm sure you _do_ understand that anger and, perhaps, bitterness. After all, Nixon only avoided impeachment by resigning, and he did something _much_ worse than lie about a blow job.
In your own words, get over it.
Betula, did you miss [Donald's point @18](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…)?
Umm, comprehension's not your strong suit is it?
David Irving.....
Yes, I'm angry and bitter about Nixon. I voted for him when I was 12 years old and can't get over it.
As far as your lying point. I'm sure lying under oath to a grand jury doesn't mean much to you, and as far as the blow job, it's understandable being married to Hillary.
The problem lies with the President of the United States setting himself up for blackmail.....though I really don't expect you to understand that either.
I still haven't heard any responses about Albright or Dean or Biden or Berger or Pelosi or Rockefeller or Reid.
Anybody?
MAB....
"Betula, did you miss Donald's point @18?"
Actually I did miss it.....I agree with it.
Did you miss my statement at #19 where I said because I'm stating facts "doesn't mean I'm defending Bush."?
Zoot.....
I said to sod...
"Bush claimed there were WMD's so Clinton is exempt from claiming there were WMD's? Is that your logic?"
You said...
"Umm, comprehension's not your strong suit is it?"
Actually, it was a comparison to sod's logic. That's why there is a question at the end that asks "Is that your logic?"
I know it's hard to understand.
Shorter Betula:
"Clinton Did It Too!" is a valid argument, because... because Clinton Did It Too!
Therefore, there's nothing wrong with Bush claiming there were WMDs just before the Iraq war.
Of course, the casualties will keep coming, even after the Iraqization of the war. And that's with combat medicine improving from saving 75% of the injured to 90% of the injured - even if you have to flash chill most of a limbless, faceless, brain-damaged, poisoned G.I. and ship them off to the US so they won't die on the battlefield and keep them alive long enough that you can say they weren't Iraq dead.
But even those will keep on coming. As well as Afghanistan War US dead. I keep wondering what Americans gained from bombing Afghanistan and not taking the Taliban up on their offer to ship the al qaeda leaders to a neutral country (which would have been out of the you'll-never-find-em zone) while the US built its case - a chance to let them escape from Tora Bora? In an entire foreign policy atmosphere based on lies, it never surprised me that the casualties would be lied about, too. Truth was the first casualty as always.
There was a moment before the war when it was clear to anyone paying attention that Saddam didn't have squat, and that we knew it.
The UN inspectors were back in Iraq and working. The UN inspectors were letting us know that they were accessing any site they wanted - there was friction, but they were able to do their job.
The US government, througour vice president, announced that Saddam had WMDs, and that we 'know where they are.'
The UN inspectors said, 'tell us,we'll go see.'
We resisted telling them, but finally did. They went to see, and announced that there was nothing there, no sign that there had been anything there. There as no sign fo a WMD program.
We announced that the inspections were failing, kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, and went to war.
The Iraq war was never about reality, or about the evidence.
It was never about WMDs - that was the justification. It was about initiating the neocon wet dream in the middle east - the war of liberation that would have the Iraqis strewing roses, and initiate the democratic reformation of the muslim (more important, oil-producing) world.
Their handling of the WMD issue was of a piece with what they did with the report from Colin Powell's state department, the several thousand page long analysis and recommendations for managing Iraq post-invasion. The report that predicted and outlined steps to avoid all the chaos, looting, development of regionalism, factionalism and resistance, that we observed and struggled with. Rumsfeld literally threw it in the garbage, and went in with no plan for post-invasion operations.
These guys didn't care about reality, before or after the war. They knew what was correct, evidence be damned.
Bi said....
"Therefore, there's nothing wrong with Bush claiming there were WMDs just before the Iraq war."
Bi.....what part of "doesn't mean I'm defending Bush" at #19 did you not understand?
There were many people and agencies claiming Sadaam had WMD's.....Republicans and Democrats. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a fact.
In fact, John Kerry said....."If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
Did they all believe it, or were they all lying?
And one thing I never understood, if they knew no weapons would be found, how did they plan on justifying the invasion?
As Lee stated, it was probably never about WMD's. But then why was the previous administration claiming he had WMD's? What was their purpose?
There were many people and agencies claiming Sadaam had WMD's.....Republicans and Democrats. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a fact.
the information they got, was information filtered by the Bush administration. a lot of it was simply false and it definitely was not as detailed and good as the Bush team claimed it was.
And one thing I never understood, if they knew no weapons would be found, how did they plan on justifying the invasion?
if you keep repeating a lie, you start believing it.
As Lee stated, it was probably never about WMD's. But then why was the previous administration claiming he had WMD's? What was their purpose?
they thought that they would find minor stuff and that it wouldn t matter after a successfull war.
unfortunetely they found absolutely nothing, and the war was no success but a total disaster.
Betula said "I'm defending Bush ... Saddam had WMDs .. he had WMDs .. what was their purpose?"
Also, the urban legend blastfax/email that Betula is shopping to us usually pegs the Kerry quote to This LA Times article - and it's not in there. I note for the record that they like to "upgrade" their sources vs. keep track of them.
It's actually McPaper⢠that claims Kerry said "that .. ellipses .. and .. all."
Furthermore, of course, where we leave the realm of fact-testing altogether is precisely where Betula wants to take us.
Bush claimed not only that there were biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, but defined them in ways the agencies involved said were incorrect. He said that chemical and biological weapons could hit the US in 45 minutes. He said Iraq was actively pursuing a nuclear bomb. He said Iraq's rocket tubes were nuclear centrifuges. He said any number of things that were false, that he knew were false, and that were corrected by various Democrats, including some of the presidential candidates, and even by a few Republicans.
"... I'm the dictator ... there ought to be limits to freedom ... September 11 ... 2001 was fabulous for Laura and me ... I stole the election ... God told me ... to invade Iraq ... to get my legislative agenda through ... Saddam Hussein .. is .. my father ... further destruction ... will be shared by all ... Iraq, Afghanistan ... one day, the world!" - George W. Bush
And WMDs is largely a G.O.P./PNAC marketing term. Saddam's chemical and biological weapons had expired years before, just as the anti-war people said they had, and he never had nuclear weapons. When the media portions of large corporations ask candidates loaded questions in a democracy they can easily frontload so much that they get responses that serve their purposes - and that's what happened in 2002/3/4.
> It's actually McPaper⢠that claims Kerry said "that .. ellipses .. and .. all."
But no doubt Clinton Did It Too, so it's all OK.
I said....
"There were many people and agencies claiming Sadaam had WMD's.....Republicans and Democrats."
Sod said....
"the information they got, was information filtered by the Bush administration. a lot of it was simply false and it definitely was not as detailed and good as the Bush team claimed it was."
Several problems sod, one is that much of this was said before Bush was president.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc
Another is that the Bush team you are refering to included many from the previous administration, including both George Tenet in CIA and Louis Freeh as FBI director.
And then there are those that claimed Bush didn't fool them, that they had recieved their information from a "wide variety of sources".....including the previous administrations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEqK-A7yvRc
Finally, I have to wonder, why you are claiming Bush was intelligent enough to fool Democrats into voting for the war?
Sod...
I asked...
"And one thing I never understood, if they knew no weapons would be found, how did they plan on justifying the invasion?"
You respond....
"if you keep repeating a lie, you start believing it."
So your saying they really thought they would find WMD's even though they knew there were none.
So the answer to my question is that they planned to justified the war by stating the Wmd's that they knew weren't there, really were there, we just had to believe it to be able to see it.........and if you didn't believe it, were you to be labeled a denier?
Marion.......
A few more urban legends for you....
âIn 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.â
âIt is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.â
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record â Sen. Hillary Clinton
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&…
John Kerry: âI agree completely with this Administrationâs goal of a regime change in Iraq â Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.â (July 2002)
John Kerry: âI believe the record of Saddam Husseinâs ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.â
âWe have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate â Ted Kennedy
âWe know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Goreâs speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
âWhen I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.â -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record â Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&…
John Kerry on the floor of the Senate
October 2002:
âWith respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question:
Why?
Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?
Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?
Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations donât even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?
Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke?
Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?
Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?
Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?
Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002
Congressional Record â Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&…
âThe Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddamâs possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened.â
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002
Congressional Record â Sen. Ted Kennedy
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S…
John Kerry: âI would disagree with John McCain that itâs the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, itâs what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things thatâthat I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itâs the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.â (October 2002)
âSaddam Husseinâs regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.ââ¦âIraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraqâs efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.â â
Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002
Congressional Record â Sen. John Edwards
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&…
âThere is no doubt that since that time Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.â â
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
http://usinfo.org/wf-archive/2001/011207/epf510.htm
âWe should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the⦠defanging Saddam..â -
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002
Online with Jim Lehrer â Public Broadcasting Service
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_12-10.html
âWe know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.â -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Goreâs speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
âIraqâs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.â -
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
Transcript of Goreâs speech, printed in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
âWe have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.â -
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
U.S. Senate â Ted Kennedy
âThe last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weaponsâ¦â -
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
Congressional Record â Robert Byrd
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&…
âWhen I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.â -
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002
Congressional Record â Sen. John F. Kerry
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2002_record&…
âThere is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.â-
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
Congressional Record âSen. Jay Rockefeller
âHe has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to doâ â
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
Congressional Record â Rep. Henry Waxman
Betula #36:
All that in 9 minutes! Great cut & paste, where did the original come from?
Everyone else:
Why are you still responding to this birch?
Several problems sod, one is that much of this was said before Bush was president.....
Iraq ended its biological weapons program in 1995. being mistaken about this in 1998, is something different, than going to war with iraq on WMD in 2003.
tough election rhetorics are also very different from going to war with Iraq over WMD.
if you don t see that fundamental difference, i can t help you.
Great golly gosh Yes! Betula - it must be of enormous comfort to you to believe that you were possibly not the lone moron in the world who believed the lies and enabled the ineptitude of the most failed US administration ever! You had company! And you wish to parade proof of the credulity and incompetence of more than just Bush and Cheney before us here again - why, exactly? Because stupidity loves company?
If people here were interested in the opinions of the morons who enabled the most inept president everrrr ... do you think they might go off to read the warbloggers for themselves, without you cutting and pasting their crap over here? Idiot.
Chris, it's good to ONCE point out that that is just a GOP circular, and dismiss it - but agreed, the troll is utterly valueless. Anyway, that's why I pointed out that "there are WMDs" was always a warmongering talking point and a shibboleth - and you won't get reelected by the gullible frightened masses if you say you can prove a negative.
Quite a few Democrats pushed for the war - Clinton and Biden among them - and their statements and predictions were pretty inaccurate. Others were craven cowards - some to get reelected, others, like Kerry, to insulate themselves for their presidential ambitions - their predictions tended to be wrong but less inaccurate. Others like Howard Dean and Barack Obama said many things which averaged out strongly opposing war and predictions being only a bit optimistic and inaccurate. Then there were the handful of totally anti-war politicians, mostly Democrats, but also a couple of Republicans, and everything they said was completely accurate.
So what the radical reactionary warmongering trolls are trying to hide is this:
There's a perfect correlation between support of the war and being inaccurate about predictions about the war. The only partisan angle is that the Republicans and conservatives were at least twice as warmongering, hence twice as inaccurate, as the Democrats and liberals.
Presented that way, it makes them stew in their own bile, so I don't blame the poor things for spending most of their spare time spamming.
Tell me you saw this Tim:
Conservatives: unanimous in their ignorance.
Betula,
Isn't it amazing how hindsight seems to improves some peoples perspective?
They tend to forget the fact that every Western Intelligence Service believed in 2002 that Saddam was still developing WMD. The fact that Saddam, himself, did nothing to downplay this belief. The fact that Saddam continued to repress and kill his own people in the Marshes and the North (Kurds) ,in particular, but also across all Iraq.
But these facts amount to little in the face of their liberal angst about George Bush, Strange world we live in.
Betula, who gave those Democrats the information they based their statements on?
Shorter Dave Andrews and Betula:
Every US politician and every Western intelligence service believed that Iraq had WMDs, therefore the warbloggers were right in assuming that there was no need for a post-war plan.
i.e. the bosses of those Western Intelligence Services. They knew which side their bread was buttered on.
@ Dave Andrews: "every Western Intelligence Service believed in 2002 that Saddam was still developing WMD"
Bullcrap. Much of our own intelligence services didn't believe that - which is why Doug Feith's office was created to allow cherry picking of selective reports supporting war against Iraq.
Read my post above @28- it was clear to anyone paying attention, before we invaded, that Saddam didn't have anything significant, including any kind of significant WMD program.
ten days before the war [Natalie maines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks) spoke these brave words:
Just so you know, weâre on the good side with yâall. We do not want this war, this violence, and weâre ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.
not everybody got fooled...
bi-IJI,
Of course the lack of a proper post war plan was criminally stupid. If there had been one the outcome could have been so less painful.
Lee,
Blix was a professional 'fence-sitter' and had been throughout his career in the UN and at the IAEA. Anybody could read any of the reports he produced and come away from it with the message they wanted to hear.
Even in his post war 'self-justification' book he couldn't wean himself off his dissembling equivocation.
The predictions for the fighting were reasonable. The Bush attitude of saying we have to "win the war" by transforming the country was the problem. We went in to get WMD. Well, we didn't find any. Job done. Turn around and leave. Ok, I can buy staying until we had Saddam, but after that, leave. And if knowing that was politically unacceptible, we should not have gone in.
And it's the Iraqi's country. It really, really, really IS their land. I am in favor of a rapid (6 months) drawdown to zero forces. Obviously, we pull out every man as well as major combat vehicles, planes, documents, crypto, etc. If we have to leave a few air conditioners, big deal. We leave in good order. With very firm stance that says don't try attacking our retreat. And a firm stance that says, if the country dissintegrates, we won't take it over. (I am amenable to telling the other nearby powers to stay out as well...although would not extend that sheild indefintely.)
It's THEIR COUNTRY.
Chris S....
"All that in 9 minutes! Great cut & paste, where did the original come from?"
Do you take issue with the facts or that the facts were cut and pasted?
That evil, evil cut and paste....
Eli states...
"Betula, who gave those Democrats the information they based their statements on?"
Are to talking about the statements before the Bush administration or during the Bush administration?
I think the current Secretary of State can respond to your question best. I linked this at 34, but will do so again for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEqK-A7yvRc
By the way, does anyone thing we should we question the current Secretary of States cowboy mentality for some of her past statements?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=706_1200248036
Betula responds to my congratulations on his cut & paste abilities with a very defensive comment, but does not answer my question...
> Do you take issue with the facts or that the facts were cut and pasted?
___I___ take issue with cut and paste, if it is used to drown a discussion, even more so if its not ones own work. Usually the compilation of such a huge number of quotes takes considerable time and effort and would be a sign, that the poster has spent effort on the subject. Using google it is trivial to see, that you [just lifted the work (i.e. the compilation) of someone else](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2238730/replies?c=2) and presented it as your own, as you fail to attribute it to either [ETL on freerepublic.com](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2238730/replies?c=2) nor the true source ETL references, namely [Mary Mostert on American Daily in 2004](http://www.americandaily.com/article/4694). That's called __plagiarism__, betula. A short link to Mostert's article would have been enough, but you chose to cite that article in full and appropriate the compilation as your own work.
Betula:
Those intelligence reports referred to in your plagiarized compilation came out of Doug Feith's office, which was created to cherry pick selective intel reports, and rehabilitate discredited intel reports, and create a basis for invading Iraq.
Dave Andrews:
Yes, Blix was noncommittal in his language. But it was clear as hell - he wasn't finding squat, anywhere. He was going wherever he wanted, he was going where we told him to go -even though he had to push to get us to tell he where that was - and there simply wasn't anything there. Then when it became clear that he didnt find anything when he looked where we told him the stuff was, we kicked him out of Iraq and invaded.
Blix' tendency to rad noncommittal language and 'fence-sitting' doesn't change this one bit.
This was was never about WMD's - it was about the fantasy-based neocon wet dream to transform the middle east and the muslim world. The delusional fucks who got us into this unnecessary and foolish war - there is enough blame for both sides, but we know who led us there and who controlled the lies and messages - have damaged us and the world immensely.
bluegrue....
If I go to a site that contains quotes, let's say, by George Washington......and I list some of those quotes by George Washington, with the reference to George Washington attatched.......did I plagiarize the site that compiled the quotes?
If you look closely, you will see I didn't list all the quotes......some of them weren't referenced and it would have been longer.
I recall one Luminous Beauty on open thread29 @ 39 stating..."The Earth's natural climate is like a wild and angry beast. The goal is to not be poking it with sticks.".....only to find out later that it was a quote from Wallace Broecker. LB never referenced it.
Strange how I never heard cries of plagiarism from that one.
Besides, how could you let all those quotes bother you? You don't actually believe them do you?
As Marion would say, it's all just "urban legend blastfax/email that Betula is shopping to us"
Marion @ 40 said...
"Quite a few Democrats pushed for the war - Clinton and Biden among them - and their statements and predictions were pretty inaccurate. Others were craven cowards - some to get reelected, others, like Kerry, to insulate themselves for their presidential ambitions - their predictions tended to be wrong but less inaccurate."
Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!
C'mon sod, join in!
Known in the real world as objectivity; in Wingnutia as liberal bias.
We went in to get WMD. Well, we didn't find any. Job done. Turn around and leave.
you don t understand this modern war thing at all. you can t attack a country for no reason, and then just leave.
you broke it, you own it. tough luck.
Marion @ 40........
"The only partisan angle is that the Republicans and conservatives were at least twice as warmongering, hence twice as inaccurate, as the Democrats and liberals."
It's always those damn warmongering Republicans that keep ruining everything. We need some more of these peace loving liberals.....
Let's bring back at some of the Democrats that brought us such peaceful memories as these.....
WWII (405,00 U.S. deaths), The dropping of the Atomic Bombs (150,00 Japanese deaths), Japanese Internment Camps (110,000 Japanese Americans) The Korean War (36,500 U.S.deaths), The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam (58,000 U.S deaths), The My lai massacre (killing of over 400 unarmed Vietnamese civilians), Mogadishu (43 U.S. deaths), Bosnia (12 U.S deaths), Kosovo (20 U.S.deaths), and the bombings of Iraq in the 90's.
Oops, I almost forgot Waco (more than 80 men, women and children)....
I know, I know, here it comes.....Roosevelt did it too! Truman did it too! Kennedy did it too! Johnson did it too! and the basic, everyday, how can you go wrong Clinton did it too!.
Is that the "partisan angle" you were refering too?
>If I go to a site that contains quotes, let's say, by George Washington......and I list some of those quotes by George Washington, with the reference to George Washington attatched.......did I plagiarize the site that compiled the quotes?
It would depend on how much work went into the compilation. Is it just a hodge podge of unrelated quotes? Is it themed? How much work went into the compilation. Has it a copyleft?
The list you lifted from Mostert is an uncommon one and one that took considerable time and effort to compile. _That's_ why I consider your act to be plagiarism, especially as you used it to pretend to be well-read on the matter.
>"LB never referenced [Broecker]."
The difference being that it's a quite well known quote. Tough luck you did not recognize it.
>Besides, how could you let all those quotes bother you?
You don't actually believe them do you?
Stop playing your childish games, betula. The quotes are factual, so spare me the effort to imply, that I would deny them on the basis that I don't like them. Nice try, but it won't work. The real question is, on basis of what intel (at what point of time and filtered by whom) were these opinions voiced?
Betula darlin' Eli follows links, and those are, as we say in the burrow, not on point. As a matter of fact, they actually say nothing about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but you knew that.
Hillary Clinton says that her vote on the Iraq war was made after talking to many people inside and outside the Bush administration, but since everyone was getting their information from the Bush administration (remember Colin Powell's little demo darlin?) that is pretty much the fruit falling from the poisoned tree.
The second was a one liner saying that countries had to be with the terrorists or the US, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
RTFR
Lee,
So your prescription would have been to leave the Iraqis to their fate under a tyrant who had maintained his power for 30 odd years by a regime of rape, murder and subjugation.
Who, further, had initiated two unprovoked wars against his neighbours, one of which involved over a million casualties and liberal use of chemical weapons (WMD) including against his own citizens at Halabja.
You would further have left Iraq to suffer, for who knows how long, under the, by all evidence, even more vindictive rule of his sons,
But at least you could then have slept soundly in your bed!
Something the blithering neoclowns like Dave never answer is whether they think the suffering of the Iraqis before the Kuwait invasion-suffering which occurred during the decades the US backed the Hussein regime militarily, financially and commercially-was as bad as the suffering of the Iraqis after the Kuwait invasion.
Dave also conveniently leaves out US backing for Hussein leading to the war with Iran, and that the US NEVER sanctioned Hussein for the Halabja massacre at any time during the Reagan or Bush Sr Administrations.
So, Dave, was the US wrong to back the Hussein regime for decades, and do we bear the blame for the suffering of the Iraqis during those decades?
If not, then, logically, why not?
But Dave, weep not, no doubt all those suicide & car bombers so ruthlessly suppressed during the Hussein years are thankful to Bush Jr for their "liberation".
Oh, and Dave, if you're REALLY upset about suffering under dictatorships, then you'll be leading the charge for the US to invade & occupy Russia-for its mistreatment of Chechnya-and China-for its treatment of Tibet-correct?
Or is the suffering of people in Tibet & Chechnya somehow less outrageous than the suffering of Iraqis under the Hussein regime, and therefore something we shouldn't really get too worked up about?
@Dave Andrews:
OK, you convinced me. It is evil and wrong to fail to mount an invasion to free a repressed people. So, lets go:
Burma
Equatorial Guinea
Libya
North Korea
Somalia
Sudan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Belarus
Chad
China
Cuba
Eritrea
Laos
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Zimbabwe
These are the countries identified by Freedom House as the "Worst of the Worst" repressive countries as of right now, in 2009. I assume, Dave, that you are in favor of mounting an invasion to free each and every one of them, so you can sleep well at night?
If not, get off your logically-deficient high horse, and come back to some level or reality where we can discuss what is possible and doable, given the real, knowable, and unknowable consequences of our actions.
But, then, the neocons avoided doing that at all cost.
My prescription would have been for the CIA to have not helped the motherfucker rise to power in the first place.
Dave Andrews writes:
>Isn't it amazing how hindsight seems to improves some peoples perspective?
Is it amazing that Dave Andrew's has such [a short memory](http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0215-12.htm)
Dave continues:
>They tend to forget the fact that every Western Intelligence Service believed in 2002 that Saddam was still developing WMD.
Dave, Google the names "Scott Ritter", "Andrew Wilkie" or âDavid Kellyâ. Just a few who broke ranks to blow their whistles.
Dave continues:
>The fact that Saddam continued to repress and kill his own people in the Marshes and the North (Kurds), in particular, but also across all Iraq.
Dave,
Saddam's use of WMD against Kurds and Iranians occurred while he was supported by the USA. The US response to these atrocities was to [increase aid to Saddam.]( http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2784)
>...officials from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency were stationed in Baghdad to pass on satellite imagery to the Iraqi military in order to help them target Iranian troop concentrations, in the full knowledge that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian forces.
Dave Andrews writes:
>Who, further, had initiated two unprovoked wars against his neighbours, one of which involved over a million casualties and liberal use of chemical weapons (WMD) including against his own citizens at Halabja.
Yep Dave, that would be those attrocites that occured while the US was providing Saddam with assistance(whilest aware of his crimes).
In addition to Lee's comments on the matter, Dave needs to consider the example of [Andrew Wilkie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wilkie), an intelligence analyst who bucked the political pressure of the very conservative Howard government to [speak out](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wilkie) and say what was on the minds of many in the Australian intelligence agencies.
Unfortunately, Wilkie was the only member of either the intelligence communities or of the government of Australia (or of many of other members of the 'CotW') who had the courage of his convictions to resign over the impending illegal and lied-for war.
Dave and Betula might like to imagine that there was a legitimate case to kick seven colours of snot out of Iraq, but the facts say otherwise. Heck, it was sufficiently obvious that hundreds of thousands of people rubbed shoulders with me in Sydney to protest the impending war - one of hundreds of such protests around the world.
How is it that so many were able to see the truth before the invasion? Huh?
And to finish with an observation... if reducing Iraq to the ruined pile of rubble that it is now (effectively destroying a whole country as well as the historical catalog of the cradle of civilisation) in order to remove one upstart Western puppet-turned-tyrant is the only way that the Coallition could effect change, then our countries are rather less developed and civilised than we might like to imagine.
The war apologists need to take their hands from out of their trousers. The Coallition FUBARed because of colonial-style racism, greed for oil, and ideological zealotry. Of course, if these apologists disagree with me, they could detail the many ways in which Iraq is now a better country on balance than it was before the war, or how it might have been had we taken a more nuanced approach to fixing the Saddam problem.
Betula writes, ascribing awful things to Democrats:
We should not have fought Hitler? You been reading Pat Buchanan lately? Or was it Willis Carto?
Atrocities, I agree.
We shouldn't have stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea? You'd prefer to see modern Seoul in the hands of Kim Jong Il?
We shouldn't have tried to stop Castro?
We shouldn't have tried to stop the Communists from taking over South Vietnam? I know 100,000 Chinese boat people who would disagree with you.
You think the Democratic Party ordered this? Actually, Nixon was President when it happened. Nixon was a Republican.
Another bad cause? You like what they have in Somalia now?
We shouldn't have tried to stop the genocide?
We should have let Saddam take over Kuwait?
There was one person, and one person only, responsible for all the deaths at Waco. It was not President Clinton, it was not Janet Reno, and it was not Louis Freeh. It was David Koresh, who ordered the ATF agents shot (remember them?) and the fires set. Only militia crackpots defend David Koresh, but I guess that might include you, Betula?
Lee posts:
I would be if he isn't. One at a time, of course, as resources permit, and competently, rather than the grossly incompetent way we handled Iraq. But yes, I would be. China would be a problem because we might not be able to win, and one of the prerequisites for a just war is a reasonably possibility of success. I might go for breaking off Tibet or Xinqiang, where we would have massive local support.
> > The Bay of Pigs,
>
> We shouldn't have tried to stop Castro?
Yes.
Castro was a response by the people of Cuba to despotic regime. One that happened to be amenable to the US.
Worse, from the US point of view, he didn't think that the exploitation of local labour by the factories was right and put them under a more equitable (for US consumption: communist) footing.
> > and the bombings of Iraq in the 90's.
> We should have let Saddam take over Kuwait?
You could have finished the job then with support, but once the oil was secure, the interest in the demonaic Saddam waned. The second try was after support had waned and there was no legal framework making the invasion justified.
> > Oops, I almost forgot Waco (more than 80 men, women and children)....
> There was one person, and one person only, responsible for all the deaths at Waco.
Yup, the FBI head who told the agents on the frontline to jump in guns blazing.
> > The Korean War (36,500 U.S.deaths),
> We shouldn't have stopped the Communists from taking over South Korea?
The Vietnam war was because the US decided to back a foreign power (France owned Vietnam, Vietnam wanted to have freedom from France, asked the US for support (like the US got support from France in their secession from legal control from the UK) and the US refused and backed France rather than stayed out. The only power strong enough to counter that was USSR. So the 'merkins figured they had to go in to stop communism spreading. The only reason for that is the US's decision to get involved on France's side...)
> > The My lai massacre (killing of over 400 unarmed Vietnamese civilians),
> You think the Democratic Party ordered this? Actually, Nixon was President when it happened. Nixon was a Republican.
He was an american.
> Dave, Saddam's use of WMD against Kurds and Iranians occurred while he was supported by the USA. The US response to these atrocities was to increase aid to Saddam.
> Posted by: mab
And this is the reason for the "trial" of Saddam for the pissant reason they had: the powers had to pick an atrocity that none of those powers were significantly responsible for.
> This was was never about WMD's - it was about the fantasy-based neocon wet dream to transform the middle east and the muslim world.
> Posted by: Lee
You mean a plan to bring Democracy to the Middle East?
(See Robert Newman's "History of Oil").
Eli @62 says...
"Hillary Clinton says that her vote on the Iraq war was made after talking to many people inside and outside the Bush administration, but since everyone was getting their information from the Bush administration (remember Colin Powell's little demo darlin?) that is pretty much the fruit falling from the poisoned tree."
Eli, nice try. You did listen to the video didn't you? Perhaps it slipped your mind that Hillary said she got her information from a wide variety of sources, including her husbands administration. But that's ok, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Regarding the second link, where Hillary said ....."Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
She said them on September 13th, 2001, 7 days before Bush said...."Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
Since many relate Bush's quote to a cowboy mentality, my question still remains unanswered......
Does anyone thing we should we question the current Secretary of States cowboy mentality for some of her past statements?
By the way Eli, are you in the habit of referring to your students as "darlin"......including the men?
Doesn't matter if you watching "True Grit" or "Brokeback Mountain"......it seems like a cowboy mentality to me.
betula, you are demonstrating a serious lack of cognitive abilities.
the difference between what Hillary said and what Bush did, is obvious. (and goes beyond the acts that followed those words)
Regarding the second link, where Hillary said ....."Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
translation: every person reading this blog, is either with me or against me. those who agree with terrorists ...
She said them on September 13th, 2001, 7 days before Bush said...."Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
translation: Betula, either you agree with me, or you are with the terrorists...
did you manage to spot the difference?
Kingkranky,
The major suppliers of arms to Saddam during his regime were France and Russia. Strangely enough, they were the two main opponents in the UN of US policy, perhaps because Saddam still owed them billions of dollars for that military equipment.
Lee.
"If not, get off your logically-deficient high horse, and come back to some level or reality where we can discuss what is possible and doable, given the real, knowable, and unknowable consequences of our actions."
Life, politics and international/ geopolitical relations are often very messy, Lee. You can't apply a precautionary principle in the real world because the latter moves too fast. We humans are flawed and will always make mistakes, but sometimes we have to take decisive actions. And we can never know the unknowable results that may occur.
Invariably, there will be a history leading up to the taking of these decisions and so some are taken and others are not. Equate that to your own life and the mistakes and opportunities you, in common with everyone else, have made and missed.
There were reasons why Iraq became an 'issue', extending back over 20 years or more. It's not all down to the particular government of the day
Your listing of other dictatorships is largely irrelevant. You need to look at the history involved.
Dave Andrews writes:
>"You need to look at the history involved."
Dave, you mean we shouldn't accept the cherry picked snippets of history force-fed us by Murdoch (the oligarchs) and the government's (bought goverment) public relations machine?
You mean we should read history rather than rely on meida sound bites?
You mean we should pay attention when power is trying to shove stuff down what Orwell aptly described as 'the memory hole'?
That's so radical it might just work!
Now Dave, did you ever wonder what were [millions of us](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…) thinking when we stood-up to the Military Industrial Complex?
Or were you overwhelmed with the [views pushed out and agenda set](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8383084962209910782) by the olligarchs, and their servants in government? (Sevants in the sense of those evolved to thive under a dispropotinately powerful selective pressure).
According to these right-wing bozos nothing funny happened into the road to the Iraq war. So how come they oppose the investigation by an independent council?
mab,
I have a long background in campaigning for nuclear disarmament and am well able to research matters for myself and ignore the rubbish the media largely spouts.
That's why I look at all issues in an as unbiased way as I can. However,myths are not just created by the right wing media, you know.
Read Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack". Bush started planning to attack Iraq very very soon after coming into office. By the time the attack was near there was no turning back. The existence of WMDs was never a real concern to Bush, only an excuse. Ask yourself how long it really takes to plan a major invasion halfway around the world. It doesn't happen in six months.
Dave, there are many sources and beneficiaries of myths. However some sources have disproportionate power, influence and resources.
Dave I noticed a pertinent questions by KingCrankey that you have not answered:
>Something the blithering neoclowns like Dave never answer is whether they think the suffering of the Iraqis before the Kuwait invasion-suffering which occurred during the decades the US backed the Hussein regime militarily, financially and commercially-was as bad as the suffering of the Iraqis after the Kuwait invasion.
[Hereâs a bit]( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) of background:
>The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.
Dear Betual,
I see you are having some trouble, thatâs why Iâm here to help.
When you say:
> According to you, linking factual information about someone other than a republican, is an indicator of support for George Bush, as long as that information counters a belief or exposes hypocrisy.
You are unfortunately speaking gibberish. But not problem, gibberish is a high order of communication for people who seek to sway criticism away of the criminals instigating the invasion that produced the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Here is a recap.
Referring to the Warbloggers' predictions of coalitions casualties, sod writes:
>they were wrong on everything. again. anyone remember WMDs? "are the majority of iraqis Sunni" would have been a good question. but i fear "right wing news" didn t know about the difference either....
To which [Betula responds](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…):
>Sod, when you say "they", are you talking about Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Howard Dean and Sandy Berger in 1998.......or Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton in 2002.....or John Edwards and Evan Bayh in 2003? I'm guessing you meant Bill Clinton since he bombed Iraq twice.....what was the target again? â¦
Here Betual is seeking to focus blame on eleven Democratic politicians. Notice, no blame for any of the architects of the criminal invasion and massacre of Iraqis. No blame, for the broader profit machine, nor their coalescent media. No blame for their representatives in government. No blame for âThe Deciderâ.
That is evidence of a partisan lens. And partisan in manor that blame shifts away from âThe Deciderâ, his cronies, and their cheer leaders (including war bloggers).
Betula then makes in excess of 10 more postings (stopped counting halfway down) that either blame shift away from âThe Deciderâ and his cheer leaders, or attempt to justify the blame shift.
One of Betulaâs postings (in defense of the blame shifting) was pages and pages taken (without attribution) from the right wing apologist site â[Free Republic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…)â. The Free Republic site being a tool to coordinate attacks against opponents of Bushâs criminal war of aggression. [A site that has since also hosted âracial slurs directed at Obama childrenâ.
Observa [articulates some](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…) of the detail about why this cherry picking is partisan behaviour and foolish.
So two questions for you Betula,
1)How did you feel when millions around the world saw through the lies, and marched in protest against the pending war crime.
2)Is it lonely at the Bush fan club? Or do you prefer to be addressed as âBlame Shifters R Usâ?
Late to the party, but I've just put those on a chart. They're more than 2 standard deviations too low; if they were pulling numbers out of a hat, they'd have a 95% chance of doing better.
Janet.
You have so much anger and we have such little time.
1. Does it anger you that the eleven Democrats I posted stated Saddam had WMD'S, or that I posted such information?
2. Do you dispute the long list of quotes I posted, or are you angry because they were posted?
3. Are you angry at the criminal war machines, or angry that there are no convicted war criminals?
4. Are you angry about blame, or angry that I have never used the word blame?
5. Do opposing facts anger you or are you angry because you assume opposing facts can only come fromm a Republican?
6. Are you angered by your assumption that people marching for a cause they believe in would bother me, or are you angry to find out that I support the right of all people to protest?
I don't really expect any answers from you, and honestly, I don't want any.
Your assumptions don't anger me because I understand you...
You choose to select certain facts and leave out others based on political anger. Apparently, your world consist only of those on the extreme left and those on the extreme right.
In your mind, everyone is put into an imaginary box, and if they don't fit into one of those boxes, you feel a need force them into one so you can continue to function in your imaginary world.
I'm not in one of your boxes Janet, and it appears you are suffering because of it.
Betula Darlin,
Iâm always here to help, lets look at your last posting: You inform me that I â*have so much anger*â and âthat [I am] suffering. Since I am amused by Darlin Betula, and always look forward to each posting, I would be open to the possibility that Betula is projecting. Perhaps Betual is rattled. But Betula detests assumptions, except when Betula constructs arguments, in which case assumptions are the basis.
Betula writes:
> You choose to select certain facts and leave out others based on political anger. Apparently, your world consist only of those on the extreme left and those on the extreme right.
Iâll let [Observaâs response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…) shine a light on the two-faced nature of that claim by Betula. Projection again?
Another point of note is Betualâs reference to some opposing facts, Betula writes:
> Do opposing facts anger you or are you angry because you assume opposing facts can only come fromm [sic] a Republican?
What opposing facts? Facts opposing the evidence that war blogging cheerleaders were horribly wrong? Facts that oppose the exposure of the WMD distortions? Iâm waiting.
Let me help you again, âClinton did it tooâ does not oppose these facts. It is however an argument that demonstrates your partisan lens.
Betula writes:
> Are you angered by your assumption that people marching for a cause they believe in would bother me, or are you angry to find out that I support the right of all people to protest?
Betula how symmetrical of you, to make assumptions about what assumptions I had made.
My question was:
> How did you feel when millions around the world saw through the lies, and marched in protest against the pending war crime[?]
Are you open to the possibility that was asking you a to find out what you thought? Or, that I wanted to emphasise how many people saw through the lies? And wanted to emphasise their conviction was strong enough to spur action over apathy?
I wonder Betula if you are in awe of the millions and millions around the world who saw through the lies (lies put up for war) and marched in protest against the impending war crimes?
Janet is right. Betula is not. fact.
simple question again:
which president started a war on the claim that another country had WMD?
and the claim turned out to be wrong?
Janet asks....
"What opposing facts? Facts opposing the evidence that war blogging cheerleaders were horribly wrong?"
Janet sweetie...ummm, how about the facts that you are opposed to?
Let's start at the beginning...
The topic is some "warbloggers" were wrong. So what's to discuss? That they weren't right?
Stretching to find a way to add interest to such a topic, Sod asked......"they were wrong on everything. again. anyone remember WMDs?"
Thus enters the topic of WMD's.
Janet, who do you think "they" are? The warbloggers? Is the topic about warbloggers being wrong about WMD's?
Are "they" Republicans or are "they" Democrats?
The answer is "they" are Republicans and Democrats, but since you seem to be opposed to, and angered by, my listing of factual Democrat statements, you assume I'm a Republican....
Thus enters the very difficult for you to understand question.....
"Do opposing facts anger you or are you angry because you assume opposing facts can only come from a Republican?"
Playing your game now, let me ask you Janet, what war crimes are you opposed to?.....the war crimes "that war blogging cheerleaders were horribly wrong?"
Let's continue with the rest of your facinating logic.....
You say....
"Betula how symmetrical of you, to make assumptions about what assumptions I had made. My question was: How did you feel when millions around the world saw through the lies, and marched in protest against the pending war crime[?]"
Then this....
"Are you open to the possibility that was asking you a to find out what you thought?"
Janet sweetie,
First of all, that was observa's question that (according to your logic) you plagairized.
Second, the question didn't ask what I thought, it asked how did I feel.
Unlike you, not angry.
Sod asks...
"simple question again: which president started a war on the claim that another country had WMD?"
Ummmm George Bush?
Did I get it right?
What does that have to do with your first question, the one I responded to?......
"they were wrong on everything. again. anyone remember
WMDs?"
Is the "they" you were referring to George Bush? He's plural?
Betula Darlin,
Unfortunately your last post was return to gibberish. However I can draw out one distorted argument from the gibberish.
Betula writes:
>First of all, that was observa's question that (according to your logic) you plagairized.
It was âmyâ question in the context that it was the question I put to you, in contrast to the strawman question you preferred to address rather that the one I put to you.
I liked Observaâs question, I used it and I [cited Observa](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…) . That is exactly what you didnât do when you passed off the work of the Free Republic.
Regarding your gibberish, I suggest you read [my last post]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…) and try again.
Janet,
If you don't understand your own logic, than you must understand how illogical it is.....
According to you,a person can cut and paste a quote that cites the person who made the quote and also links to the source of the quote, but if you don't cite the site that gathered the quote from the source, it's plagiarism.
Here's an example of what, according to you, is obvious plagiarism.....
1.âIn a controversy, the instant we feel anger, we have already ceased striving for truth and have begun striving for ourselvesâ
Abraham J. Heschel
2.âAnger dwells only in the bosom of fools.â
Albert Einstein
Now, since I didn't link to the site that gathered these quotes, according to you, this is plagiarism pure and illogical.
So you see Sweetie.... your plagiarism is a variation of your own lack of logic. You may have cited Observa for the question, but failed to cite the site where the question was posted.....Deltoid.
Unfortunately for you, that's the world your mind lives in, one where even you don't understand your own logic and where anger dwells.
> Unfortunately for you, that's the world your mind lives in, one where even you don't understand your own logic and where anger dwells.
> Posted by: Betula
Can someone kick this bitch off?
Betula,
Janet cited my question and did not plagiarise me. You are evidently arguing the point in such a disjoint manner out of what some will assume to be desperation or weakness of argument. (Are you sore that bluegrue caught you passings off pages of work without attribution?).
Janet has made you look foolish. But Janet can only do so much, you Betula have aided Janet heroically towards this ends.
Janet, I thought you made this point well:
>What opposing facts? Facts opposing the evidence that war blogging cheerleaders were horribly wrong? Facts that oppose the exposure of the WMD distortions? Iâm waiting.
Let me help you again, âClinton did it tooâ does not oppose these facts. It is however an argument that demonstrates your partisan lens.
Betula.
You are obfuscating, dodging, weaving, casting nets for red herrings, and stuffing strawmen enough to scare all of the crows in Tornado Alley, but you are not addressing the salient points of janet, Observa, and the other posters challenging you.
I can only conclude that the truth is hurting you more than you can admit.
Either that, or you are still attempting to resolve the overwhelming cognitive dissonance required to maintain your blinkered ideology.
Answer the questions.
Observa says....
"Janet cited my question and did not plagiarise me."
She did, only if you go by the same definition applied to me....a definition which we all seem to agree is illogical.
Since we all seem to be in agreement, this brings to light more of Janets logic.......anyone who visits any web site (such as Deltoid or Free Republic), is assumed to be of the same mindset of any commenter on that site.
Shockingly, our agreement (at least in this case) proves her correct.
Betula,
Do you think making stuff up makes your arguement sound?
>Since we all seem to be in agreement, this brings to light more of Janets logic.......anyone who visits any web site (such as Deltoid or Free Republic), is assumed to be of the same mindset of any commenter on that site.
The above is the type of nonsense that further illustrates my point when I said:
>Janet has made you look foolish. But Janet can only do so much, you Betula have aided Janet heroically towards this ends.
Where is your shame Betula? Without shame I see no hope for your growth.
Betula wrote:
>She did, only if you go by the same definition applied to me....a definition which we all seem to agree is illogical.
Thanks but no thanks, Betula. If you fail to grasp the difference between
a) citing a single quote from the same blog conversation,
b) citing a single public figure with attribution to that person, and
c) posting a massive compilation of cites compiled by someone else as if it was compiled by yourself,
then Betula, I simply don't know where to start. I hope for your sake, that you never get involved in a case of copyright infringement in real life.
> I hope for your sake, that you never get involved in a case of copyright infringement in real life.
> Posted by: bluegrue
Not me.
Maybe some time in Pokey will educate better than all the rhetoric this wand-wad ignores can manage.
Bluegrue...
Is the following plagiarism?
To treat your facts with imagination is one thing, but to imagine your facts is another." ~John Burroughs
Reality leaves a lot to the imagination. ~John Lennon
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. ~Abraham Lincoln
How reluctantly the mind consents to reality! ~Norman Douglas
There is a fine line between dreams and reality, it's up to you to draw it. ~B. Quilliam
There's something beautifully soothing about a fact - even (or perhaps especially) if we're not sure what it means. ~Daniel J. Boorstin
I believe in a real, physical world. I figure if the world existed only in my mind, it would pay more attention to me. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
Every time I close the door on reality it comes in through the windows. ~Jennifer Yane
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. ~Mahatma Gandhi
Or how about this?
http://www.frogstar.com/files/wav/twilzone.wav
> Bluegrue...
> Is the following plagiarism?
.
.
.
> Posted by: Betula
Petula, was that what you did in the post you're accused of plagiarism?
No.
So it appears that you DO know how to avoid plagiarism it is just you don't do it all that often and then whine squal and bitch about being brought up on it.
Mark.....
You ask me..."Petula, was that what you did in the post you're accused of plagiarism?"
Yes, it's exactly what I did, selectively copy and paste consolidated quotes from a website. All quotes cite who said them......the website isn't cited.
I accept that is difficult for you to understand, and if you were in the vicinity, I would buy you an ice cream cone and a balloon.
http://www.quotegarden.com/reality.html
From their homepage
>The Quote Garden: A Harvest of Quotes for Word Lovers - www.quotegarden.com
Copyright © 1998-2009
Is this a new game you play, Betula? Find the page Betula plagiarized this time?
@betula:
"Is the following plagiarism?"
Yes, it is. Also, copyright violation, I suspect.
Selection and organization of facts (quotes, listings of names and phone numbers, etc) are creative work and protected by copyright, even in the person organizing them does not have copyright over the facts being organized.
Someone did the work of finding, selecting, entering, attributing, and making available, the quotes on that page. That is creative work that demands attribution to avoid plagiarism.
One of my technical papers cites a fact that originated in an obscure old journal and paper, a strange and surprising observation that seems never to have been followed up. The datum was relevant and important, I found it as I was writing up my work, my work replicated it, extended it and gave it additional meaning, and it was important to cite it.
The original paper probably exists in some archives somewhere, but despite a lot of effort trying I could not get the original - I found the fact in a single full sentence that was quoted, cited and properly attributed in a paper by a different group, published contemporary with the original. I cited it by quoting the sentence, and attributing it to "X, as quoted in Y."
To have left out the qualifier without having gotten and cited directly from the original, would have been plagiarism - denying the contribution of the intermediary author who quoted it and therefore made it available for me to find. As bad, it would have been intellectually dishonest, implying that I had directly and personally verified the accuracy of the quote when I quoted it.
Standards may be looser on the Intarwebs, and Google often makes it easy to find the source of the plagiarized cut and paste. But loose acceptance of plagiarism on the internet, doesnt make it any less plagiarism.
bluegrue.....
The web site you linked has a copyright on quotes from Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln and John Lennon?
Now that is impressive.
For you, I would buy an ice cream with sprinkles.
It's not about the quotes, it's about the compilation.
Chocolate, vanilla, please.
At open thread 29 comment #39 we have this quote posted by Luminous Beauty......
"The Earth's natural climate is like a wild and angry beast. The goal is to not be poking it with sticks."
Unlike the quotes I posted, this quote is not cited by LB. This, from what I can understand of Lee's logic, would be double plagiarism, since any site that contains this quote is also not cited by LB.
Of course, not a peep from Lee or anyone else about that.
You will also note, at open thread 29 comment #43, bluegrue attributes the above quote to Wallace Broecker, without ever mentioning the fact that LB didn't cite it.
This, which must be obvious to Lee, would make bluegrue an accessory to plagiarism.
I feel as if I'm learning so much from this tight knit community at Deltoid and it's selective plagiarism accusations.....that I wish I could take you all out for ice cream. You supply the nuts.
I just googled:
""The Earth's natural climate is like a wild and angry beast. The goal is to not be poking it with sticks.""
The only two hits are LB in that open thread, and Betula in this thread.
If I remove the quote marks, there are a couple quotes that are clearly in the same family - I see it attributed in one form to Wally Broker, but there are other variants out there as well, and it is not easy to see where it originated.
Yes, it would have been formally correct for LB to have said something like "it has been said that..."
--
Also Betula, I'm not accusing you of anything. As I said, standards on the internet are rather loose - it usuay only amtters to me if the work is presented in a way that implies originality, or if the cut and paste is used to imply expertise that the person quoting it does not have.
You asked if your cut and paste was plagiarism, and I answered your question - yes, it is.