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 
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.
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
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.
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
This is what he’s talking about!
This is the man who wants nuclear weapons!
~ Jeremiah
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
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
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
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.)
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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…..
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.
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