Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

And for further measure the British government still stands by their claim that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uraninum from Africa.

Not that changing their mind would make the SOTU untruthful but it does go to show that some folks are willfully avoiding paying attention.

Posted by rjschwarz at February 10, 2006 08:34 AM

It's interesting to see how these kinds of lies end up becoming the accepted truth in the future. At least it's possible for large amounts of people to know the real truth now that we have the internet.

Posted by Stankleberry at February 10, 2006 09:58 AM

NigerGate is not the only fallacy being perpetuated by this article. The author wants us to believe that Cheney ordered Libby to break the law and discuss classified information with the press -

"he (Fitzgerald) plans to introduce evidence that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby ... disclosed to reporters the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 2003."

According to a report Global Security, the NIE was declassified on July 18, 2003.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm

Posted by tas at February 10, 2006 10:03 AM

"And for further measure the British government still stands by their claim that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uraninum from Africa"

do you have a source for this? i would be interested

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 11:19 AM

It doesn't make sense to ask for a source for the British government continuing to stand by their claim--that's the default position, and it's not news. The burden of proof should be on anyone who claims that they've retracted it (which would be news). I'm aware of no indication of that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 10, 2006 11:23 AM

"do you have a source for this? i would be interested"

Might I suggest you give google a try?

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 10, 2006 11:30 AM

Try the Butler Report ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3894093.stm

"Pre-war assessments that Iraq sought uranium from Niger were "well-founded on intelligence", the Butler report has concluded."

Posted by tas at February 10, 2006 11:33 AM

Don't think Saddam had WMD then read the book written by Gen Georges Sada, "Saddams Secret's."

General Sada was Iraq's Air Marshal and had accounts of Saddam shipping WMD to Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Very good book and put's to bed the question of WMD and need to take Saddam out.

Posted by Jeff McGinnis at February 10, 2006 01:24 PM

Every story I have seen about the NIE says that *Excerpts* were released.

Here is another link making the same point:

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html

That said, Powerline and the NY Times seem to agree that the whole thing was set loose.

Posted by Tom Maguire at February 10, 2006 01:29 PM

For the key links on Joseph C. Wilson, Valerie Plame and Niger yellowcake, click here.

In that post last October, I wrote that if Scooter Libby or anyone else perjured himself before a grand jury, he should do prison time.

But in all the news reportng on Wilson and Plame, isn’t there a place to remind the readers that when Wilson went to Niger, he did find evidence, tentative as it was, that Saddam "sought" uranium from Africa?

Contrary to what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Oct. 28, 2005, Libby’s indictment is about the Iraq war and why we invaded Iraq in 2003.

Unmentioned evidence. Saddam Hussein had a special obligation, under U.N. resolutions and his 1991 cease-fire agreement, to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction and to stop all attempts to develop them. (And not incidentally, under U.N. Resolution 688, Saddam also was required to stop his repression of the Iraqi people.)

Joseph Wilson had Saddam’s obligations backwards. He decided that the requirement was for the United States and the world to prove Saddam had or was seeking the weapons, and not for Saddam to prove he was not.

But much worse, when Wilson journeyed to Niger in February 2002, on the trip his CIA wife recommended him for, he found some evidence, tentative though it was, that Saddam had sought to buy uranium from Niger in 1999. And then Wilson didn’t bother to tell the American people about it.

Truth ‘false.’ In fact, Wilson went completely the other way, declaring "false" President Bush’s State of the Union statement in January 2003 that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

No wonder Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, tried to tip off the press to another side of the story.

In that 2002 junket, Niger’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki told Wilson that, in June or July 1999, an Iraqi delegation told him in Algiers that it was interested in "expanding commercial relations" with Niger. Mayaki said he interpreted the overture as a bid to buy uranium yellowcake. (See Senate Intelligence Committee report, Page 43.)

Unnecessary retraction. To Wilson’s credit, he mentioned the Mayaki conversation privately to the CIA on his return from Niger. But to his discredit, he steered away from it in all his public speeches and op-ed pieces and books calling Bush a liar for saying Saddam sought uranium.

Bush actually retracted his Saddam-sought-uranium-from-Africa claim in July 2003 because he was informed that his statement was based only on an Iraq-Niger contract that now appeared to be a forgery. Bush apparently didn’t hear about Wilson’s report to the CIA. And Wilson, who could have spared Bush the retraction, decided not to remind anyone.

Instead, starting in May 2003, Wilson went out of his way to make it appear that Bush’s claim that Saddam shopped for yellowcake was not only incorrect, but that it was intentionally incorrect.

The pretender. Wilson had no facts to contradict the president’s words, so he pretended to be an expert in the apparently forged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. The "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," he anonymously told The Washington Post for its June 12, 2003, story. In fact, Wilson had never even seen the documents. (Senate Intelligence Committee, Page 45.)

Later, Wilson implied the CIA had chosen him to go to Niger only for his reputation, and not because his CIA wife suggested he be sent. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote in his memoir last year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." But the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation (Report, Page 39) found that Valerie Plame Wilson "offered up his name" at the CIA, and her CIA boss took her recommendation.

The Senate committee – Republicans and Democrats united – revealed Wilson’s several falsehoods in July 2005. In response, Wilson wrote to the committee, admitting:

"I never claimed to have ‘debunked’ the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur."

No deal. In other words, when Wilson called Bush’s statement that Saddam sought uranium "an obviously false claim," he wasn’t talking about anything Wilson had learned in Niger. He was talking about stuff he had read in the newspapers.

And he wasn’t saying Saddam hadn’t sought uranium. He was saying no one had signed a deal; Saddam hadn’t bought uranium.

(Or maybe Wilson was just denying Bush’s statement that the British had "learned" of Saddam’s yellowcake shopping. If so, Wilson has never made this clear. Britain’s Butler Inquiry found in July 2004 that the British intelligence conclusion that Saddam sought Niger uranium was "well-founded" and was based on "several different sources" -- none of them related to forged documents.)

Joseph Wilson repeatedly ignored his own knowledge on Niger. As he grabbed the spotlight in a shameless bid to be "President John Kerry’s" secretary of state, his widely publicized dishonesty fed the Sunni-Arab fascists the kind of propaganda that money can’t buy. Couldn’t he see that?

Intentional falsehoods. When you read news reports saying the Wilson case calls into question the claims about Saddam’s weapons programs, the reports almost always are implying that Bush lied, not that Wilson did, about the quest for African uranium. They’re not telling us how many ways Wilson spoke falsely when he knew better.

Wilson knew there was a good chance Saddam had sought to line up a Niger uranium deal in 1999. And despite the obvious danger sign, Wilson kept it quiet.

Why did Saddam have an obligation to prove he neither had nor was seeking WMDs? Because he had used those weapons before and because he had invaded two of his neighbors. He had proven himself so irresponsible that the world decided his already illegitimate power would be stripped away if he refused to tell us clearly what he was doing.

Predator on probation. Saddam’s position was similar to a sexual predator who has done his prison time, but whose probation requires him to wear an electronic transmitter telling us where he is at all times. If he takes off the tracker – he doesn’t even have to molest another person – he goes back to jail.

Metaphorically speaking, Wilson saw Saddam yank off the tracker on his way to a rape room, but didn’t bother mentioning it to the world.

Bush knocked down the rape room walls, and all Wilson can do is complain.

Posted by Frank Warner at February 10, 2006 01:50 PM

Does anyone remember the old Mike Wallace/ 60 Minutes approach when they wanted to ask some scuzzy CEO a question about his corporation, its polcies or its products? Mike would show up outside the CEO's office or townhouse, cameraperson in tow, and start asking questions of the suprised CEO while the camera rolled? Somebody with a video feed ought to try this approach with the writers for AP, or Reuters, or the New York Times, the next time they write some of this kind of very misleading, or downright deceptive, article, much as Paul of Powerline did of Senator Durbin the other day after the NSA hearing. Pin the suckers down, I say, and make them admit or confess how misleading or untruthful or inaccurate their reporting is. Put them on record as to whether they intend to retract or publish a correction. Ask them about their computer research skills, and what their editors did or did not know or do upon reading their articles. Make them suffer fir being liars, fools or charlatans.

Posted by Jim at February 10, 2006 01:53 PM

Did anybody notice that the reporter's name who wrote this ("Toni Locy") seems to change. He/she is also known as "Tony Loci" in other reports filed on the AP wire.

Who is Toni Locy/Tony Loci? Somebody needs to do some digging and find out and expose this fraudulent reporter who knowingly lies.

Posted by Al Gibson at February 10, 2006 01:55 PM

We've turned Iraq upside-down and have found no evidence of Iraqi uranium shopping in Africa or elsewhere. We've found no evidence that all the uranium ore in Africa would have put Saddam any closer to a nuke; we knew all along that enriching the uranium is the bottleneck. We know that documents alleging a uranium deal with Niger were forged -- and knew so before the SOTU -- but the administration is strangely uncurious about the source of the forgery.

So the president did not claim that Iraq had bought uranium in Niger. He only claimed that the British thought that Iraq wanted to buy lots of uranium in Africa (and left unsaid the CIA's reservations about the British claim). Why would he devote a sentence of the SOTU to that feeble, second-hand claim, if not to suggest that Iraq posed some sort of nuclear threat? The scandal is that the best case he could make for war was built on such pointless-even-if-true statements, and we went to war anyway.

But never mind the trillion dollars the war will cost before we're done, or the tens of thousands of dead or wounded Americans and Iraqis, to protect ourselves from a threat that did not exist. What *really* matters is that the AP is lying by giving the president credit for actually saying out loud what in fact he only had the nerve to suggest with a wink and a nudge.

Posted by walter at February 10, 2006 02:10 PM

In other words, Walter, you believe that the story is "fake, but accurate."

Hokay...

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 10, 2006 02:15 PM

OK, so excerpts were released. What was it that Libby "leaked"? I'll bet it wasn't the original document, it was excerpts from it. Got any reason to believe that those weren't the declassified excerpts?

Posted by Milhouse at February 10, 2006 02:19 PM

It's the executive branch that declares things to be classified. Thus if a responsible member of the executive branch releases a classified document, it is by definition no longer classified.

Posted by Some Seppo at February 10, 2006 02:27 PM

What's Walter's last name? Duranty?

Posted by Steve Skubinna at February 10, 2006 02:34 PM

According to the NYT Libby discussed the NIE contents with Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, ten days before it was declassified. The implication is that Libby and Cheney weren't sticklers for the classification rules when it came to defending themselves in the press, making it easier to believe that they were similarly cavalier about CIA agent identities.

Posted by earl at February 10, 2006 02:38 PM

Actually the problem for walter is Wilson LIED. Bush told the TRUTH. So what if some agencies where mearly uncertain about the information.

Posted by Jim at February 10, 2006 02:40 PM

The implication is that Libby and Cheney weren't sticklers for the classification rules when it came to defending themselves in the press, making it easier to believe that they were similarly cavalier about CIA agent identities.

That argument might have some weight if a) said "agent's" identity was actually classified and b) Libby knew that, and c) the info wasn't on the verge of being unclassified, and that Libby/Cheney didn't know that.

No compelling evidence, so far, for any of the above.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 10, 2006 02:42 PM

Mr. Skubinna: How perceptive, and witty, you are. Questioning the President's claims of a nuclear threat from Iraq is *exactly* like covering up Soviet genocide. Since you've unmasked me, please do give us the real story on why it was important for the American people to know that the British had "learned" that Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Africa (*without* them getting the false impression that we thought Iraq had actually bought uranium and meant to do something dangerous with it -- only the AP would jump to that crazy conclusion!). And, by the way, if someone claims to know something, and you don't think it's true, is it really truthful for you to make a big deal of the fact that your friend has "learned" this thing (while keeping your doubts to yourself)? That seems like a rather Clintonian notion of truth.

Posted by walter at February 10, 2006 02:54 PM

So to recap:

1) The British government still stands by their claim that Saddam sought uranium elsewhere in Africa.

2) Saddam did in fact probe Niger about "commercial ties" and, the only thing Niger has for export that would interest Iraq was uranium.

What does common sense say? Iraq had recently fought a bloody war with Iran which, as we all now know, is and has been racing to acquire nukes. Saddam would have to be a bloody fool not to pursue them himself. Doesn't justify it. It was still an abrogation of his cease fire terms and it still presented a threat to us. But, anyone who doesn't think he was interested in acquiring nukes is a bloody fool.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 03:04 PM

Jim: you're right, it isn't important that the president tried to alarm the country about a non-existent nuclear threat. The important thing is that Wilson lied. Let's concentrate on that.

Posted by walter at February 10, 2006 03:07 PM

Walter - These items are mutually exclusive. If Wilson lied, then there was a nuclear threat and vice versa. So yes, let us indeed concentrate.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 03:15 PM

Walter, there were something like 18 reasons listed by the US congress in their sort of declaration of war against Iraq.

Posted by rjschwarz at February 10, 2006 03:42 PM

frank warner- "In that 2002 junket, Niger’s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki told Wilson that, in June or July 1999, an Iraqi delegation told him in Algiers that it was interested in "expanding commercial relations" with Niger. Mayaki said he interpreted the overture as a bid to buy uranium yellowcake"

if that (along with the italian forgeries) is what the british government is relying on, then it is a shaky claim at best. mayaki was not prime minister in 1999, so if the iraqis were serious, shouldnt they have been talking to someone else? the iraqi quote is so vague that without more info, i think its just as likely they were just being diplomatic and cordial.

bush's SOTU address said that the iraqis had sought the uranium recently, but it was really 4 years earlier (again, if his claim was based on the mayaki claim, and not the forgeries). the intent was clearly to imply saddam was an imminent threat, when really he hadnt done anything in a long time. this was obviously a war of choice. dick cheney was secretary of defense during the first gulf war, and i can find if anyone is interested hilarious quotes from that time where he is arguing against invading iraq (he talks about the likely quagmire etc). if we had ousted saddam back then the war wouldve been perhaps justified-- the gassing of the kurds had just recently occurred as had the invasion of kuwait, and also there was a local iraqi resistance (that we promised to help, and then didnt help, causing them to get massacred) so we mightve actually been greated as liberators back then. tell me, you supporters of the iraq war, why was it necessary to wait ten years and starve millions of iraqis through sanctions first? as far as i can tell saddam didnt really do anything in those ten years.

also, i would like to correct walter- "the tens of thousands of dead or wounded Americans and Iraqis" if you include iraqi deaths the number is hundreds of thousands not tens.

also, the scandal is more about the treasonous destruction of valerie wilson's career than it is about the niger claims.

also, im not sure who here stated as fact that she wasnt a covert agent, but youre wrong. it was just recently confirmed that she was. how is it you can state as fact something like that?

i think thats all

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 04:07 PM

The Democrats are such morons. The next thing you know they'll try to convince us that 2+2=4. We won't fall for that or any of their other lies.

Posted by LongLiveBush! at February 10, 2006 04:17 PM

That's it. It doesn't say that uranium was sold to Iraq, it doesn't say Niger. It says that the British government has learned about attempts to purchase uranium from Africa. Africa is a big place. Nowhere in the speech does it claim that the attempts were successful, and nowhere in the speech is Niger mentioned.

1) First, while you are correct that Africa is a big place, it should be noted that Niger is the #4 producer of uranium in the world, is Africa's #1 producer of uranium, and is one of only three African countries ranked in the top 20 uranium-producing countries (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htm). So while there could be unreleased reports about Namibia or South Africa being under investigation for potentially being involved with a sale to Iraq, the market for "significant quantities of uranium from Africa" is not quite as competitive as your comments suggest.

2) Second, if the Niger documents were not what Bush was referring to in the speech, then why did the Bush administration apologize and retract the 16 words, calling the statement "incorrect"? (White House Press Gaggle, 7/7/03 - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030707-5.html#9) If he wasn't talking about Niger, why didn't Bush stand by his statement and claim that he was referring to other allegations?

3) Third, if the Niger documents were not what Bush was referring to in the speech, then why did the Bush administration out Joseph Wilson's wife in retaliation to his comments?

For a great timeline of the whole Plame affair, with links, see factcheck.org's: http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html.

Posted by Thad Anderson at February 10, 2006 04:24 PM

Fake but accurate, eh? Like the AP story about Reids alleged ties to Abramoff?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602100001

Oh, and u can take your "liberal media" and shove it.

Posted by Larry the Urbanite at February 10, 2006 04:26 PM

I understand that Germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the Czechoslovakian mines, which she has taken over. That she should have taken such early action might perhaps be understood on the ground that the son of the German Under-Secretary of State, Von Weishlicker [sic], is attached to the Kaiser Wilheim Institute in Berlin where some of the American work on uranium is now being repeated.

Posted by Albert Einstein at February 10, 2006 04:58 PM

What if Saddam was seeking to buy the yellowcake for a sympathetic country? One who was much closer to building the nuke than Saddam was? Say someone like Libya?

Posted by Axey at February 10, 2006 05:38 PM

ujedujik:

"the intent was clearly to imply saddam was an imminent threat...

Bzzzzz! Wrong. Bush was explicit in the SOTU saying we could not wait for a threat to become imminent with so much at stake. That is the only place in the SOTU where you will find Bush using the word "imminent." It was precisely, exactly, inarguably the opposite of what you claim.

Thad:

why did the Bush administration out Joseph Wilson's wife in retaliation to his comments

Since when is setting the record straight "retaliation?"

Larry:

So, your theory is that Reid's contacts with and large campaign contributions from Abramoff were just due to, I dunno, personal attraction?

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 05:42 PM

"3) Third, if the Niger documents were not what Bush was referring to in the speech, then why did the Bush administration out Joseph Wilson's wife in retaliation to his comments?"

If you have conclusive evidence of this 'outing' you would do well to share it instead of 'assuming' it is a given amongst people who operate in the real world.

Just assuming it is true because it fits your preconcieved notions won't cut it.

Posted by ColdHardReality at February 10, 2006 06:12 PM

good catch reid, though really thats a minor point. it implies to me that you went over my whole post rather carefully. did i really get nothing else wrong?

btw, though you are right bush implied (not explicitly) that saddam was not yet an imminent threat, that doesnt mean the claim wasnt made elsewhere- http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

also, how did outing valerie wilson "set the record straight"? assuming conservatives are correct when they make the (questionable at best) assertion that she suggested her husband for the job, why is that important?

(and reid got money from indian tribes, not abramoff, and according to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=71000001&sid=arVHles5cKJc
"Abramoff's tribal clients continued to give money to Democrats even after he began representing them, although in smaller percentages than in the past".)

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 06:22 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

it boggles my mind how conservatives know for certain that she or her husband had outed her self long ago

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 06:28 PM

...how did outing valerie wilson "set the record straight"? assuming conservatives are correct when they make the (questionable at best) assertion that she suggested her husband for the job, why is that important?

Because one of Joe Wilson's (many) lies was that he was sent by Dick Cheney to Niger (implying that his mission was sanctioned by the White House, and then repudiated), when in fact it happened without Cheney's knowledge, at the behest of Wilson's CIA-employee wife.

But really, didn't you know that? Are you trolling like "walter"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 10, 2006 06:31 PM

am i trolling? you dont think my comments are serious?

dick cheney's office sent the request to the cia which then (somehow) chose wilson. all wilson said was that cheneys office was the original requestor.

but you ignored the question, assuming you right and his wife suggested him (which i believe the cia disputes), why is that bad? why does that justify ruining her career as well as whomever she was working with? is such a minor point really a justification for treason?

also, sorry if this qualifies as hijacking the thread

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 06:44 PM

"if that (along with the italian forgeries) is what the british government is relying on, then it is a shaky claim at best. mayaki was not prime minister in 1999, so if the iraqis were serious, shouldnt they have been talking to someone else? the iraqi quote is so vague that without more info, i think its just as likely they were just being diplomatic and cordial."

The Butler report came out before the Italian forgeries and did not rely on them.

Posted by Yehudit at February 10, 2006 06:44 PM

"tell me, you supporters of the iraq war, why was it necessary to wait ten years and starve millions of iraqis through sanctions first? as far as i can tell saddam didnt really do anything in those ten years."

If it were up to me we would have gone on to Baghdad and gotten rid of the SOB. I think most supporters of the Iraq War feel the same. One reason we didn't is the UN said to stop and Bush #1 didn't want to cross the UN.

One reason Saddam didn't "do anything" in those 10 years was our no-fly zones.

"if you include iraqi deaths the number is hundreds of thousands not tens."

Under Saddam, yes. Soem estimate a million. Under the Iraq War, no. It's about 30,000 civilian deaths and that includes victims of IEDs, IOW it's not all deaths by Coalition forces, just all deaths by violence.

The Lancet study has been debunked in many ways and the 30k figure is from a UN study.

Posted by Yehudit at February 10, 2006 06:52 PM

You fools are splitting hairs on whether Wilson lied and were going on our fourth year in Iraq with over 250 billion spent and 2200 American lives lost, thousands greviously wounded, and no end in sight. Added to that 90% of the Muslims of the world hate us. I don't know if we can survive 3 more years.

Posted by Jack Hicks at February 10, 2006 06:54 PM

Walter,

From the time the ground breaking for the Uranium Separation facility at OakRidge, Tenn, until Little Boy was exploded was 30 months, using 1940's technology.

The fact that Iraq's pre-1991 WMD program has never been fully accounted for is a bit of a problem.

Little Boy(the first atomic bomb), contained all of 64KG of Uranium 235. About the same weight as Jimmy Hoffa.

Seems, our government, never could find 'ole Jimmy.

It gets worse, only 700 grams of U-235 actually "went off" in LittleBoy. What can you say, crap design using 1940's technology.

So now, our glorious weapons inspectors, are looking for something smaller than Jimmy Hoffa's shoe.

Posted by Soldier's Dad at February 10, 2006 06:57 PM

http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/05/300.html

thats where i heard the 100,000 dead claim (more now though- thats a year old).

do you have a link for a debunking?

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 06:57 PM

Tell me Saddam Apologists, do you think he could have forgone a palace or two and used some of his oil for food SCAM money to support the welfare of his own citizens?

Posted by ColdHardReality at February 10, 2006 07:01 PM

The burden of proof should be on anyone who claims that they've retracted it

What's important is that we have retracted the 16 words.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 07:05 PM

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/003999.html

"do you have a link for a debunking?"

Tell me ujedujik, what disability prevents you from being able to conduct the same simple google searches the rest of us have mastered?

The above link has several sublinks.

Posted by MikePuckett at February 10, 2006 07:05 PM

Google: Easy to master yet powerful!

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dveathby.htm

"A recent claim that 100,000 Iraqis have died since the war in Iraq, mostly at the hands of Americans, is misleading, statistical junk.

JUST days before Americans voted for a president, Britain's Lancet medical journal rushed out a survey with the best bad news from Iraq any activist could want.

The invasion and "occupation" had killed at least 100,000 Iraqis, the survey's authors claimed.

Their toll of the dead in post-Saddam Iraq was stunning – about five times higher than any credible survey or count had found.

What's more, the survey claimed most victims had died violently – usually killed by Americans – "and most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children".

The editor of Lancet, Richard Horton, then grabbed this excuse for a political sermon: "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer." Iraq's liberation was "a failure".

The study's lead author, Les Roberts of Baltimore's John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, added: "I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea."

Yes, he'd been against the war when he thought of doing this survey. He'd also insisted Lancet could only publish its results if it did so just before the US election. Even its authors, it seems, rated this survey highly for its propaganda value.

Sure enough, its savage claim – shorthanded to "Americans killed 100,000 civilians" – became news around the world and is repeated again and again by "anti-war" activists, cartoonists and commentators who've shown no interest in checking if this astonishing figure could indeed be true.

Age columnist Professor Robert Manne, for instance, this week quoted the survey with relish and dismissed its critics by claiming even "the right-of-centre Economist magazine has praised the study unreservedly".

Oh, really? The Economist said the survey was "open to dispute", "not perfect", "subject to imponderables", and "extrapolates heroically from a small number of samples". I guess that's "unreservedly" – if you really, really don't want to hear the facts.

But take a closer look at the Lancet survey and you'll find its claims are unbelievable. Junk. Preposterous.

How could its claim of 100,000 deaths so easily have become the new gospel?

Just ask yourself: Have more than 180 Iraqis, mainly women and children, really died every day, on average, for the past 18 months, usually at the hands of the Americans?

If so, where are all the funerals? Where are the pictures? Where are the news reports from the Iraqi media, or pro-extremist outlets such as al-Jazeera and the BBC? And where are the American soldiers, reeling from the killing of so many children, to tell the TV cameras of their horror?

But few of the commentators who seized on the survey bothered to ask such basic questions, or even to heed Human Rights Watch, which warned: "The numbers seem to be inflated."

Nor did they wonder if it was wise to put their faith in a survey whose authors were so unsure of their results that they had to admit they had 95 per cent confidence that the true death toll from the invasion was only somewhere between 8000 and 194,000.

That's right – the toll could in fact be as low as 8000. Or even lower.

No one can be happy that any innocents have died in Iraq and each death is to be bitterly regretted.

Yet trying to work out the real casualty figures is not just a pitiless haggling over the dead. Surely, in trying to judge whether this liberation was worth the suffering, we must know how much suffering to take into account. We need to know how many lives were lost in liberating Iraq, just as we need to guess as best we can how many we may have saved from Saddam, his successors, his terrorist dependents and his imitators.

And that's why this survey lets us down so badly.

Its researchers interviewed 7868 Iraqis in 988 households in 33 neighbourhoods around Iraq, allegedly chosen randomly, and asked who in the house had died in the 14 months before the invasion and who in the 18 months after.

They then figured out the death rate before the invasion and the (allegedly higher) one after.

They then concluded there had been 100,000 extra Iraqi deaths since the invasion – by applying the difference in the two rates to all Iraq's 24 million people.

But this meant the researchers had to get two things right that they seem instead to have got wrong – the death rates both before and after the invasion.

Why are these figures important? Because a low death rate before the war, and a high one after, would allow the researchers to "prove" the war was costing many thousands of lives.

And bingo. According to the survey, Iraqis before the war were dying at the rate of just five in 1000 people each year. The death rate among infants was around the average for the region – about 29 in 1000.

But what evidence we have tells us these pre-war death rates were actually much higher. Dated United Nations figures suggest the overall death rate was well over seven in every 1000 – or close to, if not higher than, the present rate of 7.9 in every 1000 that the Lancet survey suggests.

But even more persuasive are 2002 figures from UNICEF, which in a much bigger survey of 24,000 households found the infant mortality rate in Iraq before the war was actually a tragic 108 deaths per 1000 infants.

This is more than three times higher than the Lancet survey claims was the case – and double what even the survey claims is the infant mortality rate today.

How could the anti-war activists forget? Remember, before the war, anti-American propagandists such as John Pilger denouncing this "genocide" of Iraqi children and blaming it on the United Nations sanctions demanded by those evil Americans?

We know now, in fact, that Saddam Hussein, with the help of corrupt officials in the UN, France, Russia and China, had stolen more than $US20 billion of oil money meant to feed his people and pay for their medicines, and malnutrition in his shattered economy was rife.

All that, thank God, has changed for the better since the liberation. The best figures – including statistics from the Iraqi Health Ministry – suggest many thousands of Iraq's children are in fact alive today who'd have died under Saddam.

The Lancet survey seems just as shaky in calculating Iraq's present death toll.

It interviewed some 240 people in Fallujah before the recent fighting there, and worked out that these 30 households had lost 52 dead due to violence, mostly women and children killed by the Americans.

The researchers did not ask for proof of the children's deaths and admit they were reluctant to ask for proof of all the adults' deaths, either, "because this might have implied that they did not believe the respondents, perhaps triggering violence". Were the Iraqis likewise scared to tell the truth?

So was that figure – of some 240 people losing 52 dead – credible as a sample of Fallujah's death rate?

Put it this way. Fallujah is a city of about 285,000 people.

If the Lancet survey of its residents is right and one in six people have been killed since the invasion, then nearly 50,000 residents died violently even before this month's fighting.

If we assume that the American casualty rates of seven wounded for one dead apply to civilians, too, then more people have been killed and wounded in Fallujah than actually live there.

So where are the mass graves? Why didn't Fallujah empty months ago, as the survivors fled the utter carnage? How is it that the Americans could kill a sixth of its people through aerial bombing, and wound the rest, yet leave most of the houses untouched?

Truly, these statistics are unbelievable. I suspect the study's authors thought so, too, which may be why they left the Fallujah figures out – calling them unrepresentative – when they calculated Iraq's death toll since the invasion.

But the survey techniques they used to give clearly wrong figures in Fallujah are the same ones they used in the other 32 clusters of households that they interviewed elsewhere in Iraq.

Did they give any better information?

In fact, the Iraqis in the remaining clusters came up with just 21 violent deaths between them – only two of women, and four of children. These deaths, if true, are the ones that the survey used to calculate a death rate that had them claiming at least 100,000 other Iraqis also died because of the war.

Note how terribly small this sample is and how easy to manipulate, accidentally or not, to produce wildly differing results.

Note that most of these dead are not women and children, nor necessarily civilians. The gloating headlines this survey has inspired of a massacre of the innocents in Iraq, with Americans to blame, are almost all wild guesses and almost all certainly wrong.

But saying all this won't make much difference. Too many commentators seem too desperate to believe the worst of the Americans and to belittle the liberation of Iraqis from a tyrant.

That desperation means even junk surveys such as this will find many eager believers, ready to hear the very worst. And to recklessly repeat it. "

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 10, 2006 07:08 PM

when i address a claim by someone else, it is useful to see their sources, if i just looked up some conservative source and commented on that wouldnt that be a straw man? i would rather read something you tell me to read, theres too much information on the net

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 07:11 PM

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2003

President Delivers "State of the Union"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 07:29 PM

first off, the survey is obviously not perfect, it was taken in a war zone.

your article you posted has many problems with it. let me see.
-fallujah wasnt mentioned because it was a statistical outlier, not because of bad surveying techniques
-it wasnt that american soldiers went around killing indiscriminately 100 000 iraqis my lai-style, most of the deaths were from bombs. even when a "surgical" strike hits its target it will invariably kill more citizens than insurgents.
-the main claim that debunks the lancet study seems to be the 8000-194000 range of estimates

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_study:

A 95 percent CI of 8000-194,000 does not mean that the number of deaths are just as likely to be any number between 8000 and 194,000. The numbers in the middle of the CI are statistically more likely to be more accurate than the numbers closer to either extreme. The authors point out that The Lancet stats work like this: (i) There is a 2.5 percent chance that the number is lower than 8000, and a 2.5 percent chance it's higher than 194,000 (2.5 percent + 2.5 percent = 5 percent, thus the 95 percent chance the number is between 8000 and 194,000). (ii) There is a 10 percent chance that the number is lower than 45,000, and a 10 percent chance it's higher than 167,000 (thus a 80 percent chance the number is between 45,000 and 167,000). (iii) There is a 20 percent chance that the number is lower than 65,000, and a 20 percent chance it's higher than 147,000 (thus a 60 percent chance the number is between 65,000 and 147,000). The lead author explains, "this normal distribution indicates that we are 97.5% confident that more than 8,000 died, 90% confident more than 44,000 died and that the most likely death toll would be around 98,000.

wikipedia attempts to be neutral, but your source is obviously slanted

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 07:34 PM

It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 07:47 PM

These proceedings from the House of Representatives show that the NIE had been declassified no later than July 21, 2003.

Plame's name & role was not declassified.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 07:50 PM

steve j- how is it that anyone still thinks bush is strong on national security?

if he really cared about it would he appoint someone like michael brown to such an important post?

if he really cared would he ignore the 911 commission's reccommendations (they recently gave him failing grades on a "report card" of sorts)?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html

note that protecting americans to a reasonable degree is actually legal, and it is unnecessary to break the law to do so.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 07:58 PM

You fools are splitting hairs on whether Wilson lied and were going on our fourth year in Iraq with over 250 billion spent and 2200 American lives lost, thousands greviously wounded

Amazing, isn't it? Prewar estimates were that 10,000 lives would be lost in the assault on Baghdad alone. Just about the least costly major military operation in US history in men and material, and the objectives, freedom for the Iraqi people, neutralization of a significant threat with whom we had effectively been at war for over a decade, and the introduction of democratic rule into the heart of Arab darkness, as compelling or more so than any of them. Pretty damn good, huh?

... and no end in sight.

Au contraire, the "no end in sight" scenario was the one in which Saddam was left in place and his psycho sons inherited his iron rule.

Added to that 90% of the Muslims of the world hate us.

Not bad. Before the war, we were pushing 100%. Now, we have Lebanon strongly pro-American, Iraq significantly so, Afghanistan emerging from truly dark ages, Libya neutralized and Pakistan towing the line (in rational terms, the exposure and halting of A.Q. Khan's nuclear weapons bazaar alone was worth everything we have done so far), the spread of free elections and liberalization even in benighted Saudi Arabia... After 8 years of total inaction by the incompetents in the Clinton administration, we are finally making progress in the most backward and horrible region of the world. Not bad for a dumb cowboy.

I don't know if we can survive 3 more years.

By that time, I expect the situation in Iraq will have quieted down and the amazing feat that we have accomplished there will be evident even to the most harebrained liberal nutcakes. You may well die of shame, if you have any left.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:00 PM

the objectives, freedom for the Iraqi people, neutralization of a significant threat with whom we had effectively been at war for over a decade, and the introduction of democratic rule into the heart of Arab darkness, as compelling or more so than any of them.

Your ordering of our objectives is misleading. The primary reason we invaded was WMD. "Freedom and democracy" were an arrogant afterthought, promoted after we failed to find WMD.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:05 PM

Now, we have Lebanon strongly pro-American, Iraq significantly so

3 separate polls of the Iraqis, conducted over the last 8 months, have found that 45% of Iraqis think it's OK to kill American soldiers.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:07 PM

UJE: steve j- how is it that anyone still thinks bush is strong on national security?

Fear,ignorance & stupidity coupled with the most powerful propaganda machine in history.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:09 PM

the spread of free election

Another delusion.

The New Yorker has a short article about why Fredo's claim that creating democracies in the Middle East will make us safer is FALSE:

"The Islamists are less corrupt. They are the ones with integrity and compassion. They are of the people and they speak for the people. Today in the Arab world, the choice is clear between democratically elected Islamists and Western-leaning dictators.”

This from Shalom Harari, a former Israeli Army Intelligence officer. The entire article is well worth reading.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060206ta_talk_shavit

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:13 PM

aq khan has nothing to do with iraq, he had been exposed pre-invasion.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:14 PM

Prewar estimates

In early March of 2003, Rumsfeld met with Feith, Wolfowitz, Gen. Myers, Gen. Pace, "Saul" - the CIA agent running ROCKSTARS, the clandestine spying program in Iraq, Larry DiRita and Gen. Craddock.

"Rumsfeld pushed them all for an estimate of how long the Iraq war would last.

Wolfowitz said seven days."

SOURCE: Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, hardcover edition, page 326.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:18 PM

Your ordering of our objectives is misleading. The primary reason we invaded was WMD. "Freedom and democracy" were an arrogant afterthought, promoted after we failed to find WMD.

You are wrong. Go back to Bush's original speeches from 2002. You will find that these were listed as primary reasons, not afterthoughts. They're easily accessible at the White House web site.

Your impression is merely mindless bilge spewed from the maw of the liberal media and wanker blog masters, who hold you in thrall. Of course, you will believe what you read from your own dubious sources. Liberals can't think for themselves and have to get their talking points from others. Repeated often enough, the lies create furrows in your pitifully soft brain from which, like photons orbiting a black hole, thought cannot escape.

Beyond that, whatever other people may have said or what you believe they said is immaterial. I supported this war for my own reasons from the very beginning, because I have an independent mind that is able to consider and weigh multiple reinforcing rationales for taking action. You rank 'em how you want 'em, if you are able, which I doubt. I have my own ranking.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:19 PM

White House Daily Briefing, July 9, 2003
http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/2003/july/071002.html

FLEISCHER: But there's a bigger picture here, and this is what's fundamental --the case for war against Iraq was based on the threat that Saddam Hussein posed because of his possession of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological, and his efforts to reconstitute a nuclear program. In 1991, everybody in the world underestimated how close he was to getting a nuclear weapon. The case for going to war against Saddam is as just today as it was the day the President gave that speech.

EARLIER FLEISCHER:

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:20 PM

aq khan has nothing to do with iraq, he had been exposed pre-invasion.

Oh. My. God. Google. Use. It.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:24 PM

"UJE: steve j- how is it that anyone still thinks bush is strong on national security?

Fear,ignorance & stupidity coupled with the most powerful propaganda machine in history.

You almost got it right Steve.

It is fear of the ignorance and stupidity of the DemcRAT party with regards to the security issue in spite of the cover of the most powerful left wing media propaganda machine in history.

Posted by ColdHardReality at February 10, 2006 08:28 PM

from wikipedia-
Khan came under renewed scrutiny following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan to oust the fundamentalist Taliban regime. It emerged that al-Qaeda had made repeated efforts to obtain nuclear materials to build either a radiological bomb or a crude nuclear bomb. In late October 2001, the Pakistani government arrested three Pakistani nuclear scientists, all with close ties to Khan, for their suspected connections with the Taliban. Two of the scientists were subsequently said to have admitted having had talks with Osama bin Laden.

The Bush administration continued to investigate Pakistani nuclear proliferation, ratcheting up the pressure on the Pakistani government in 2001 and 2002 and focusing on Khan's personal role.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:30 PM

Of course, you will believe what you read from your own dubious sources.

THE PRESIDENT: Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament.
3/6/03
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030410-6.html

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:30 PM

I supported this war for my own reasons from the very beginning,

What were they?

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:31 PM

Steve, is Ari Fleischer the President? Does what you have posted contradict anything I have written. No, no, no, a thousand times no.

Here ya' go, Sparky. Just this once, I'll do the legwork for you. February 2003 - if you don't know the chronology, don't be like your unpronounceable ally and say something stupid.

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:34 PM

"3) Third, if the Niger documents were not what Bush was referring to in the speech, then why did the Bush administration out Joseph Wilson's wife in retaliation to his comments?"

If you have conclusive evidence of this 'outing' you would do well to share it instead of 'assuming' it is a given amongst people who operate in the real world.

Just assuming it is true because it fits your preconcieved notions won't cut it.

Please stop basing your arguments on emotional psychobabble, and start reading the news:

Libby Testified He Was Told To Leak Data About Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902117.html

Posted by Thad Anderson at February 10, 2006 08:35 PM

MORE ON THE URANIUM ISSUE

From Ex-CIA officer Paul Pillar, in his new article in Foreign Relations:

"In the upside-down relationship between intelligence and policy that prevailed in the case of Iraq, the administration selected pieces of raw intelligence to use in its public case for war, leaving the intelligence community to register varying degrees of private protest when such use started to go beyond what analysts deemed credible or reasonable. The best-known example was the assertion by President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was purchasing uranium ore in Africa. U.S. intelligence analysts had questioned the credibility of the report making this claim, had kept it out of their own unclassified products, and had advised the White House not to use it publicly. But the administration put the claim into the speech anyway, referring to it as information from British sources in order to make the point without explicitly vouching for the intelligence."

Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

Posted by Thad Anderson at February 10, 2006 08:37 PM

if the we went into iraq because of humanitarian reasons, why is it that darfur goes unnoticed?

i hope the iraqi invasion results in more stability eventually, but so far it has been disasterous. i am pretty worried about a genocidal civil war breaking out as we have pretty much been arming one faction against the other, and at the same time failing to provide security.

also condescension looks especially bad on people who are habitually wrong.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:40 PM

Thad, are you terminally stupid or do you just do a very good impersonation of a very stupid person?

The link you provide provides no proof that the Bush Administration outed Valerie Plame.

Non-phucking sequitir skippy!

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 10, 2006 08:41 PM

Steve: What were they? I have given them to you already.

ujedujik: Jesus H............ THAT WAS NOT THE EVENT THAT LED TO THE EXPOSURE OF KHAN'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH LIBYA AND IRAN!!! If I shout, will it help get it through your thick skull???

Try reading the wikipedia article, will ya'? Here. Here it is. Now, do you know the chronology of the beginning of the Iraq war and when Libya fully exposed Khan's inner secrets?

In August 2003, reports emerged of dealings with Iran; it was claimed that Khan had offered to sell nuclear technology as long ago as 1989. The Iranian government came under intense pressure from the United States and European Union to make a full disclosure of its nuclear programme and finally agreed in October 2003 to accept tougher investigations from the International Atomic Energy Authority. The IAEA reported that Iran had established a large uranium enrichment facility using centrifuges based on the stolen URENCO designs, which had been obtained "from a foreign intermediary in 1987." The intermediary was not named but many diplomats and analysts pointed to Pakistan and specifically to Khan, who was said to have visited Iran in 1986. The Iranians turned over the names of their suppliers and international inspectors quickly identified the Iranian centrifuges as Pak-1s, the model developed by Khan in the early 1980s. Two senior staff at the Khan Research Laboratories were subsequently arrested in December 2003 on suspicion of having sold nuclear technology to the Iranians.
That same month, on December 19, Libya made a surprise announcement that it had weapons of mass destruction programmes which it would now abandon. Libyan government officials were quoted as saying that Libya had bought nuclear components from various black market dealers, including Pakistani scientists. In particular, American officials who visited the Libyan uranium plants shortly afterwards reported that the centrifuges used there were very similar to the Iranian ones.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:42 PM

Steve, is Ari Fleischer the President?

You are stupid.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:45 PM

To add: If you have any proof the administration outed Plame, you are welcome to post it instead of something different involving an administration official and hoping people reading this thread don't actually take time to click on it and see you are talking out of your ass.

I suppose misdirection is better than simply making up more 'psychobabble' but I suppose we cannot expect better from the lazy left.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 10, 2006 08:46 PM

yeah i did read the wikipedia article, tell me again- where in your posting does it say anything about how the iraq war caused the exposure of khan?

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:46 PM

ujedujik: Are you advocating we go into Darfur now? Yeah, right! Here's a hint, Skippy. It isn't I and and those who think like me who would lead the domestic revolt if we did anything there.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:47 PM

proof as in? unless novak or rove or someone is reading this, what do you expect?

i already provided a link that confirmed she was covert, but now she isnt so she has been outed. its possible someone outside the administration outed her, but highly unlikely. if you want real proof, you're probably gonna have to wait till fitzgerald is done with his investigation.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:49 PM

well, seeing as we're bogged down in iraq it would be hard to start another war (unless we bring back the draft)-hope we dont get attacked or nothing. that wasnt the point. i mentioned darfur to point out how rediculous it is to say we are in iraq for humanitarian reasons. thats not why we're there.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:52 PM

ujedujik, there is too much material to be tracked down to make it worth it to me for the likes of you. Anyone with any brains who has been paying attention knows that Ghadafy's change of heart was a direct result of what he saw happening in Iraq. No doubt, you will deny this and possibly cite something some worthless liberal nobody wrote down somewhere. Fine. I really don't f'ing care. Reality is what it is, outside of the moldy and flyspecked lump of dogmeat you call your brain.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:53 PM

Because one of Joe Wilson's (many) lies was that he was sent by Dick Cheney to Niger

That is NOT what Wilson wrote in his op-ed. He said there was an inquiry from the Office of the Vice President.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 08:53 PM

"Thad, are you terminally stupid or do you just do a very good impersonation of a very stupid person?

Great defense.

Posted by Thad Anderson at February 10, 2006 08:53 PM

oh yeah reid? well, ya mama got a peg leg with a kickstand.
(i stole that)

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:57 PM

Oh, Jesus, now he's citing CommonDreams. Ei yi yi.

ujedujik, although i realize you can probably hold only one theme in your limited consciousness at one time, we went into Iraq for a great many compelling reasons, none of which existed anywhere else in the world. The President listed these reasons exhaustively well before the invasion. There were the UN sanctions, there was the WMD issue which, incidentally, has not been laid to rest, there was the humanitarian issue, there was the terror training camp issue, there was the support and sheltering of terrorists, and yes, there was the oil issue and, unless you are going to unplug the computer you are typing on, sell all your energy using possession and go live in a shack like the unabomber, don't give me any guff about that.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 08:59 PM

by which i of course mean that you have made it obvious you dont really wanna address the issues and your just here for the sake of arguing (ie you change the subject after i address your condesceding lies [or merely untruths]). in which case yo mama jokes are as good as any

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:00 PM

"i already provided a link that confirmed she was covert, but now she isnt so she has been outed. its possible someone outside the administration outed her, but highly unlikely.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 08:49 PM"

Why is it unlikely? Solely because you think it is and no other reason.

"if you want real proof, you're probably gonna have to wait till fitzgerald is done with his investigation."

I want people to stop making disingenious assertions as a fact when they have no hard evidence to support it. If you make an extradordinay claim, you should be able to offer extradornary evidence to support that claim.

So far, no one has even approched this standard regarding the alleged outing of Plame by the administration.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 10, 2006 09:00 PM

oh yeah reid? well, ya mama got a peg leg with a kickstand

So now you're harping on my mom and her peg leg. You got something against handicapped people?

That's it for me. Good night.

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 09:01 PM

""Thad, are you terminally stupid or do you just do a very good impersonation of a very stupid person?

Great defense.
Posted by Thad Anderson at February 10, 2006 08:53 PM"

Actually it was a great offense. I see you can offer no defense of your disingenious attempt at misdirection and deception.

Posted by ColdHardReality at February 10, 2006 09:03 PM

Actually the problem for walter is Wilson LIED.

Wilson told the truth:

DUELFER REPORT
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 09:04 PM

Google Strikes again:

"Documents Indicate A.Q. Khan Offered Nuclear Weapon Designs to Iraq in 1990: Did He Approach Other Countries?
By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein
February 4, 2004

The following discusses a set of documents obtained by United Nations (UN) inspectors in Iraq in 1995 that may indicate an effort by Abdul Qadeer Khan shortly before the start of the 1991 Persian Gulf War to sell Iraq nuclear weapon design drawings and gas centrifuge design information, facilitate the procurement of the equipment required to build these items, and provide on-going technological assistance. Combined with recent information about Khan and his associates' assistance to gas centrifuge programs in Iran, Libya, and North Korea, these documents raise the highly disturbing possibility that Khan may have also sold these and perhaps other countries nuclear weapon designs. Inevitably, these concerns also raise questions about whether Pakistani scientists transferred nuclear weapon designs to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

Pakistani government investigations are reported to have obtained a statement from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's gas centrifuge program who was recently removed from his post as advisor to Pakistan's Prime Minister, acknowledging that he provided nuclear technology, components, and equipment to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. So far, the revelations about Khan's activities have focused on the transfer of gas centrifuge designs and components and the wherewithal to make centrifuges. However, a troubling development is the likelihood that Khan and his associates have also transferred nuclear weapon designs to these countries. Libya is reported to have told investigators from the US government and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it had acquired nuclear weapon design information. The source was probably Pakistanis, according to a person close to the Libyan investigation.

The Washington Post reported on January 27, 2004 that Khan's middlemen allegedly also offered the Pakistani scientists' services to Syria and Iraq. However, these offers were not accepted, the Post added.

This revelation about Iraq, if true, could shed light on unresolved questions about the authenticity of a set of documents found at the farm of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, after his 1995 defection. One of the documents, a one-page memo from the Iraqi intelligence service (Mukhabarat), dated October 6, 1990 and addressed to a contact person in Iraq's main nuclear weapons program (codenamed PC-3), summarizes a meeting between members of the Mukhabarat and an intermediary, believed to have used the name "Malik," who said he represented A.Q. Khan. The meeting took place in the offices of the Technical Consultation Corporation (TCC) - a procurement organization of the Mukhabarat. A translation of this original memo can be found here (will open in new window in .pdf format).

This memo states that the intermediary approached the Mukhabarat with the following offer: Khan was prepared to give Iraq project designs for a nuclear weapon and to provide assistance in enriching uranium and manufacturing a nuclear weapon. He would also ensure any requirements or materials from Western European countries through a company Khan owned in Dubai. He requested a preliminary technical meeting to discuss the documents that he was willing to sell. However, the memo notes that a meeting with Khan directly was not possible at that time, given the tense international atmosphere resulting from Iraq's continued occupation of Kuwait and the impending attack by Coalition forces. An alternative of setting up a meeting in Greece with an intermediary, who had good relations with the Iraqi intelligence agents, was mentioned as a possibility. Iraqi intelligence officials said in the memo that they believed the motive was money.

Other Documents
A related document, which appears to be a list of items discussed at the meeting, indicates that the "up-front" cost of this assistance would be $5 million. In addition, a ten percent commission would be payable on all material procured through the offer.

Another document, PC-3's response to the Mukhabarat office, shows PC-3 to be dubious about the offer and concerned that it could be a sting operation. Nonetheless PC-3 advised the Mukhabarat to try to obtain a sample of what was being offered. However, in post-1995 discussions, former leaders of the PC-3 program repeatedly told inspectors that no such samples were ever received. Given that the offer occurred just three months before the start of the Persian Gulf War, this might have resulted from lack of time rather than lack of mutual intent.

IAEA Reporting
In its reporting to the Security Council in the late 1990s, the IAEA recorded its concern about this matter, not only with respect to its potential direct effect on Iraq's endeavors to acquire nuclear weapons but also in the global arena of nuclear weapons proliferation. The IAEA invested significant effort in attempting to resolve this matter both in its interactions with Iraq and with Pakistani officials. When approached about this matter by the media in the late 1990s, the Pakistani government and Khan vehemently denied making any such offer. When in December 1998 the IAEA inspectors departed from Iraq, the matter remained one of a small number of outstanding questions and concerns. It has not yet been resolved.

Conclusion
Although the IAEA investigation in the 1990s was inconclusive in its effort to confirm the authenticity of this offer, these documents provide additional indicators that Pakistani scientists may have offered assistance to a number of countries not only in uranium enrichment but also in nuclear weapon design and fabrication. The possibility that Pakistanis offered assistance in designing and building nuclear weapons to many countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria, is an extremely disturbing new development. This possibility must be investigated thoroughly."

Posted by ColdHardReality at February 10, 2006 09:04 PM

So far, no one has even approched this standard regarding the alleged outing of Plame by the administration.

Posted by Mike Puckett

Bob Novak wrote that he was told about Plame by two senior administration officials.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 09:05 PM

mike- its unlikely because the only people that knew about it were the wilsons, the cia, and the administration. the cia was angry enough about it that they decided to request the investigation, the wilsons probably arent masochists, and the bush administration had an interest in the leak (that being personal damage delt to a critic).

reid- all those reasons for invading iraq are disingenuous because there are countries that were worse in every regard. the reason people are upset by wars for oil is because it is illegal, imperialistic theivery.(i personally am not convinced we went into iraq for oil though)

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:06 PM

Oh, Jesus, now he's citing CommonDreams. Ei yi yi.

They kept a copy of Wilson's op-ed.

You can also try:

http://www.perrspectives.com/resources/documents.htm#plame

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 09:07 PM

said "agent's" identity was actually classified

PLAME WAS COVERT
I know YOU know but I'm posting this for the deluded and the ignorant.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified. LINK
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html

A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson's Niger trip was classified "Top Secret," and the passage about his wife's CIA role was specially marked "S/NF" -- not to be shared with any foreign intelligence agencies.
A Special Weekly Report From The Wall Street Journal's Capital Bureau
John Harwood. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Jul 22, 2005. pg. A.4
Column Name:Washington Wire
Section: Politics & Policy

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials. LINK

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html

Posted by at February 10, 2006 09:12 PM

"Bob Novak wrote that he was told about Plame by two senior administration officials.
Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 09:05 PM"

"Woodward provided sworn testimony to this effect on November 14, 2005 although he has also stated that Novak's source was not in the White House [33]. The identity of Novak's first source is still publicly unknown — the person Novak described as "not a partisan gunslinger"."

Thats funny Steve J! The vaunted Wikipedia does not agree with your assertion.

Posted by at February 10, 2006 09:13 PM

"reid- all those reasons for invading iraq are disingenuous because there are countries that were worse in every regard. the reason people are upset by wars for oil is because it is illegal, imperialistic theivery.(i personally am not convinced we went into iraq for oil though)
Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:06 PM"

How many of those broke the terms and conditions of a cease fire agreement negotaiated after their being forcabily evicted from a small neighboring nation they had invaded?

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 10, 2006 09:16 PM

Crap. I told myself not to look. Go to bed. This is worthless. You know he's just going to write something stupid.

reid- all those reasons for invading iraq are disingenuous because there are countries that were worse in every regard. the reason people are upset by wars for oil is because it is illegal, imperialistic theivery.(i personally am not convinced we went into iraq for oil though)

Oh God, how many times am I going to have to hear this specious reasoning from uninformed people?

No, dude, no, there were no worse countries "in every regard." There were worse countries in one particular way or another, but none presented the aggregate compelling argument for action that Iraq did. None.

Before replying, read what I have written. Aggregate means "total combined." Don't tell me there were worse tyrants somewhere. Don't tell me So-and-so was suspected of WMD development. Don't tell me another guy sat astride the oil fields that are the lifeblood of our economy. Don't tell me that another hosted terrorists in his country. Find one will all of those things plus 12 odd years of defiance against UN sanctions plus the terrorists who took down the WTC using the devastation caused by those sanctions for their recruiting drives. Know what? There isn't one!

Posted by Reid at February 10, 2006 09:19 PM

go back and read novaks original column stevej is correct

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:19 PM

Its kinda funny to see the idiots at Powerline who can't be bothered to consider the possiblity that photographers might use telephoto lenses lecturing anyone about accuracy and Google searches.

Nice catch, though, on the continued distortions of the pre-war claims about Iraq and African uranium.

Posted by Brian Carnell at February 10, 2006 09:20 PM

did you know uzbekistan was our ally and part of the "coalition of the willing"?

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:22 PM

north korea was certainly as good if not better of a target than iraq. then again they had wmds so we couldnt invade them for fear they might use them.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:28 PM

jesus, i didnt realize quite how bad it is in n korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:31 PM

Mission to Niger
Robert Novak (archive)
July 14, 2003 |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.

Posted by at February 10, 2006 09:32 PM

Bush can settle CIA leak riddle, Novak says
ROB CHRISTENSEN, BARBARA BARRETT, JANE STANCILL AND DAN KANE, Staff Writers
Under the Dome
Published: Dec 14, 2005 12:30 AM
Modified: Dec 14, 2005 04:35 AM
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/377675.html
Newspaper columnist Robert Novak is still not naming his source in the Valerie Plame affair, but he says he is pretty sure the name is no mystery to President Bush.
"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."
"So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' "

Posted by at February 10, 2006 09:37 PM

OT - Its kinda funny to see the idiots at Powerline ...

Wait until they write about evolution again if you want some real yucks.

:-)

Posted by at February 10, 2006 09:38 PM

the aggregate compelling argument for action that Iraq did.

“We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs”,
TENET, 2/07/2001 http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_feb_2001.htm

POWELL, 2/24/2001: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"

"The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago.
It has been contained." Powell, 5/15/01

"He [Saddam] does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Rice, 7/29/01

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein.
But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

Posted by at February 10, 2006 09:43 PM

Ex-Diplomat's Surprise Volley on Iraq
Drove White House Into Political Warfare Mode
By SCOTT SHANEPublished: July 24, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/politics/politicsspecial1/24leak.html?
Aboard the president's plane was a copy of a State Department memorandum on the Wilson matter faxed in-flight to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state. Officials who have seen the memorandum say that in a passage marked "S" for "secret," it included a crucial revelation: that Valerie Wilson was a C.I.A. officer who played a role in the agency's decision to send her husband to Africa.

Posted by at February 10, 2006 09:46 PM

"jesus, i didnt realize quite how bad it is in n korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea"

You think 100,000 supposed dead in a year are bad in Iraq?

Try invading the NK and you will see 100,000 dead actual NK civilians in a week in spite of the most angelic efforts to avoid it.

NK is bottled up on the penunsulia surronded by China, Russia, Japan and SK. They are going nowhere

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 10, 2006 09:48 PM

blank- if those are good quotes if real

mike- i agree, my point was simply that north korea is both a bigger threat and more of a humanitarian nightmare than iraq was. i wouldnt have invaded either.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:57 PM

those are good quotes if real i meant

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 09:57 PM

blank- if those are good quotes if real

I posted many of the blank quotes because I got tired of entering my personal information.

They are real.

Posted by Steve J. at February 10, 2006 10:02 PM

steve- i think you would enjoy this
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/192828_joel29.html

you got to mark the box that says remember info

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 10:09 PM

UJE -

Thanx for the link. I did mark the damn box, about 10 times!

Posted by at February 10, 2006 10:24 PM

We didn't 'go to war' in Iraq. We were already at war, going back to Desert Shield/Storm. That conflict didn't end with the cease-fire agreement and UN resolutions (which Saddam repeatedly broke). See http://home.kc.rr.com/mharder/sem/wmd.html for the rest of the reasoning.

Posted by The Monster at February 10, 2006 10:26 PM

Ujedujik, the word "recent" in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address did refer to 1999, whether it was talking about British intelligence, the forged papers or Mayaki's recollections.

By the way, British intelligence says its conclusion that Saddam was seeking uranium had nothing to do with the forged papers or Mayaki. (And who was prime minister of Niger in 1999, if it wasn't Mayaki?)

You asked why the allies had to wait 10 or 12 years to oust Saddam after Saddam's 1990-91 invasion of Kuwait. You can see why they waited. Part of the coalition would not have gone along with toppling Saddam. Much of it believed Saddam had been so humiliated his "own people" would overthrow him. And many believed sanctions would straighten him out.

It didn't work. Saddam's repression continued, in violation of U.N. Resolution 688. Saddam also violated a long list of other resolutions tied to the cease-fire agreements. Each violation of the cease-fire amounted to a declaration of war.

Considering Saddam's tortures, executions and the harsh sanctions he brought on Iraq (made harsher by his siphoning of Oil for Food money), I have to ask you, wasn't the removal of Saddam better late than never?

Posted by Frank Warner at February 10, 2006 10:32 PM

I have to ask you, wasn't the removal of Saddam better late than never?

Posted by at February 10, 2006 10:45 PM

sorry, my mistake. mayaki was prime minister in 1999, not sure why i thought otherwise. what was the british intelligence based on?

i also heard (i believe it was scott ritter who said it) that the belief was that saddam would fall without us invading, but the whole thing turns my stomach. is that any reason for millions of people to starve to death? as i said before, an invasion back then mightve been justified, but it isnt now. i really dont see why they waited.

i have to agree with blank-steve that the removal of saddam isnt better late than never. it may turn out to be better, but as it is right now, its much worse (though thats to be expected-its a war zone). of course it could also get worse from here.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 11:01 PM

i think the reason i got the mayaki thing wrong is that he took office in 1997 and i misread it to say left office.

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 11:04 PM

ujedujik said:

"A 95 percent CI of 8000-194,000 does not mean that the number of deaths are just as likely to be any number between 8000 and 194,000. The numbers in the middle of the CI are statistically more likely to be more accurate than the numbers closer to either extreme. The authors point out that The Lancet stats work like this: (i) There is a 2.5 percent chance that the number is lower than 8000, and a 2.5 percent chance it's higher than 194,000 (2.5 percent + 2.5 percent = 5 percent, thus the 95 percent chance the number is between 8000 and 194,000). (ii) There is a 10 percent chance that the number is lower than 45,000, and a 10 percent chance it's higher than 167,000 (thus a 80 percent chance the number is between 45,000 and 167,000). (iii) There is a 20 percent chance that the number is lower than 65,000, and a 20 percent chance it's higher than 147,000 (thus a 60 percent chance the number is between 65,000 and 147,000). The lead author explains, "this normal distribution indicates that we are 97.5% confident that more than 8,000 died, 90% confident more than 44,000 died and that the most likely death toll would be around 98,000.

wikipedia attempts to be neutral, but your source is obviously slanted"

Clearly, the wikipedia writer - and unfortunately the Lancet authors themselves - know painfully little about statistics. Lancet article defenders a) presuppose that parametric testing is valid for the study in question and b) don't really understand what a 95% CI is.

Let's say you have a normal distibution for a measured variable within a population (how many baseball cards a person has in his / her collection). The peak of bell curve itself tells you that the mean number of cards possessed by a person in this population is X, it also tells you that most people have X number of cards). As you move away from the top of the bell curve in either direction, some people have fewer cards and some people have more cards (the extent to which people vary from the mean is the variance). Note that this curve reflects the true state of a population.

Now lets say out of the whole population, you pick out a few random people and ask them how many baseball cards they have. You are doing random sampling because the population is large and a census is not economically feasible. From that selection, you can calculate some SAMPLE mean. That sample mean, Y, can be decribed statistically in terms of the 95% Confidence Interval. You want to be able to describe Y, because otherwise you have no way of knowing whether Y reflects X accurately (remember that X is the true population mean).

The 95% CI tells you that if you did 99 more measurements (of random samples within a population), 95 times out of the 100 total measurements would find that the mean falls within the range described by the 95% CI (actually, you'd need to do an infinite number of measures for this 95/100 ratio to bear out...). If the range is very small, say Y minus 1 up to Y + 1, this tells you that if you repeated this measurement - your mean measurement of Y can be counted on fairly well to represent X, which we said was the true average number of baseball cards possessed by members of the population.

When the 95% CI is rather large, however, you can repeat your measurements 100 times, and you'll get a much larger variety of mean values. That means that the Y that you got may not accurately reflect the true mean (X). That is, if you repeated the experiment to take another sample mean (Z), it may be radically different from Y - with neither value doing a particularly good job of representing X, the true mean.

Even if the population really is described by a normal curve - which is not itself readily apparent from the collected data, it does NOT follow that the calculated mean for your first measurement (or 98 000 dead, in the case of the Lancet study) is more likely than other means within the CI. Nor does it mean that the middle of your confidence interval is most likely to represent the true mean, X. Unfortunately for the Lancet people, their description of how a CI works is just plain wrong.

Also of note, especailly with a small sample size, is the problem of assessing the validity of parametric testing (i.e. using tests which assume a normal distribution in your population) for this measured variable. This can be verified against a histogram and several other measures. If the assumption of a gaussian distribution isn't satisfied, though, the data is even more imprecise than the large 95% CI suggests. Nowhere in the Lancet article are justifications made for the assumption of a Gaussian curve, and the Lancet clearly wasn't' asking questions...

The 100 000 figure produced by the Lancet study is therefore just another in a long line of values published by journals that don't care if their stats are valid or reliable, so long as they make an impact and get in the news. The Lancet is a disgrace.

Posted by derzornhistology at February 10, 2006 11:19 PM

my knowledge of statistics is slight, so i dunno if youre right or not, but if you feel you are, you should correct the wikipedia article. some of the people that worked on it seem to be knowledgable in statistics so i dunno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Posted by ujedujik at February 10, 2006 11:42 PM

If you'd like a source, I can direct you to my old statistics text: Introductory Statistics, 6th Ed.. Neil a. Weiss.

Chaper 8 is all about CI's, and I consulted it when writing up the previous post.

I'd hate to think you'd be willing to go on the expertise of some random wikipedia writer (perhaps the most consistently inconsistent and biased encyclopaedia round), but you won't trust CIA intelligence, which tells you that the British claims about Iraqi overtures to buy caked Uranium were real...

I mean, who are the sheep here? I thought we righties were the only people who took things 'ex cathedra'?

I'll tell you what, you trust your crackpot wikipedia writers, and I'll go on questioning both the government and those pinko writers.

Posted by derzornhistology at February 11, 2006 12:24 AM

The peak of bell curve itself tells you that the mean number of cards possessed by a person in this population is X, it also tells you that most people have X number of cards).

No, the peak is also the most frequent number. IT does not tell you that most people have X numebr of cards. In a bell curve, the mean, median and mode are the same number.

Posted by at February 11, 2006 12:43 AM

What you've said is true. In a bell curve, the mean, median and mode are the same value - all at the top of the curve.

Being the mode means that if you look at the whole range in numbers of cards possessed by a population, the particular number of cards that is possessed most frequently (by the most people) is at the peak of the bell curve. It was much easier to phrase it as I originally did, although I neglected to put 'the' beforehand. I can see how without the 'the' it seems to be talking about a majority - which can only be reflected by a given area under the curve.

Your correction is appreciated, but please assess my critism of the 95% CI usage on its mathemetical validity. Too often minor details are used to obfuscate and deflect a perfectly sound argument...

Posted by derzornhistology at February 11, 2006 01:03 AM

DERZ -

Your criticism is correct. They should have just stated the interval, not the midpoint of the interval.

Posted by at February 11, 2006 02:07 AM

you are just as much a stranger and a crackpot as anyone at wikipedia, so i dont trust you anymore than i trust them. yes wikipedia gets things wrong, but they provide a forum for the truth to be debated. i kind of find it hard to believe that everyone (the people who made the study, the people who made the wikipedia article, the people who peer-reviewed the study) has it that wrong, especially since it is their job. you really should correct it then, because according to you these people dont know the most elementary things about statistics.

there is nothing about wikipedia that makes it slanted, i dont think there is a comparable sight out there. yes they may get things wrong, but if people like you discuss it and change the article (which you are free to do, and should do), then eventually the articles should get better and better and more factual.

Posted by ujedujik at February 11, 2006 08:08 AM

Umm, the Lancet study WASN'T peer-reviewed.

As for "outing" Plame, the woman who helped WRITE the law in question has said that this does not even APPROACH violating it.

But what does she know? She only helped write it.
-=Mike

Posted by MikeSC at February 11, 2006 08:53 AM

i believe the reason she doesnt think the law was broken was because toensing though plame wasnt covert. well, she was, and this has been confirmed this week, i posted a link earlier.

and you need to read the wikipedia article again, it talks about "peer reviewer Sheila M Bird, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge" and her criticisms as well as others (as well as responses to those criticisms).

Posted by ujedujik at February 11, 2006 09:26 AM

how is it that anyone still thinks bush is strong on national security?

Here's a clue: because faced with a Stalinist, homicidal dictator who has already used WMD, tried to build nuclear weapons, attacked two nations, and gassed entire villages, he does not give said dictator the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by E. Nough at February 11, 2006 03:00 PM

he does not give said dictator the benefit of the doubt. Posted by E. Nough

But they told us "there is no doubt" and "we know for a fact."

Posted by Steve J. at February 11, 2006 06:33 PM

Funny, John Kerry and Bill Clinton had no doubt and knew for a fact back then as well.

Posted by AQKahn at February 11, 2006 06:49 PM

This argument over who believed Iraq had WMD's is ridiculous, and is a rewriting of history. One doesn't have to support the war to acknowledge the facts. Hell, ask the previous pres.

From July 22, 2003:

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

..... Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

And:

Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalisation.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/09/1073437458359.html?oneclick=true

Posted by Sav at February 11, 2006 09:44 PM

It was said above that since Bush went into Iraq 90% of the worlds Muslims hate us. What was the number before Iraq? 89%? Maybe the hatred is now even more intense. Maybe they hate us 10 times as much. Scary.

=============================

Post Iraq invasion (Bush II) 500 tons of yellow cake was found in Iraq.

It is very possible this was left over from previous efforts (pre-1991). If so why didn't Saddam ship it to the UN? What was he saving it for? Coloring glass?

btw I have a blog spot url.

powerandcontrol. blog spot.com/

Which is being rejected.

I understand your peeve.

Isn't the free flow of information more important?

Posted by M. Simon at February 12, 2006 12:09 AM

Post Iraq invasion (Bush II) 500 tons of yellow cake was found in Iraq. It is very possible this was left over from previous efforts (pre-1991). If so why didn't Saddam ship it to the UN?

It was under seal by the IAEA.

Posted by Steve J. at February 12, 2006 01:44 AM

AQK -

The issue is that the Bush regime KNEW that people like Chalabi, "Curveball" and Al-Libi were unreliable yet we were told that their information was indisputable.

Posted by Steve J. at February 12, 2006 01:46 AM

AQK -

"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs",
TENET, 2/07/2001 http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_feb_2001.htm

POWELL, 2/24/2001: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"

"The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained." Powell, 5/15/01

"He [Saddam] does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Rice, 7/29/01

MR. RUSSERT: Do we have evidence that he's harboring terrorists?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: There is--in the past, there have been some activities related to terrorism by Saddam Hussein. But at this stage, you know, the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point, but clearly, we continue to have a fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html

Posted by Steve J. at February 12, 2006 01:48 AM

Ahh - you poor deluded fools. Can't you see the truth? Tony Loci/Toni Locy is an anagram for "linc to oy".

It's obvious that this reporting is nothing less than an Israeli plot to politically weaken the president so as to keep him beholden to his Zionist masters.

Posted by FooBear at February 12, 2006 10:11 AM

Post a comment