The Liar-In-Chief is at it again
My "friends" on the wingnut right always challenge me to "prove that Bush lied." It's easy to do, of course, and here's another one:
Bush claims that only about 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of the US invasion. In last week's press conference, Bush was asked to comment on the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study estimating the death toll to be about 655,000. Bush's response was that (get ready, here's the lie) "their methodology has been pretty well discredited."
Um, actually, no. Here some information from Altercation:
-The Washington Post interviewed Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years. He called the Johns Hopkins survey method "tried and true" and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
-Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, told the Post, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.
-Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis" of the data.
-Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report, told The Christian Science Monitor: "That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it."
-The sampling "is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do." Zogby said similar survey methods have been used to estimate casualty figures in other conflicts, such as Darfur and the Congo.
If you tell lies, you are a liar.
Bush claims that only about 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of the US invasion. In last week's press conference, Bush was asked to comment on the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study estimating the death toll to be about 655,000. Bush's response was that (get ready, here's the lie) "their methodology has been pretty well discredited."
Um, actually, no. Here some information from Altercation:
-The Washington Post interviewed Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years. He called the Johns Hopkins survey method "tried and true" and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."
-Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, told the Post, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.
-Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis" of the data.
-Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report, told The Christian Science Monitor: "That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it."
-The sampling "is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do." Zogby said similar survey methods have been used to estimate casualty figures in other conflicts, such as Darfur and the Congo.
If you tell lies, you are a liar.
posted by Jim at 9:36 PM
5 Comments:
Jim, there is also the video of him saying that any wiretapping of Americans needed a court order and that is what they were doing. Come to find out that was a lie. Even if one side is overseas it is still a lie if an American in America is being tapped without a warrant.
Absolutely true, of course! Thanks for the comment.
C'mon, Ron, give me a link! But let's not confuse the issue. I believe there's a distinction surrounding whether the call is incoming or outgoing. In any case, if you really want to add that to any list of "lies", it's pretty lame. They are trying to track conversations with known terrorists. It the dude is making arrangements and says he has to check with Ahmed to finalize, do you really want our boys to hang up if the dick is dialing an American number? Get real. It's plainly stupid and worse, dangerous. And considering who they want to listen in on, I would hardly consider that a despotic, power hungry move. You oughta be ashamed for the implication.
As to the post, I've never heard a number that high before. Thus, I find it hard to believe. You've listed those who support the methodology, but nothing about who employed it, unless I missed something. Once I know that, perhaps I can find why Bush disputes that incredibly high number. AS it is, it doesn't make sense. We've lost so few, and the country's lost so many? I know our boys ain't that sloppy, so how does it get to even 100,000, much less 655K? And how many are actually innocent civilians since they don't wear uniforms? Too suspicious for any thinking man.
My point, Marshall, and I believe Ron will agree, is that everything the President wants to do can be done legally under existing law. FISA grants 3 days to get a warrant AFTER THE FACT so there can be no argument about not having enough time to get a warrant. It's just that simple.
So the way we see it, it's not really who they tap or which direction the call is going. It's follow the law. If the law doesn't work for you, get a new law.
Don't break the law because IF YOU DO, you are only doing it to try to show that you are above the law.
"everything the President wants to do can be done legally under existing law"
Ha.. these two chimps that run things? Actually expect them to follow something like "the law"? I'm still waiting for this to happen and its been nearly 7 years.
Post a Comment
<< Home