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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Music

The Ones That Didn't Make It Back Home [featuring Pacman @ 0:49 - 0:57 in his natural habitat]

Let’s Talk About Grief | Death Anniversary

Democrats Suddenly Change Slogan To 'Orange Man Good'

America in SHOCK as New Footage of Jill Biden's 'ELDER ABUSE' Emerges | Dems FURIOUS: 'Jill is EVIL'

Executions, reprisals and counter-executions - SS Polizei Regiment 19 versus the French Resistance

Paratrooper kills german soldier and returns wedding photos to his family after 68 years

AMeRiKaN GULaG...

'Christian Warrior Training' explodes as churches put faith in guns

Major insurer gives brutal ultimatum to entire state: Let us put up prices by 50 percent or we will leave

Biden Admin Issues Order Blocking Haitian Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

Murder Rate in Socialist Venezuela Falls to 22-Year Low

ISRAEL IS DESTROYING GAZA TO CONTROL THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING LANE

Denmark to tax livestock farts and burps starting in 2030

Woman to serve longer prison time for offending migrant men who gang-raped a minor

IDF says murder is okay after statistics show that Israel killed 75% of all journalists who died in 2023

Boeing to be criminally INDICTED for fraud

0:35 / 10:02 Nigel Farage Embarrasses Rishi Sunak & Keir Starmer AGAIN in New Speech!

Norway to stockpile 82,500 tons of grain to prepare for famine and war

Almost 200 Pages of Epstein Grand Jury Documents Released

UK To Install Defibrillators in EVERY School Due to Sudden Rise in Heart Problems

Pfizer purchased companies that produce drugs to treat the same conditions caused by covid vaccines

It Now Takes An Annual Income Of $186,000 A Year For Americans To Feel Financially Secure

Houthis Unleash 'Attacks' On Israeli, U.S. And UK Ships; 'Trio Of Evil Hit' | Full Detail

Gaza hospital chief says he was severely tortured in Israeli prisons

I'd like to thank Congress for using my Tax money to buy Zelenskys wife a Bugatti.

Cancer-causing radium detected in US city's groundwater due to landfill teeming with nuclear waste from WWII-era atomic bomb efforts

Tennessee Law Allowing Death Penalty For Pedophiles Goes Into Effect - Only Democrats Oppose It

Meet the NEW Joe Biden! 😂

Bovine Collagen Benefits


World News
See other World News Articles

Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source: Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 24633
Comments: 394

British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.

The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods.

The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence.

The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.

The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-149) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#150. To: BeAChooser (#110)

No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

But those we vote for are suppose to represent us.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:15:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#151. To: BeAChooser (#113)
(Edited)

Zal-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.

Who really has their head in the sand here, Diana?

You, for one because you actually believe in the mythical Zarqawi who no one where he was supposedly causing trouble ever heard of him.

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:19:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#152. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#120)

Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain.

It was that Hazel O'Leary who did it!

I knew there was something bad about that woman!! /k

Diana  posted on  2007-04-04   11:25:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#153. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#130)

there was no un security council resolution.

The Congressional bill did not require one. It just required that Bush do his best to get international cooperation and work to enforce UN resolutions. After first making sure the security of the US was preserved.

bush also cut the inspections short.

No he didn't. He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441.

as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you.

At the time they didn't know there were no WMD. Everyone seemed to think they might still exist. And to this day, we really don't know if they did or not. The ISG said the possibility still existed because something was moved to syria (and they had a source they deemed credible which said it had to do with WMD). Also, Iraq went to a lot of trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities of something they didn't have. Plus we have that binary sarin warhead that Iraq simply wasn't supposed to have. And finally, this never was just about WMD. Just look at all the concerns in that law the Congress passed authorizing the use of military force.

defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

That about covers it.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   15:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#154. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#153)

He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441.

Bush is not the boss of the UN nor was he the decider when the UN mission would end, nor was the UN mission working for the USA. Bush had NO AUTHORITY to dictate anything to the UN.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   15:58:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#155. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser, Diana, SkyDrifter (#130)

there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one

Morgana, I don't mind telling you that I fully trust your version of these events and not BAC's.

Because I used to believe BAC's posts. But I have recently learned that he is a treasonous queer. and he has admitted that this is true even. He has also refused to share details of his date with Jeff Gannon. I can no longer put any confidence in anything that BAC says.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:01:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#156. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#131)

here is the resoluton

... snip ...

i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution

ROTFLOL! I notice that so did you.

You forgot the twenty or so WHEREAS's that are most certainly part of the resolution.

Plus you forgot this:

*******

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection

(a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either

(A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or

(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

***********

Gee ... did I see the word WAR in that?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:05:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#157. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#132)

also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq.

There was nothing in writing requiring that he go back for another resolution. The first law said it all.

Bush was duly authorized to do whatever necessary to ensure the safety of the US against terrorists.

And Congress did not act to repeal that law.

Nor did they cut off funding for the invasion.

Nor have they cut off funding for the occupations since that invasion.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#158. To: scrapper2, ALL (#134)

Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise.

Well that's stretching the truth a bit ...

And isn't hindsight wonderful ...

If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions.

And put Pelosi into the Presidency? ROTFLOL!

If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot.

Unlike Pelosi, Hillary and so many other top democRATS, they actually have worked in private industry during their lives.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:11:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#159. To: All (#157)

I remind everyone that a TREASONOUS QUEER is not a good source for information.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:14:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#160. To: ..., ALL (#135)

"We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands."

No, NewsMax told you you

Newsmax is not the source for any of this. If you'd paid the slightest attention to any thread where these things were discussed, you know that.

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-18-jordan-terror_x.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/26/world/main613825.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184927,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/%20

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135670,00.html

http://middle-east.news.designerz.com/zarqawi-chemical-bomb-plot-trial-postponed-after-lawyers-fail-to-show.html

http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/4/21/b3156726%2D58b2%2D447b%2Dae27%2D7669bf04a708.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp

It's clear enough who is in the dark here.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#161. To: ..., ALL (#136)

The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

... snip ...

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication?

See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:21:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#162. To: ..., ALL (#138)

Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew?

Isn't it odd how wrong you turned out to be. Or are you just generally uninformed, ...?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:22:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#163. To: BeAChooser (#160)

11 links that would take 5 hours to read and says who knows what. not one quotation snipped out even to demonstrate your point. and not one word about the details of your date with Jeff Gannon. Were you the boy or the girl? We're more interested in that.

But a TREASONOUS QUEER won't answer. and that is YET MORE PROOF that you ARE a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!!!!!!!

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-04-04   16:25:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#164. To: Destro, ALL (#140)

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have.

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:36:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#165. To: ... (#142)

You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution

Please link us to the written material requiring this. Bet you don't.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:37:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#166. To: Destro, ALL (#143)

"The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:"

All of them Bullshit.

That is YOUR opinion. The opinion of CONGRESS, however, was expressed in those twenty or so WHEREAS's in the law they passed authorizing the President to use force.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:40:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#167. To: BeAChooser (#164)

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

Only in Tel Aviv (where it appears such matters for the United States are decided).

Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.

wbales  posted on  2007-04-04   16:42:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#168. To: Destro, ALL (#144)

I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane.

But the crash doesn't explain the head wound, which according to the pathologists looked more like something caused by a bullet.

I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot.

What you provided was a STORY that someone made up and that doesn't account for the verifiable statements of the pathologists and photographer about what the wound, photos and x-rays told them.

If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.

Why would the pathologists and photographer, who you can actually listen to talking about this matter if you desire, be part of a disinfo attempt? Because prior to their coming forward to blow the whistle in a variety of forums, there were no allegations of foul play in the Ron Brown matter. So why did they come forward?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:47:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#169. To: BeAChooser (#168)

But the crash doesn't explain the head wound,

Occam's Razor explains it well enough.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   16:49:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#170. To: BeAChooser, Destro, leveller, All (#164)

Destro: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

BAC: Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have.

Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.

Here's your answer from leveller on another thread which you have conveniently forgotten to read - furthermore, I believe leveller is better acquainted with the law ( hint, hint) than you are, BAC.

leveller states "No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

So your ergo conclusion is worth squat, BAC. So what else is new?

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=8#C8

#8. To: BeAChooser (#3)

BAC: the FORM the declaration must take.

leveller: No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war.

An example of a valid declaration comes to us from 11 December 1941:

"The War Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"

leveller posted on 2007-04-04 11:11:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   16:49:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#171. To: Destro, ALL (#146)

Iraq posed no threat.

That's YOUR opinion.

The opinion of CONGRESS is expressed in the WHEREAS's of the bill they passed authorizing the use of force.

The UN did not authorize force to enforce its resolutions.

The UN does not supercede the right of the US to protect it's national security. And many of the members of the UN have been shown to have been on the take from Saddam or looking forward to very lucrative oil and weapon contracts the moment the sanctions were rescinded. In other words, they were compromised.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:50:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#172. To: Destro, Red Jones, Diana, ..., christine, ALL (#148)

I can only conclude that you are in fact a treasonous queer.

See the way the folks at 4um debate, Destro, when they have nothing to counter the actual facts?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:52:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#173. To: Diana, ALL (#150)

But those we vote for are suppose to represent us.

No, they are supposed to do what they think is RIGHT after having been elected.

They are not supposed to act solely on the basis of public polling.

Because public opinion, sadly enough, is easily manipulated and the public is often not aware of all the facts. Sometimes for security reasons. Sometimes out of their own sheer laziness or disinterest.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:54:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#174. To: Diana, ALL (#151)

You, for one because you actually believe in the mythical Zarqawi who no one where he was supposedly causing trouble ever heard of him.

Whatever, Diana.

I'll stand by the many links I've provided above.

Those visiting this forum can decide who is right.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:55:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#175. To: Destro, ALL (#154)

Bush is not the boss of the UN

And the UN is not the boss of the United States.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:56:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#176. To: All, Red Jones (#155)

Morgana, I don't mind telling you that I fully trust your version of these events and not BAC's.

Of course, Red Jones is one of those who thinks there were bombs throughout the WTC towers.

He has also refused to share details of his date with Jeff Gannon.

See how 4umers debate when facts don't work?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   16:58:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#177. To: BeAChooser (#172)

You don't use facts either - in fact you are not objective at all but an advocate for Bush or to be more honest the neocon policy that Bush pushes.

For example, Congress only authorized war as a last result - Bush abused the authorization congress gave him to go to war.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   16:59:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#178. To: Destro, ALL (#169)

Occam's Razor explains it well enough.

Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor?

You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say.

I find that curious, Destro.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   17:00:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#179. To: scrapper2, ALL (#170)

"No specific form is required.

BINGO.

But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   17:02:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#180. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#172)

See the way the folks at 4um debate, Destro, when they have nothing to counter the actual facts?

Is Destro your brother or your debate coach, BAC? Why are you running to him to to report the "indignities" you invite and willingly suffer on this 4um?

Btw, "facts" are not what you post here, BAC. What you post are highly selective rightwing biased "cut and paste."

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   17:03:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#181. To: Destro, ALL (#177)

You don't use facts either

I beg to disagree.

The law passed by Congress authorizing the use of force is a fact.

The expert opinions of the pathologists in the Ron Brown case is a fact.

You now seem to want to avoid both.

Congress only authorized war as a last result

And said Bush could define the final straw.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   17:05:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#182. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#179)

leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.

And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically - which I doubt is a result of professional legal training and education like leveller's is.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   17:07:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#183. To: BeAChooser (#178)

Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say.

All one of them said - I am not aware of plural - is that they would have liked to have done an autopsy.

Why complicate the matter - it is clear the plane Ron Brown was on was directed into the mountainside. The crash killed everyone on board.

Trying to figure out how a shooter could execute the murder of Brown with a head shot (while not killing the rest of the passengers in the same way) and then exiting the plane - wither before lift off - during flight or afterwards is much more complicated a scenario.

If you can figure out how Ron Brown's execution could be coordinated with the crash scenario without looking like a cheap hollywood movie with guys jumping out of airplanes just before they crash like in Mission Impossible, be my guest.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   17:08:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#184. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#180)

I think because I try and attempt to see the other side of all arguments even if I disagree with them - and I disagree with BAC's argument on Iraq. All I hear from BAC is standard Bushbot talking points on Iraq from BAC.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   17:14:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#185. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser, leveller, burkeman1 (#182)

leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

That we have come to the point when this is not obvious to so many - especially among what I assumed would be the super dooper constitution upholding party like the Republicans - then the Republic is lost and its maintenance is a fiction.

Remember that the fiction of the Roman legions marching under the banner of SPQR was maintained well into the Byzantine era of the Roman empire.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2007-04-04   17:18:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#186. To: scrapper2 (#180)

it's funny the way the chooser complains about the way everyone on 4um debates him. he's been soundly and roundly annihilated over and over and over and mostly by the same posters who have done the same to him on LP. what a troll. fortunately, Neil has now given us an ignore thread function. ;)

christine  posted on  2007-04-04   17:22:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#187. To: BeAChooser, ... (#161)

...: The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.

... snip ...

Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication?

BAC: See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ...

HAHAHAHAHA. Come again, BAC, who is making a fool of himself?

The sources you point out to ... as showing him to be a fool does the very opposite - the sources show you to be the fool, the shill-dupe of reichwing prop.

Townhall, Fox News, National Review - eeeeeek - are you so thick, BAC, that you don't see what a useful tool you are?

Salem Comminications owns Townhall - born again ownership:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? title=Salem_Communications_Corporation

As for Fox News:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

...Relationship with Republicans

In late 2002, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes confirmed the allegation in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War that he had sent a note to Karl Rove in the Bush White House suggesting policies to be adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Woodward described the note as advocating Bush take "the harshest measures possible" in order to maintain the support of the American public. Ailes said the note was not political advice but a message sent "as a human being and a citizen", and denied that he used the word "harsh" or "harshly".[3] ...The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias...

As for National Review, "The current director of the National Review is Jeff Sandefer, President of the Texas-based energy investment firm Sandefer Capital."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? title=National_Review

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-04   17:24:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#188. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, ALL, Just who is this All, BAC? He never posts . . . (#179)

"But, though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal public act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should announce to the people at home their new relations and duties growing out of a state of war, and which should equally apprise neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War, says Vattel, is at present published and declared by manifestoes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalize all hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration." Chancellor Kent, Commentaries On American Law, Vol I, Part 1, Lecture III (1826)

leveller  posted on  2007-04-04   17:46:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#189. To: scrapper2, leveller, ALL (#182)

leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."

BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.

And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically

All I've done is ask you folks to point out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution or our laws where the FORM that a Declaration of War must take is spelled out.

And clearly you can't do it. Because it isn't. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution wanted it that way?

Instead, you just CLAIM that a state of war must be stated to exist by Congress for a Declaration of War. Based on YOUR opinion.

But the only opinion that really matters is that of Congress and the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has not ruled this war illegal. They have not ruled that the Authorization To Use Force doesn't constitute a "declaration of war".

And I posted the opinion of CONGRESS in the form of a law authorizing Bush to use military force to deal with the problem of Iraq. That law specifically states that "the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

Section 5 (b) puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force.

That requirement has been met. You may not like it (in your OPINION), but it has been met.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-04-04   18:59:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#190. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#157)

I can't speak for the whole forum, BAC, but for my money, it's time for you to go back & suck on Goldi's sagging tits. You're draining too damned much good time and energy, around here.

(Time for the bozo/vote, I guess.)

By the way BAC, tell your handlers that I can be bought off. I told you that before, but you didn't listen.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-04-04   19:00:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (191 - 394) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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