Soros Funding Defeatist Propaganda
January 13th, 2008 at 12:35am Mark Noonan
That famed Lancet study which claimed that 650,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the liberation? Partially funded by anti-war, anti-Bush fanatic George Soros:
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.
The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.
New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.
The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.
The lies being perpetrated by the anti-war forces grow more astounding all the time - its gotten so bad that we must, henceforward, work on the assumption that any really bad report about the War on Terrorism in general, or the liberation of Iraq in particular, is - at best - incorrect and - at worst - an outright fabrication. In a way, this is entirely unsurprising - the anti-war movement’s foundation stone, as it were, is ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER was formed on September 14, 2001 - a mere three days after the 9/11 attacks and its purpose, from the start, was to undermine any American effort to respond to the attacks. ANSWER’s primary founders came from the Workers World Party - a hard-core, communist party dedicated to the destruction of the United States as we know it. So hardcore is the Workers World Party that they actually have kind things to say about North Korea, and they applauded the massacre of the democrats by the Chinese government in Tienamen Square. Of course, the anti-war movement has gained adherents from all sorts of different organizations since September 14th, 2001 - but by taking their cue from ANSWER, the anti-war movement has been shot through with lies from the get-go.
I was warning leftwingers early on that they should keep their distance from any movement even remotely connected to ANSWER - it all fell on deaf ears; so eager are lefties to believe the worst about the United States that they easily swallowed whatever ANSWER peddled. Lie down with dogs, come up with fleas - and the anti-war left needs about a dozen flea collars just to get rid of the ANSWER bugs planted in their midst.
Entry Filed under: Kook Left, President Bush, War on Terror
124 Comments
1. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 1:01 am
more proof that Mark Noonan NEVER tries to demonize those he disagrees with huh…
Sigh. So are you saying that anytime someone sponsors a study it means that results are biased? care to come up with any counter study? No - you don’t believe in actual data do you..
2. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 1:22 am
liberalT,
Errr…well, not to try and make you look too foolish, but there has been a well-reported counter-study which called into questions the methodology and results of the Lancet study alleging 650,000 Iraqi deaths…and the point of this report is that the older, now debunked, study was run by an ardent anti-war person and funded by an anti-Bush, anti-war fanatic. Given that we know the older report was flawed added to the fact that people of the anti-war cause were deeply involved in creating the flawed study, the conclusion is easily drawn that they were cooking up a bit of defeatist propaganda.
What I’m doing is tying this back to the anti-war origins…which date from just three days after 9/11, and originate with a communist, avowedly anti-American group. Aren’t you the slightest bit curious about this? I mean, the origins of the current anti-war movement are a group which defends the North Korean government and founded the current anti-war movement while we were still searching for bodies in the rubble of WTC…doesn’t that strike you as something to be concerned about? Strike you as an indicator of a horrendous anti-American bias which, hey, just might creep into anti-war reporting?
3. extramedium | January 13th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Posts like these really show that it’s not truth that you are after - you merely wish to be an agent of partisan spin.
Contrast this study with the many studies you’ve put up which seek to debunk global warming. In most cases, you’ve known the authors or funders of those studies to be acting in either a partisan or economic self-interest. In those cases however, you warn your audience up front that any comments which try to discredit the report on the basis of the source’s motivations will be deleted. Yet here, you do precisely that.
Accordingly, I’ll say you can rightly challenge the methodology used to estimate the civilian dead, but you certainly have no basis (or at least have made no case) that the study is made up of “lies”.
If I were to accept the logic of this post (and I don’t), I could only conclude that any right-wing connected reports on global warming are “at best - incorrect and - at worst - an outright fabrication”.
You can’t have it both ways.
4. extramedium | January 13th, 2008 at 3:13 am
As an aside, you throw the accusation of “lies” around quite freely when you speak of the left. I wonder, is that because you believe that conservatism is the side of God and that liberalism is the side of Satan and therefore anything a liberal like George Soros says must be a lie? I can’t think of any other rationalization for the blanket accusations of lying that pepper your posts.
5. js | January 13th, 2008 at 3:31 am
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
These folks estimate less than 100k.
Ive figured on this being closer to reality than anything liberals have posted in the last 4 years. They actually maintain a database accessible on the web by anyone, it adds to credibility.
6. TiredofLibBullShit | January 13th, 2008 at 6:17 am
In typical lib fashion, the libs attack the messenger and not the message.
“more proof that Mark Noonan NEVER tries to demonize those he disagrees with huh…
Sigh. So are you saying that anytime someone sponsors a study it means that results are biased? care to come up with any counter study? No - you don’t believe in actual data do you..”
Again, your foolishness explodes…….uh, apply your twisted logic to that of the “global warmind” dissenters……you know, the ones you always claim ” are funded by big oil and are not credible.”.
Useful idiots indeed.
7. phnx | January 13th, 2008 at 7:07 am
The left has touted the study in the Lancet as evidence “bacause it was in a noted PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL”
If the agenda of the epidemiologist that commissioned the study and the involvement of Soros in funding the study had been revealed, the study would never been published in Lancet as research
““The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.”
It wa more than likely rejected by the New England Journal, because of this. NEJ has the most rigid standards for research and is the most difficult medical journal in which to get an article published.
The leftist posts above are typical of rejecting out of hand anything that does not correspond to their leftist view of the world. The socialist religion is intolerant of other ideas.
“There is no truth but leftist truth and Soros is its prophet”
“There is not truth but leftist truth and Algore is its prophet”
8. Christian Wright | January 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am
It was 650,000. It is now 2.1m with another 2m who fled the country due to the uncontrollable sectarian violence.
The Bushies are lying. The surge is not working. A walk through the local morgue shows the official death statistics and the bodies don’t match.
9. neocon | January 13th, 2008 at 8:50 am
That’s right Christian, you racist fear mongerer. The New England Journal is aligned with Bush and they’re both lying, right?
You know the truth, having never been there and only knowing what your left wing masters feed you. And don’t let objectivity get in the way of your agenda. You’re a dutiful servant.
10. Cao | January 13th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Oh, I don’t know about that ’surge is not working’ business. Why doesn’t the New York Times talk about Iraq much anymore?
Because it’s working.
Despite their featuring jihadi Bin Laden sympathizing bloggers and toting water for their terrorist heroes.
The editor for the Lancet, Richard Horton, replaces science with lies.
Huh. Just like the IPCC Panel.
In addition, Horton has appeared on stage spewing his hatred with the notorious “Gorgeous” George Galloway.
And of course they spout the communist anti-war mumbo jumbo-Galloway was at one time a member of the Soviet Revolutionary Communist party - or some such equivalent.
11. Eric T | January 13th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Someone needs to grab Soros and take his traitor ass right to the Canadian or Mexican border, push him over and tell him to stay out.
Does any of you guys know where I can find some Anti-McCain material. He is not right for Michigan. Mitt or Huckabee gotta win in Michigan.
12. neocon | January 13th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Eric T,
Romney, Romney, Romney. Vote Mitt!
As far as McCain; McCain/Feingold CFR or McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill should suffice, no?
Plus, McCain doesn’t know jack about navigating the economic waters that will be so important in 2008, nor does Huckabee.
13. AAR | January 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
People forget about those 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children which the U.N. estimated were dying each month as a result of the U.N. sanctions to keep Saddam in check.
At that rate, between 1,425,000 and 1,710,000 — roughly 1.5 MILLION — children would have died under the U.N. sanctions if Saddam had remained in power. How many more years would those sanctions and deaths have continued if President Bush and Tony Blair had not stopped them?
And people forget too…
” …history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors.”
“…Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam’s needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam’s reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam’s 8,000-odd days in power”
“…suggested that the number of those who have “disappeared” into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000.”
“Kurdish groups estimate Anfal’s victims were … up to 180,000 … Human Rights Watch concluded that ‘the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide.’ Anfal’s intense phase lasted three months in the spring of 1988. If we estimate its victims at 100,000, the regime was killing Kurds alone at a rate of around 30,000 each month, or a thousand a day.
“The number of Kurds who died in 1991–killed by Saddam’s forces or fleeing them–is estimated at 50,000 to 80,000. This range would have been much higher, except that the Gulf War Allies intervened in Iraq’s north in response to the massive flow of desperate Kurdish refugees escaping the regime’s onslaught.”
“Saddam Hussein’s government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed…”
“…occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.”
“Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War.”
And let’s not forget all of that REAL TORTURE Saddam conducted in his torture chambers each and every day!!!
The terrorists will be defeated… the internal violence will end… the associated deaths will stop… and Iraq will become a stable, self-governing nation — WITHOUT Saddam Hussein, his barbaric sons, and his murderous regime!
Fortunately, President Bush had the will and determination to end Saddam’s regime, and Saddam’s killing and torture which would otherwise have continued INDEFINITELY under Saddam and his even more barbaric!!!
AAR
14. Eric T | January 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Mitt is from Michigan he is doing OK in the polls but McCain is supported by the media and local news paper. I hear you on Mitt being for good economy. his plans are polished and well thought. I like Huck because he has the 2nd Amendment right and he has the moral fiber to lead and resist the temptation of scandals, greed, self-interest. Those two have the good qualities that remind me of G.W. Bush. And are the best choices to fill his shoes or Cheney’s. If we get Obama and Hillary we will all be casturated, the immigrants will flood the country and be on affirmative action and our taxes will go up 60-75% to pay for it.
McCain may have some good points on foreign policy but wrong on everything else. If you come across any Anti- Mccain stuff post it.
15. sleepygene | January 13th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Mark-
I am surprised you haven’t had a post about the debaathification law being passed. It is a clear victory for the Bush surge. Now Bush is saying troop reductions may not proceed as planned. Interesting stuff. Yet you post about Soros and a two year old study with dubious results. Have you read about the WHO study released that says the number is closer too 350,000 killed? Go Colts!!!
16. Eric T | January 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Soros is the mastermind of cut and run. He turned the democrats into a bunch of sissies. Now look at where we are. Al Qaida in Iraq completely destroyed, no more civil war, violence WAY down. The dems need Soros for finance and media control. His assets should be seized for his treason.
17. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
err Mark - you are not making me look foolish. I am well aware of the other studies. My point is that you clearly didn’t read either of the studies or attempt to understand which one is closer to the real number. At any rate - even the “counter” study even comes up with a number which is around 100K. A number which - although obviously lower - is still incredibly and ridiculously high to be throwing around. You simply like the fact that
(a) its a lower number
(b) you believe it supports your position more.
Note that never in any of your posts did you discuss any of the actual reasoning discussed in the study. You just found out that it was funded by someone you disagree with politically and start ranting and shouting to the wind.
whatever the real number is - it horribly high. You seem to think that if it were “only 100K” then everything would be Ok. How many people live in your town? Can you imagine if 100K of them were dead tomorrow?
18. Jeremiah | January 13th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
What if they wanted to die for you, LiberalT?
What if 100K wanted to die tomorrow for you, or next month, or next year, and the year after, and the year after, LiberalT?
Would you care? Nope, you sure wouldn’t, you would rather see all of us dead.
~ Jeremiah
19. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
uh? so now you are saying that that the Iraqi’s who died *wanted* to die for us? Thats a whole new level of insane denial Jerry. Nice going.
tr
20. Jeremiah | January 13th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Oh, ok, mistake noted. My bad, this is about ‘civilian deaths’.
I was referring to U.S. Troops.
Anyways, the number of Iraqi deaths is proof that you don’t mess with the U.S.
Iran should take heed, ya know, or they’ll get the same thing. Of course, I know they won’t heed the advice. Too bad for them.
~ Jeremiah
21. Eric T | January 13th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Liberal T-
The liberal extremist Soros’cut and run’ media created a situation by enraging the Islamic militias when they published worldwide, the Abu Graib scandal for their political purposes. Hence created a anti-American enviroment for the Al Qaida to bring chaos to the region.
I hope whoever brought the story to the news. And the people that did’not use good judgement and broadcast it to the world are also tried for treason with George Soros.
So out of your 100,000 deaths how many are the media responsible for?
Saddam had what 19 santions he did not comply with. Let’s say your hero Obama is now running the show and Pakistan violates some sanctions and Obama calls for military action. ?
22. Jeremiah | January 13th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Here is a New England study of the mortality in Iraq, I thought it might be helpful. See what you can come up with in it.
Iraqi Mortality
~ Jeremiah
23. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
LiberalT,
The point still remains - the earlier study claiming 650,000 deaths was touted to the skies by you on the left; that study has now been demonstrated to be wrong; that study was funded by an anti-war fanatic, and controlled by an ardently anti-war person.
If there were a study done saying that, oh, 10,000 Iraqis had died and a further study showed that study to be grossly flawed and you then found out the study was conducted by Dick Cheney’s brother in law and funded by Haliburton, what would you say of the motivations of those who conducted and funded the study?
Get over yourself, liberalT - I know your parents and teachers told you were very smart and just a wonderful person…but you really don’t a tenth of what you think you know.
Listen. Learn.
24. Jones | January 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Here are some more interesting facts on ANSWER since no one from the left has even addressed that part of Mark’s post:
- Anti-war front group for the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party
- Run by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, which is staffed by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party (WWP). This is obviously the same Ramsey Clark who was Carter’s Attorney General & later defended Saddam during his trial.
- ANSWER held its initial mass demonstrations on September 29, 2001 in Washington, DC and San Francisco. These rallies drew 25,000 and 15,000 participants, respectively, to protest the Bush administration’s impending invasion of Afghanistan, whose Taliban regime had aided and abetted the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for 9/11.
- Opposes embargo against Communist Cuba
- Supports convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal
On a side note, I actually went to their web site. It was funny to see that their online store sold anti-war items along with Che Guevera t-shirts and other items. I guess they are anti-war unless the war is designed to spread murder and Marxism throughout the world.
25. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
The point still remains - the earlier study claiming 650,000 deaths was touted to the skies by you on the left; that study has now been demonstrated to be wrong; that study was funded by an anti-war fanatic, and controlled by an ardently anti-war person.
–
but that is exactly the point Mark. It HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN WRONG. It simply isn’t true. If you have proof of it being wrong I would like to know. You can insult all you want Mark - but that won’t change the simple fact that you no proof or reasoning that indicates that this number should be wrong. There is another study that has a smaller number sure - but that in and of itself isn’t enough. To use one of your favorite arguments .. I will just say that my dad did a calculation and told me the number was 600,000. I guess that is valid in your mind?
26. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
liberalT,
I can’t help you if you won’t admit basic facts - the earlier study wasn’t just a different result, it was a false result…a set of lies dressed up as fact, put together by people with an anti-Bush, anti-war agenda. That you don’t wish to accept facts is your business.
27. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
look - its not enough just to SAY its a false report. You have to give specific evidence as to why? Methods? false reporting? other evidence which disproves it. No Mark it isn’t a matter of me not wanting to accept it - its a simple matter of you having presented NO FACTS. Once you do that we can discuss them - otherwise its just more mindless ranting and rhetoric…
28. Buddy | January 13th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Loved Jeremiah’ link,
I also read the science behine the Lancelot’s report when they estimated 650,000+..
If the basis of your numbers is to extrapolate the final results based on interviews and population size.. your probably going to come up with the wrong number.
They all fail to do a simple cross verification on there results.. Such as where are the 500+ bodies a day that would have to be accounted for to come up with the 650,000 total??
Or the 13,000 a month..
Obviously the entire world press in Iraq is hiding the truth ….
29. TiredofLibBullShit | January 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Again, the liberals prove to everyone in existence what USEFUL IDIOTS they are.
Unconditionally ccept anything touted by the left as fact, while denying anything that contradicts.
Again libt your foolishness explodes forth. “IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN WRONG” to you is a valid defense for your twisted facts, but again the global warming dissenters have not been proven wrong either. But you dismiss them simply by who presents the facts…..”they are in the pockets of big oil” is your lame excuse.
To you, “they are in the pockets of George Soros” does not apply in the same manner. Proving once again that George Soros takes you and exploits you as the USEFUL IDIOT you are.
If you do not like being called a USEFUL IDIOT, then stop making it so.
30. Jeremiah | January 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Personally, I don’t think anyone knows how many has died. The main problem in this, is that the left wants to make up some numbers and then use them as “fact” and means for justificiation against war; and our enemies just relish in that type of reporting.
~ Jeremiah
31. Kahn | January 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
LibT, or point at all those other reports that are about 10% of the Lancet report? That report wasn’t just off, it was super duper obviously full of crap off.
32. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
LiberalT,
Jeremiah provided you the factual link, Buddy pointed out the salient point to be made.
Do you realise that the study being questioned actually held that about 100,000 died in the first 18 months, and thus they were claiming more than 500,000 died in the two years between approximately September of 2004 and September of 2006? That works out to 684 deaths per day - and as the Lancet study was saying about 92% or so were deaths from violence, that works out to 629 violent deaths per day in Iraq…
Comparisons:
Average Deaths per Day, Britain WWI: 645
Average Deaths per Day, USA WWII: 262
Average Deaths per Day, All Sides Vietnam: 582
Average Deaths per Day, US Civil War: 411
Are there armies of millions facing each other across No Man’s Land?
Are there armies of millions operating simultaneously against first-class enemies around the globe?
Is there a civil war being fought out by armies numbering in the millions?
Is there a civil war being fought with armies of hundreds of thousands who continually got at each other in conventional battle?
No, liberalT, there’s not - it never was credible to think that thay many Iraqis had died. One had to be a liar, a fool or a complete ignoramous to lend any credence to that original Lancet study…it does take some time to kill people, liberalT, you don’t just whistle up some death and then have at it…
33. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
no Mark. Jerry just points to the study. That isn’t enough. I want a point by point analysis of the discrepancies and a detailed argument as to why I should believe one over the other.
Its just as stupid as me pointing back to the original study and saying “see” its a study and it proves your wrong. You need actually read the document. You clearly haven’t or it would be easy for you to provide me with even the basic facts - and not endless and mindless rhetoric.
34. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
liberalT,
Then you are absolutely hopeless in this matter - you just won’t listen to anything which calls into question your views on the war, which are a hodge-podge of ignorance and hatred…
35. Christian Wright | January 13th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Neocon: Why do you call me a racist? I have nothing against white people.
Historically, they’ve been awful to my people; but individually, I’ve met few I did not like.
36. Diana Powe | January 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
It’s difficult to describe how utterly loathsome it is to read human beings bickering over this. Not one single person anywhere in the world knows how many thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of genuinely innocent people who never asked to have their country be the target of the United States military are dead.
They are infants, children, teenagers, young adults, adults and the elderly. Some died from burns. Some died from being scattered into a random set of body parts from the force of explosions. Smoke inhalation ended some lives. Some died of gunshot wounds, in some cames quickly and in other cases slowly. Decapitations can be agonizing.
Many others are only missing arms, legs, feet, hands or fingers. Some number, I don’t know how many, have faces which no longer bear any remnant of a human appearance. Some are alive and only have to live with physical scars which limit or prevent their ability to ever work. Others are utterly untouched but live with post-traumatic stress disorder and shattered families.
Were they intentionally targeted, even in error, by some of the weapons that killed and maimed them? I have utter confidence in the overall professionalism of our armed forces and as much confidence in the barbarity of so many of those who oppose our forces. However, our nation’s leaders knew that innocents would be killed and maimed by one side or the other because they always are. There are no exceptions in warfare, especially when the fighting is of the kind going on in Iraq which was predicted by some and pooh-poohed by others.
Yet, what do they mean to anyone here? They’re not even numbers. They are a number, still climbing, which can be argued back and forth in service of some imagined advantage in the form of a few words on an obscure website which will be countered and countered again until the bodies are no longer of interest and can be shoved back into the closet until the next time they can be used in service of another argument.
No single actual human citizen of Iraq with a family, friends, home, ideas, hopes and memories means anything to almost everyone here. No, the only thing that matters is a number and the collective noun - Iraqis. Enjoy your armchair argument.
37. neocon | January 13th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
·10. Christian Wright | January 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Edwards is the only viable male white candidate. He will come out on top in the end.
It is sad that people cannot see past race, gender and faith; but that is the case. Edwards will win the nomination because he deserves it and because he is the right race and gender.
38. neocon | January 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Diana,
Your #37 post is the most astonishingly pathetic example of emotional liberal dishonesty that I have ever read.
Send it into Hillary right of way.
39. Diana Powe | January 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
neocon,
As I said…
Also, you meant to write, “Send it into Hillary right away.” You’re welcome for the correction.
40. Diana Powe | January 13th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
neocon,
Your level of concern for genuine human suffering is also duly noted.
41. TiredofLibBullShit | January 13th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
What the USEFUL IDIOTS fail to recognize is the 100,000s of deaths committed by a man who was “contained”.
What the USEFUL IDIOTS fail to recognize are those that died horribly at the hands of Saddam and his sadistic sons in their rumpus rooms.
What the USEFUL IDIOTS fail to admit is that while the Oil for Food Program was in place Hussein did not use the cash to purchase food for his people, but to enhance his riches and buy off other USEFUL IDIOTS to keep him in power.
What the USEFUL IDIOTS fail to recognize is that Hussein used electricity and water as a tool to keep his people subservient. Many innocents did not have access to these necessary utilities. Now more Iraqis have power and fresh water than before, but they still try to spin it as a result of the war rather a result of Hussein.
What the USEFUL IDIOTS won’t stop regurgitating over and over is that the Iraqis were better off if they were still under the thumb of Hussein.
The USEFUL IDIOTS continue to regurgitate their talking points about the war with such closed minds to actual evidence of improvements.
They are not called USEFUL IDIOTS for nothing. Stalin and Goebbels would be pround to have manipulated these masses into their collective consciences.
42. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
say whatever you want Mark - all I asked was for your actual proof and analysis that the study was wrong. You are the one spewing hatred and refusing to give anything but rhetoric. Present your argument and we can discuss it - you must have actually read the reports and done a detailed analysis in order to be sure that one of them is a lie ?
43. AAR | January 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Diana,
You and your anti-American propaganda gets more irritating every day!!!!!!
Would you like to expand on my post #13?
Do you think you could talk about Al Qaeda killing the people and blowing them to bits?
We all know you Democrats would have kept the butcher of Baghdad — Saddam Hussein — and his two sons in power!
I’m sure that’s just what the people of Iraq wanted — to continue Saddam’s rule, chopping the people into pieces, running them through human shredders while still alive to enjoy it, carving them into pieces while they were still alive to enjoy it, and and all the other creative ways Saddam had for slowly killing people so they could enjoy the pain for as long as possible!
Tell all the Iraqis with the missing family members buried in the mass graves about how they were much better off under Saddam!
If it were up to you, they would still be filling those graves with Saddam’s victims!!!
AAR
44. AAR | January 13th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
liberalT,
Your beloved United Nations — using the latest information and five times the number of households — says your study is wrong and the deaths grossly overstated… and I’m sure the U.N. would tried to make the death toll as high as possible.
How about YOU prove that the United Nations is wrong! I’m sure they and the press will be very interested in your findings! You’ll be the center of attention on the world’s news networks tomorrow morning with your proof!!!
AAR
45. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
no AAR. The fact of the matter is that I don’t know how many people have died. All we know is that it is a lot and on the order of about 100 K if not more. I never said that the UN study is wrong - I don’t think we have that good of an estimate and that there are large uncertainties. I never went around making ridiculous claims about studies that I don’t know the details of. That is the difference..
Of course Diana is correct - it is disgusting that we sit around and argue about it with an armchair prospective while huge amounts of people get killed, injured, or displaced and have their lives destroyed. My point is only that you cannot simply ignore studies because you don’t like the answer to them or who supported them. You have to argue the facts not rhetoric…
Diana is not anti-American. That is the beauty of the American system and why we need to cherish our freedoms - our freedom to disagree even when it is the President ARR.
46. Christian Wright | January 13th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
(Ed. Note: Deleted - links to article more than two years old and of no worth whatsoever)
47. Jeremiah | January 13th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
They are infants–Diana.
Why don’t you do something to stop the genocide of your own then.
You know, the nearly 50,000,000 little innocent babies that you support the murdering of!
What utter barbarism!!!!
What a sick and demented ideology!!!!
~ Jeremiah
48. Diana Powe | January 13th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Christian Wright,
Even I will note that the article doesn’t compare President Bush to Saddam Husseing. Plus, while I’m sure that what Prime Minister Allawi was saying was accurate in broad outline, I’m also prone to believe that he had political motives as part of why he made the statements that he did.
49. Diana Powe | January 13th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Jeremiah,
I’m not starting an off-topic exchange, however, please feel free to quote me where I wrote that I support murdering babies.
50. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Diana,
They are human beings, and we care very much for them - but the issue here is just how badly the anti-war left is lying about the situation in Iraq…to the anti-war left, the dead are mere props in a morality play. The plain fact of the matter is that the anti-war left wants there to be 600,000 dead…and 6,000,000 would be even better. As long as the figure could be used to indict the United States, the anti-war left is fine with it.
51. liberalT | January 13th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
no - that is decisively not the issue Mark. I am reminded of a comment you made in another thread - something about how you never demonize those who disagree with you? I would ask you to reflect upon that while at the same time apparently accusing those who are against the war “wanting there to be millions dead”
Think about that while you think about those who accuse Bush of killing people in the war for his own personal amusement and how absurd that seems to you. How you cannot see the horrible horrible hypcocracy of your positions I don’t know. I would only to come to the table without such nonesense.
52. Diana Powe | January 13th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Mark,
I stand on my statements about how much commenters here “care very much” about the thousands of dead. They are every bit as much “props in a morality play” for the pro-war right, as amply demonstrated by the rapid deployment of various even-less-credible numbers about the large (but unknown) number of people who suffered under Saddam Hussein’s rule. It’s all about trying to call the other side liars and demonizing them. The dead are still dead and the maimed don’t care about this despicable “debate”.
53. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Diana,
Not at all - in the struggle for freedom and basic human decency, the enemies of same will fight hard. You should be mourning the dead, and affirming that you will do everything in your power to see that they did not die in vain.
54. Mark Noonan | January 13th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
liberalT,
But it is true, or you would not have bought so easily the absurd story of 600,000 dead. You on the left latched on to that with delight shining in your eyes…
55. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 12:43 am
liberalT,
Try counting the million plus men, women, and children Saddam Hussein’s killed and brutally tortured — REAL TORTURE — not loud music, a cold room, and extended standing!!!
If you, Diana, and the rest of the Democrat (Liberals) had your way, Saddam’s blood bath would have continued for many years!!!
Most Iraqis would not have preferred YOUR “helpful” solution?
And we would still have had to deal with Saddam in the future!!!
AAR
56. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Diana,
If you remember, we had a discussion here, about three days before Christmas, I can’t remember.
Anyway, you tried to argue from a standpoint of Law, of a manner in which to argue the legalities of denying a woman the right to murder her unborn child.
Listen, Diana! The ‘Law’, wasn’t meant to justify the destruction of innocent life, but to protect it. That’s the plain facts.
So, I know you’re not going to admit it, that you are indeed, for Abortion, and I’m sure it would take a tremendous leap of courage for you to admit that that’s not the case.
Really, Diana, God’s Word is pretty plain forward - ‘Choose Life.’
~ Jeremiah
57. Buddy | January 14th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Dianee..
Love your compassion for Iraqis dieing who did not ask the US to intervene in the countries affairs..
But when your country is run by a oppressive dictator, not many do actaully speak out.
58. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Mark,
As I said, I stand by my words. Your dismissive typing of “not at all” is utterly meaningless. Your post is meant to demonize the “anti-war left” (complete with references to the highly menacing, influential and important Workers World Party). Your assertion that the “anti-war left” want to use baseless estimates of how many Iraqis have died as a consequence of our invasion finds its precise mirror in the exclamation point-riddled anxiety of commenters here to use equally imprecise estimates of how many people died under Saddam Hussein’s rule to justify our invasion.
The pro-war right commenters here want to pile up a big enough number to attribute to the person of Saddam Hussein so that they may preen with some imagined moral superiority in supporting preemptive war, a war and a doctrine which was specifically and forcefully condemned by His Holiness Pope John Paul II. However, for you there was plainly little difficulty in choosing your fealty to the person of President George W. Bush over some inconvenient opinions of the Vicar of Christ.
59. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Buddy,
Tell that to the Iraqis who didn’t survive the events in southern Iraq in March 1991. They appreciate your post-facto support. Really. They do.
60. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Jeremiah,
As I said, “please feel free to quote me where I wrote that I support murdering babies.” Otherwise, this is off-topic.
61. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 9:17 am
liberalT,
Diana is not anti-American. Riiiiiiight!!!
Add yourself, Christian Wright, and the rest of your Left-Wing Liberal (Democrat) friends to the anti-American crowd.
Anti-American groups would be proud of Diana’s anti-American “speech”, especially #36, eloquently portraying America as the “bad” guys in the worst wording she can dream up!!!
Nothing about the fact that most of those deaths and injuries were directly or indirectly the result of terrorists… nothing about the fact that that’s the same type of killing and violence al Qaeda has planned for America and Europe if we don’t stop them… nothing about what life was like under Saddam… nothing about the million plus death and torture under Saddam! No! Instead, we are entertained with yet another piece of useless anti-America propaganda to be read by the entire world!!!
Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and America’s “foreign” enemies could not have asked for any better anti-American propaganda — if they had paid for it! Who knows, perhaps they have; posts like that can be written for anywhere in the world — even atop a mountain in Pakistan!!!
And your posts… you’ve wasted perfectly good space on this blog trying to convince the world that Americans have killed more people than even the U.N., Iraq, and the press claim — also conveniently ignoring the fact that the majority of those deaths were directly or indirectly the result of terrorists… terrorists feeding on, aided, encouraged, and emboldened by the same type of Left-Wing anti-American rhetoric and propaganda we have heard from you nutty Democrats (Liberals) for more than seven years. You aren’t satisfied with the fact that not as many Iraqis have died as you would like; you want to convince the world that the “real” figures are as big as possible — all to satisfy your hatred for President Bush and America!!!
You, Diana, and the rest should submit your writings to al Qaeda. They want and need people like you who can and write and produce eloquent lies and propaganda about America!!! They’ve probably read some of your anti-American propaganda already, along with that from the rest of your looney Bush-hating, anti-American Left-Wing friends.
America doesn’t need the type of “free” speech we have heard non-stop from the Democrats (Liberals) for more than seven years now. You might as well be paid for it, so send your resumes to al Qaeda and the rest of America’s enemies. You are already doing their work for them!!!!!
AAR
62. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
The ironic things is is that Diana and the other lemmings don’t care about life one bit. They merely use death toll figures to further their agenda of attacking the easy targets.
Diana,
Since you seem to have a tremendous amount of concern and compassion for those who are losing their lives to your imagined America imperialism, would you lay your own life down for them? Actions speak louder than words. And if you truly harbor the concern and outrage that you write about daily, then I would imagine that you would put your life in front of theirs to protect them and do what’s right.
So, are you willing to die for them to protect them?
63. liberalT | January 14th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Mark - i don’t know what else to say. At some point I thought you were at least an honest person. Now I see that all you want to do is to demonize those who disagree with you as much as possible by seriously asserting that people who are against the war want as many Iraqi’s as possible dead to prove their point. You are truly the most anti-christian person I have ever met. Shame on you and may go show more mercy than I can on your sick soul..
64. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 10:10 am
libT,
You concern for “honesty” is hysterical. Thanks for the laughs.
65. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Now comes AAR with all the fierce hatred and furious condemnation reserved for those who fail to show sufficient deference and fealty to the man, George W. Bush. Such people are all “anti-American” and should “send [their] resumes to al Qaeda” because the President personally embodies the nation much like the Pope is God’s representative on Earth. Ergo, anything that may even be construed as criticism of the current holder of the office of President of the United States must be met with blistering, exclamation point-spattered accusations of being “nutty”, “looney”, writers of “propaganda” who “encourage” terrorists.
What exactly have I written to spark this spew of animus?
Yes, AAR, it couldn’t have been written more eloquently by Osama bin Laden himself. I bet he’s jealous.
66. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Diana,
I didn’t read one mention of Bush in AARs post. Hmmmmm…………
BDS?
Would you give your life for those you want to protect?
67. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am
neocon,
From AAR (emphasis added), “They’ve probably read some of your anti-American propaganda already, along with that from the rest of your looney Bush-hating, anti-American Left-Wing friends.” Hmmmmm…………
68. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Well my bad…..
But then of course you confirm his statement.
Would you give your life for those you want to protect? Otherwise it’s all pretty empty, agenda driven rhetoric isn’t?
Incidentally, I have not seen one concrete plan of action from you to address the violence against women and children around the globe that you adamantly oppose. Let’s start with Darfur. What is your plan to end the genocide? Specifically, the crimes against women and children.
69. Christian Wright | January 14th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Iraqis have a saying. Roughly translated it is: “Better a cold than death.”
That is how they compare the Saddam (cold) to Bush (death).
70. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Let’s not forget neocon who fails to note the death of irony signaled by his own word choice, “…merely use death toll figures to further their agenda of attacking the easy targets.” However, neocon is more interested in gumming me with this provocative challenge:
Let me digress and cite an answer to a similar challenge to our good friend and author of the newly-published and soon-to-be-found-in-the-bargain-books-section tome, Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg:
71. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 11:25 am
However, to answer more directly I’ll briefly relate a tale. In late summer 1981 I found myself inside a business called Inman’s Television in the Promenade Shopping Center in Richardson attempting to single-handedly arrest a man who was quite taller than me for credit card abuse, a felony, in the act. Having already been to prison before, he didn’t want a return trip.
In the process of fighting over the Smith & Wesson Model 10 revolver I was carrying at the time as a patrol officer which the suspect was vigorously attempting to take from me, the back of my head bounced off the thin layer of carpet over a concrete foundation and I saw an image of the world like an old vacuum-tube television being switched off and then right back on. The suspect stood up with his feet on both sides of my body and had the opportunity to kill me by the simple expedient of stomping in my face. However, for whatever reasons, he elected not to commit capital murder and ran from the store leaving me lying there in a semi-daze.
When the world had reappeared in my vision, I had looked up, seen the suspect and thought, “I’m going to die. I can imagine the headline, ‘Richardson Officer Slain’, and it’s going to be about me.” The relief I felt when he ran through the door was wonderful and I thought how great it would be to just lie there and let him run. However, I knew I couldn’t live with myself if I did that so I got up and ran after him until he was enough more tired than I was that I could get him under arrest without a further fight. Was I a heroine? No. I did what I was supposed to do and what I felt was necessary to do.
That wasn’t the only time I ever had a gun or a knife pulled on me. That wasn’t the only time I had to fight someone. That wasn’t the only time I had to expose myself to the potential of death or permanent injury like those here:
http://www.odmp.org/
When I was a reserve police officer with the Dallas Police Department from 1976-1981 reserve officers weren’t even armed. We had a badge, uniform (without body armor), handcuffs, flashlight and zero pay. I had many of my coworkers at RPD wonder what I was thinking by doing that. I don’t know, neocon, you’re so good at reading minds, what was I thinking?
72. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Diana,
Thank you for revealing your true concern and compassion for those lives you use to further your agenda. Keep in mind, I have archived your response to use against you at a later time when you get back up on your soap box.
73. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Diana,
We don’t need your kind of anti-American hatred and Bush-bashing spread all around the world… providing fodder for our enemies and tarnishing America’s image among our friends!
Your misleading lies and propaganda, and that of Democrats (Liberals) like you, are exactly what Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda like to, and countries like Iran like and want to hear!!!
You work to tear America down throughout the world, but sadly, you probably can’t even comprehend or understand the impact or results of your actions. After all they are “only hate filled words”, right?!!!
But that’s all right, Hillary, Obama, or some other Democrat will have their day and time in the limelight!!!
What exactly have I written to spark this spew of animus?
Sadly… you don’t have the faintest clue! TYPICAL LIBERAL!!!
AAR
74. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am
>>>I don’t know, neocon, you’re so good at reading minds, what was I thinking? - Diana<<<
I am unable to read liberally indoctrinated and damaged minds. Sorry.
75. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
AAR,
Diana doesn’t have any plans to actually help our global neighbors, specifically the women and children she seems to care so much about. Diana is perfectly comfortable behind her keyboard spewing venom to, and denigrating those who have actually put together those plans.
Death and destruction are okay with her as long as she has someone to blame for it from her couch.
76. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 11:41 am
neocon,
Diana is nothing more than a Democrat (Liberal) propagandist.
She doesn’t care what effect her words, actions, and deeds may have on America. That’s beyond her comprehension. She only cares about her Liberal causes.
In her mind, as with all Liberals, the end justifies the means — no matter who it hurts or kills!!!
AAR
77. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Thank you, neocon. Your words prove the exact point of why I even commented on this thread. It’s all about score-keeping and denouncing your enemies. The Iraqi dead? As Mark said, “props in a morality play” much like your serial usage of the crisis in Darfur.
What about the crisis in Darfur? I know. I’ll use my authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States to intervene to stop the fighting! Oh, wait. Somebody else is holding that position in trust right now. Maybe they have a “plan” or, maybe, not so much…
So, I told you something of what I’ve done with my body in service of others. How about you? Once again, what’s your story?
78. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Oops. Spoke too soon. Irony started to stagger back up and AAR delivered the coup de grâce with this gem, “In her mind, as with all Liberals, the end justifies the means — no matter who it hurts or kills!!!”
AAR, let me acquaint you with a bit of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is the part forcefully articulated by His Holiness Pope John Paul II prior to March 2003. Mark is a faithful Roman Catholic and should be rather familiar with it (emphasis added):
79. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
>>>What about the crisis in Darfur? I know. I’ll use my authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States to intervene to stop the fighting! - Diana<<<<
Yet you feel it is your obligation to use your authority as an American to denounce and call for the withdrawal from Iraq. So why not use that same voice to call for action to stop the genocide in Darfur. Or better yet, go there yourself to intervene. Afterall, your #37 post was inspiring and someone with that much concern, should be personally involved.
I keep archives because the dishonesty from our resident liberals needs to be exposed, and you guys bank on everyone not remembering your diatribe from post to post. I will hold you to account.
80. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
#36 post, excuse me.
81. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
So, AAR, did Pope John Paul II “encourage terrorists” and should all the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome “send [their] resumes to al Qaeda”? After all, they don’t accept the Bush Doctrine (emphasis added):
Sounds to me like real Roman Catholics must be “anti-American” and the enemy, too, don’t you think?
82. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
How J. Edgar Hoover-ish of you, neocon! Don’t you just yearn for the good old days of HUAC?
Maybe I should since apparently the President of the United States doesn’t seem overly concerned. Of course, you’re terribly, terribly concerned. You just can’t stop talking about it. I’m sure you’re taking action on it, aren’t you? Planning a trip? After all, if you weren’t, you’d just be proving my original point in all of this, wouldn’t you?
83. neocon | January 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Diana,
I am not the one who stood on the soap box to profess their concern for the worlds citizens in harms way, specifically those woman and children.
Now we see a different side of you all within a few minutes. Didn’t take long for your hypocrisy to show now did it?
84. David.B.Schmidt | January 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Mark,
You will need to forgive these lost souls. It took me nearly five decades (including one serving in the Marines) to learn that the only item I know for a fact is that I don’t know anything. Diane’s opinion is wrong from my point of view as mine is probably wrong from hers.
LiberalIT is, as TiredofLibBullShit (I believe) stated, is a perfect example of being a useful idiot because he *requires* everyone else to spoon feed him facts. Then again, I mentioned that pesky little word that drives the liberals nuts—facts. Does it help if I state that I can “feel” your pain?
No worry at all from them about the world-wide push (just like the crusades) and deaths by islamo-facsits. Just Iraq. Not even Afghanistan and the Taliban. Philippines, S.E. Asia or the declaration of war after the bombing of the Beirut barracks in 1983. Before you berate, please join me every year as I honor those fifty plus dead (out of 241) Marines as part of the USMNF that I personally buried including both friends and mentors.
BTW, for the dissenters here–if you ever served in the military and was sent out and about where “bad guys” actually shoot to kill you—your disloyalty to the US and our armed forces would be obvious. But you haven’t and I don’t count being a local police officer is even close. In harm’s way on behalf of your country is different from on behalf of your county in many ways.
Hell, for the most part you haven’t even figured out that if you are defeated then we will be victorious; hence Blogs for Victory. You have no real concept of Win & Lose. Black & White.
Oh, Hell – we are all winners…group hug everyone? You do understand sarcasm-yes?
There are a few things one should think about before claiming defeat on behalf of those of us that have fought to protect the American way of life;
Aristotle once stated” We make war that we may live in peace”.
GWB stated “No, I know all the war rhetoric, but it’s all aimed at achieving peace.”
John Stuart Mill stated “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”
Benjamin Franklin stated: “There never was a good war or a bad peace.”
But of the most importance…
It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag, Who allows the protestor to burn the flag.
- Father Dennis Edward O’Brian, USMC (often incorrectly attributed to Charles M. Province)
God bless those that serve, have served, and have given all for all. All for those which we have sworn to protect.
-David
85. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
necon,
So, you’re not concerned about Darfur? It’s just more of this (quoting myself):
Carry on with your terribly, terribly concerned life of sacrifice and putting yourself in harms way.
86. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
David,
Thank you for your service in the Corps. My youngest nephew, J. D. Powe, is a heavy machine gun operator currently stationed in Haditha, Iraq who works from a position atop an MTVR. It genuinely saddens me that you feel impelled to equate the exercise of a fundamental American freedom, protected and secured by the First Amendment to the Constitution, as “disloyalty to the US and our armed forces”. I worked with a lot of Marines (even some from the Air Wing) at RPD and to a man, I would never expect such a statement from them. Quite frankly, they would find the idea that I’m anti-military to be completely laughable.
Your denigration of the work of municipal police officers reminds me of the old (and frankly stupid) bumper sticker, “Don’t like the police. Next time, call a hippie.” As I and my fellow officers often noted, “Back the Blue” bumper stickers usually were good until the first traffic ticket. I hope things are going well for you.
87. sam | January 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
neoconartist,
who cares how many iraqi citizens died right?? Don’t worry, what goes around comes around. just as your pathetic army and marines lost in Vietnam, they will lose in Iraq.
Give it time, defeat will come, your people don’t have the guts and the will to fight a protracted war. I can’t wait to see what happens to you when your soldiers come back home because congress can’t gut it out any longer…..hahahahaha…Losers.
88. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Diana,
There you go again, trying to play the “Christian” card to justify your own Bush-hatred and America-bashing words and actions (and those of your Liberal friends”)!
It’s one thing to disagree with a policy or action. It’s quite another do so in the manner in which you Democrats (Liberals) have done incessantly for seven plus years.
I have never heard the Pope say the things about America we have heard each and every day from Democrats… and he’s not an American.
As I said, al Qaeda could not have bought a better anti-American group, campaign, and media spectacle than that which you Democrats have provided the world!!!
AAR
89. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
AAR,
“Playing the ‘Christian’ card”? Don’t you think it’s rather misdirected to attack me instead of His Holiness Pope John Paul II who said this on January 13, 2003 as the drumbeat for an invasion of Iraq got louder and louder in this country?
Yes, how dastardly of me to drag the Holy Father into such a serious, adult discussion of how many thousands upon thousands of Iraqis have died. After all, he was only the head of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. We should have seen him for what he was, right, an anti-American provider of encouragement to terrorists? After all, what country do you think he was talking about in reference to Iraq? Madagascar?
90. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
If the American people could see the bone-chilling threats outlined in the [classified] cable traffic concerning al-Qa’ida and other Islamist terror networks, there would be little dissension about our military mission.
~ Jeremiah
91. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Wow, Jeremiah, do you get to read those “bone-chilling threats”? Also, are you onboard with naming Pope John Paul II as an anti-American enboldener of terrorist for his 2003 statements?
92. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
How about then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, in May of 2003? (emphasis added)
What about it? Anti-American? Encouraging terrorists?
93. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Also, are you onboard with naming Pope John Paul II as an anti-American enboldener of terrorist for his 2003 statements?
Well, he conclusion when he says this, and you highlighted those words yourself–except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions,
And we did, there were two worthy reasons as justification for war.
1. September 11, 2001.
2. A brutal dictator, Saddam Huseinn was murdering people. Oh, you know, stuff like sending women and children through highspeed wood chippers feet first!! Slitting their throats!! Beating them with metal objects!!! Kicking them!! Starving them!!! Raping them!!!Gouging their eyes out!!! Cutting their tongues out!!! Burning them!!! Pulling their hair out!!! Poisoning them!!! Gassing them!!! Making them eat feces, and drink their own urine, pulling their teeth with plyers, taking hands, fingers, and limbs completely off, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Now, if you can’t see that as a reason to go over there and do something about it. You’re a foolish person.
The only reason, that you don’t believe in terrorism is, you’re blined by the fog of the hatred that you have for President Bush, because he’s a Christian. You people can’t stand the name of Jesus, or anybody that has anything to do with Jesus.
Contrary to anything else you want to say, Diana … The Lord has empowered the United States to help those who are less fortunate, such as those in Iraq, and other places, and they seem to be doing well now.
What if it had been anybody else, say like Bill or Hillary Clinton, or George Soros, or John Kerry at the time of these tragedies occurring? Well, all I can say to that is, God help the U.S. of A. and the poor people of Iraq. It’s hard to tell how many people would have died from Saddam’s torture dungeons, and terrorist attacks around the globe.
We are blessed to have George W. Bush as our 43rd President, there will never be another one like him.
Now, I want to tell you, I’m sick and fed up with hearing you people slander the President, I want you to knock it off. If you people can’t see it in your hearts to help people, and protect, and take pride in the True America, that was fought for and defended by so many generations past…Then get out!!!
~ Jeremiah
94. David.B.Schmidt | January 14th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Diana,
Please don’t misinterpret my statements as coloring you as anti-military, nor me as anti-police. Email and blogs are a tough way to get one’s point across. I was attempting to state that when one (U.S. Armed forces) member hears the dissension from U.S. citizens while the aforementioned member of the military is in harm’s way – it cuts quite deeply. Just my humble opinion.
I respect and support our law enforcement officers to the highest degree; however, I was stating there is a difference between the professions while trying to degrade neither. I, as a former Marine, was subject to the chance of being taken prisoner without the rights afforded to citizens (and non-citizens) of the suspects within the U.S.
Honestly, you and the rest of the “Thin blue line” deserve our praise and admiration. I am behind you 100% which you don’t seem to be when it comes to our military. Lambaste the people that make the decisions—not those that carry out the orders. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this is what you meant; however, others are not so kind.
I fully support the 1st amendment as I was one of them that put forth the effort and belief that it was worth putting my life on the line for.
Thank you for the concern about my well being and I hope you are also doing well.
-David S.
P.S., tell your nephew to pick up one of them new .50 cal sniper rifles—great backup when compared to the bull barrel .30 cals we had. ;-) Works on them “Swing with the Wing” folks just as well…okay, my friend (winger) is kicking my ass in Fantasy Football but no bad intentions as of yet.
P.S.S. I’m for Fred Thompson who has a political plank of “Punch the hippies”, right after “Secure the borders” & “Kill the terrorists” – I think IMAO
95. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Jeremiah,
Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, Jr., Governor, President, Republican writing in the Kansas City Star in 1918:
96. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
David,
I agree that nuanced expression in blogs and emails can be quite tricky. I appreciate you comments about policing and, I can assure you, that I have the natural and organic respect for those who wear our nation’s uniform that comes from an immediate family with four members who have served (father, three older brothers and my youngest nephew) along with many friends and coworkers, both in combat and during peacetime. The criticisms I have for decisions that have been made, that the military responds to, have nothing to do with the honor that accrues to those who faithfully carry out those decisions in accordance with the Constitution and the finest traditions of our services. As I said before, thank you for making the commitment and serving the nation.
97. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Jeremiah,
Have there been any other countries in the world where these kinds of atrocities have or do take place? In any case, you clearly believe that the current Pope and his predecessor were both “foolish persons”. Thanks for clearing that up. I take it that you’re not a Roman Catholic.
98. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
In any case, you clearly believe that the current Pope and his predecessor were both “foolish persons”. Thanks for clearing that up.
I never implied that, Diana! You’re conjuring stuff up in your head that I never said; which you Liberals are good at, just like the number of dead in Iraq.
I guess I never really got around to explaining the Pope’s statement good enough for you. He’s correct. He understands that the Iranians and those associated with them in their terrorist activities are whack-jobs, and shouldn’t go starting wars. Sure!
As to the cut and paste quote from Theodore Roosevelt - He’s correct too.
But you on the left want to accuse the President for no reason at all.
I want to make it as clear as possible to you - The President has done nothing to feel ashamed.
The only ones who are shamed, are his bloody accusers!!!!
~ Jeremiah
99. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Jeremiah,
You’re quite wrong. His Holiness Pope John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, both made their statements in 2003 about the decision made by the President of the United States to invade Iraq, not the Iranians. The statements made by both are crystal clear, especially that of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s, as he was answering the specific question, “Does the Anglo-American war against Iraq fit the canons of a ‘just war’?”
Ergo, since you say that we were justified in invading Iraq and that those who disagree are “foolish persons”, and, since the current Pope and his predecessor both said we were not justified in invading Iraq, therefore, according to your criterion they are both “foolish”. I’m using your own logic, don’t blame me.
100. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Diana,
What do you think when he said this –
. At Christmas, Bethlehem reminded us of the unresolved crisis in the Middle East, where two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, are called to live side-by-side, equally free and sovereign, in mutual respect.
??? Who wants nuclear weapons??
Also, Who is helping Israel and Palestine keep their peace?
Hold you horses and I’ll show you two videos…
~ Jeremiah
101. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
This is what he’s talking about!
This is the man who wants nuclear weapons!
~ Jeremiah
102. Faceplant | January 14th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
LOL! What a blatant peice of propagandistic garbage. Even complete with dramitic music, and pictures showing that, GASP, Iranian soldiers march the same way as NAZI’S! See, they even WALK like them!
Horowitz really is a shameless propaganda whore. Can anyone tell me how Iran is even remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. It isn’t.
103. Faceplant | January 14th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
“If the American people could see the bone-chilling threats outlined in the [classified] cable traffic concerning al-Qa’ida and other Islamist terror networks, there would be little dissension about our military mission.”
Given that most people believe the Iraq war has made us LESS safe, I don’t think threats from Al Queda would change most peoples minds one bit.
104. Faceplant | January 14th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“We don’t need your kind of anti-American hatred and Bush-bashing spread all around the world… providing fodder for our enemies and tarnishing America’s image among our friends!”
I think President Bush is tarnishing Americas image all on his own. It isn’t a coincidence that America’s image around the world plummeted shortly after Bush took office.
“Your misleading lies and propaganda, and that of Democrats (Liberals) like you, are exactly what Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda like to, and countries like Iran like and want to hear!!!”
Yet Al Queda is using the Iraq war (a war that our fearless leader led us into) as a very successful recruiting tool. That said, please explain to me how showing dissent makes Iran more dangerous. None of this “it emboldens our enemies” talking points. How does it make Iran more likely to commit suicide by attacking the United States?
“You work to tear America down throughout the world, but sadly, you probably can’t even comprehend or understand the impact or results of your actions.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1394393,00.html
A poll of 21 countries published yesterday - reflecting opinion in Africa, Latin America, North America, Asia and Europe - showed that a clear majority have grave fears about the next four years.
Fifty-eight per cent of the 22,000 who took part in the poll, commissioned by the BBC World Service, said they expected Mr Bush to have a negative impact on peace and security, compared with only 26% who considered him a positive force
Remind me who it is that’s “tearing America down” again? Meanwhile, you cheer on your President while he grossly distorts the constitution to support his truly radical theories of executive power.
“After all they are “only hate filled words”, right?!!!”
Yeah, Democrats are a bunch of hate mongers. Republicans (the ones who advocate for endless war) really are the compassionate ones, who just want peace for the world. Spare me.
Deleted the rest of the drivel.
105. Ricorun | January 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Clearly I’m going to have to keep my Goddard’s New and Extended Thesaurus of Nazi Similes, Metaphores, Allegories, and Analogies close by on the bed-table through November. Otherwise, I’m not likely to be able to keep up.
106. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
It’s really not funny, Faceplant & Ricorun!
You never know when you might wake up to a war zone out on your front lawn.
~Jeremiah
107. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Only a consummate Liberal like Diana could accuse the Pope of the same anti-American, Bush-bashing hatred and propaganda which Democrats have engaged in and spread around the world every day for the past seven plus years!!!
AAR
108. Tractatus | January 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
It’s amazing how self-descriptive Mark got in this thread:
“you really don’t a tenth of what you think you know.”
“That you don’t wish to accept facts is your business.”
“you just won’t listen to anything which calls into question your views on the war, which are a hodge-podge of ignorance and hatred…”
Lest one think Mark had gained self-awareness, he was, of course, projecting these rather obvious shortcomings of his onto somebody else. But at least he clammed up once Diana pointed out what a lousy Catholic he is by going against the Vicar of Christ in order to get his (armchair) war on. (Remember, Diana: The pope is only such an important figure insofar as Mark agrees with him. When they have a difference of opinion..well, then the pope is just some dude with a funny hat.)
109. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Faceplant,
It’s hard to know if you Democrats (Liberals) really have no understanding and comprehension of the consequences of your words, actions, and deeds… or if you just intentionally lie to mislead others!!!
AAR
110. Ricorun | January 14th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Jeremiah: It’s really not funny, Faceplant & Ricorun! You never know when you might wake up to a war zone out on your front lawn.
Between my dogs and I, I suspect whoever is on the front lawn might have a problem if they attempt to gain entrance without an invitation. It’s just not prudent. Anyway, that’s the bottom line for me… if you get too close to threatening me or my loved ones, I don’t have any particular problem with taking you out.
Granted, I haven’t ever gotten to that point. But I have stared down the barrel of a gun on possession of someone looking to do me harm. So I think I have gotten close enough to know where I stand on the issue. However, that is not to say that I am any sort of “veins in teeth” sort of guy (i.e., one who prefers a military option above any other). To me, it’s all about context. In fact, I suspect that if everyone were truly honest about it, they are too — to one sort or another, and regardless of the bravado they exhibit in public.
Be that as it may, I think (or at least presume) that everyone can appreciate the magnitude of the disconnect between those that we are fighting “over there” and those that we may be confronted with “over here”. Whatever else can be said, the two require very different strategies and tactics. And any attempt to conflate the two into one strikes me as profoundly stupid. I’m not one to call people names, or challenge their intelligence, but in this case I’m getting close. I think I need to take a break.
Either that or join the mindless crowd. Lol!
111. Diana Powe | January 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
AAR,
I guess you’re confused by your own words. As I’ve pointed out rather succinctly, I used your criterion, applied what we know about the current and previous Popes from the highly public statements and drawn the conclusion that you’ve made plain is the one to draw. As I’ve said, don’t blame me for your logic. It seems fairly obvious you don’t want your logic to apply to His Holiness, but logic isn’t logic unless it applies to all cases.
112. Ricorun | January 14th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
AAR: Only a consummate Liberal like Diana could accuse the Pope of the same anti-American, Bush-bashing hatred and propaganda which Democrats have engaged in and spread around the world every day for the past seven plus years!!!
I guess that depends on your definition of “same”. I don’t want to make too much of it, but to my mind, “W” conflated the concept of a “preemptive attact” into the concept of a “preventive war”. Diana Powe is right in concept, though IMO neither she nor the Bush administration adequately made the distinction between “preemptive attact” (which is what Isael did against Iraq in the early 80s and again against Syria late last year) and “preventive war” (which is what the Bush admin. did against Iraq in March 2003.
I don’t want to make too much about the distinction, though. That’s a matter for history to decide. And however that question is determined, the fact remains that we’re there now. And because we are, it doesn’t matter whether it was a good idea or not. We did it. It is now as it is now. And any invocation involving the past tense (i.e., we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, ergo we shouldn’t stay now) is ridiculous.
IMO, both sides have tried to paper over their past mistakes in order to try to legitimize their current stand. In the case of the Dems (in general), they try to argue that they really didn’t advocate (or at least condone) military action, when in fact they did. And now (in general) they are advocating a hasty withdrawal even though none of the remaining Dem presidential candidates are — or were (it’s hard to keep track). On the Rep side, most of them adhere to the notion that “okay, mistakes were made early on”, without accepting that the magnitide of those mistakes, and the time over which they were allowed to occur, boggled most peoples’ minds. Okay, maybe not most people — just those that were actually thinking about it. But for those late bloomers out there, McCain is your man. He, among a very few, realized early on that the early strategy wasn’t going to be successful. He started arguing (even before me) that Rumsfeld had to go. He understands that big money in politics is corrosive (although granted, the McCain/Feingold bill was not ideal). He understands that though illegal immigrants are illegal, there are bigger related issues to be resolved. And pardon me for saying so, but IMO the illegal immigrant issue looms very large in the future of the GOP. IMO, it would be a HUGE mistake to attach an inordinate amount of blame on those that are coming across the border. If you don’t address both the issues of what they are fleeing from and what they are fleeing to, the wall you contemplate along the border won’t help no matter how high or long it is. And no matter how offensive the alternative seem to be at first blush. I don’t know how many times, and how many ways I have to say this, but if the GOP formulates a comprehensive plan designed to give them a fair shake (i.e., a realistic path to legitimacy), Latinos could veryt well be a long-term friend to the GOP. But if that doesn’t happen, they could very well become a long-term enemy. And that also strikes me a profoundly stupid.
113. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Diana,
You can continue to accuse the Pope of the same lying propaganda as you LIBs if you choose — that does not make it so.
Anyone can read the Pope’s comments and compare them to yours and the remainder of the Democrats’ propaganda over the past seven plus years and draw their own conclusions. If they believe you and the Pope are using the same words — so be it!!! Feel free to contact the Pope and ask him to endorse your statements! I’m sure he is anxious and waiting to talk to you and discuss your “mutual” opinions!!!
In any case, it’s you Democrats’ anti-American propaganda that’s the issue — not your tangential dead herrings!!!
AAR
114. Riorun | January 14th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
My sincere apologies — my proclivity for cut and pasting prevented me from noticing that I repeatedly misspelled “attack” as “attact”. How embarrassing. There were other misspellings as well, but I hope the grammar Nazis don’t consider them worthy of capital punishment.
115. AAR | January 14th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Ricorun,
I support “preemptive attacks”. I supported the war with Iraq. I still support the war with Iraq. President Bush did the right thing at the right time. What he did not anticipate and plan for was the Democrats’ actions to undermine the war, his presidency, and their trashing of America.
As for the Pope, Diana drug him in as one of her dead herring propaganda tactics to draw attention from her comments and those of the other Bush-hatin’ Liberals, but you’re free to believe that the Pope preaches the same anti-Americanism and Bush-hatred as Diana and the Democrats have done for over seven years!!! That is your choice.
Diana is here as a Liberal propagandist and nothing more! Unfortunately, most Republicans and Conservatives still don’t understand their tactics! I’m just learning.
As for the misspellings. I edit mine and still miss plenty. When I proofread my writing, I sometimes see what should be there and not what is there.
AAR
116. Jeremiah | January 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Ricorun,
There isn’t anyone conflating the issue. Well, perhaps you and Diana.
Yes, there is a tremendous disconnect between those of us who want freedom, and those of us who don’t recognize the threats we face (reality check, eh?)
I don’t know where stand, but I’m on board the feedom ship. Given the current circumstances, it’s not necessarily and over-estimation oto assume bad things will happen. Due mainly to the fact that you don’t know what people are going to think and do next. We can only hope for the best, though, Right?
Ideology is the main war front, you’ve got people out there that literally hate America; and as we read the Faceplant’s rhetoric, it is only proof of more fuel for the raging inferno. Especially when he says stupid tings like, “George Bush has tarnished America’s reputation on his own.”
It’s that type of mentality, combined, in this country, under the collective punditry spewed out by the Left-wing sites such as Daily Kos and MoveOn.org that really damages America’s image. The Clinton’s hate America with all passion, in quite the same framework as Faceplant has portrayed. I don’t see any difference. Do you?
The base line is this…
It’s not about heavy artillery, missile launchers, bombs, etc, etc, etc. Because we know if they remain in the hands of competent individuals, there is no danger posed.
Did the Clinton/Berger clan think so back in the 80s, and 2000?
When you go nuclear though — She’s a whole different ball game!
You would have to have an extraordinary amount of trust to allow a country who is a known sponsor of terrorist activities, to acquire such a device.
I don’t have that kind of trust.
Do you? Which leads me to this…
How much is this debate worth if we can’t agree on that?
Very little, my friend, very little…But, that’s why we have these discussions, Right? So we can better understand each other and further the cause of reason.
Very different from Iran, who isn’t interested in dialogue, but for their own personal gain, to further the destruction, and their false agenda.
Much the same as the left in this country. In like manner as this, “What War?” See? Encouraging more violence.
It’s the mental capacity that destroys, not the body, the body does only what the mind tells it to do. Kind of like what has been said here before, you know, about a crowded theater, and someone shouts, “fire,” when there is no fire. But it’s just the opposite, when you’ve got a real threat, and the people say, “no threat”. That type of thinking will get many lives lost.
Please don’t take me wrong, but the disconnect you refer to, it is a real one, a very real one. It has split this country wide and deep.
A consensus needs to be reached and reached soon, and by conforming to the Ideologies of the Left isn’t helping any. We know where they stand. “Freedom” to them, is freedom to rule, and nothing else, regardless of the danger we face.
When will we get back to the basics…
. Eh?
~ Jeremiah
117. Diana Powe | January 15th, 2008 at 12:42 am
AAR,
You want to wave away His Holiness, but it can’t be done with even the slightest degree of honesty or integrity. One, Mark posted this item and has repeatedly asserted, as you have, that anyone who thinks that our invasion of Iraq was wrong is to be labeled one or more of a long string of things with “anti-American” probably being the most charitable. Mark has also made it a point elsewhere to cite his being a faithful Roman Catholic and I take him at his word. My First Communion was at Our Lady, Queen of Peace in Wichita Falls, Texas (http://www.olqpwf.org/). In my case, I have become an Anglo-Catholic. Roman Catholics, however, are members of a hierarchal church and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church on Earth. That’s not even a question.
Two, the Pope at the time and the current Pope have made clear statements that indicate that the decision made by President Bush to invade Iraq did not agree with the Catholic Catechism’s standards for a “just war”. President Bush is not a Roman Catholic so he can listen to the Pope as a possible source of moral authority, but he’s not in the hierarchy of the church. However, Mark is. So, Mark has a choice. He can pick President Bush who is the very temporary occupant of the office of President of the United States or he can choose the moral and spiritual leadership of the head of the Church who is to faithful Catholics far more than any President should ever properly be to any American. Seemingly, Mark thinks he has rationalized this in his head, as Tractacus humorously noted, the Pope is all well and good until he gets on the wrong side of the “should we invade Iraq” question and then he becomes “just some dude with a funny hat”.
You’ve not said, so I assume that you’re not a Roman Catholic. However, you have made it quite plain that your own logic says that those who disagree with President Bush deciding to order an invasion of Iraq almost five years ago are “foolish” and “should submit [our] writings to al Qaeda”. You haven’t equivocated at all. In fact, you’ve continuously heaped a variety of insults on me without any response in kind from me. It is your choice to hate me. However, if when I say, “President Bush was wrong to order our troops to invade Iraq” you are compelled by your logic and reason to name me as “anti-American” then you cannot be logical and reasonable by your own standards and say that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are not “anti-American”. I agree with them and agreed with them back in 2003.
I’m sure you desperately don’t want to come out and say that their opposition to President Bush’s decision makes them a variety of terrible things in your eyes because it makes you uncomfortable to do that. Unfortunately, if you’re going to have integrity in your stated beliefs, sometimes you have to face the hard fact that they’re going to lead you to uncomfortable places.
118. Jonathan | January 15th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Oh my God; so it was that pesky opposition to Bush’s strategy in fighting the War on Terror that has tarnished the American image, because the horror stories of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and starting a war very little thought of a post-Saddam Iraq, with faulty intel at best, and flat-out distortions of the truth at worst, really made this country look squeaky clean.
Whatever helps you sleep at night Jeremiah…..
119. Mark Noonan | January 15th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Diana,
No, just expressing his views - there is always a case to be made against war, but the Church has rendered no binding judgement on America’s liberation of Iraq…and, after all is said and done, if a free and prosperous Iraq emerges which allows the Christian community of Iraq to thrive, then the judgement will have to be - regardless of the right or wrong of starting - that the result was beneficial.
John Paul II, then, and Benedict XVI, now, have a responsibility to preserve and advance world peace as much as possible. Their business is bringing souls to Christ, and this is made more difficult by war - addtionally, of course, there is the large opportunity for greater sin when battles are being fought between armed men. When Benedict, speaking for JPII, says there wasn’t sufficient cause to unleash war, he was merely expressing his opinion - in all such matters, as Benedict would tell you, it is up to the prudential judgement of the political leaders as to whether to go to war, or not.
You might want to brush up on “just war” doctrine, if you are going to bring in the Holy Father to a political debate.
120. Jeremiah | January 15th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Jonathan,
You mean like all the butchering that took place under Saddam?
What opposition do you mean? You mean like all those lies that the Evil Clinton clan taught you so well about.
*******************************
If nothing else…
History will prove, and the world will know, that good men stood, and faced a tryant!
~ Jeremiah
121. Diana Powe | January 15th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Mark,
As I expected. The ends justify the means. Got you.
The Catholic Catechism on the just war has already been quoted verbatim by me in post # 79. It would doubtlessly endear you to one of those “activist judges” to articulate the tortuous logic that gets from “lawful self-defense” and “the