Iraq
mikethemadbiologist | October 27, 2006More than a few conservatives are upset about the Michael J. Fox commercials because they're unfair: how do you respond to the emotional pull of someone who has Parkinson's disease? If you watch the full-length CBS interview, Couric cruelly hammers Fox over and over with the question of if he overexaggerated his symptoms for the commercial (she's obviously trying hard to dispel the image of being the nicest of the big three anchors). But where she truly entered the realm of tastelessness was when she repeated Rush Limbaugh's charge that Democrats use victims for political purposes.…
mikethemadbiologist | October 23, 2006When the Lancet study first came out, I argued that conservatives couldn't just criticize--they had to offer their own alternative, credible numbers for the civilian death toll. Matt Yglesias goes one further: why not a second study using credible methods of which conservatives approve?
mikethemadbiologist | October 22, 2006
From The Independent:
In an interview with al-Jazeera, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the US State Department, also said the US was ready to talk with any Iraqi group - excluding al- Qa'ida in Iraq - to reach national reconciliation in the country, which is racked by widening sectarian strife as well as an enduring insurgency.
"We tried to do our best but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said. "We are open to dialogue because…
mikethemadbiologist | October 21, 2006PBS' Frontline has made their special "The Lost in Iraq" available on line. This is TV that makes you smarter, not dumber. Check it out.
mikethemadbiologist | October 14, 2006Over at Majikthise, Lindsay has been doing some really good debunking of the critics of the Lancet article that indicates roughly 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the Iraq War and Occupation. Here they are:
Over half a million additional deaths in Iraq since US invasion
Innumerate cowards recoil from the facts: 655,000 dead Iraqis
More on the Lancet study of Iraqi deaths
Interview with co-author of Lancet study of Iraqi deaths
Tim Blair and the web of belief
mikethemadbiologist | October 11, 2006Or at least 655,000 (± 140,000) of them. Before I get to the news reports, I think it's important to make something clear. These statistical techniques are routinely used in public health epidemiology and nobody complains about them. Critics of this estimate can't play the same game the creationists do. They can't just debunk the numbers. They have to propose an alternative, reliable method, otherwise this estimate has to be viewed as the best available estimate. (I can't wait to hear Bill O'Reilly talk about statistics...)
From the NY Times:
A team of American and Iraqi public health…
mikethemadbiologist | October 10, 2006There has been an argument by some liberal hawks that once we entered Iraq, it was our obligation to fix it (the whole "Pottery Barn" metaphor). This always honked me off because I knew from the get-go that this whole thing would go sideways. Nonetheless, there was a brief window after the fall of Saddam Hussein to get things to a stable enough point where we could declare Democracy and leave.
If we Bush had prevented the looting of Baghdad, restored some basic services, and held elections when Gen. Garner (ret.) had wanted (over a year before they were actually held), mabye this whole…
mikethemadbiologist | September 29, 2006Over at Hullabaloo, tristero argues that the moral argument against torture, rather than the utilitarian one, is the argument to use. It reminds me of something Hunter wrote about the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas:
And I know it is true, there is some confusion over whether the United States was a signatory to the Do Not Melt The Skin Off Of Children part of the Geneva conventions, and whether or not that means we are permitted to melt the skin off of children, or merely are silent on the whole issue of melting the skin off of children.
But all that aside, there are very good…
mikethemadbiologist | September 28, 2006...if for no other reason than Henry Fucking Kissinger is once again disastrously advising another president. From 60 Minutes (italics mine):
In [Mike] Wallace's interview with Woodward, to be broadcast on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 1, at 7 p.m. ET/PT, the reporter also claims that Henry Kissenger is among those advising Mr. Bush.
According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It's getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a…
mikethemadbiologist | September 28, 2006
This transcends absurd: Republican Rep. John Boehner, the House Majority Leader, stated on national television that Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein were linked, even though President Bush himself has admitted no connection. Keep in mind, Boehner isn't some councilman in a podunk little town. He is one of the most influential members of Congress. And he is utterly delusional. On behalf of the Coalition of the Sane, I ask, can we please have our country back?
mikethemadbiologist | September 5, 2006In a move to outsource and privatize everything in the federal government, ABC has formed a private-public partnership with the Bush Administration to spew Republican propaganda (it's bad enough when the Republicans do it on the taxpayer's dime). John Aravosis writes:
Good God, and they're sending a copy of the film and a letter to 100,000 American high school teachers written by - who? - the REPUBLICAN chair of the 9/11 Commission. Not the Democrat and the Republican, just the Republican. And a Republican whose son is running for the US Senate seat in New Jersey - oh yeah, no conflict…
mikethemadbiologist | August 30, 2006I came across this interesting poll of the NJ Senate race. It appears that just mentioning the Iraq War hurts Republicans, even popular ones:In the study, half of the respondents were asked questions about President Bush and the war in Iraq before answering questions about the Senate race, and half were asked about the Senate race first. Among those respondents who were asked about Bush and Iraq first, Menendez [Dem] held a two point advantage, 41 to 39 percent. But among the respondents who were not primed to think about the war in Iraq, Kean[Rep] held an 11 point advantage, 47 to 36…
mikethemadbiologist | August 22, 2006'Will-based' foreign policy making seems to have overcome the modern conservative movement (maybe it should be called 'realpolitik backlash'...). There is the constant belief--and it has to be called a belief since it doesn't appear to be evidence-based--that if we just wish hard enough, the tactics, strategy, and logistics will simply solve themselves. But reality doesn't work that way.
In 1944, the British 1st Paratroop Division dropped into and around the city of Arnhem, with the goal of taking and holding the Arnhem bridge until relief arrived. For many of reasons, the relief didn't…
mikethemadbiologist | August 20, 2006Frank Rich in the NY Times has a good analysis of the Lamont primary victory in CT, although I think he downplays what it means for the Democratic Party. Rich writes:
The hyperbole that has greeted the Lamont victory in some quarters is far more revealing than the victory itself. In 2006, the tired Rove strategy of equating any Democratic politician's opposition to the Iraq war with cut-and-run defeatism in the war on terror looks desperate. The Republicans are protesting too much, methinks. A former Greenwich selectman like Mr. Lamont isn't easily slimed as a reincarnation of Abbie Hoffman…
mikethemadbiologist | August 17, 2006I've been meaning to write a comprehensive post about why there is such anger among some Democrats towards Lieberman. Fortunately, Anonymous Liberal Staffer at MyDD.com has a great post describing exactly what I was thinking. I'll turn it over to her/him:
Since 9/11, Republicans from the White House to backbenchers like Jean Schmidt have mercilessly implied that Democrats are traitors who are undermining their country every time they question the President -- and it was in joining them that Joe Lieberman lost it all...
"We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril,"…
mikethemadbiologist | August 14, 2006Here's some interesting articles I pulled off the internets for you:
Publius argues "The fact that Iraq was so incompetently executed is actually the least of its problems. The bigger problem is that the idea of it represented a staggering failure of vision and judgment in terms of anti-terrorism policy. It's simply not possible to devise an anti-terrorism policy more at odds with the nature of the threat facing us."
An interesting NY Times magazine article by Michael Young on how Hizbollah relates to the Lebanese political scene (as opposed to the War on Terra).
Neil the Ethical Werewolf…
mikethemadbiologist | August 13, 2006At this point, one has to wonder if there are any sane people left in the Bush Administration. In the New Yorker, Sy Hersh describes the run up to the next war:
A former intelligence officer said, "We told Israel, 'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later--the longer you wait, the less time we [the U.S.] have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.' "
And regarding intelligence, it's the same old song:
The Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by…
mikethemadbiologist | August 8, 2006I'm swamped with work, but I wanted to draw your attention to a few posts by Brad DeLong about the media coverage of the Iraq War. There are two very good comments about Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks' explanation for why the media wasn't more critical of the war progress when they had sufficient information to write about the problems (here and here). DeLong summarizes Ricks' mea culpa:
He assigns blame to congress because without the aircover provided by senators asking touch questions at hearings, Tom Ricks found that his editors at the Washington Post would not let him write the…
mikethemadbiologist | August 6, 2006
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post writes:
George Pyle , an editorial writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, complains in the Tribune's editorial blog that I did not include his paper's Sunday editorial in my Wednesday column about editorials from all over the country expressing outrage about Bush's signing statements.
The Tribune wrote: "Congress and the courts must rein in this presidential power grab. To do otherwise would be to court tyranny."
And yes, in 2004, the Tribune endorsed Bush.
Of course, if the Salt Lake Tribune had actually done some critical reporting (along with any other…
mikethemadbiologist | August 3, 2006Blood red that is. At DailyKos, Hunter elegantly describes the Peter Pan Right:
No beating around the bush, here: with talk of "World War III" and the blessed "opportunity" of the expanded bloodshed, conservatives and neoconservatives are positively giddy in their proclamations of who else -- which cities, which people -- need to die next, in the service of the city on the hill that can be built on their bones.
A Larger War is, as I have said before, a monkey's paw. Fuck the devil; there are wishes here to be granted, if you ask for them properly. There are political futures to be determined…