« High treason | Main | Some Things Never Interchange »

A solemn day

On this day, 38 years ago, Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy managed to kill off any hope that he would ever be president of the United States.

As well as a 28-year-old woman.

The Democratic Lion of the Senate drove his car off a bridge into water, swam to shore, went to his hotel, chatted with the clerk, then went to bed. In the morning, he notified authorities where he'd left the car -- after he talked with his lawyer.

As well as where he left Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned.

Teddy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He was given a suspended jail term and lost his license for a while.

We will likely never know the full story of what happened that night -- why the two were together, what Ted's intentions were, just how Mary Jo died, why Ted spent so many hours before telling police about the crash -- but one thing is certain: that incident alone was the primary reason he was never president.

That, however, did not keep the people of Massachusetts from re-electing him to the United States Senate in 1970.

And 1976.

And 1982.

And 1988.

And 1994.

And 2000.

And 2006.

Considerably more details about Chappaquiddick and the rest of the sordid Kennedy history can be found here.

(This story, in an early draft form, was accidentally published earlier today, hence the comments that are time-stamped prior to the timing of the piece. As usual, it was my screwup.)

(Also, a bit of grammatical cleanup, prompted by brainy)


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22666.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A solemn day:

Comments (99)

Teddy the swimmer is a conv... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

Teddy the swimmer is a convicted felon in my opinion. I have convicted him of manslaughter.

He is a disgrace to JFK's legacy as are all the other living Kennedy's. All are flaming assholes who never worked in their life thanks to a rum runner and all are on some socialist power bender to the point of treason.

How many lives has the Kenn... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

How many lives has the Kennedy family taken over the years? Even John John, who some thought was finally a good and responsible Kennedy, took the lives of 2 innocent people.

The Kennedy's, like many on the left, do believe in 2 sets of laws. Drunken Ted wants everyone else to pay taxes, yet, he hides much of the family money offshore?

The Kennedy's act as if they are concerned about the environment, but, thats only if it doesnt affect their life.

Drunken Ted took the life of an innocent woman, and possibly the life of an unborn child, and he hasnt lost a minutes sleep because of it.

If only the good die young, Drunken Ted might be the 1st Senator over 100 yrs old.

"The Democratic Lion of the... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"The Democratic Lion of the Senate drove his car off a bridge into water, swam to shore, went to his hotel, chatted with the clerk, then went to bed. In the morning, he notified authorities where he'd left the car -- after he talked with his lawyer.

As well as Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned."

I understand what you were going for, but the way this was constructed makes it seem that he talked with Mary Jo Kopechne before he notified authorities, not that "only after all that and a talk with his lawyer did he tell authorities where he left his car... and Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned.

Speaking of the Kennedys, I... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Speaking of the Kennedys, I hear that Al Gore III is petitioning to be an official member of the Kennedy Crime Family. He has met all the requirements and is well on his way.

Oh, my, the tragedy of all ... (Below threshold)
charlie:

Oh, my, the tragedy of all the Kennedy-caused deaths!

It'll never be even a glimmer to the 3618 American deaths perpetrated by just one lying member of the BUSH WARCRIME FAMILY.

"BUSH WARCRIME FAMILY."... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

"BUSH WARCRIME FAMILY."

Oops. You meant "BUSHITLER" didn't you? Punk. Traitor.

Jo, that line was funny.</p... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jo, that line was funny.

Charlie, your line was stupid. Please let the adults talk.

The Kennedy's are the very thing liberals rage about. They are privileged, they have a different justice structure and they cannot be questioned. When John John arrogantly flew his plane with his wife and sister in law and crashed it because he did not have the proper training, the Senator had the Navy and Coast Guard out in full force for recovery. How many average tax paying citizens can get that treatment? None. Again, just like Edwards, they are privileged and the liberals are blind to it. ww

BTW, I suspect the above tr... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

BTW, I suspect the above traitorous asshole of manufacturing votes. Such conduct is the standard purview of liars. Time for Olaf's hammer.

How many million innocent b... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

How many million innocent babies has the lib agenda help murder? Still want to claim to care about life?

Can we even dare to mention libs w/o mentioning hypocrisy?

Always amusing to see libs argue FOR the environment, from the steps of their Learjet.

Always amusing to see libs argue FOR the wind farms, as long as they cant see them from their compound.

Always amusing to a lib argue for govt paid health insurance, yet fail to take responsibiity for his failure of a life by not even being good enough to get a job as a FT teacher.

Always see the libs argue for cheaper healthcare, while scumbag vermin like BreckBoy are directly repsonsible for 1000's of unnecessary C-sections because he claims to channel the dead.

Its sadly amusing to see libs argue that people like Chris Reeve will walk if Christmas in Cambodia Kerry were elected.

Time for your meds, Jeff.</... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Time for your meds, Jeff.

Another example of h... (Below threshold)
suhnami:


Another example of how celebrties, whether politicians or actors (OJ Simpson) or Rock Stars (Vince Neil) can take lives (voluntarily or not) and get away with it. Justice is not blind, and if you have money or connections you still have a chance. Love it or not, this is our system. This same system also allows Libby to walk away scott free. The reality is when these people get into trouble they do whatever they can to not have to pay the price. If the option is open to get away, do you expect them not to take it? Also, to say the man never lost a minute sleep is purely conjecture. You have no idea what was going through that man's head. Although I can't imagine anyone not feeling bad about killing someone, this is a statement based on emotion and not fact, a la Michael Moore.

Hey suhnami, do you call $2... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Hey suhnami, do you call $250,000 and the loss of his license to practice law "scott free" ?
Kennedy may or may not have lost sleeep over it but it is a certainty that it drove him to become an alcoholic philanderer.

My Father's aunt was a real... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

My Father's aunt was a real Kennedy Family fan. She even had a scrap book about them. My Father said he would argue with her about them all the time.

After Chappaquiddick, she pitched the scrapbook in the garbage. Being a Kanookian, she never voted for them though.

I think there's a psychology that develops if you vote for someone. Rejecting them means admitting your earlier vote was a mistake or creates some other kind of psychological barrier to reason.

Whatever the barrier is, people will re-elect them. Gary Condit was on the path for re-election until his own party redrew his district. Everyone outside his original district wouldn't vote for him. But those who already had, were going to vote for him again. A local radio show in my town even called that district to see what was going on. Most people could really justify it, but they were going to vote for him again.

Let's not forget the murder... (Below threshold)
Potato Salad !!!!:

Let's not forget the murderous cousin Skakel nor the babysitter diddler Michael - who killed himself skiing wrecklessly in line with aforementioned carelessness.

Truly they are the Sopranos.

Ah yes -- when right winger... (Below threshold)
BC:

Ah yes -- when right wingers are feeling down, just bring up Chappaquiddick. Bush and the people who voted for him are responsible for at least 670,000 civilian deaths in Iraq (forget the "official" counts -- a bit of math plus this survey indicates that its approximately about 10x the number at Iraqbodycount.org).

And as far as Chappaquiddick goes, I was never particularly interested in that little business until I got into a Usenet debate a while back, and a little bit of research showed that, surprise friggin surprise, that the right wing version leaves off a few not so piddly details.

-BC

See my conservative friends... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

See my conservative friends, BC takes the liberal position that is "we can do it but you can't." Pathetic to say the least. We are only talking about an innocent girl that was left to drown. To the liberals, like unborn children and our troops, all can be thrown away for a political advantage. ww

There is a final chapter to... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

There is a final chapter to the story.

In the opinion of the examining doctor and the scuba diver who retrieved the body, Mary Jo died of asphyxiation, not drowning. No water in significant amounts could be found in the lungs, although a complete autopsy was blocked by Kennedy family pressure.

This can mean only one thing: as Ted was sleeping it off, Mary was holding on and breathing from a diminishing pocket of air trapped inside the car.

As Mary Jo was pleading for the help that would not be forthcoming, Ted was discussing the political spin attendant to the event with his brothers.

Even Edgar Allen Poe himself never created a storyline quite so horrifying

Bush's NIE comes flat out ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Bush's NIE comes flat out and says that Bush is loosing the war on terror and the WB staff posts about a 38-year old controversy and Michael Vick?

Don't forget ole Teddy got ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Don't forget ole Teddy got Willie Smith out of bed to go out drinking and carousing, and thus the rape scandal began. Does anyone else have an uncle who encourages his nieces & nephews to wake up and "let's go party?"
I know I don't.

And don't forget Teddy Kennedy up on his pedestal during the Clarence Thomas hearings, having the utter nerve to scold Clarence Thomas about the Anita Hill non story.

Oh the nerve, the nerve of liberals. There is nothing else like it.

Ah yes, here's BC right on ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Ah yes, here's BC right on time to produce a phoney argument with phoney numbers. A bunch of moonbat professors called around the Sunni areas, asked how many people died and multiplied the number by some arbitrary fudge factor. Gee, that's probably accurate.

And they say Republican abuse science.

"This same system also a... (Below threshold)

"This same system also allows Libby to walk away scott free." - by suhnami

Hahaha.

And BC, our resident psychic detective, whose claim to fame is his "expert analysis" of the Rathergate memos, (which is linked to his name for each and every comment he makes lest we forget) among his other various and sundry incontrovertable analyses, can't wait to tell us at every opportunity how much smarter he is than all the experts, people who were there and most of all, us right-wingers. Because he heard something on usenet and the wiki entry on Kennedy's actions that night gives us not so piddly details.

Usenet.

More guffaws.

What was one of the the not so piddly details? We didn't mention that he had gone back to the party and enlisted the help of another person who ALSO didn't call authorities.

Laughing uproariously now.

Look under a rock and look ... (Below threshold)
JFO:

Look under a rock and look what crawls out! The looney tune fraternity at Whizbang. Wow! You sure drew the foam at the mouth haters with this "interesting" post Jay. Were you bored?

Article: Annivers... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Article: Anniversary of Fat Bastard's Murder Of Mary Jo Kopechne...

Idiotic Leftard Posters: But the story is so oooooold... Hey, look over there! Bushitler is killing zillions of civilians!

Kennedy avoided any jail time for the murder of a young lady who likely gave up her last, precious moments of air thinking "WTF?!?".
THAT is the power the fawning left gave (and continues to give) him.

This walking manatee's blind supporters, apathetic to laws of God and man (and decency), are just as guilty.

Mary Jo could not be reached for comment.

BC, the iraq study has been... (Below threshold)

BC, the iraq study has been disowned even by the journal that published it as invalid methodology.

Heck. Some sort of perversi... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Heck. Some sort of perversion is practically requisite for elective office in Massachusetts.

I'm not saying I'm smarter ... (Below threshold)
BC:

I'm not saying I'm smarter -- all I do is take the time to look into matters before shooting my mouth (or keyboard) off. I'm not really ragging on you guys in particular -- my main issue is with the distribution of "facts" these days. There's practically no real fact checking being done anymore, with even the most eye-rolling nonsense gets free passage on what you guys call the MSM, but what is much more accurately described as the hollowed-out corporate media.

The end result is sort of a wild west of news sources of wildly variable credibility, and with everyone pushing his/her "facts" and bad-mouthing the competition's. I look at Rathergate as a very good example of how our much ballyhooed free press can't handle stories anymore of any complexity that require research. The Chappaquiddick story seems to get more convoluted every year when it was never more than just another sad ass accident that would not have made the front page if it hadn't involved the unlucky Kennedys.

And things like the true number of civilian casualties in Iraq -- I'm sure some of you saw postings like this on other right wing sites about how safer Iraq is than a US city like Washington DC, and this was done by accepting the low published casualty numbers: did you ever think how inherently nonsensical this was given what you were seeing on TV and reading about? And that maybe the true casualty numbers may perhaps be a bit higher? A lot higher actually? But where is the "coverage" of this despite some highly credible studies on the matter?

Whatever....

-BC

Let's see, trot out ... (Below threshold)
Tommy:


Let's see, trot out Kennedys name to get a rise from the slobbering morons here. Such hard work.

Slow news day much? And you say the left has something called Bush derangement syndrome? Hahahaaa! You say the left is full of hatred?

Is irony completely lost on you dolts?

You also forgot to include any of the following names to also get a rise from the bitter losers who herd here.

Clinton (either/or)
Michael Moore
George Soros
Kos (seeing how Dildo O Lielly is on the case)

Get this through your fat heads (I never knew Lorie was such a porker til I saw her headshot at Townhall, now I know why it's just a headshot)

Kennedy is everything you will never be for the rest of your boring middle class lives. They have money, power and influence you can only dream of.

But of course, you have this little joke of a blog as your salve.

Heck. Some sort of perve... (Below threshold)
Tommy:

Heck. Some sort of perversion is practically requisite for elective office in Massachusetts.

So Mitt wears diapers with hookers too? Cool!

THe NIE published on April ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

THe NIE published on April 2006 showed a downward trend for AlQ. So according to Barney, AlQ is gaining now. Maybe the election of the Dem congress in 2006 with Reid/Pelosi (and liberals like Barney and BC) ready to do the prop bidding, the terrorists have been encouraged to step up their fight? Maybe AlQ getting the signals from the liberals about their willingness to surrender in Iraq?

Watching lefties foam at t... (Below threshold)
Veeshir:

Watching lefties foam at the mouth when you insult Teddy is much funnier than watching them foam at the mouth when you attack Bill Clinton. But that can be pretty amusing too.

In 1978, a group of British... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

In 1978, a group of British mathematicians submitted Ted Kennedy's name to the Guinness Book of World Records for the world land speed record. It seems they were able to prove mathematically that Kenndy had to be travelling in excess of approximately 800 miles and hour for Mary Jo Kopechne's panties to end up in the glove compartment.

The Guinness folks turned down the submittal - there were no witnesses.

BC:"I'm not saying I... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

BC:
"I'm not saying I'm smarter -- all I do is take the time to look into matters before shooting my mouth (or keyboard) off...my main issue is with the distribution of "facts" these days. There's practically no real fact checking being done anymore"

Ummm, wasn't the study you are touting on Iraqi deaths discredited LONG ago?!

"The Chappaquiddick story seems to get more convoluted every year when it was never more than just another sad ass accident that would not have made the front page if it hadn't involved the unlucky Kennedys."

Holy hell, "just another sad ass accident" for the "unlucky" Kennedys!!! Haaaahahahahaha, ridiculous!!

THe NIE published o... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

THe NIE published on April 2006 showed a downward trend for AlQ. So according to Barney, AlQ is gaining now.

It must be tough being so thick headed that you can't even acknowledge what's right in front of yours - and everyone elses - face.

According to the NIE for July 2007, they are gaining. Getting strong. There is no vagueness in that assessment.

So there. Go ahead and convince yourself Al Qaeda is weakening, George Bush is winning and little pink elephants fly around in the sky.

The Guinness folks turne... (Below threshold)
Tommy:

The Guinness folks turned down the submittal - there were no witnesses.

What amazing humour and wit. Man, you must write for that suck ass show on Faux news that tries to copy The Daily Show laced with nothing but extremely unfunny jokes.

Does anyone on the right understand the concept of creative writing?


"Does anyone on the right u... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"Does anyone on the right understand the concept of creative writing?"

Well we sure as hell know that the left does.

"Look under a rock and l... (Below threshold)

"Look under a rock and look what crawls out! The looney tune fraternity at Whizbang."

Nope, no hate there.

Re: tommy's entire diatribe.

Nope, no hate there either.

BC, you seem to have trouble with what you've repeatedly attributed to other webloggers and other right wing sites, yet you come here and give us grief about it?

Whatever.....

"The Chappaquiddick story seems to get more convoluted every year when it was never more than just another sad ass accident that would not have made the front page if it hadn't involved the unlucky Kennedys."

How "convoluted" has it been portrayed here? You may think it was just a "sad ass accident", while some of us hold the opinion that it's merely indicative of long decades of poor judgement, bad behavior and the special treatment of an entire family which it seems can get away with just about anything. That may not bother you, but it does some of us. Judging from your disdain for right-wing "feces flinging" I can only imagine your own outrage if Ted Kennedy were a conservative.

hansel2,The report... (Below threshold)
Eric:

hansel2,

The report says AQ is getting stronger mainly because they had managed to establish a safe haven in Pakistan. I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but it seems their safe haven is getting much less safe.

What is it about lefties that makes them shit their pants and run away at the first setback?

Hey Oyester, I know you are... (Below threshold)
Tommy:

Hey Oyester, I know you are a little slow, but there is a big difference between being a smartass and being hateful.

If I had written something like, all republicans are traitors that need to be lined up against a wall and shot, now that's hateful.

But calling Loire a cow isn't hateful, just accurate

What is it about lefties... (Below threshold)
Tommy:

What is it about lefties that makes them shit their pants and run away at the first setback?

The FIRST setback? Bwahahahahahahahaaaa!

You forgot one other term f... (Below threshold)

You forgot one other term for your language, Tommy:

Fatal.

As in, "fatal to your commenting career at Wizbang."

When you find yourself resorting to stupid personal insults and attacks, you've lost the argument. And in this case, you've lost the forum as well.

Have a nice life, Tommy -- somewhere else.

J.

Eric, you are trying to mak... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Eric, you are trying to make the liberal lefties pay attention to facts. That will not happen. They only wait for Moveon's talking points for the day and go with that. They are bankrupt for ideas and suggestions. ww

According to the NIE for Ju... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

According to the NIE for July 2007, they are gaining. Getting strong. There is no vagueness in that assessment.
------------------------------------
hansel2 was either too dense to read the arg. April 2006, AlQ was losing. July 2007, AlQ is gaining. What was the major event between the 2 dates? The election of the Dem congress with Reid/Pelosi proclaiming their surrender plan loudly to the terrorists. Also, maybe AlQ is getting the encouragement about how the liberals have been trying to undermine the GWOT? That 's the arg that hansel is trying to ignore or too dense to acknowledge. I simply using the liberal standard. The election of the liberal/dem congress has been good for AlQ.

Kennedy is everything yo... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Kennedy is everything you will never be for the rest of your boring middle class lives. They have money, power and influence you can only dream of.

Gee, and all this time I thought you people were for the "little guy" and the "working man." It turns out you're just boorish elitist snobs (or boorish elitist snob wannabes). Thanks for showing your utter contempt for America's heartland. Every once in awhile it's nice to catch a leftist in a fit of honesty.

D-Hogg wrote:Um... (Below threshold)
BC:

D-Hogg wrote:

Ummm, wasn't the study you are touting on Iraqi deaths discredited LONG ago?!

Nope. Thanks for proving my point -- lots of people merely "opinionated" about those figures, but nobody came even remotely close to refuting them, yet you and others have come to believe via half-ass news "coverage" and factless blog postings that they were somehow discredited.

"The Chappaquiddick story seems to get more convoluted every year when it was never more than just another sad ass accident that would not have made the front page if it hadn't involved the unlucky Kennedys."

Holy hell, "just another sad ass accident" for the "unlucky" Kennedys!!! Haaaahahahahaha, ridiculous!!

Sorry, but two brothers assassinated, another killed in war, and a whole bunch of other things amount to some seriously bad luck.

-BC

Barney,"Bush's NIE comes fl... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Barney,"Bush's NIE comes flat out and says that Bush is loosing the war on terror"

Bullshit. It does NOT say that AT ALL. Read the NIE for yourself.

From the Key Judgements:
"We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa'ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led
terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11
. These
measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11."

How many times was the Duke... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

How many times was the Dukester elected...
he is spilling the truth because jail is harsh..
that is why "Scooter" got his get out of jail card

....yep..those libs...
Read and freakin' weep...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/cunningham/20070717-2053-bn17dukebribe.html

BC, even the Lancet now dis... (Below threshold)

BC, even the Lancet now disowns the methodology of the study you continue to flog. It was published without peer review. Its a crock of crap.

Hansel2, "According to the ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Hansel2, "According to the NIE for July 2007, they are gaining. Getting strong. There is no vagueness in that assessment."

I challenge you to provide a specific quote from the NIE to support that statement.

Yes, Nogo... but Cunningham... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

Yes, Nogo... but Cunningham's in JAIL where he should be, Libby didn't kill anyone with his faulty memory, and Ted gets his freedom to drink Chivas and use up my oxygen.

I think nogo should return ... (Below threshold)

I think nogo should return to wishing for terrorist attacks on US soil - it was more indicative of nogo's true feelings.

nogo, the Duke was elected ... (Below threshold)

nogo, the Duke was elected governor in 1974, 1982, and 1986, and was the Democratic nominee in 1988. If THAT doesn't tell you volumes about Massachusetts voters...

J.

Olaf: Whack!... (Below threshold)

Olaf: Whack!

Hansel2Achtung!</p... (Below threshold)

Hansel2

Achtung!

What eric said...Posted by Eric | July 18, 2007 5:48 PM

Our thick heads are waiting.

Jay
Thanks for using your new hammer on the Pinnball Wizard.

I suppose the Massachusetts... (Below threshold)

I suppose the Massachusetts voters find Kennedy effective enough on the issues that they care about that they can stomach electing him to the Senate only, while the general American public lost interest in Kennedy since the scandal, and he forever remains damaged goods to them. His value as a "local" politician remains intact. But his national staus is forever gone.

Robin Roberts wrote:<... (Below threshold)
BC:

Robin Roberts wrote:

BC, even the Lancet now disowns the methodology of the study you continue to flog. It was published without peer review. Its a crock of crap.

*Sigh....* No, The Lancet did no such thing. Gawd damn, where the hell are you getting this nonsense? The only fault found was a screw-up in one of the graphs, but that addressed in some follow-up letters in Lancet. The study stands.

See this wiki for more info.

-BC

Paul,I suppo... (Below threshold)

Paul,

I suppose the Massachusetts voters find Kennedy effective enough on the issues that they care about that they can stomach electing him to the Senate only, while the general American public lost interest in Kennedy since the scandal, and he forever remains damaged goods to them. His value as a "local" politician remains intact. But his national staus is forever gone.

Well, there's something we can agree on.

Kennedy is everything you w... (Below threshold)
DBCooper:

Kennedy is everything you will never be....

You're right fat ted is something I'll never be, the only male in his immediate family. Guess people thought he wasnt worth the cost of a bullet.

BC,The study is cl... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BC,

The study is clearly flawed. For it to be true there would have to be over 300 deaths every single day due to the occupation. There isn't, and anybody who pays attention knows it.

It's a phone study, for God's sake. They're trusting people to answer honestly when the respondents have an interest in skewing the final number. How that can have any credibility, even to logic-challenged lefties, is beyond me.

Jay;Don't forget 7... (Below threshold)
Semanticleo:

Jay;

Don't forget 7/18/73-----The day Nixon ordered
the WH taping system unplugged.

168 servicemen died in 1973.

http://thewall-usa.com/summary.asp

That trumps your tragedy somewhat.

Eric, from NIE:"We... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Eric, from NIE:

"We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of
individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge
that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.

• As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.


So Eric, we are at the same place as we were 6-years ago. Is that your definition of winning?

The study is crap. This b... (Below threshold)

The study is crap. This bogus study concludes that more Iraqis have died in Iraq than the entire WWII Allied strategic bombing campaign of Germany managed to kill in 5 years of concentrated bombing of Germany's cities. It does not pass a laugh test.

The UN's study covered more households and reached a far lower number.
Even your wikipedia link notes that the pre invasion death rate of 5.5 per 1000 is hardly credible. The head author of the study admitted that they did not ask demographic questions of respondants and did not even compare their samples to pre-war Iraqi census data.

Steven Moore writes:

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

Complete crap.

Banned Tommy,Yes, ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Banned Tommy,

Yes, the first setback. Remember the cruel Afgan winter? The one our troops would never be able to fight in?

Or the sandstorm during the Iraq invasion? "OMG - quagmire!"

Every step of the way we've had people on the left proclaiming failure - failure in what we were doing, what we had done, and failure in the ultimate mission. We haven't failed, and we won't fail unless the Democrats manage to convince enough people we will in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This paragraph should have ... (Below threshold)

This paragraph should have been included in the blockquote:
"Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census."

It appears there are two Er... (Below threshold)
Eric:

It appears there are two Eric's posting here. Hello Eric.

Let's take further what the other Eric said, using BC's wiki link. In that link the study covers from the start of the war in April 2003 to June 2006. Which is approximately 1155 days. In that time the report says 654,965 excess deaths related to the war. Do the math,
654965/1155 = 567 deaths every single day. That doesn't seem to be realistic.

By the way, should anyone h... (Below threshold)

By the way, should anyone have the mistaken impression that the Lancet is objective, note that its editor, Richard Horton, has appeared at anti-Iraq War rallies.

Barney,We're hardl... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Barney,

We're hardly in the same place. Did you read my whole post? Have you been paying attention to the news lately? The deal between the Pakistani government and the "tribes" is off.

I'm not sure what exactly we could have done to keep Musharaff from going wobley. Are you saying we should have invaded Pakistan instead?

Also, having worked for the government, I can look at this report and tell you it has "cya" and "give us more money" written all over it. You will never see a report that says we're safer than before, for the same reason our "terrorism alert level" will never be green - nobody wants to give a falsifiable opinion.

Look at the first Key Judge... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Look at the first Key Judgement that I quoted before.

"We assess that greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al-Qa'ida to attack the US Homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the Homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11."

Based on that statement I would say yes we are winning. Have we won? No. No one is saying the war is over and that al-Qai'ida is defeated. No ONE. So they are regenerating some of their capabilities. Does THAT mean we are losing?

Why do the Liberals always have this binary approach to everything? AQ has regenerated some capability therefore we are losing the war. We are constantly regenerating capability too. Doesn't that mean that AQ is losing by your logic?

The whole point of the NIE is to say yes the threat still exists, and here is how the threat is shaping up as AQ changes tactics.

Germany wasn't defeated immediately following D-Day. Germany regrouped following D-Day. Ever heard of the Battle of the Bulge?

Boy the libbies sure get th... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Boy the libbies sure get their backs up when Kennedy and his crimes are mentioned. They must be so embarrassed. You should be. He's an absolute everyday reminder that democrats are one sick party to keep electing his type over and over again. But hey, when the pickins are so slim from that deranged bunch, what are you gonna do?! lol.

Love it, love it, love it. :)

"I suppose the Massachusett... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

"I suppose the Massachusetts voters find Kennedy effective enough on the issues that they care about that they can stomach electing him to the Senate only."

The peoples progressive republic of mASS. would vote for Kennedy over ANY Repulican for President besides the Senate. It has very LITTLE to do with his hack ability to bring home the pork.
MASS has a 87% Democratic legislature and climbing, leads the country in loony left agendas such as, strict gun laws, gay marriage etc. Electing Teddy Gasbag is a given....for this state.

"But his national status is forever gone."
THANKFULLY!!!

Now if only the nation puts the state of mASS in the same status, everything will be in it's proper perspective.

When you find yourself r... (Below threshold)
Brian:

When you find yourself resorting to stupid personal insults and attacks, you've lost the argument. And in this case, you've lost the forum as well.

Ah, another leftie poster whacked after a handful of posts by Jay, who cannot stand such behavior. Unless it comes from the right, while those who cannot summon the ability to post anything but personal insults and attacks are allowed to continue strong. Even after being told by Jay to knock it off. And even after ignoring that directive.

Jay, I think it's time for another one of your posts where you tell us all that you are not conservative, but independent and moderate.

Brian, it's not really poli... (Below threshold)

Brian, it's not really political in this case. I'm innately more protective of my friends than I am of strangers, or myself for that matter. I'll take a LOT of crap from people -- but go after those I am fond of, and I'll hit back VERY hard. Toss in a bit of an overdeveloped sense of chivalry, and it's a no-brainer that I'll smack down assholes like Tommy.

It's a personal quirk, but one I've chosen to live with.

J.

To Robin Roberts and Eric:<... (Below threshold)
BC:

To Robin Roberts and Eric:

You two and others like you should leave science and research to people who actually know how to do science and research.

Back in the fall, I did a little dimensional mathematical analysis during a Usenet debate regarding the likely ballpark figure for Iraqi civilian casualties, and that totally supported the "John Hopkins" study (The Lancet simply published it.) The math really isn't that hard and regardless of whether you take the worst or best case scenarios for the initial data, the end result indicates that the true casualty count is about at least 10x higher than the Iraq Body Count numbers (which the US has been quietly using without attribution.)

But don't take my word for it.

-BC

BCYou two and ... (Below threshold)

BC
You two and others like you should leave science and research to people who actually know how to do science and research.

Therein lies the flaw in your polemic. You bring those "science and research" qualities to a political forum. And then you ask everyone who doesn't embrace that method to leave.

That's akin to the smart guy at the party who only wants to argue with himself.

HughS wrote:BC<... (Below threshold)
BC:

HughS wrote:

BC
You two and others like you should leave science and research to people who actually know how to do science and research.

Therein lies the flaw in your polemic. You bring those "science and research" qualities to a political forum. And then you ask everyone who doesn't embrace that method to leave.

That's akin to the smart guy at the party who only wants to argue with himself.

It's become a sport of sorts among the right wing to second guess and poo-poo the work of scientists, regardless of the quality of the research, where it was published, and how it's regarded by other scientists and experts in the field. Would my comment be less embracing if I was commenting on pro baseball -- "You two and others like you should leave hitting and fielding to people who actually know how to do hitting and fielding"? And if you happen to be member of a good amateur ball club, the criticism still applies -- the "Major League" is called that for a reason. You need to respect the talents of a Derek Jeter or a David Ortiz, and you need to do the same for high caliber scientists doing difficult research and getting published and featured in major scientific journals.

For someone in the know, the vast bulk of criticisms aimed at things like this Iraqi casualty report or global warming studies is eye-rolling nonsense. The people making the criticisms may think they're making valid points, but they might as well as be telling an experienced Tour De France rider to use a big comfortable bike seat and to carbo-load on Twinkies.

-BC

Hey bc how about the scient... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hey bc how about the scientist on the other side? I take it they hold no water because you don't agree with them. Am I missing something here?

BC asks us "but don't take ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

BC asks us "but don't take my word for it"
and proceeds to link to a usenet group. To one of his own posts. Which links to another group. Where he again is the math wizard spreading the gospel. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
But he really drives it home with the strong arguement: Eff Why Eye!
You've got to love the Truthers. I don't think a sane person could write comedy that is so rich.

BC, I have enough backgroun... (Below threshold)

BC, I have enough background in statistical analysis to recognize BS methodology in studies when they are in front of me.

In this case, the John Hopkins/Lancet studies violate basic principles of statistical sampling and validation. And they result in conclusions that defy practical observations.

Oyster, I lost a nights sle... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

Oyster, I lost a nights sleep (last night) searching for a vehicle that was reported through 9-11 as having gone into a lake. Since we are 'not Kennedy's' we didn't want someone spending hours dying in an air pocket while a driver spent 7-8 hours calling lawyers and sobering up. If the vehicle had actually been there we would have recovered in fairly fast and anyone lucky enough to be trapped in an air pocket 'may' have been saved. Not so for Mary Jo Kopechne, Drunken Ted was only concerned for himself. I only have pity for anyone that supports a slime ball like him. By the way I was in the Military when JFK was taking on Russia over Cuba and would have followed him to hell and back. None of the Kennedy's are nor ever have been worth spit but JFK stood up one time in his life. Money envy drives the entire democrat party.

Robin Roberts wrote:<... (Below threshold)
BC:

Robin Roberts wrote:

BC, I have enough background in statistical analysis to recognize BS methodology in studies when they are in front of me.

In this case, the John Hopkins/Lancet studies violate basic principles of statistical sampling and validation. And they result in conclusions that defy practical observations.

So you say -- can you point out where in particular?

Also, while you're at it, why don't you help SCSIwuzzy in pointing out flaws in the math I used in this Usenet post of mine. Apparently SCSIwuzzy doesn't like it because it's only a Usenet post and I used math. I'm sure someone with "enough background in statistical analysis" can find many mistakes in my casual little calculations, especially since they back up the numbers reached by the John Hopkins study.

-BC

The election of the... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

The election of the Dem congress with Reid/Pelosi proclaiming their surrender plan loudly to the terrorists. Also, maybe AlQ is getting the encouragement about how the liberals have been trying to undermine the GWOT?

I challenge you to provide a specific quote from the NIE to support that statement.

Delusional. It's both frustrating and sad these people have such a hard time with facts and reality. It must be tough being so terribly scared by all the events around the world that you have to hide behind the soothing lies of GWB and ignore, parse or make fantasy assessments about every bit of information that doesn't fit your psychosis.

As Roosevelt said, the only thing to fear is fear itself - and apparently none of you understand that statement.

Delusional. It's both frust... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Delusional. It's both frustrating and sad these people have such a hard time with facts and reality. It must be tough being so terribly scared by all the events around the world that you have to hide behind the soothing lies of GWB and ignore, parse or make fantasy assessments about every bit of information that doesn't fit your psychosis.

As Roosevelt said, the only thing to fear is fear itself - and apparently none of you understand that statement.
-------------------------------------
A perfect description of yourself and the liberal. You are so delusional in your hatred of Bush that you are willing to hide behind the lies of Reid/Pelosi to mask their despicable rhetoric/actions.

Apparently you don't know what you are talking about when you are quoting FDR. He was willing to fight against the fascists. The modern liberals like you are ready to surrender to the terrorists. Since AlQ considers Iraq the central battle, so liberals want to run from IRaq. That 's a fact that you don't seem to understand.

BC, Can you give m... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BC,
Can you give me the number of civilians that have been killed by the terrorists? Looks like the terrorists have been trying to blow up women/children/civilians indiscriminately to bring up the count of civilian deaths. I think that is a good telling number about the atrocities of the terrorists. One thing the left can do is to call on the terrorists to leave Iraq, then we will see a significant drop in civilian deaths. We know that for sure.

LoveAmerica Immigrant wrote... (Below threshold)
BC:

LoveAmerica Immigrant wrote:


BC,
Can you give me the number of civilians that have been killed by the terrorists? Looks like the terrorists have been trying to blow up women/children/civilians indiscriminately to bring up the count of civilian deaths. I think that is a good telling number about the atrocities of the terrorists. One thing the left can do is to call on the terrorists to leave Iraq, then we will see a significant drop in civilian deaths. We know that for sure.

According to this US State Department report, for Iraq, there were 20,685 deaths in Iraq in 2005 attributable to terrorism, and 38,813 in 2006.

According to the Iraq Body Count web site, there were 14,910 civilians killed (by whomever, whatever) between 3/20/05 and 3/19/06, and 26,540 killed between 3/20/06 and 3/19/07.

I'm a bit curious about those State Dept. numbers since they seem to directly contradict another State Dept. report from last October that claimed 50,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in total since the beginning of the war. But if you add up the deaths from just 2005 and 2006 supposedly attributed to terrorism, you get 59,498. This is awfully close to the total civilian war deaths by IBC's count as of 3/19/07: 56,314 (6,332 + 11,312 + 14,910 + 26,540 and including the 7,400 deaths during the invasion phase).

Anybody else out there seeing at least one big, friggin discrepancy here?

-BC

Just look at the report and... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Just look at the report and here is what Bush said

Bush told reporters October 11, when asked about his estimate of 30,000 Iraqi deaths as of December 2005.

And the number in 2005 due to terrorism alone is 20K. So this is not such a big discrepancy. Also, I think most of the civilian deaths is due to terrorism (the terrorists indiscriminately blowing up hospitals, schools etc...). So any study that didn't account for this in a clear way is biased at best in my opinion.

OK, I am looking for an honest study that give me a number of civilian deaths due to terrorism in Iraq. My guess is that 90% of the deaths are due to terrorism. The coalition is building infrastructure. It is the terrorists who are blowing up women/childen/school/hospitals etc... If you have such a study, please let me know.

To LoveAmerica Immigrant:</... (Below threshold)
BC:

To LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You will find that getting good, honest data about something like the Iraq war to be near impossible -- it's too dangerous for much if any NGO involvement and governments tend to lie their asses off while a war is hot and ongoing. With that said, there is a lot of statistical stuff here (be sure to click on the "Most Recent Iraq Index PDF" link).

And I still don't see any reason to question the John Hopkins/Lancet study that about 655,000 civilians (as of last October) were killed because of the war.

-BC

BC, I will go with ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BC,
I will go with the official number from the gov. Still an honest study would give me the number of civilian deaths due to terrorism. Again, my educated guess is that 90% of the civilian deaths can be attributed to terrorism. The military campaign was too short to do any significant damage to the infrastructure and civilian deaths. Most of the civilian deaths are probably caused by the brutal inhumance tactics of the terrorists in hiding in civilian areas, blowing up indiscriminately women/childen/hospitals/schools ...(there are reports that AlQ cooked children to terrorize the parents).
Unfortunately I don't find such an honest study yet.

BC, The left has b... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BC,
The left has been less than honest wrt intelligence report. The left uses double standard and tends to lie to support their view. The hypocrisy of the dems is beyond parody for me on this issue.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07192007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/twisting_intel_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
DEMOCRATS on Capitol Hill have complained for years that the White House "cherry-picks" intelligence. Yesterday, that's exactly what the Dems did themselves with the just-declassified summary of a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism.
While preparing for their congressional pajama party Tuesday night (D.C. escort services reportedly had a slow evening), the Dems showed once again that, as wretched as the Bush administration can be, it remains a safer bet in the Age of Terror.

The Dems want to have it both ways. They claim we're not fighting al Qaeda. Then they insist we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda.

And, as a capper, no leading Democrat praised our military when it was revealed yesterday that we captured the senior Iraqi in al Qaeda, Khaled al-Mashhadani. Wouldn't want any good news reaching the voters . . .

The intelligence report in question said, in essence, that, after the devastating blow we struck against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the terrorists have regained some strength in their safe haven on Pakistan's Northwest Frontier. It doesn't say that al Qaeda is stronger than ever - although that's what the Dems imply.

In 2001, al Qaeda had a country of its own. Today, it survives in isolated compounds. And guess which "veteran warrior" wants to go get them?

Sen. Barack Obama. Far too important to ever serve in the military himself, Obama thinks we should invade Pakistan.

Go for it, Big Guy. Of course, we'll have to reintroduce the draft to find enough troops. And we'll need to kill, at a minimum, a few hundred thousand tribesmen and their families. We'll need to occupy the miserable place indefinitely.

The left uses doubl... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

The left uses double standard and tends to lie to support their view. The hypocrisy of the dems is beyond parody for me on this issue.

Parody is you using a link to the New York Post as some kind of reliable source. We in NY laugh at the Post. Even the conservatives here admit it's a juiced-up right-wing rag. You're so delusional about your "reliable" information I almost feel sorry for you.

We in NY laugh at the Post<... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

We in NY laugh at the Post
------------------------------
So you are relying on the NY Times, which has been caught red-handed lying a few times already. This is the liberal paper of record. So it tells you much about the reliability of the liberal media in general.

The doublespeak of the left is listed there for you. The bottom line is that liberals want to run from Iraq now because AlQ is there. That 's a fact.

bc lost any smidgen of cred... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

bc lost any smidgen of credibility he may have EVER had the second he posted a Wikipedia link as some kind of evidence to his argument.

To D-Hoggs:You're ... (Below threshold)
BC:

To D-Hoggs:

You're an friggin idiot -- I linked to two State Dept. sites, to a John Hopkins one, and to a Brookings one. The Wiki link was to a handy timeline of the "Kennedy Curse" -- if you think something is wrong there, point it out.

To the rest of you, it looks like Wizbang has a little bit of "Google Groups" disease -- my last post simply disappeared.

Let me simplify my last (not missing) post: that 50,000 count for Iraqi casualties that the Bush administration offered back in the fall to counter the John Hopkins/Lancet study is mathematically impossibly too low. Given Iraq's population and the best and worst case scenarios for the pre-invasion murder/kill rate, that 50k would mean that Iraqi is only maybe 50% more dangerous than Washington DC on a bad year in the worst case, and actually safer than DC in the best case.

This is utter nonsense given what we know about how dangerous and bloody things are over there.

However, given that murder rates in cities can go up or down by as much as 3x due to changes in the economy and policing, a minimal of a 10x change can be reasonably expected in a war. And a 10x change at the minimal in the murder/death rate would put civilian casualties in the 455,000+ range -- which falls within the error of margin for the John Hopkins/Lancet report.

Reality is a bitch who really, REALLY doesn't like Republicans and their dumbass math.

FYI,

-BC

So you are relying ... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

So you are relying on the NY Times, which has been caught red-handed lying a few times already. This is the liberal paper of record. So it tells you much about the reliability of the liberal media in general.

The doublespeak of the left is listed there for you. The bottom line is that liberals want to run from Iraq now because AlQ is there. That 's a fact.

You like making assumptions, don't you? Try doing this: Rather than making bold assumptions of which there ARE NO FACTS (i.e. "90% of attacks in Iraq are the terrorists (Al Qaeda)", "Liberals want to run from Iraq now because of AIQ"), actually find reliable, non-biased studies to quote as your source - not right-wing tabloid rags like the New York Post. You quote the Post, nobody will take you seriously. Not even anyone on the Sunday morning shows would dare quote the Post for fear of being laughed out of the room.

Call me whatever you want, I really don't care. You haven't made one substantial statement that relies on something other than sensational journalism -- it would be like a doctor quoting "Gray's Anatomy" as his source for performing open heart surgery.

And, another falsehood (of which you make such a bold claim, as if you would know anything) - I don't read the Times, I prefer the Daily News.

hansel2, Look at yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

hansel2,
Look at your post. They are devoid of substance. I made my point and gave reasons for it. What are your reliable sources? None so far. You don't have the facts and the logic. You simply spout your cheap liberal talking points.
Read my posts and answer my reasoning. Your silly distraction wrt the post is simply cheap tactic to avoid answering my args. Since you don't have facts or logic, you have to resort to this cheap tactic. I don't see any substance in your post yet.

Read my posts and a... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Read my posts and answer my reasoning

Your "reasoning" means nothing when your sources are debunked. Don't you understand that? NEW YORK POST IS NOT A SOURCE. IT IS A SOURCE OF UNINTENTIONAL HUMOR.

Your silly distraction wrt the post is simply cheap tactic to avoid answering my args.

If I made an absurd claim like "Dick Cheney is a woman!" and backed it up with a link to an outlandish editorial from a website called "all-men-are-women.com" or something unreliable like that, do you think I'd warrant a rebuttal with competing facts?

It would be a waste of time for another poster since my basic claim is debunked by the source. Do you understand that?

Since you don't have facts or logic, you have to resort to this cheap tactic. I don't see any substance in your post yet.

The substance of my post is that your posts HAVE no substance. You have not made a single claim that warrants anyone to go to the trouble of making a counter claim. Your arguments have no merit.

Someday, maybe, you might understand that just because a source agrees with your opinion doesn't make it fact. When I quote (as I have many times in the past) - like, for example, Bush's slap to Children's healthcare, I'll using something like Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1831617920070718) a REAL news source. A reliable, unbiased one. If I can't get confirmation on Reuters or Associated Press, it's not worth mentioning.

You, on the other hand, believe anything that agrees with your opinion and disregard real facts if they differ. That's a delusional psychosis.

Do you understand that? I'm guessing you don't.

hansel2 Another che... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

hansel2
Another cheap post to avoid answering my args. Reuter is another liberal source that enhanced pictures with photoshop to provide anti-Is propaganda. Reuters and AP have been caught red-handed lying or photoshopping pictures at least a few times already. So your args are moots right? In other words, you only want information from biased liberal sources like Reuter, AP, NYT etc..
So far you cannot show me any HONEST sources yet and you can not give me any substances.
Using your own standard, you are posting delusional psyschosis.

Thanks for providing another example of the liberal intellectual and moral corruption. You have nothing but cheap liberal talking points. You cannot even think for yourself or make a coherent arg. You simply distract to avoid making a real arg.

You're pathetic. Once again... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

You're pathetic. Once again, you name the New York Times as a source I use WHEN I NEVER, NOT ONCE, CLAIMED IT AS ONE.

Are you able to make YOUR argument without these lame assumptions, LAI. Because if that's all you can do is try to apply thoughts and quotes to those who never made them then all your stupid arguments are lost. Only you don't know that.

And it's convenient, isn't it, that Reuters and AP are "liberal sources" when it serves your purpose - even though there's absolutely no truth to it.

Furthermore, claiming an independent photographer's photoshop issue, that Reuters was quick to condemn - and suspend him for - as some sort of consistent problem with them is another weak falsehood on your part. Don't want to mention that part of it, do you - because once again it will dismantle your weak argument anyway.

I'm done with you. Your sources are laughable, your arguments are weak and -- by the way -- once again, you use THE NEW YORK POST.

And, from a New Yorker here - who was one of those people you saw fleeing the city on September 11th after the planes hit - we don't scare so easily that we need to believe EVERYTHING this lame liar of a President says. He screwed our city (with homeland security funds) and, besides the fact, most New Yorkers see right through him. That's what happens when you're not a weak little coward cowering in your nice safe home in east bumble#$$%%, far from where things really happen.

And - notice - it's the people really on the front lines of terror in this country that tend to vote Democrat. When you're not a frightened little mouse you can see things really clear - and lame, chest pumping rhetoric from little mice like you means little.

hansel writes: "A reliable,... (Below threshold)

hansel writes: "A reliable, unbiased one. If I can't get confirmation on Reuters or Associated Press, it's not worth mentioning."

That's pretty hilarious since both the AP and Reuters have published faked photos. And AP has been shown to be publishing unsourced stories from Iraq that can't be verified.

That just isn't an impressive line, hansel.

I see BC is still flogging the discredited Johns Hopkins / Lancet study. Pathetic.

hansel doesn't know anythin... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

hansel doesn't know anything but the cheap liberal talking points. All his sources have been caught red-handed lying. Even the liberal paper of record, the NYT, has been discredited. So he had to stoop to the local liberal rags like New Yorker and NY daily news. He doesn't even know that AP and Reuter are nothing but discredited liberal sources.

Hansel is a perfect example of the intellectual and moral corruption of the liberal left. He cannot make a coherent arg. So all he can do is to make ad-hominen attacks to cover up for the liberal sewage.

<a href="http://scienceblog... (Below threshold)

This is a paper by David Kane of Harvard critiquing the statistical analysis of the Lancet / John Hopkins paper. His conclusion is that the exclusion of the Fallujah cluster makes the statistical validity of the paper suspicious.

But the bottom line is that the Johns Hopkins people are not sharing their data. If you can't replicate their work, it is not science. Period. It is simply garbage. We've seen far too much supposed science hidden from review, Mann et al in the Global Warming area and this garbage. this is not science, its fraud.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy