Warmongers

Stories

All this talk of the number of dead is morbid in its ability to distract and render a subject of such magnitude and importance to the dry bland realm of statistics.

If you were sitting in your yard, hearing the approach of jets from the west as a deployed cluster bomb floated downward and gently lit upon the head of your 6 year old child 50 feet from you; and smelling the smoke and feeling the wetness of his/her blood and flesh as it sailed through the air, there would only be the number 1 in your mind. 1 death that stood out above any other. The many thousands would matter little. Each death is the number 1.

The death of one innocent child through the mechanism of a weapon that I helped pay for is 1 death to many.

Fuck war. Fuck warmongers.
And a double fuck you to the “love thy brother as thyself protect the lives of the born and the unborn Christians” who do not step forward in mass to end warfare.

Jeff Greenfield reporting for us

Stories

CNN.com – Transcripts:

Let’s turn to our senior analyst, Jeff Greenfield — Jeff.

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Wolf, the political community has gone predictably hysterical over Senator Barack Obama’s presidential flirtation.

So, in the spirit of retched excess, let’s take a look not at what he’s saying, but at another crucially vital matter: what he is wearing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD (voice-over): The senator was in New Hampshire over the weekend, sporting what’s getting to be the classic Obama look. Call it business casual, a jacket, a collared shirt, but no tie.

It is a look the senator seems to favor. And why not? It is dressy enough to suggest seriousness of purpose, but without the stuffiness of a tie, much less a suit. There is a comfort level here that reflects one of Obama’s strongest political assets, a sense that he is comfortable in his own skin, that he knows who he is.

If you want a striking contrast, check out Senator John Kerry as he campaigned back in 2004. He often appeared without a tie, but clad in a blazer, the kind of casual look you see at country clubs and lawn parties in the Hamptons and other toned (ph) locations.

When President Bush wanted in casual mode, he skipped the jacket entirely. Third-generation Skull and Bones at Yale? Don’t be silly. Nobody here but us Texas ranchers.

You can think of Bush’s apparel as a kind of homage to Ronald Reagan. He may have spent much of his life in Hollywood, but the brush-cutting ranch hand was the image his followers loved, just as the Kennedy sea ferry look provided a striking contrast with, say, Richard Nixon, who apparently couldn’t even set out on a beach walk without that “I wish I had spent more time at the office” look.

But, in the case of Obama, he may be walking around with a sartorial time bomb. Ask yourself, is there any other major public figure who dresses the way he does? Why, yes. It is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who, unlike most of his predecessors, seems to have skipped through enough copies of “GQ” to find the jacket-and-no-tie look agreeable.

And maybe that’s not the comparison a possible presidential contender really wants to evoke.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GREENFIELD: Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread. Or is that threads? — Wolf.

Crooks and Liars » 2006 » December » 14:

Stories

Crooks and Liars » 2006 » December » 14:

The cowardice of Michael Crichton
By: John Amato>Everyday I hear something that amazes me. This is one of them. Crichton fictionalizes TNR’s Michael Crowley as a child rapist in his new novel.

The battle between anti-global warming activists and their critics is frequently uncivil. Name calling, put downs, you name it, they fling them.

But this marks a new threshold, I think…read on

MARK STEYN: WAR CRIMINAL

Stories

Steyn, unless you start reporting from haditha and the streets of Fallujah then keep your thinly veiled authortarian boner to yourself. You are a loathesome, smarmy, intellectually devoid brownshirt who places ideology before humanity. As a result nothing you say is relevent.

Your Conscience

Arrogant wife of an wannabe imperial ruler

Stories

HaloScan.com – Comments:

WELL, you arrogant wife of an wannabe imperial ruler of the world, maybe the reason Bush’s poll numbers are so low is that his arrogance on a global scale has devastated the US in many ways, not to mention completely screwed over another nation (Iraq). Your crude and monkey-like husband, that Wizard Guardian of Democracy, should once claim responsibility for the mess that the Middle East is in.It’s not “evil forces” doing bad in the world, it’s imperialistic US-centered policy that justifies invading a sovereign nation that is no threat to it. The monkey should go back to the Texas jungle he came from and let some realists of whatever stripe salvage what’s left of this war.

654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation

Stories

Unknown News | Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq :

Estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is based on this study, published in Britain’s most respected medical journal The Lancet in October 2006. The study concluded that 654,965 (at least 392,979 and as many as 942,636) Iraqi civilians had been killed in the occupation, in addition to deaths expected from Iraq’s normal death rate.

US authorities, including President Bush himself, have loudly complained that the study is based on “flawed methodology” and “pretty well discredited,” but as often happens when Bush speaks, that’s simply untrue. The study, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, used standard, widely accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodology. Explained very briefly, Iraqi respondants in numerous randomly selected locations were asked about recent deaths in their households, and family members were able to show a death certificate to document 80% of the deaths they described. Results from these interviews were extrapolated nationwide, the same way political opinion polls extrapolate a few hundred interviews to reflect nationwide opinions. It’s the same method used by the US Centers for Disease Control to estimate deaths from disease outbreak anywhere in the world, the same method routinely trusted by the US and UK when counting deaths from warfare, civil unrest, or other situations anywhere in the world.

Based on the study’s estimate of 654,965 deaths occurring over the first 40 months of occupation, we have extended this rate of civilian deaths (16,374 deaths per month) over subsequent months of the occupation since the study was published. Of course, we will adjust this figure when more accurate or credible information becomes available.

. US and coalition military deaths and US military injuries in Iraq are announced by US Department of Defense and CENTCOM, and tracked by the good folks at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. Our heading “seriously injured” reflects DoD listing of injuries described as “Wounded in action, [did] not return to duty within 72 hours,” and excludes injuries wherein troops return to duty within 72 hours.

The officially-announced number of US injuries is deceptive, however, because the US military does not include in its figures service members who are evacuated “from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses not caused directly by enemy bullets or bombs.” This would leave out, for example, soldiers sickened by radiation or injured in transport accidents.

According to this article by Salon reporter Mark Benjamin, an additional 25,289 service members had been evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries or illnesses, but not included in the official numbers. Based on Salon’s article, dated December 2005 and including injuries through the first 34 months of occupation, we have extrapolated this rate of un-reported military injuries (743 injuries per month) over subsequent months of the extended occupation. Of course, we will adjust this figure when more accurate or credible information becomes available.

Coalition injuries are not tracked, and posted number reflects an estimate, per ratios explained below.

. US and coalition civilian deaths in Iraq are tracked by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.

Where no credible data on serious injuries to citizens or troops has been made public, our rough estimate uses a conservative, historically-based ratio of 3:1 (serious injuries to fatalities) for troops, 1.8:1 for civilians.

Deaths and injuries included are generally only those resulting directly from military actions — bombs, missiles, bullets, etc. Civilians’ deaths and injuries from the chaos of Afghan and Iraqi day-to-day life after the invasions, from disease, from malnutrition, from depleted uranium, from post-traumatic stress disorder, and other incidental effects of warfare are not included.

Numbers are updated often, so if you find more recent or more credible numbers, please let us know. Our email address is unknownnews at inbox.com.

Army is unlikely to be able to meet the next rotation of troops in Iraq without undesirable changes in its deployment practices

Stories

HaloScan.com – Comments:

Didn’t hear anything yet in the mainstream media about this snippet from the ISG report:
“The Army is unlikely to be able to meet the next rotation of troops in Iraq without undesirable changes in its deployment practices. The Army is now considering breaking its compact with the National Guard and Reserves that limits the number of years that these citizen-soldiers can be deployed.”

"Absolutely no one was allowed to see her smoking"

Stories

First Lady Laura Bush Smoked Cigarettes before Public Appearances During Reelection Campaign [11/16/04]:

Excerpts from: Burning BushNew York Daily News [11/7/04]

So that’s why the Bushes don’t like New York City: Laura can’t smoke here.

The presidential campaign was stressful enough to send the First Lady, an avowed nonsmoker, back to her chain-smoking ways.

“Absolutely no one was allowed to see her smoking,” says one insider. “At events where she appeared, there had to be a room off to the side where she could close the door and chain-smoke before and after she spoke.”

The official version is that Mrs. B gave up cigarettes at the same time she made her husband kick the bottle. And a spokesperson for the First Lady’s office insisted that Mrs. Bush did not use a smoking room at appearances.