State of Play in the U.S.A.

by Eye on America Sat Oct 04, 2003 20:40

In another incident to shake the Bush junta, it has been revealed that the leaking of the name of a CIA agent may have come from the White House. The woman in question just happened to be the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson - who had publicly challenged the White House's claim that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Niger.

The leakers apparently were trying to suggest that Wilson--who had been sent by the CIA to check out the Niger allegations and who concluded that there was nothing to them--had not been chosen for the job on merit. Wilson said that he considered the leak--which blew his wife's cover and perhaps undermined national security--was a message from the White House to others who might speak out against it: don't cross us, or we'll come after you and your family.

There is now a criminal investigation under way.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/100103E.shtml

by Pedant Sun Oct 05, 2003 02:00

A quick glance would lead someone to conclude that the daily/weekly number of fatalities has escalated over time. In other words, the weekly number of deaths in the past two weeks is now at least 7 times that of the weekly number of deaths at the end of the major combat phase.

That, of course, is not the case. This chart is useless as it suggests that the rate of death is increasing over time, anybody with any basic knowledge of mathematics would realise that the chart is completely wrong.

Whovever compiled this either doesn't understand how charts should be put togetner or is deliberately trying to mislead the public.

by Mathematician Sun Oct 05, 2003 03:15

And a quick glance at this graph would suggest that the highest rate of death was during the "combat phase" indicated by the elevated slope of the curve, settling into a constant rate of death between the end of that phase and the present. It does not suggest an increasing rate of death, at least to anybody who bothers to read it.

To the best of my knowledge, this is consistent with the state of play in Iraq.

by confuded Sun Oct 05, 2003 09:02

if i had one dead yank today and two dead yank's today how many dead infidels do i have?

by redjade Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:55

I agree that this graph is confusing, even if it is accurate.

here's a better graph and gives the human dimention of it...

http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm

by Another Pedant Sun Oct 05, 2003 18:49

Hey Pedant nobody is trying to mislead the public.
The graph simply shows a cumulative total of the US fatalities. As "mathematician" has pointed out anyone with half a functioning brain can work out what the graph is supposed to convey .... it doesn't suggest an increasing RATE of fatalities but rather shows the increase in the cumulative total against time ..........
The only people who are goinf to be mislead are those who are too mathematically illiterate (or innumerate) to be able to decipher a simple graph ....

The alternative graph referred to by Redjade shows a histogram-type plot of the same data ...

I wouldn't say that either graph is better or worse. They both plot the same data in different formats .... that's all .....

And as for misleading the public ....
GIVE ME A FRIGGING BREAK ..........
You would be better addressing such accusations to Messrs. Bush and Blair ......

But I forgot they were leading public opinion .... not misleading the public .....

Your comments are so moronic I could be forgiven for thinking you are Seáinin posting under an alias .......

by gdy Sun Oct 05, 2003 21:12

Think deeply on this, ask yourself where do we stop these madmen. Iraq may be the only place to stop this madness. Every nation that desires freedom and democracy must resist the Bush Junta's pressure to participate. The welfare of the world may well rest in the tying down the US army in the soil of Iraq, at least until Bush can be removed from power
George Bush: A Menace To World Peace



The media has largely dismissed Bush’s speech before the United Nations as an embarrassment to the country or the makings for a good comedy. Yes, the speech was bad even for Bush. No one was surprised by the outcome when the leaders of the world turned down his request for help in occupying Iraq. Some of the media noted how ironic it was that Bush had denounced the United Nations as irrelevant just a few short months ago now stood before the body like a beggar.

Beware of the beggar. From Homer’s time we know beggars can sometimes be Trojan Horses. Odysseus returned home dressed as a beggar. Within a nightfall Penelope’s suitors were slain by the beggar’s hand.

The leaders of Europe are playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship by suggesting that if the United States agreed to a joint control, Europe would be willing to send troops.Yes, it is going to take an international effort to rebuild Iraq. Nonetheless, it would be a very foolish move on the part of the international community to offer help as long as the Bush Junta remains in power. Note: the writer does not wish the US troops ill will. But given only the devil’s choice of a limited number of additional deaths in Iraq or the prospect of tens of thousands of deaths in Korea or another country the writer will choose the lesser of the evils.

In his best pious pose Bush appeared before the world body for peace seeking to absolve himself of his past criticism of that body. However, at the same time the real news that would reveal Bush as a ruthless sanctimonious tyrant was breaking in another continent. Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez Frias was forced to cancel his flight to New York. Venezuela authorities had uncovered a CIA plot to blow up Chavez’s plane en route to his scheduled appearance before the General Assembly. Appearing in a national broadcast Chavez was quoted as saying: "They are conspiring against Venezuela in the United States, the peoples of this continent need to know that their (USA) terrorists are preparing an attack against Venezuela!"

This is outrageous conduct for any leader; it is a violation of international law to plot the murder of the leader of another nation. In fact it is paramount to a declaration of war against that nation. Further it is a violation of the Untied Nations’ charter in which the United States guaranteed safe passage for friend and foe alike. However, it is revealing in the ruthless duplicity of the Bush Junta. It is a lesson that must be heeded by the leaders of Europe and not forgotten.

No one was surprised last year when Chavez revealed that the United States was behind the coup attempt to oust him from power. Nor was anyone surprised when it became known that United States personnel had an active hand in directing the coup and were present during Chavez’s short-lived captivity.

Nevertheless, there is much more to this assassination attempt on Chavez’s life by the Bush Junta. Venezuela authorities have linked the plot to terrorist groups in southern Florida with anti-Castro rebels. One of the plotters of the failed attempt was granted asylum by Bush’s brother Jeb. Thus Bush’s brother is acting as a facilitator in the plot against Chavez. Even more outrageous was the response of the United States Ambassador to Venezuela, Charles S. Shapiro, who says it is not necessarily, "a crime to kill a president." The ambassador further admits that he knows that some Venezuelans have been receiving military training in the United States. Further this information about Venezuelan terrorist training in the United States was published a year ago in a Miami paper but no action has been taken to stop it.

What European leaders must understand clearly is that the ambassador has revealed the Bush regime’s foreign policy. You are either for us or again us says the tinhorn tyrant. If you are against us then murder of national leaders is just another option. Assassinations in the past have led to war. To allow such policy to continue in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons is a prescription for a nuclear holocaust. Moreover, the Bush regime has confirmed that it has no regard for international law in its unilateral withdrawal from past weapons treaties banning the testing of nuclear devices and has even provided funding to build an assembly line type plant to produce nuclear bomb cores by the thousands should the madman deem it necessary for "U.S. national security."

Appearing before the United Nations begging for help to carry on his war for oil while at the same time plotting the assassination of a South American President, Bush has demonstrated that he is a menace to world peace. It establishes that the Bush Junta is not serious about rebuilding Iraq or peace in the Mid East. What it really is seeking from Europe is a means to free up some American troops so they can be dispatched elsewhere in a new war. One cannot negotiate with a madman. England and France tried that in Munich in 1938. Negotiating with a madman is fools folly, just ask the Czechs.

What the leaders of Europe must understand now is Bush is far more dangerous than Hitler was. Hitler’s war was only on par with the allies and his navy was certainly outclassed by the British and American navies. Unlike Hitler the Bush Junta has a war machine that is far superior to any in the world and he intends on using it to achieve global fascism. Indeed it would take the combined militaries of Europe and Russia to even achieve any means of parity with Bush’s war machine.
Venezuela and Chavez are not the only target of this menace to peace. The Bush Junta is already planning on a new aggressive program towards North Korea designed to provoking North Korea into war. The Bush regime is also waiting for opportunities to attack Syria and Iran. Afghanistan and Iraq are merely training grounds for Bush’s war machine like Spain’s Civil War was for Hitler. Neither country was attacked because of the phony war on terrorism both were attacked because of oil and gas. Moreover, once troops from those countries can be freed they will be used in an attack against another country. Wesley Clark says he was informed by defense officials "at the highest level" that the Bush regime has plans in place to attack 7 countries.

Just as Hitler’s conquests followed the blueprint he had written Mein Kamf, Bush is following the blue print written by fascist fanatics at the American Enterprise Institute. The PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century has outlined Bush’s aggressive pre-emptive strategy for world conquest. Those hopeful of peace will be dismayed after reading the document. This is the document that describes genome specific bioweapons as a politically useful tool, hinting at the prospect of racial genocide. It is also the document that calls for the militarization of space and complete Untied States dominance of space. The document not only calls for launching attacks from space but the destruction of satellites of other countries that are deemed to be military targets that includes communications and weather satellites.

The document further stressed the need for another Pearl Harbor before the strategy could be fully implemented with the acceptance of the American people. Now stop here and reread the goals of the PNAC cabal, let it sink in deep, these men crave for war, for domination of the world. Think deeply on this, ask yourself where do we stop these madmen. Iraq may be the only place to stop this madness. Every nation that desires freedom and democracy must resist the Bush Junta's pressure to participate. The welfare of the world may well rest in the tying down the US army in the soil of Iraq, at least until Bush can be removed from power.
The Bush Junta allowed 9-11 to happen. They had been forewarned by almost a dozen nations. When Bush visited the World Trade Organization meeting in Italy the city was first protected by surface to air missiles confirming the Bush regime were aware of possible air attacks by hijacked aircraft. Likewise, Bush was deliberately outside of Washington DC on the morning on 9-11 and had stayed at a motel overnight in which surface to air missile had been put in place on the rooftop. Obviously placing surface to air missiles on rooftops is not part of the ordinary security surrounding a presidential visit. However, it confirms that the Bush regime was well aware of the 9-11 attack ahead of time and had the means to stop it.

The stand down by the US Air Force on 9-11 only confirms that the attacks were deliberately allowed to happen. Bush needed his Pearl Harbor. It is standard procedure for the FAA to notify NORAD whenever a flight deviates by more than five miles from its flight path or contact is lost. The FAA rules are quite specific on the point even in cases of doubt contact NORAD immediately so fighters can be sent to intercept the errant aircraft. No fighters were dispatched on 9-11 until it was too late. The Bush Junta claimed there were no fighters available. Does anyone think that the United States Air Force is so short of planes that it left two thirds of the eastern seaboard including the White House unprotected and without air cover? Hell no! Bush needed a Pearl Harbor and he was willingly to sacrifice the lives of 3000 innocent people to get it by following the script written in Rebuilding America’s Defenses. Moreover somewhere between 20-30 of the Bush regime has come from the fascist institute that wrote that document.

Note the White House is protected by anti aircraft missiles, that fact was revealed in a 1998 Washington Post article. The White House was never in danger, where is the American press in covering this already published fact. Once that fact is known, the sacrifice becomes even clearer, the White House was protected, the others could be allowed to happen, to enrage the American people to support war without question.

Once Bush had his Pearl Harbor he was quick to attack Afghanistan followed quickly by Iraq even though there was not a shred of evidence linking Iraq with the 9-11 attack. His aides Powell and Rice have been heard on tapes from 2001 saying that Iraq lacked the power to project its conventional forces in the area and lacked any weapons of mass destruction. In fact Powell was downright chirppy about the matter claiming it was proof that the US sanctions were working.
Bush’s willingness to wage war before negotiations has had a chance was amply demonstrated in how quick he invaded Afghanistan following 9-11 and again in how quick he invaded Iraq once Afghanistan had fallen. It is again evident in the new aggressive policy his regime is applying to North Korea. It is a policy of forcing North Korea to start a war to protect itself. Nothing could be more dangerous. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the West Coast. It’s a game of nuclear brinkmanship and we are the pawns.

Moreover, engaging North Korea in war is an exceeding dangerous proposition. Such a war has the potential to quickly escalate into a global war with China coming to the aid of her neighbor. It is doubly dangerous with the potential to spiral out of control into a nuclear conflict. There will be no winner then even in Europe as a cloud of radioactive fallout spreads around the globe rendering life as we know it impossible.

There is no doubt that the madman in North Korea would use nuclear bombs. Likewise there is no doubt that the madman in Washington would use nuclear bombs. He considered using nuclear bombs in Afghanistan under the euphemism of tactical nuclear weapons or bunker busting bombs. There is no such weapon as a tactical nuclear weapon. All nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction and a means to terrorize a country and its populace.

Bush’s vindictive nature and his means of extracting revenge know no bounds. He has demonstrated this in exposing the wife of the Ambassador to Iraq as a CIA agent after the Ambassador revealed the yellow cake story from Nigeria as a hoax. It is also evident in the fact that the CIA is working underground to bring down the current ruling coalition in Germany to a premature end for its refusal to send troops to Iraq. This is a madman that is every bit as psychologically damaged as Hitler was.

The leaders of Europe must remain resolute and send no aid or troops to Iraq. Sending troops and aid will only hasten the start of a new war in another country. The only way to contain a madman like Bush is to keep him bottled up in Iraq as the situation there spirals into another Vietnam quagmire. Hitler could have been stopped at Munich. Instead the leaders of France and England engaged in a game of fools folly in trying to negotiate with a madman. Bush can be stopped in Iraq.
The leaders of Europe and the world must understand that as long as this menace to peace remains in power there will be another war. Negotiating with a madman like Hitler was fools folly just ask a Czech. Negotiating with a madman like Bush is also fools folly. Hopefully in the last 70 years the world leaders have learned from there past mistakes.

Stop Bush in Iraq! Deny him the physical support and financial aid he needs to free up his troops that he needs to start another war.

For the details of the Bush family connections to the Nazis click the link to the Nazi Hydra in America below.

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html

by Feelsgood Mon Oct 06, 2003 03:10

It looks like a cat just ran across somebody's keyboard. In all fairness, the number of references to Hitler/Mein kampf/Fuhrer/Junta/Nazis is absolutely laffable!

******

I also have a problem with the chart. I used to work for a Market reserach company so I know what I'm talking about. You only ever use a line chart to show a TREND, definitely not a cumulative progression.

This chart should have used bars showing number of deaths in a given interval (e.g. per week) on the X axis and the time intervals on the Y axis. Could we have a chart like that please? If not I could knock one up in a jiffy on Excel, the result might not look so alarming though.

by Mike M. Mon Oct 06, 2003 13:46

I have to say I don't see the problem with that graph at all - it in no way implies that the rate of deaths has been increasing over time, only that the total number of deaths has been increasing. The decrease in slope makes it pretty clear that the rate of deaths has in fact decreased since the end of Bush's war and start of his peace....how could this be confusing?

As to not using line graphs to demo cumulative increases, I wonder? The purpose of this graph was exactly to show changes in absolute numbers of dead - I could see the value of bar graphs if the point was to show rate of deaths over time but that isn't the point or intent of this graph.

And I suspect that this practice of not using line graphs to show cumulative change may be employed in specific disciplines but it's not de rigeur across the board as far as I know - I see a lot of graphs day to day and this one doesn't strike me as odd?

by Phuq Hedd Mon Oct 06, 2003 14:53

There is nothing wrong with the graph above except a lack of labelling on the abscissa and the ordinate. On the other hand it's fairly evident to someone of even modest intelligence (even if they're not as smart as the really clever pedant above) that the graph displays the number of deaths accumulated to a given time-period. It is a monotonic, roughly linear graph indicating a steady death rate.

by Eye on America Mon Oct 06, 2003 16:11

So much shite over a little graph. Look, I saw this graph on some website, and *I* understood it immediately - so I used it. I'm not of above average intelligence (I did 'pass' maths and no business subject in my leaving cert, many years ago), so I don't see what the problem is.

I expected arguments over this piece, but over the content, not the supplementary graph!

by Phuq Hedd Mon Oct 06, 2003 17:16

So people are responding to the only controversy. Why do you expect argument about the contents of your post? There's nothing novel or unusual in it, it's pretty much received wisdom.

by EoA Mon Oct 06, 2003 18:44

argument was the wrong word. i should have said debate.

Like: "I don't think they'll go after Iran, because x,y, x"

or: "Bush's ratings may be down, but I'm sure they'll pick up again in the next months because x, y, z"

Or maybe no-one has any opinions on it?

by Autodidact Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:02

By the way.

Fix it and then I might read your stupid article.

by Autodidact Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:02

By the way.

Fix it and then I might read your stupid article.

by ? Sun Oct 12, 2003 14:30

Perhaps Aidan would be easier to pronounce than Aodhán and Eileen better than Eibhilín...If Gaelic is not your language, start here.