in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Fox NY | Oookay: ‘Hologram’ to greet and guide travelers at N.Y. airports |
0 |
| John Nolte | 0 | |
| The Hill | Propaganda: HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| ABC News | Pushback: Swinging at Bain, Obama Ignores What Private Equity Is |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Report on 655,000 alleged Iraqi civilian casualties since the beginning of the Iraq war: the latest October surprise
It’s all over the news – Memeorandum has it at the top of their page, so it’s getting a lot of play in the blogosphere as well. Here’s the Washington Post headline: Study Claims Iraq’s ‘Excess’ Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
Rick Moran has the definitive post up on this latest ‘study’, which incidentally was conducted by the same group who conducted the last controversial Iraq civilian death count study, which claimed that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed since the start of the Iraq war. That study, I should note and as Rick pointed out, was also released shortly before an election: October 29, 2004. This latest study is highly dubious, as Rick points out with various links, so treat the media hype for what it is: an October surprise.
Others blogging about this: Gateway Pundit, Outside The Beltway, Blue Crab Boulevard, Decision ’08, Terry Trippany at Newsbusters
RSS feed for comments on this post.
There is nothing inside of me that believes this “study”!!! They took surveys of 12,000 families, in what city??? Baghdad??? Let’s see how the survey was taken, not the supposed “results”. – Lorica
So, just out of curiosity, how many dead Iraqis do YOU think there are? And how many Iraqis do you think need to die before you give serious consideration as to whether this administration really has a clue what’s going on?
I’m sorry, but unlike the left, I don’t measure the success or failure of a war in terms of number of casualties. Why do you?
I think the Civil War was a success Mark because the United States is united and the issues were resolved. The carnage and death is surely unfortunate but was never a reason to end the war. I’m glad we had leaders back then and not Mark Gisleson’s
Same for that matter with WW2. And guess what? There were 3 week periods in WW2 with more American casualties than the 3 year Iraq war. You guys desperately lack perspective and attack based on false premises everyday. Is that a pattern you like about yourself?
“unlike the left, I don’t measure the success or failure of a war in terms of number of casualties.”
You don’t? So if, say, 30 million people died, you think you could still call the war a success?
“You don’t?”
No, I don’t.
“So if, say, 30 million people died, you think you could still call the war a success?”
No, but it appears you would. Perhaps you consider WWII a failure?
Also, do you plan on going back to the NK thread and answering my question or have you abandoned it?
longz again:
So if, say, 30 million people died, you think you could still call the war a success?
Depends on whether the objectives were achieved. Especially since you’re counting enemy casualties in with the friendlies.
Since you’re apparently big on putting numbers on this topic, maybe you can tell us how many combined casualties you’d accept in a war before you surrender. Since the low figure for this admittedly-biased “study” is 426,369, you’ll have to come up with a lower number than that.
Let’s call it your “cut-and-run” threshold. I’d like to hear at what point your will to win evaporates.
I say now I’ convinced. We should’ve given up the (surrendered) every war that went over 1 million casualties including the Civil War, WW1, WW2 and I’m sure there are others.
Thanks for convincing me lonz. You are brilliant….
Oh, I see. 30 million people would wipe out every man, woman and child in Iraq, and you think if that happened, that the war would still be a success.
You all sure have a different way of looking at things.
ST: “I’m sorry, but unlike the left, I don’t measure the success or failure of a war in terms of number of casualties. Why do you? ”
longz: “So if, say, 30 million people died, you think you could still call the war a success?”
ST: “No, but it appears you would. Perhaps you consider WWII a failure?”
longz: (no answer)
ST: What say you in response?
Sort of brings back that quote from Vietnam, “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.” That must make sense to you now.
If you continue to avoid the question I’ll presume you don’t have the will nor desire to answer it honestly.
Oh, I see. 30 million people would wipe out every man, woman and child in Iraq, and you think if that happened, that the war would still be a success.
A great success, we wouldn’t have to worry about Iraq anymore after that. Call it the “Carthage” approach. The Romans were never bothered by the Carthaginians after the 3rd Punic war either.
This thread, more than any recently, aptly defines the differences between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats.
Conservative: Kim deliberately lied in continuing to pursue nuclear weapons after the framework was signed. He never intended to comply, and Carter/Clinton were idiots if they thought he would, and stupid for not including uranium in the mix, they should have expected this kind of shell game.
Liberal: Carter and Clinton were geniuses. Kim is not in violation of anything, it’s perfectly OK for him to enrich uranium as we didn’t have an agreement with him not to technically. Besides, if it wasn’t for Bush not talking with him things would still be rosey!
What do you expect from a party that attempts to differentiate between Abramoff giving money to someone and him telling his clients to give money to someone. This is the same kind of hypercritical and nitpicking parsing we got when they shrieked “Abramoff never gave money to Democrats.” This is what you get when you have a collection of people used to trying to use the exact letter of the law and such rationalizations to justify their being able to do whatever they want without consequences. It’s like watching a 6 year old try and argue about bedtime, it’s not 9 o’clock. No it’s later. But it’s NOT 9! This comes from people who want to justify their behavior and not get punished for wrongdoing. I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman, yada yada yada. People who believe the rules apply to anyone but them.
These people will be arguing semantic nits in fallout shelters still trying to justify Kim’s actions. If ever there were proof that the liberals and Democrats are to unserious to ever be trusted with the affairs of this country this is it.
“If you continue to avoid the question I’ll presume you don’t have the will nor desire to answer it honestly.”
Sister, if every single person involved in World War II had been killed during that war, I would consider it a failure, yes. I’m surprised you wouldn’t.
But you threw that figure out in a general sense, longz, and only added on “in the Iraq war” after the fact. IOW, you were shifting gears. I’m happy to know that you don’t consider WWII a failure. That’s one thing you’ve gotten right today
Sis,
The first thing I said was, “You don’t? So if, say, 30 million people died, you think you could still call the war a success?”
How you think I could be shifting gears and throwing in the Iraq war after the fact is way beyond me, but if that’s what you need to think you’ve won an argument, then take what you can get.
Now just where in there did I assert losing 30 million in Iraq would constitute success? I made a general statement applying to wars in general, stating that I didn’t measure the success or failure of A war in terms of the casualty rate, you responded in general (or so I thought), then added on the Iraq bit afterwards, and are now spinning this into me supporting that high a casualty rate in Iraq if that’s what it takes. Simply amazing.
BTW, I made a couple of booboos in a prior response that I’d like to correct (correction in bold):
You: “So if, say, 30 million people died, you think you could still call the war a success?”
ST: “Yes, but it appears you wouldn’t. Perhaps you consider WWII a failure?”
—
I mistakenly thought you’d said “failure” where you actually said “success.” I think you understood what I meant, but others just joining in may not have.
Fine, then, Sister. So contrary to your first statement, it now turns out that you do measure the success or failure of a war in terms of casualties.
In the case of the Iraq war, your figure apparently is somewhere between 660,000 and 30 million. So where would you say it crosses the line? When it’s more than double the number that Saddam killed? Triple? Tenfold?
longz again:
Sort of brings back that quote from Vietnam, “It was necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.”
Except that was never said. Peter Arnett (you might remember him as Saddam’s cherrleader during both Gulf Wars) made it up:
But since when has accuracy been important to the leftists when they can accuse America?
By the way, longz, we’re still waiting to hear your cut-and-run threshold…care to answer that?
I’m getting really tired of you misrepresenting what I say. My statement contradicted nothing I said earlier. I do NOT measure a war’s success or failure based on casualty rates. A LOT of things factor in, but unfortunately for the left the only thing that seems to factor in is casualties, which is why you guys are so obsessed with the number of troop and civilian deaths.
Please stop misrepresenting what I say. You seem like an intelligent person, so I know you can do better.
Longz without reading comprehension wrote, “it now turns out that you do measure the success or failure of a war in terms of casualties.”
Everybody including ST has been saying to you that they don’t measure the success of a war based on casualties. ONLY YOU LONGZ.
The problem with the CLAIM is that 660,000 is off AND you can’t read and comprehend. You need to study this conversation thread for a few days it seems and get back to us with an apology for misstating what we have said. That’s my personal opinion.
Sticking to the same illogical argument won’t help here. We are about clarity. Apparently you are about misinformation.
Casualty rate, particularly the other sides, is a poor way of judging success. As I said, if you kill all of them, then the original problem is definitely solved. The US tries too hard to limit civilian casualties, to the point of negatively impacting military operations and increasing our casualty rate. One of the major problems in Iraq, one which wasn’t as big an issue in WWII, is that the civilian population hasn’t suffered enough. People tend not to whine as much about this or that if they are just glad to be alive, after Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Regensburg, and Tokyo, the civilians were much more tractable and easier to manage then the Iraqi’s are because they were much happier that it was just all finally over. Might be an ugly truth, but truth it is.
GWR wrote, “But since when has accuracy been important to the leftists when they can accuse America?”
Not in decades….
The way this one is going he’ll turn your correction statement 180 degrees to mean that you were for wiping out towns to save the town. Reading comprehension is not allowed with lefties anymore.
The very most basic, elementary principle of warfare is that the force used be proportionate to the goal and that civilian casualties also be proportionate to the goal. That isn’t liberal-speak; that’s West Point, day one.
For all of you to type on your keyboards that the number of casualties makes no difference to you at all in whether you consider the war a success, this means you don’t understand anything about war at all. But nice to know some of you would applaud genocide if we committed it.
You’re still doing it. Goodbye, longz.
Full of attacks he is. Thank you ST. Same old liberal attack/accuse pattern.
Yet WW2 or Civil War or WW1 wasn’t a failure. Why? Because while the deaths were a tragedy, good overcame evil and the objective was achieved. I would not want us to have stopped or say we surrender during those wars because America would be WAY different.
“The very most basic, elementary principle of warfare is that the force used be proportionate to the goal and that civilian casualties also be proportionate to the goal. That isn’t liberal-speak; that’s West Point, day one.”
Which is probably why we didn’t nuke any cities. It’s also probably why we didn’t carpet bomb cities at random.
You really have no clue as to what warfare is about, or what is really going on over there, longz.
Just keep living in your little fantasy world where the U.S. is the great evil and there would be peace if it were’nt for the U.S. You and Jimmy Carter belong in a league of your own……and you are.
The very most basic, elementary principle of warfare is that the force used be proportionate to the goal and that civilian casualties also be proportionate to the goal. That isn’t liberal-speak; that’s West Point, day one.
War as practiced by modern Western militaries, don’t assume it’s a military golden rule. It hasn’t been practiced that way by most military leaders throughout history, and only the staggeringly efficient and accurate modern weapons allows us to even consider such an approach today. When you can destroy a hardened target with one or two smart bombs, you can afford to be picky about collateral damage and casualties. If you don’t have the ability to destroy the target without damaging the surroundings and killing civilians, that does not make that target suddenly unimportant or immune from attack. Sucks, but that’s the way it is. Honorable, modern democracies worry about civilian casualties, on both sides, brutal dictators don’t care, which is why sanctions seldom work against rogue regimes, they care nothing about their people, only their leaders power. Eventually you will reach a point where you can’t afford to be so picky. We are too picky now, I’d not willingly trade the life of one of our servicemen for 1000 collateral civilian casualties.
This is a lie, show us the proof, how bout counting the Iranians, Jordanians, Egyptians, ect. but the number is impossible, that be over 770 a day .. get real Bush hating death toll counter, what side are you on, come on, tell us.
What other studies are there that may shed light on this one? are there ones with better sample sizes? Does the military have any? Is this the best study we have?
- I think I see the discrepancy here, and it’s an easy mistake to make, particularly if your a partisan unhinged Bush hater that would do or say anything to win an election, any election at this point.
- The descrepancy is that the Liberal lap dog press and SP’s like longz are lumping in the piles of mass graves uncovered since the days of Hussein. If you subtract those out, some graves with as many as 4000+ bodies, knowing how long it went on and on, the 400,000 figure doesn’t leave enough to count the few that we’ve been responsiple for in the war.
- Besides the usual strawman I think it will be shown eventually, that 95% or more of the civilian deaths have either been at the hand of one insurgency group or another, or the intercine killing of the Iraqi’s themselves.
- But it looks better for the moonbat cause to blame EVERYTHING on us. BS.
- Bang
- BTW, I love when the lap dog media tries these sorts of stunts. After they get totally trashed, and made to look like the partisan hacks they are, it just hurts the Lefts cause yet again. So keep it coming SP’s.
- Bang
Lapdog media? Wasn’t this in Lancet?
The left continues to believe that if there is a survey or a poll it must be the truth. They do not even question the thought that if we killed over 2% of the population of Iraq, that we would be hard pressed not to have the world community comind down on us for a real reason. How stupid is that??? Yes George Bush killed 2 percent the population of Iraq, where the hell would the UN be on that situation??? I would back the UN in an investigation of this. Like I said, I question the METHOD of this poll. Ask 12,000 families in Baghdad and Falujah and you will factor these kinds of numbers. I have to wonder how many Kurds were questioned, you know that place in Iraq that is fairly peaceful, that you NEVER hear about in the news.
Mark, I don’t actually know how many dead Iraqi’s there are. Are we including Iraqi’s who are fighting against us, or civilians or foreign fighters that pollsters like to call “Iraqis”?? LOL The sheer stupidity of thinking that in the hunt for what 5000 terrorists, we needed to kill 655,000 civilians only proves that most people on the left are idiotic reactionary fools.
Longz, you lost it the minute you brought in the 30 million population number. You see the wonderful leftists in this country who like communism, have NO problem with the 30 million that Stalin killed. Grow up man, your argument was immature and childish at best, and if you purposely believe the garbage you are arguing, you only prove that you are one of those reactionary fools. Good luck in this life because you are seriously going to need luck, cuz you ain’t got much else. – Lorica
Brad,
Read and weep. Your dreams and hopes are dashed…. I hope you can apologize for having such dreams of dead Iraqi’s everywhere… I’d like to see that apology.
Lots of info for you here. It’ll take you awhile to read I’m sure…
- brad I don’t care who it was….making such an ignoramous statement may get you your 15 minutes of pity-pot attention, but you’re doomed if you try to jump on that bandwagon. Try using a little common sense for once, it must get awfully tiresome being laughed at and ridiculed all the time.
- Bang
Baklava: I don’t know how well this compares to Iraq body count. Thats a count. This is a statistical study. Different methodologies.
Also, Iraq body count doesn’t claim to estimate all deaths. Just deaths from fighting. The Lancet study is of mortality in general. Are there any other studies of mortality in general?
Lorica, why do you keep saying that george bush killed these people? This is a study of mortality, not of deaths we caused.
Bang, if you don’t care who it was, why mention who it was? This is an epidemiology study in a scientific journal.
I didn’t really need to do it, we’ve all been down this “Liberal fairy-tales” path countless times before, but I took a glance at the link Bak provided just to see what sort of numbskull thinking went into this “study”.
Here’s the money quote:
Extrapolated across the country, 654,965 premature deaths – 2.5 per cent of the population – have occurred since March 2003, the study said.
- Based on that, I want you brad, to think about that for a moment. Say you wanted to determine how many people died of choking on chicken bones a year. So you go to the local emergency ward, and interview all the patients, and on duty nurses, a total of 20 people at the time, and you find 1 person that actually died from that cause in the past three years. Fine. the problem comes from the “extrapulation” part.
- Lets say you don’t have the resources to do any more investigating, or for various reasons, such as not wanting to get kidnapped and have you head cutoff, as is the case in Iraq, you decide just to “extrapulate” your findings across America. So you say: “Well, I have an average of 1 person in 20, dying of “chicken-choke” soooooooo, lets see, 300 million people in America, divided by 20….. My goodness, I had know idea….that’s….that’s 15 million people….KFC’s operation is a MONSTEROUS killing machine…..
- See the problem? that should even be easy enough for a Liberal to understand.
- It’s even worse for your cause when things like this happen, and it’s clear to everyone you’re doing it for partisan reasons, and to market lies, because you lose the one thing you can’t buy with the people. Trust. the Liberal pandering media will learn that lesson when it’s too late, and they’re just an ugly memmory.
- Bang
Yes. the problem is in the extrapolation. Thats why we use statistical theorems and have confidence intervals.
But in your example, we don’t have 1 in 20. We have 1 in 3 years worth of observations by 20 people. You’re extrapolating over the wrong numbers.
The washington post said this study cost 50 thousand dolllars. I wonder if we could find room in the budget for a study that had a higher sample size. Would you be interested in the results?
If you look at the confidence interval on that “study” you’ll find that you can drive several large trucks through it broadside.
Brad that is not how it is being used in the news coverage I have heard. It is being spun into deaths we caused. That is why I talking about it the way I am. – Lorica
brad….of course I left out details, do you think if I would have included the fact it was over 3 years, and that the annual death rate from chicken bones was actually out of 3000 emergency patients a year, I would have arrived at an accurate figure if I still extrapulated….because if you do you still would have 33,333 people dying of “bone-itus” a year, and I’m sure KFC sales would plummit.
- The whole thing, as it stands, is rediculous on the face of it, and yes I would be interested in an accurate study, particularly if it did a comparison of accidental deaths during combat, versus all others from suicide bombers, and sectarian cross fighting, and all the other reasons, not by american soldiers. I would be very interested. A little birdy is telling me, unless it hurts Bush in some way, I won’t be seeing that sort of stuidy very soon.
- Bang
Bang: Its not that you left out details. It’s that 20 is the wrong number to divide by. Thats not what you’re extrapoliting from: 1 death in 20. But 1 death from all the people who would go to that hospital over the course of 3 years.
I think you should in the future stop using numbers and just rely on calling other people stupid.
Lorica had the money quote. Thank you Lorica. The average leftist dolt on the street thinks now that we’ve killed or that we + insurgents have killed 655,000 Iraqi civilians. Why? Because leftism has a problem with reality. Clarity is the enemy of the left. So is perspective…..
They interviewed 1,840 random people and found over 500 dead (92% of those showed the death certificate). And if you think about they clearly couldn’t interview at homes that don’t exist anymore…so 1 dead for every 4 randomly selected home. That’s bad no matter how you look at it.
If you don’t like that, consider this: We’ve dropped 240,000 cluster bombs. We’d be fools to think they didn’t kill anyone. Add in gunfire and car bombs and 600,000 dead doesn’t seem that big.
Brad:
Yes, the study is the best look at Iraqi deaths, bar none. Iraq Body Count, which only counts *civilian* deaths, and only those caused by violence, and *only* those reported in the local media, does not count many of the deaths this study would catch.
Engineer:
The study is on Lancet; please read it.
They only asked for death certificates in 87% of the cases; they got them for about 80% of the *total* deaths, though when they asked for certificates, they got them about 90% of the time.
They surveyed 1840 *households*, covering 12801 people.
As for the rest of you:
The methodology is the standard; they took samples from 47 distinct locations in Iraq, with the locations determined by population density. They avoided the most dangerous of locations, meaning that, if a place was too dangerous to visit (and thus, likely had a higher death rate), it wasn’t included in the study. They grabbed clusters of populations from those 47 locations, and had a 98% response rate (actually, a little higher), and nearly 80% of the deaths were documented with death certificates. (501 out of 629)
Using the 629 deaths to determine the deaths per thousand people per year, and extending that to the rest of of the population is standard, and is expected (both mathematically, and via real world experience) to yield good results. Not perfect results, but good ones.
Though they give a large range of possible deaths, one telling point is that, if the percentage of deaths was significantly lower, then it would have been nearly impossible to find 12801 people who could account for 629 deaths in their immediate households.
As for what determines the success or failure of a mission, if you don’t count the suffering of people as a cost of the war, then you’re completely ignoring the moral issues surrounding warfare. Of course, some of you proudly think that the total extermination of Iraqis, some 99.9% of whom are not dangerous to us, would solve something, so I suppose it’d be surprising to be unconcerned with the moral issues.
Nevertheless, one is, in fact, supposed to count the damage done with the objectives accomplished. To have killed 650,000 people, without eliminating any meaningful threat to the United States, would clearly show that the moral cost was much too high.
Yes, I know, “but everybody except George W. Bush thought the evidence of WMDs was solid!” That’s not true; a lot of people thought it was sketchy, but when “The Decider” himself said that he thought it was pretty weak, and had to be convinced by – gasp! – Tenet’s claim that it was a “slam dunk”, he should have used his authority as President to start looking deeper. After all, what kind of Christian wants to see innocent people die for no good reason?
As for those complaining that it would be hundreds a day (one person claims 770 a day, a number I’m sure was researched by looking it up in someone else’s blog), if 800 people died in a day, and it took ten people to take care of each body, it would take what percentage of Iraq’s population to take care of all of the bodies for that day?
.033%. That’s one third, of one tenth, of one percent. One part in 3000. If, for some ridiculous reason, they all took turns with “body detail”, then in one year, about 12% of the population would have been involved in taking care of one body each, if 800 people died every single day.
So, no, the absolute numbers of daily deaths would not necessarily raise any sustained alarms. It wouldn’t even necessarily make people realize just how many people are dying, because while the extra deaths are 1/40th of all of Iraq, it was spread out over 40 months (3 1/3rd years).
But, if you’d rather look away and insist it’s all bull, hey, go ahead. Just remember, if it turned out that there were no problems with the study, someday, someone’s going to ask you in a stunned voice why you didn’t take it seriously, nearly 2/3rds of a million dead people who posed no threat to you.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’d be embarrassed as hell to have to admit “well, I thought it couldn’t be true, so I didn’t bother to research the matter, I just said it was wrong.”
Longhairedweirdo starts off with the a priori assumption that Iraq was no threat, again and again the liberal mind proves itself impossible of actually grasping the realities of the world situation. Regardless of the study’s accuracy, when you insist on being blinded to the reality of the magnitude of the threat Iraq under Hussein really presented to not only the US but the world at large and the surrounding countries in particular, nothing else you say can be given any credibility.
Just goes to show ya Weirdo, the reason I don’t trust the liberal news or liberal polling is cuz we have been lied to so many times in the past. I appreciate your assistance in explaining it all to me, but your conclusion is quite insulting. But like a good lib you over look a few, well lets face you overlooked alot of things.
1) We have found WMD’s in Iraq, ohhh yeah they weren’t the big nuclear kind, but they were something just as dangerous, and easier to manufacture mass quantities.
2) Saddam’s terrorist ties, the people of Israel are much safer now than when Sadamn was paying suicidal jihadists 25,000.00 for blowing themselves up in pizza resturants.
3) Saddamn people aren’t getting fed to paper shredders or wood chippers or their daughters aren’t being raped by this man’s insane sons.
4) Sadamn had attacked many of his neighbors, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran.
5) The corruption of the Iraq government, i.e. the Oil for Palaces program. How many Iraqi’s were starved so that Sadamn could have 80 palaces??
6) The mass genocide of the people who desired a change in the government, or shall I dare call them, The True Freedom Fighters. How many vilages were wiped out because a few in that vilage wanted to end Sadamn’s tyranical dictatorship.
Weirdo, please don’t insult my Christian sensibilities with your judgement, when you don’t even understand the reasons we are there. Trust me, I consider the death of innocent Iraqis to be extremely tragic. I do not in anyway dismiss their suffering, which I am well aware goes on, after all the MSM makes sure to inform me every night that someone has died in Iraq. But, I just have no trust for libs or anything the espouse. Which you reinforce with the condesension in your conclusion. Thanks tho – Lorica
Lon haired, and Engineeer and brad, See, the problem with this study is it brings out commenters like Engineer.
People die of all sorts of things. 41,000 in this country last year due to car accidents. Many more due to lung cancer (is there none in Iraq), more for knives, heart disease, natural causes, bowel problems, drowning, guns, drugs, etc.
Engineer and other leftists (I’m biting my tongue here from name calling) but I am generalizing will draw the conclusion incorrectly that it is due to cluster bombs, American guns killing them, etc. etc.
You guys need some SERIOUS SERIOUS HELP. There may have been that many deaths in those years but the sampling of America will show a higher number than 655,000 (yes we have closer to 300 million people not 24 million but you guys want to claim some superiority with numbers when you can’t do so ECONOMICALLY speaking. You don’t get it. You have a LACK OF PERSPECTIVE. You can’t get it right. You are full of hate and will twist the logic as opposed to doing the due diligence of getting it right.
Trust me I know. I was a liberal in 1991. It’s ok. You can after doing due diligence heal yourselves from this disease.
The Body Count has it MORE accurately even though they are inflated numbers EVEN STILL for what Engineer is saying.
What a sad sorry bunch. I can only hope that your misinformation does not influence this election. Elections have been close over the years and it has been gradually growing in favor of conservatives over the years due to AM radio and the Internet (no longer a monopoly of info by ABC, CBS, CNN and Wash PO and NY T)
Thank heavens for alternative information sources and different perspectives. This country will hopefully be governed by centrists (even though Republicans have been elected this country has been governed slight left of center still as it has for 6 decades).