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.
Blogs For Victory 
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 damage [present tense] inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain” to President Bush on March 17, 2003 saying, “In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.” If you were to lay that line of reasoning out, I’m sure it would be quite…interesting. As a matter of fact, that line of reasoning encompasses quite a list of nations starting with the nuclear powers – Russia, the People’s Republic of China and Pakistan.
So, then-Cardinal Ratzinger was “merely” reinforcing Pope John Paul II’s “opinion”? I guess Pope John Paul felt somewhat strongly about that “opinion” since he sent Cardinal Pio Laghi to meet with President Bush on March 5, 2003 to express his “opinion” that an invasion of Iraq would be “illegal”, “unjust” and that there was “great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the bishops in the United States, and the church throughout the world.” Perhaps Pope John Paul might have not chosen to add the adverb “merely”. What do you think? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-03-05-bush-catholic_x.htm)
In any case, perhaps there’s the exciting possibility that His Holiness, Pope Benedict, has come around to the right way of thinking and now understands that regardless of the exact number of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis that it has just been a case of “breaking eggs to make omelets”. What do you think, Mark? Has the Holy Father gotten up to speed on that “ends justify the means” philosophy and is now as smart and serious as you and the President or is he still just some guy with a funny hat and an opinion?
Diana,
The issue is not the Pope, but rather the hatred and anti-Americanism you Democrats (Liberals) have displayed for this nation!
I’m not a Catholic, but if you and the Pope would have chosen to continue the torture and killing in Iraq, you are welcome to that opinion. I do not share it!!!
This is what YOU would have supported…
If President Bush, Tony Blair, and the coalition had not ended Saddam’s reign of terror, that’s the life Iraqis and their families would have had to look forward to for the foreseeable future — INDEFINITELY!!!
I’m sure the Iraqis are glad to know that was your desire for their families and their children!!!
Even so, that is not the main reasons Saddam needed to be removed when he was, but it’s pointless to discuss those reasons with someone like you!
AAR
AAR,
The questions are not:
1) Was Saddam Hussein a brutal tyrant?
and
2) Did Iraqis suffer under his regime?
Everyone knows the answers to both questions are “yes” even those of us that you continuously, falsely and maliciously label as “anti-American” (including the Pope) because they have the audacity and temerity to disagree with your definition of what constitutes being an American. When did you get your umpire license that authorizes you to declare who is “pro-America” and who is “anti-America” or does hatred just feel right to you?
If people living under the heel of a brutal and undemocratic regime is the test for sending in our military then please share your list with us. You must have one, because we know you’re interested in human rights and we have a lot of world policing to do. I’ll get you started – North Korea, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Cuba, Belarus, Syria, People’s Republic of China and Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is an interesting case of brutal repression because it is where the President went yesterday to greet King Abdullah with a kiss and receive the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit. At the same time, it took the pardon of the same King Abdullah last month to spare a teen-aged girl from being given 200 lashes for being the victim of a gang-rape. A Catholic priest was arrested by the mutaween police (Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice who report directly to the King) and expelled from the country in April 2006 for celebrating Mass inside a private apartment. In March 2002, fifteen Saudi girls died as a result of a fire inside their school in Mecca because the mutaween police would not allow the girls to leave the burning building without their religiously-required clothing and stopped male potential rescuers from approaching them because to do so would be a “sin”.
Of course, if you’re more interested in invading countries that have nuclear weapons which could be used against us, then that’s a different list. Let’s use President Bush’s criterion, “In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.” So, that list clearly already has Russia, China and Pakistan on it and it would seem rather rash not to keep North Korea on it as we don’t really know what they’re up to.
So, AAR, let’s see your list.
Wait a minute, maybe you’re not the purist you claim to be. After all, the United States government has no problem with cozying up to and accommodating repression and tyranny when it suits us to do so. Maybe you take your lead from the President and carefully parse who’s bad enough and who’s not bad enough to embark on preemptive war against. So, what’s the answer? Are you a purist with a list or are you an accommodationist?
“It’s really not funny, Faceplant & Ricorun!
You never know when you might wake up to a war zone out on your front lawn.”
So Iran is an industrial giant that posseses one of the most powerful armies in the world?
I have news for you. Iran isn’t a rival power to the United States, and anyone who thinks they are is absolutely, certifiably nuts.
“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!!!”
I’m assuming you didn’t see my question, since you still haven’t answered it. Here why don’t I ask it again!
“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?”
Have at it.