[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

These 10 Foods Regenerate Stem Cells & LIVE LONGER

A presidential candidate pledges gold-backed currency in Ghana. Africa awakens to gold's power.

One Man Found The Infamous "Carpet Trails" In Florida That Lead To Enormous Homeless Encampments Way Back In The Woods

Dr William Li 5 X 5 X 5 Food List

Orban: The USA Destroyed the Northern Flow of Russian Gas, It Is a Terrorist Act

D-Day Declassified: Inside Operation Overlord | FULL DOCUMENTARY

Putin is ‘growing desperate’ says Estonian ambassador

Influential House Democrat Breaks Rank, Says He Is 'Absolutely Not' Committed to Kamala Harris

Palestinians tortured in Israeli jails.

Trump Campaign Releases Brutal Ad Blasting Soft-On-Crime Kamala Harris

Pepe Escobar: China Throws Clout Behind Palestine

Breaking: Dissident Dem Senator Might Challenge Kamala Coronation, Fight Her for Nomination

AntiVaxxers advocate Force

Elon Musk's Parody of Kamala Harris Achievement Ad Quickly Racks Up 100 Million Views

Hundreds of New York citizens are protesting against an illegal alien shelter in Brooklyn, NY...

Trump Promises To Make USA The "Bitcoin Super-Power Of The World"

Israeli NavyC-Dome Intercepts Hezbollah Kamikaze Drone Heading Towards Offshore Nat Gas Rig

Israel Says;All-Out War Imminent After Hezbollah Rocket Slams Into Soccer Field

Opinion | In Gaza, Israel Lost What Remained of Its Humanity

Israeli occupation forces steal $2.76 mln from West Bank shops, Banks

Israel’s economy is COOKED!

Over 20,000 US bombs, missiles sent to 'Israel' since October: NYT

"The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" - Gordon Lightfoot (HD w/ Lyrics)

Yes ~ Shoot High - Aim Low

I-15 near Baker closed heading towards Las Vegas (Truckload of Lithium Batteries)

The media's sudden rejection of Kamala Harris' 'border czar' label

COVID Propaganda Roundup: Pfizer Knew mRNA Shots Sicken Infants in April 2021

Why Elon Musk fired 90% of Twitter Staff

NYC Trump Voter Vs Democrat Voter Lifestyle

Pale horse of death': Netizens call metal horse at Paris opening ceremony 'ominous'


War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: Four Unspeakable Truths
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/120404
Published: Mar 8, 2007
Author: Jacob Weisberg
Post Date: 2007-03-08 07:38:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 634
Comments: 96

What politicians won't admit about Iraq

When it comes to Iraq, there are two kinds of presidential candidates. The disciplined ones, like Hillary Clinton, carefully avoid acknowledging reality. The more candid, like John McCain and Barack Obama, sometimes blurt out the truth, but quickly apologize.

For many presidential aspirants, the first unspeakable truth is simply that the war was a mistake. This issue came to a head recently with Hillary Clinton's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that voting to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Though fellow Democrats John Edwards and Christopher Dodd have managed to say they erred in voting for the 2002 war resolution, Clinton is joined by Joe Biden and a full roster of Republicans in her inability to disgorge the M-word. Perhaps most absurdly, Chuck Hagel has called Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" the biggest blunder since Vietnam without ever saying that the war itself was the big blunder and that he favored it.

Reasons for refusing to admit that the war itself was a mistake are surprisingly similar across party lines. It is seldom easy to admit you were wrong—so let me repeat what I first acknowledged in Slate in January 2004, that I am sorry to have given even qualified support to the war. But what is awkward for columnists is nearly impossible for self-justifying politicians, who resist acknowledging error at a glandular level. Specific political calculations help to explain their individual decisions. Hillary, for instance, worries that confessing her failure will make it easier for hawks to savage her if she gets the nomination. But at bottom, the impulse is always the same. Politicians are stubborn, afraid of looking weak, and fearful that any admission of error will be cast as flip-flopping and inconsistency.

A second truth universally unacknowledged is that American soldiers being killed, grotesquely maimed, and then treated like whining freeloaders at Walter Reed Hospital are victims as much as "heroes." John Kerry was the first to violate this taboo when he was still a potential candidate last year. Kerry appeared to tell a group of California college students that it sucks to go and fight in Iraq. A variety of conservative goons instantly denounced Kerry for disrespecting the troops. An advanced sufferer of Senatorial Infallibility Syndrome, Kerry resisted retracting his comment for a while, but eventually regretted what he called a "botched joke" about President Bush.

Lost in the debate about whether Kerry meant what came out of his mouth was the fact that what he said was largely true. Americans who attend college and have good employment options after graduation are unlikely to sign up for free tours of the Sunni Triangle. People join the military for a variety of reasons, of course, but since the Iraq war turned ugly, the all-volunteer Army has been lowering educational standards, raising enlistment bonuses, and looking past criminal records. The lack of better choices is a larger and larger factor in the choice of military service. Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not.

Reality No. 3, closely related to No. 2 and following directly from No. 1, is that the American lives lost in Iraq have been lives wasted. Barack Obama crossed this boundary on his first trip to Iowa as an announced candidate when he declared at a rally, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." With lightning speed, Obama said he had misspoken and apologized to military families.

John McCain used the same proscribed term when he announced his candidacy on Late Night With David Letterman last week. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." This was a strange admission, given McCain's advocacy of a surge bigger than Bush's. In any case, McCain followed Obama by promptly regretting his choice of words. (The patriotically correct term for losing parts of your body in a pointless war in Mesopotamia is, of course, "sacrifice.") These episodes all followed Kinsley's law of gaffes. The mistake Kerry, Obama, and McCain made was telling the truth before retreating to the approved banality and euphemism

A fourth and final near-certainty, which is in some ways the hardest for politicians to admit, is that America is losing or has already lost the Iraq war. The United States is the strongest nation in the history of the world and does not think of itself as coming in second in two-way contests. When it does so, it is slow to accept that it has been beaten. American political and military leaders were reluctant to acknowledge or utter that they had miscalculated and wasted tens of thousands of lives in Vietnam, many of them after failure and withdrawal were assured. Even today, American politicians tend not to describe Vietnam as a straightforward defeat. Something similar is happening in Iraq, where the most that leaders typically say is that we "risk" losing and must not do so.

Democrats avoid the truth about the tragedy in Iraq for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops. Republicans avoid it for fear of being blamed for the disaster or losing defense and patriotism as cards to play against Democrats. Politicians on both sides believe that acknowledging the unpleasant truth will weaken them and undermine those still attempting to persevere on our behalf. But nations and individuals do not grow weaker by confronting the truth. They grow weaker by avoiding it and coming to believe their own evasions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161385/fr/rss/

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 60.

#5. To: leveller, ALL (#0)

American political and military leaders were reluctant to acknowledge or utter that they had miscalculated and wasted tens of thousands of lives in Vietnam, many of them after failure and withdrawal were assured.

The American left (media and anti-war movement) are unable to acknowledge that they played a key role in that defeat. Because they dishonestly portrayed the results of the Tet offensive in 1968 as a defeat rather than the immense victory it was. Even the North Vietnamese have ackknowledged this. But not the American left. And the media and anti-warriors have been doing the same thing since day one of the Iraq war. Turning victory into defeat. Congratulations...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   14:03:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: BeAChooser (#5)

The American left (media and anti-war movement) are unable to acknowledge that they played a key role in that defeat....

Was your dad a piece of shit coward like you BAC? Was he a Vietnam war- mongerer that didn't have the guts to go over and put his money where his mouth is? Surly that yellow streak down your back is genetic.

Once more you show your true support for the troops. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a complete fabrication responsible for the deaths of more than 50k American men and yet you choose to focus your anger on the American left and their reporting of Tet? It was the American left that got us in that war you fucking moron, although being the socialist, big government loving republican you are, I can understand why you would make the mistake of thinking Kennedy and LBJ were conservatives.

anti-warriors

You'd know all about being an anti-warrior wouldn't you.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-08   17:54:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: HOUNDDAWG, Hayek Fan, ALL (#26)

Hayek Fan - Was your dad a piece of shit coward like you BAC?

Is this another example of that respectful debate you were talking about, HOUNDDAWG?

And say, Hayek, where'd you disappear to? We were having such a lovely debate about the collapse of the WTC towers and the John Hopkins Iraq mortality studies. Then you just disappeared. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   19:22:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: BeAChooser (#35)

Then you just disappeared. ROTFLOL

Liar. I didn't just disappear, nor did I debate you over the WTC towers. My only comment about the WTC towers was about how you refused to accept any information from anyone concerning the towers because they didn't meet your idea of expertise on the subject, while at the same time presenting me with the rants of unknown bloggers and telling me it's evidence of why the study was wrong.

I made it quite plain why I chose to end our conversation concerning the John Hopkins study. I chose to believe that the John Hoplins School of Public Health would not risk their worldwide reputation as the leader in public health in order to play gotcha with the Bush administration. I told you why I felt this way. You chose to believe differently. On top of that, you demand that I answer questions that I am not qualified to answer. There was nothing more to be gained from the conversation. It had turned into the equivalent of two children saying, "did not...did too...did not...did too." I've got better things to do with my time, even if you don't. ROTFLOL!

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-08   19:41:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#37)

My only comment about the WTC towers was about how you refused to accept any information from anyone concerning the towers because they didn't meet your idea of expertise on the subject, while at the same time presenting me with the rants of unknown bloggers and telling me it's evidence of why the study was wrong.

Actually, what you said is this:

What boggles my mind is that in the WTC debate, BAC refuses to accept any information from a person with a doctorate in physics because he isn't a metallurgist.

And my response was this:

*******

"There is much more to my reason for not believing Steven Jones than his not being a metallurgist. Why try to misstate my views, Hayek? Ex-Professor Jones claims some expertise in the subjects of structures, demolition, steel, fire, concrete, impact, seismology and macro-world physics. Yet, ex-professor Jones spent his entire 30 year career studying sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. Not once in that career did he publish a paper that had anything remotely to do with any of the topics needed to speak authoratively on the WTC.

Furthermore, Professor Jones has been dishonest about a number of subjects. To give you just one example, in speaking about the molten material seen flowing out of the South Tower shortly before it collapsed, he said "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery." This is untrue. If you watch this video,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11,

you will see silver color in the stream of material once it gets away from the window. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds in the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds. You'll also see it from 57 seconds to a 67 seconds. And from 74 to 75 seconds, material can be seen pouring from the corner of the tower and that material is very clearly silver, not orange. So Steven Jones is demonstrably lying. Why would you trust such a liar, Hayek? For the same reason you trust Les Roberts?

***********

If you had no response to that perhaps that indicates something ...

I chose to believe that the John Hoplins School of Public Health would not risk their worldwide reputation as the leader in public health in order to play gotcha with the Bush administration. I told you why I felt this way. You chose to believe differently.

My aren't you trusting. Even when the authors virtually admitted that they published the report with a preconceived agenda. When they admitted that they did the interviews with a group of Iraqis who mostly HATE Americans. Even when they ignored clear warning signs that something was amiss in their methods. Even when one of the authors runs for Congress as a democRAT. Even when the authors and those who reviewed the study gave money to democRATS during the election. Even when the Lancet changes its opinion about mortality rates without even commenting on that change. Even when the Lancet rushes the peer review process in, again, an admitted effort to affect the election against the war.

There was nothing more to be gained from the conversation. It had turned into the equivalent of two children saying, "did not...did too...did not...did too."

No, one of those children posted numerous sources ... not just by unnamed bloggers ... that pointed out serious questions about the study. The other just repeated the mantra that John Hopkins surely wouldn't put its *good* reputation at risk by publishing a bogus study.

I've got better things to do with my time, even if you don't.

Like make that respectful remark in post #26?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   20:08:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: BeAChooser (#40)

What boggles my mind is that in the WTC debate, BAC refuses to accept any information from a person with a doctorate in physics because he isn't a metallurgist.

Fine. Excuse me for not remembering word for word what I said. Still, that's a far cry from having a debate about the WTC.

No, one of those children posted numerous sources ... not just by unnamed bloggers ... that pointed out serious questions about the study.

Oh yeah, you also posted newspaper articles by no-nothing journalists, and op- ed pieces from no-nothing neocons. Oh yeah, and a UN report. Sorry. I don't accept anything from the UN. It doesn't surprise me that a socialist, big government republican such as yourself does.

And I'll tell you now what I said then; if all the shit you wrote were true, then it would have been challenged in a professional, peer reviewed journal. That's how it's done. Not ramblings in unknown blogs. Not newspaper articles written by no-nothing journalists. Not op-ed peices by neo-cons. Professional epidemiologists would have provided a research paper on how and why the original study was flawed. Guess what BAC. This has not been done!

Why is that? It is inconceivable that every single epidemiologist in the whole United States and Great Britan is a Bush-hating liberal. Do you not think that a conservative, pro-Bush epidemiologist would jump on the chance to debunk this report.

But here we go again. We've been through all this before. Once again, I've had my say and you've had yours. I reject your sources in the same way that you reject the WTC sources. When you can provide a professional, peer reviewed journal with a research paper indicating the flaws, then come see me. Until then, you're wasting my time.

Like make that respectful remark in post #26?

You are a war-mongering coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions. You deserve no respect whatsoever. What you and your ilk deserve is to be drafted so that the good men and women over there for their 3rd and 4th tours can have a break. Then we'll see how gung-ho you are about war.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-08   20:43:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#48)

Oh yeah, you also posted newspaper articles by no-nothing journalists, and op- ed pieces from no-nothing neocons. Oh yeah, and a UN report.

Again, you are mischaracterizing. But that's ok. Visitors to FD4UM will read the threads on the John Hopkins' studies and see that.

And I'll tell you now what I said then; if all the shit you wrote were true, then it would have been challenged in a professional, peer reviewed journal. That's how it's done.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't that also be true of your WTC allegations? Where are the peer reviewed articles challenging the government's scenario for the collapse of the towers? And don't try to suggest that a journal started by Steven Jones can be credibly called *peer reviewed*.

But in any case, the difference between the WTC case and this case is that I and many others are more than willing to argue the facts. And we have. Providing DETAILED explanations why the John Hopkins studies are bogus. Your side's response has mostly been to ignore those detailed criticisms and repeat your mantra. And many of those criticism have come from scientists and experts in statistics. Named ones. That should tell readers something.

Professional epidemiologists would have provided a research paper on how and why the original study was flawed. Guess what BAC. This has not been done!

Maybe that says something about epidemiologists. They do tend to be a liberal group. Or maybe it says something about your research abilities.

You shouldn't simply dismiss the UN report. It was peer reviewed. It was performed by folks who know how to conduct good surveys. One of those is Dr Jon Pedersen. He's actually got very good credentials. And ironically, you dismiss him because he works for the UN ... yet some of the authors of the John Hopkins' reports also have at one time or another worked on UN projects and UN reports. Richard Garfield is one of those. He worked for UNICEF and came up with a pre-war mortality for children in Iraq that is much different than the one Les Roberts now claims. Of course, now Mr Garfield has nothing to say about that difference. In fact, Mr Garfield is the one who put Roberts in contact with Riyadh Lafta, the researcher at Al-Mustansiriya University, who recruited the interviewers to do the John Hopkins survey ... the ones that mostly HATE the Americans. Do we detect an agenda?

Let's see who else you simply ignore or dismiss (just to start a list).

I believe I mentioned a named statistician who it turns out works for the Yukon State Bureau of Statistics in Canada. What would he know about statistics ...

How about Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels? You think she's woefully unqualified?

Or how about Madelyn Hicks, a psychiatrist and public health researcher at King's College London in the U.K.. Dr Hicks published her concerns in a paper titled "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Were valid and ethical field methods used in this survey?", which concluded that, "In view of the significant questions that remain unanswered about the feasibility of their study’s methods as practiced at the level of field interviews,it is necessary that Burnham and his co-authors provide detailed, data-based evidence that all reported interviews were indeed carried out, and how this was done in a valid manner. In addition, they need to explain and to demonstrate to what degree their published methodology was adhered to or departed from across interviews, and to demonstrate convincingly that interviews were done in accordance with the standards of ethical research. If the authors choose not to provide this further analysis of their data, they should provide their raw data so that these aspects can be examined by others. Even in surveys on the sensitive and potentially risky subject of community violence, adequately anonymized data are expected to be sufficient for subsequent reanalysis and to be available for review. In the case of studies accepted for publication by the Lancet, all studies are expected to be able to provide their raw data." But so far Burnham and company have refused to do so ... or perhaps they can't because the data never existed or they kept such *bad* records.

You dismiss Beth Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies. She seems to be qualified. And after reading the Lancet article she told Fred Kaplan "It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here." She expressed her concerns here, http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1818, "So the pre-war CDR that the two Lancet studies yield seems too low. It may not be wrong, but the authors should provide a credible explanation of why their pre-war CDR is nearly half that of the UN Population Division. If the pre-war mortality rate was too low and/or if the population estimates were too high – because, for example, they ignored outflows of refugees from Iraq – the resulting estimates of the number of Iraqi "excess deaths" would be inflated."

And of course you would dismiss, Steven E. Moore, who conducted survey research in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority. He's got to be biased. Right?

But what about Professor Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway's Economics Department, and physicists Professor Neil Johnson and Sean Gourley of Oxford University? They published a highly detailed paper (http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/BiasPaper.html ). They claim (http://www.rhul.ac.uk/messages/press/message.asp?ref_no=367 ) the John Hopkin "study’s methodology is fundamentally flawed and will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq. The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed. Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings, artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighbourhood types that the researchers surveyed." That sounds like a pretty serious complaint. And more on their work can be found here: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/index.html. Now that work may be peer reviewed? I don't know. But to simply dismiss it out of hand is a mistake on your part.

And then there's an article in Science magazine by John Bohannon which describes some of the above professors criticisms, as well as the response from Gilbert Burnham. Burnham claimed that such streets were included and that the methods section of the published paper is oversimplified. Bohannon says that Burnham told Science that he does not know exactly how the Iraqi team conducted its survey; and that the details about neighborhoods surveyed were destroyed "in case they fell into the wrong hands and could increase the risks to residents." Michael Spagat says the scientific community should call for an in-depth investigation into the researchers' procedures. "It is almost a crime to let it go unchallenged," says Johnson. In a letter to Science, the John Hopkins authors claim that Bohannon misquoted Burnham. Bohannon defended his comments as accurate, citing Burnham saying, in response to questions about why details of selecting "residential streets that that did not cross the main avenues" that "in trying to shorten the paper from its original very large size, this bit got chopped, unfortunately." Apparently, the details which were destroyed refer to the "scraps" of paper on which streets and addresses were written to "randomly" choose households". The John Hopkins effort was such a well conducted survey. (sarcasm)

And how about some of the members of Iraq Body Count? How about John Sloboda or Joshua Dougherty (AKA joshd)? They've made pretty strong criticisms of the John Hopkins' work. I posted some of them earlier on this thread. Yet you just dismiss them out of hand?

You know what I think, Halek? Somebody is hiding.

Once again, I've had my say and you've had yours.

Actually, you haven't even listened to most of what I had to say.

I reject your sources in the same way that you reject the WTC sources.

On the contrary. My sources actually do have expertise in the subject at hand. NONE of your sources have expertise in structures, demolition, fire, impact, steel, concrete, buckling or macro-world physics. And unlike you, I don't run from the detailed accusations. I take them apart with sourced facts point by point.

You are a war-mongering coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions.

Ah ... more respectful debate. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   0:53:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: BeAChooser (#57)

I believe I mentioned a named statistician who it turns out works for the Yukon State Bureau of Statistics in Canada. What would he know about statistics ...

Err...BAC - Yukon is not a state. And your Yukon state statistician is working in the Siberian boondock territories of Canada because he did not make the cut for Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, so I guess he's not such a notable statistician after all. Also - pssst - to BAC's imaginery internet pals lurking out there - this Yukon statistician was a holy roller christonutter...

But BAC - I didn't mean to interrupt. Carry on...

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   1:40:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 60.

#69. To: scrapper2, ALL (#60)

And your Yukon state statistician is working in the Siberian boondock territories of Canada because he did not make the cut for Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, so I guess he's not such a notable statistician after all.

Let's let everyone see his actual criticism. Rather than attack the man.

http://magicstatistics.com/2006/10/15/lancet-study-of-iraqi-deaths-is-statistically-unsound-and-unreliable/

http://magicstatistics.com/2006/10/18/lancet-researchers-ignored-superior-study-on-iraqi-deaths/

http://magicstatistics.com/2006/10/22/main-street-bias-in-lancet-study/

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09 12:36:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 60.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]