Friday, July 22, 2005
This column by Eric Mink (the "conservative" of the St Louis Post-Dispatch according to a P-D employee that called into the O'Reilly Factor) is just reason # 1,426 why you should cancel your subscription to the St Louis Post-Dispatch. (For a state that went solidly to Bush, you'd think that the paper would read much more moderate, but on issue after issue and story after story, you get the same lines and perspectives that you get out of World Workers' Party.
The distortions, half-truths, and bald-faced lies in this piece are amazing. He contradicts facts that were determined by a bi-partisan Senate committee looking into this matter - but that fails to pierce the bubble that Eric Mink lives in.
KARL ROVE: He has betrayed the nation
By Eric Mink Of the Post-Dispatch
It's ironic that political genius Karl Rove - and perhaps others - could end up in prison for exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Ironic, because their essential mistake in doing so was one of identity: their own.
They think they work for President George W. Bush. They don't. They work for America.
There's no reason to believe that Rove gave much thought at all to Valerie Plame Wilson, a 20-year CIA veteran working in the agency's counterproliferation division, when he mentioned her to at least two reporters in July 2003. The only reason she was in his sights was that she was married to Joseph Wilson IV. Wilson, a retired veteran U.S. diplomat, had gone public with disturbing information that the Bush administration might have twisted intelligence information to support its campaign for starting a war with Iraq.
In February 2002, the CIA sent Wilson to the African country of Niger to check out sketchy intelligence information suggesting that Iraq tried to buy Niger uranium for making nuclear weapons. Vice President Dick Cheney had been told about the report earlier and had asked for more information.
Wilson found no evidence of any recent purchases by Iraq and told the CIA so when he returned. His findings were consistent with doubts already held by the State Department's intelligence division.
Nevertheless, the administration's top officials - Cheney, Bush and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - continued to link Iraq with African uranium right up to the start of war in March 2003.
Wilson finally debunked the claims in a commentary published on the op-ed page of The New York Times on July 6, 2003, forcing the White House to make a rare admission of error the next day. In a statement issued July 11, then-CIA director George Tenet took full responsibility for the mistake. But on July 22, Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley admitted that Tenet had warned him (and Rice and White House speechwriter Michael Gerson) months earlier that the Iraq-Africa-uranium story was questionable.
At that point, the president's credibility on the Iraq war was in serious jeopardy, and the White House was reeling. This was the precise period of time when Rove discussed Wilson's wife's CIA job with Time magazine's Matt Cooper, syndicated columnist Robert Novak and possibly other journalists.
It was classic distraction and misdirection, time-honored tools of stage magicians and political sharpies and honed to a fine art by Rove over many years. Nothing up my sleeve; look here. Shift press attention from the administration's credibility to Wilson's credibility, even though Wilson's published account of his brief mission to Niger was beyond reasonable dispute.
Read the whole thing if your eyes aren't already bleeding. He ties the SCOTUS nomination to burying Rove in the news cycle and then makes the attempt to bring in Watergate. Amazing... Surprised he hasn't come up with the fact that London's bombing was another "news event" intended to keep our Karl off the front pages. Oh, wait... that's next week's column.
ARC: St Wendeler
Thursday, July 21, 2005
By now the lack of civility in contemporary political discourse is rather obvious. A comment to one of my earlier posts led to my addressing this issue. The venom and rage were pathetic. I am not certain the issue is worth a post or not. But I will give it a try.
Whatever happened to a real sense of humor on the Left? It used to be there. Irony and humor were hallmarks of much of the Left's presentation years ago. Be it the Yippees, Arlo Guthrie, Tom Lehrer, John F. Kennedy or a wide range of political personages. There was always a core of self-deprecation that caused one to listen to them. What do we see today? Al Franken. Teddy Kenndy. Senator Turban. John Kerry. Hillary Clinton. Barbara Boxer. Nancy Pelosi. Self-deprecation is not the first word that comes to mind when I think of these folks.
The "seriousness" of these folks seems not serious at all. It seems to most listeners and watchers to be cynical and faux anger. They are not in the least convincing. (Their avoidance of such inconveniences as facts does not help their cause.)
It seems as though they think if they are shrill enough, mean enough and repetitive enough the world will believe them... never mind repeated electoral defeats since 1994.
The more they lose the more shrill, the more mean spirited and the more repetitive they become.
The only possible response is that which the President and folks like Senator Hatch have adopted, patient good humor combined with iron willed determination.
There are those on the right who are, to a greater or lesser extent, like those on the Left. Michael Savage comes to mind and, to a lesser degree, Ann Coulter. But for the most part the leaders on the Right are affable and determined a la Rush Limbaugh, Tony Snow and POTUS.
I have given up on the Left ever returning to reasoned discourse. It is a shame, but it is the way it is. I am proud that our folks maintain their dignity and wit.
ARC: Monterey John
Why is he still working in the White House? Surely Karl would know if he lied to the grand jury, or would know if he was likely to get charged with a crime, or even political damage when the whole story eventually came out. He wasn't concerned as to what Miller or Cooper would testify too, since he had released them to testify already, and for example had turned over his emails, and notes to the prosecutor long before.
So picture it. You just won the Presidency (again) for your Boss. Had the highest turnout for a Republican president. Ran a near flawless campaign. Why stay at the White House? Ari's leaving, Powell's leaving, etc. Why not take your absence after the inauguration, make a buttload of money on the speaking circuit, the teaching circuit, the political hack circuit, whatever. Especially if you know your going to have a political football that might tarnish the presidency coming your way as soon as Fitzgerald finishes his investigation. By leaving the Administration early, at the changeover when everybody else is leaving it limits the political damage when it comes out. He no longer works, here, etc. Don't have to force your Boss to fire you.
Plenty of people did leave the administration though. Maybe they are the original leaker?
I was about to get into some work, you know, the type that makes money, when the question occurred to me, have we not seen this "knuckle under to the fascists and everythging will be fine" at another time?
The answer is, of course we have.
Before Hitler launched Operation Barbarosa, the invasion of the Soviet Union, in 1941, the Left was all for placating the brown shirted thug in Berlin. That may have been out of an allegiance to the Soviets who had cut a deal with Hitler to carve up Poland, or it may have been out of a sincere belief that making nice would keep Hitler from "going too far." Either way, they were not in favor of resisting Hitler. In not resisting Hitler in a timely fashion, tens of millions of people lost their lives.
Is there something inherent in the thinking of the Left that makes it impossible for them to do what is necessary to resist tyrany? Are we seeing a repitition of history here? Can the Left not learn from history, and more specifically, from the errors of their own past? Are they blinded by their own orthodoxy?
I am not sure about any of this. What I do know is that there is a familiar stench about what is going on today. Is 1939, or something like it, being repeated today?
It's at least worth a thought and some discussion.
ARC: Monterey John
It looks like this attempt was much less successful than that of 7/7. Apparently, there's a suspect that is still on the loose and being hunted by the London police. Interestingly, all of the video I've seen of those detained on the street for questioning appear to be young, Arabic males... not a single granny in a wheelchair or a 4 year old in the bunch. Hmmmm.... Is this racial profiling?!?!?! they should be ashamed.
London blasts cause chaos on Tube
A number of Tube stations have been evacuated and lines closed after minor blasts in what Met Police chief Sir Ian Blair says is a "serious incident".
Sir Ian appealed to Londoners to stay where they were and said the transport system was effectively being shut down.
The minor explosions - just two weeks after blasts killed 56 - involved detonators only, a BBC reporter said.
In addition, a blast was reported on the top deck of a Number 26 bus in Hackney Road in Bethnal Green.
There were no injuries and the bus suffered no structural damage.
Eyewitnesses heard bangs and saw abandoned rucksacks at the sites of the incidents at Warren Street, Shepherd's Bush Hammersmith and City line and Oval tube stations as well as the number 26 bus.
At Warren Street and Oval a man was seen running away from the scene.
Michelle Malkin & the guys at Wizbang are covering...
The questions posed to Blair & John Howard (Australia) show how anti-WOT the British press is... and how much they are willing to overlook facts and reason. One question that set off John Howard was:
"Aren't your policies to blame for this attack?"
Howard totally shot down this idiot by explaining that the Bali bombing that was the largest attack experienced by Australia preced the invasion of Iraq. Bully to you, John!
Blair is now getting pissed at how ridiculous his press corp is...
ARC: St Wendeler
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
I caught Charlie Rose's show last night and he discussed the nomination with panelists, but also interviewed Larry Kramer. typically watch it a couple of nights a week for two reasons:
- I like the in-depth interviews
- It's funny to see the New York/DC Cocktail Circuit mentality broadcast into my living room
Anyway, the nomination discussion was interesting because it included Ralph Neas and Larry Tribe. You could tell by their reaction that the Left is going to go to the mat on this one. I have no doubt that Neas will get to Shumer et al and a filibuster is in the works.
The second segment was an interview with Larry Kramer, a gay political activist who recently had a liver transplant. I've seen him interviewed on the program before and the one thing that I take away from any interview with him is that he's a bitter, pessimistic man. Obviously, I don't know the man personally, but he has the most negative view of everything... Bush pushes for billions to treat AIDS in Africa, he sees it as a farce since as part of the funding, the countries must educate their population about condom use, monogamy, AND abstinence. (It's the latter that Kramer objects to.) And Kramer gives Bush zero credit for the initiative, despite the fact that no previous president has made this significant of a committment to the problem.
He actually said that Karl Rove and the cabal that is running Washington IS ACTUALLY COMMITTED TO ELIMINATING GAYS FROM THE PLANET. And Charlie Rose just sat there and smiled. He pressed Larry if he really believed that and he repeated it - saying that if they were unwilling to nationalize the drug companies and force them to produce AIDS drugs, they are in effect out to kill him.
The sad thing is that Charlie's attempt to give him a chance to clarify his position is probably the strongest rebuke that has ever been leveled against Mr. Kramer. And when he repeated the assertion, Charlie just gave him an understanding nod... And Kramer continually referenced Bill Moyers as his source for the "washington cabal" line, so I'm probably not out of line to say that his views are conventional wisdom on the left.
And Larry claims that gays are hated around the country, yet there's an initiative at one of our most prestigious universities that's named after him. Hey, that's Bush's alma mater!!!
I hope and pray that Mr. Kramer's health improves... and that he starts to look at the facts with a more rational mind.
ARC: St Wendeler
These guys would have made wonderful Japanese infantrymen back in WWII.
"In nominating John Roberts, the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people. Working for mining companies, Roberts opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.""The Senate must not confirm right-wing corporate lawyer John Roberts to the Supreme Court."
ARC: Monterey John
We have gotten so used to political rancor that we forget there are people like Judge Roberts out there. Cudos to W for finding and selecting him. From everything I have heard, this is not just a good nomination but a great one.
ARC: Monterey John
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Of the two, Roberts spent more time practicing law in Washington, where he has networked with many Democrats. When Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit in 2003, Clinton's former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, called Roberts an "exceptionally well-qualified appellate advocate."
"He is a Washington lawyer, a conservative, not an ideologue," said Stuart H. Newberger, a lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who has argued cases against Roberts.
He put in his time advising the Bush legal team in Florida during the battle over the 2000 presidential election and has often argued conservative positions before the court -- but they can be attributed to clients, not necessarily to him.
That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."
Roberts won the case -- Rust v. Sullivan -- in which the Supreme Court agreed with the administration that the government could require doctors and clinics receiving federal funds to avoid talking to patients about abortion.
Those who know Luttig describe him as a warm and engaging but private man, who speaks in a Texas drawl and rarely goes to Washington social events.
His paper trail is extensive and, in the view of supporters, an asset rather than a liability because it offers the Republican base a guarantee of his conservatism that Roberts cannot match. Luttig is well known as one of the federal bench's leading advocates of the view, also endorsed by Scalia, that the text of constitutional provisions and statutes should be interpreted as close to literally as possible.
In 1999, he wrote the 4th Circuit opinion that struck down a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act, saying Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers by giving rape victims the right to sue their attackers in federal court. The Supreme Court upheld Luttig's appellate opinion.
His record also includes at least one case bound to please antiabortion activists. When Virginia wanted to start enforcing a ban on the procedure critics call "partial birth" abortion in 1998, state officials sought out a conservative jurist -- Luttig -- who would rule in their favor.
His ruling for the 4th Circuit allowing the law to take effect overturned a lower court and ran contrary to courts in 17 other states in which bans on the controversial late-term procedure had been challenged.
Just received this e-mail of an article by Christopher Hitchens from my old roommate from college who is an editor with an MSM newspaper chain, so I'll lop off his personal data... pretty good item.
The poverty of our current scandal.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 18, 2005, at 1:10 PM PT
Writing to a friend in 1954, P.G. Wodehouse commented:
Are you following the McCarthy business? If so, can you tell me what it's all about? "You dined with Mr. X on Friday the tenth?" "Yes, sir." (Keenly) "What did you eat?" "A chocolate nut sundae, sir." (Sensation) It's like Bardell vs Pickwick.
Wodehouse of course was only affecting ignorance and making light of a ludicrously pompous and slightly sinister proceeding. But he was essentially correct in his lampooning of the McCarthy hearings, since even the most convinced anti-communist would not learn anything from the spectacle that he did not already know, and since the show trials managed to go on without producing either any evidence of any crime, or any evidence of any perpetrator, or any evidence of any victim.
It is the entire absence of the above three elements that makes the hunt for Karl Rove (who was once so confidently confused with I. Lewis Libby) so utterly Snark-like. In fact, in his column of July 17, Frank Rich was compelled to concede that the whole thing is absolutely nothing in itself, but is rather a sideshow to a much larger event: the deception of the Bush-Cheney administration in preparing an intervention in Iraq. I want to return to this, but one must first winnow out some other chaff and nonsense.
First, the most exploded figure in the entire argument is Joseph Wilson. This is for three reasons. He claimed, in his own book, that his wife had nothing to do with his brief and inconclusive visit to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." There isn't enough wiggle room in those two definitive statements to make either of them congruent with a memo written by Valerie Wilson (or Valerie Plame, if you prefer) to a deputy chief in the CIA's directorate of operations. In this memo, in her wifely way, she announced that her husband would be ideal for the mission since he had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines (of Niger), not to mention lots of French contacts." If you want to read the original, turn to the Senate committee's published report on the many "intelligence failures" that we have suffered recently. I want to return to those, too.
Speaking to the Washington Post about the CIA's documents on the Niger connection, Wilson made the further claim that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Again according to the Senate report, these papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip. He has since admitted to the same newspaper that he may have "misspoken" about this.
The third bogus element in Wilson's boastful story is the claim that Niger's "yellowcake" uranium was never a subject of any interest to Saddam Hussein's agents. The British intelligence report on this, which does not lack criticism of the Blair government, finds the Niger connection to be among the most credible of the assertions made about Saddam's double-dealing. If you care to consult the Financial Times of June 28, 2004, and see the front-page report by its national security correspondent Mark Huband, you will be able to review the evidence that Niger—with whose ministers Mr. Wilson had such "good relations"—was trying to deal in yellowcake with North Korea and Libya as well as Iraq and Iran. This evidence is by no means refuted or contradicted by a forged or faked Italian document saying the same thing. It was a useful axiom of the late I.F. Stone that few people are so foolish as to counterfeit a bankrupt currency.
Thus, and to begin with, Joseph Wilson comes before us as a man whose word is effectively worthless . What do you do, if you work for the Bush administration, when a man of such quality is being lionized by an anti-war press? Well, you can fold your tent and let them print the legend. Or you can say that the word of a mediocre political malcontent who is at a loose end, and who is picking up side work from a wife who works at the anti-regime-change CIA, may not be as "objective" as it looks. I dare say that more than one supporter of regime change took this option. I would certainly have done so as a reporter if I had known.
OK, then, how do the opponents of regime change in Iraq make my last sentence into a statement of criminal intent and national-security endangerment? By citing the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. This law, which is one of the most repressive and absurd pieces of legislation on our statute book, was a panicky attempt by the right to silence whistle-blowers at the CIA. In a rough effort to make it congruent with freedom of informati on and the First Amendment (after all, the United States managed to get through the Second World War and most of the Cold War without such a law), it sets a fairly high bar. You must knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result. It seems quite clear that nobody has broken even that arbitrary element of this silly law.
But the coverage of this non-storm in an un-teacup has gone far beyond the fantasy of a Rovean hidden hand. Supposedly responsible journalists are now writing as if there was never any problem with Saddam's attempt to acquire yellowcake (or his regime's now-proven concealment of a nuclear centrifuge, or his regime's now-proven attempt to buy long-range missiles off the shelf from North Korea as late as March 2003). In the same way, the carefully phrased yet indistinct statement of the 9/11 Commission that Saddam had no proven "operational" relationship with al-Qaida has mutated lazily into the belief tha t there were no contacts or exchanges at all, which the commission by no means asserts and which in any case by no means possesses the merit of being true. The CIA got everything wrong before 9/11, and thereafter. It was conditioned by its own culture to see no evil. It regularly leaked—see any of Bob Woodward's narratives—against the administration. Now it, and its partisans and publicity-famished husband-and-wife teams, want to imprison or depose people who leak back at it. No, thanks. Many journalists are rightly appalled at Time magazine's collusion with a prosecutor who has proved no crime and identified no victim. Far worse is the willingness of the New York Times to accept the demented premise of a prosecutor who has put one of its own writers behind bars.Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2122963/
Good piece by Christopher Hitchens on the Rove kerfuffle.
ARC: Monterey John
I should have known. The Clement thing appears not to have been for real (but then again, it might have been). When am I going to ever learn?
According to ABC News as of 2:00 PM PDT it is NOT going to be Clement. But of course, the sources of that story are probably the same folks that were floating Clement earlier. Watch, it will turn out to be Clement anyway. I am getting dizzy here.
But I'm done speculating!
Why do I suppose the folks at the White House have been enjoying themselves immensely this afternoon?
Think of all the time Kos etc have wasted this afternoon trying to turn up dirt on Clement so they could tar her first thing in the morning. How delightful is that?
ARC: Monterey John
Don't want to be a pessimist, but haven't we seen this movie before?
All the buzz is about Joy Clement and a possible nomination today with a primetime announcement tonight.
Judge Clement is from Louisiana which would put the first Southerner on this court. Good. The Democratic Senator from that state likes her according to the same buzz. Oh-oh.
Truthfully, I'm not hearing anything negative about Judge Clement. I checked Powerline, where there are some pretty informed opinions on this sort of thing, and they are expressing similar opinion to mine.
I just hope we aren't being Suterized here.
ARC: Monterey John
I suspect that the good senator from Pennsylvania did not enjoy his visit to the White House last night. It is likely he was reminded whose job it was to nominate and whose job it was to advise and consent. This particular conversation, if it went as I think it did, was way over-due. Hopefully POTUS told the senator that his support was expected. It's time to act like a majority for a change.
ARC: Monterey John
Well, it looks like W is going to live up to his campaign promises... unless there's some unkown out there who pulls a Souter on us. My guess is that we're in for an interesting confirmation process, as we watch the Left go apopletic over the nominee.
Conservatives are told it will not be Gonzales
By Alexander Bolton
White House officials have assured select conservative leaders that they will not nominate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, according to a conservative familiar with the behind-the-scenes discussions.
The message has filtered out to conservative activists that Gonzales, whom many activists believe would be too liberal on abortion and racial preference issues, is no longer a threat to their cause. That could portend a fierce battle in the Senate in September, as Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has said Gonzales would be a qualified nominee, suggesting that his selection could have achieved bipartisan consensus.
Senior administration officials have told select conservative leaders that President Bush is likely to nominate either Edith Jones or Edith Clement, members of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the conservative source said.
It is also possible that would nominate Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan or former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whom the Senate recently confirmed to the 5th Circuit.
Edith Jones is no slouch... As I've said previously, I prefer Miguel Estrada but Edith would be just fine - if only she had a better first name.
WaPo (via Drudge) reports that Edith Clement may be the choice.... word has it that the nomination will occur today. Fasten your seatbelts and return tray tables and seat backs to the upright position.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is close to making his first nomination to the Supreme Court, and Washington was abuzz with speculation Tuesday about Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
There was no word from the White House on when Bush would disclose his selection but officials familiar with the process said it appeared an announcement was imminent. No one claimed to have been told the name by Bush, but Republican strategists and others focused on Clement, a 57-year-old jurist who was confirmed on a 99-0 vote by the Senate when she was elevated to the appeals court in 2001.
The fact that she was confirmed 99-0 so recently will give the GOP an argument that she should receive a vote and not be filibustered.
ARC: St Wendeler
Monday, July 18, 2005
Just thought I'd post a pic that I took yesterday of the sunset down here in the Florida panhandle (aka The Redneck Riviera). (Click for a larger image.) Hurricane Dennis did do some damage here, but certainly not what Ivan did last year. The beach is a little messed up, but still enjoyable. My 3 year old is having a blast at the pool and building sand castles. He even let me take him into the ocean with his life jacket on - no fears as long as dad is holding him.
I took my oldest niece out on a wave runner today... took it easy on the ocean, but had some fun when we got into the bay. Nothing like the laugh of a kid without a care in the world...
ARC: St Wendeler
I've always wondered the same thing:
Movies: “All the President’s Men,” which seems a bit overwrought and self-congratulatory to modern eyes. Oh, the portentious moments of Threat and Peril: any car that slows while our heroes are interviewing a lowly cog might be filled with GOP assassins. The one thing that stands out whenever I study Watergate: why on God’s earth would anyone put together an organization called “The Committee to Re-Elect the President,” knowing you’d be CREEP? Why not just name it the Permanent Entity Devoted Overall to Presidential Happinesss In the Life Everlasting?
The only answer I ever came up with was Nixon was never strong in the PR department...
Paul over at Wizbang has a post about a new San Bernadino program to improve kids education in the district (black kids specifically). Their method? Teach Ebonics!
I thought this was discredited way back in 1996....
Some key graphs:
A pilot of the policy, known as the Students Accumulating New Knowledge Optimizing Future Accomplishment Initiative, has been implemented at two city schools.
Woah! Now thats a title! I'll bet that took 4 committee meetings, a few drafts, and more than a couple whiteboards to brainstorm that title.
Texeira suggested that including Ebonics in the program would be beneficial for students. Ebonics, a dialect of American English that is spoken by many blacks throughout the country, was recognized as a separate language in 1996 by the Oakland school board.
So the Oakland school board is the organization responsible for recognizing separate languages now? Do we get to pick and choose
"Ebonics is a different language, it's not slang as many believe,' Texeira said. "For many of these students Ebonics is their language, and it should be considered a foreign language. These students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language.'
Yeah you know, like English....
One question. Do all blacks get taught in Ebonics? Whats the criteria? If a black person transfers in from another district (say someplace in England, complete with English accent) do they get taught in Ebonics as well?
This time due to obesity...
The Morgan Spurlock Watch blog that hosts the above post looks to be very good as well. It was news to me that ACORN sponsored his minimum wage show, although considering the leftist rants on the show and from Spurlock, hardly surprising.
Lots of good stuff... Just keep scrolling....
In the various lefty arguments around the internet, eventually one will see them refer to the Lancet study saying 100,000 deaths in Iraq. Those figures have been rebutted effectively here and here.
Imagine my surprise when "reading" a Ted Rall editorial cartoon from last week. It's the usual inane rantings, that I'm mostly used to, but I was surprised that the graph behind whats supposed to be President Bush in panel 2 contrasting himself with Truman and the amount of deaths caused lists Bush as 200,000.
Must have been a lot of indiscriminant carpet bombing over the past couple months... Has Ted and the left decided that the 100,000 number was no longer adequate so they decided to double it?