Here are some notes that occur to me, reading the various conservative pundits doing their various post-election stuff.

1. I keep reading about how it's the Democrats' turn to govern. Congress does not govern. Congress legislates. It takes three branches to govern. Keep that in mind.

2. I keep reading about how "we'll get 'em back in two years." Not so fast. Iraq is the biggest problem that needs to be fixed, and soon. If Iraq is fixed, to the satisfaction of the electorate, then guess who gets the credit. Not us. If Iraq gets worse, Republicans might have a chance to say I told you so, but guess who the electorate will blame. Not the Democrats. And I for one, desperately want a victory in Iraq, regardless of who gets the credit. If that means a longer time in the wilderness, so be it. Our men and women in arms deserve victory, for all they've sacrificed. I hope, hope, hope, that victory is really part of the Democratic plan, and now that they've won, I'm willing to give them a fair chance to make their case.

3. I think yesterday eliminated four sure losers from running for the Republican nomination in '08. Santorum, Frist, Allen, and Romney. These guys all had their appeal for hopeful conservatives (maybe not Frist, who was an abysmal leader from the start), but none of them, in my view, had a snowball's chance against Hillary/Obama in today's environment. I'm glad they're off the table.

Update:

4. As the day wears on, I'm more and more disappointed with most of the big name pundits on the right: from Hugh Hewitt (who blames John McCain?!?!), to Rush Limbaugh (who boasts that Republicans are better than Democrats because we're not crying about fraud after a loss, then in almost the same breath demands an ACORN investigation). The first step is admitting there's a problem, fellas.

Posted by: annika at 12:30 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Headlines this morning reported that Rummy was staying put, but Drudge now reports he's out.

h/t Ace.

Posted by: annika at 10:58 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks like I was almost spot on with my Senate predictions. If things turn out as they look like they're headed, the only race that I will not have called will be Virginia, and that only by a couple thousand votes. So I think you all better start paying attention to me. ; )

Regarding the California ballot, the news this morning is particularly disheartening. Tom McClintock lost the Lt. Governor's race to John Garamendi. I like Garamendi, but McClintock was a solid guy, and very popular. I really thought he was going to win, but this is a Democratic year and he had an R by his name.

Jerry Brown is our new Attorney General. This guy is a disgrace. His opponent had some hard hitting ads, which sounded like they were made up because they were so outrageous, but in Jerry Brown's case, the attacks were true.

Our anti-Kelo proposition went down by five points. I don't think proponents spent enough money advertising that one, though.

All the bonds won, and the parental notification measure lost. No surprise there.

The only really good California result I can point to is that Cruz Bustamonte did not win the Insurance Commissioner job. (And no, I do not include Arnold's win as a good thing.) Oh, and Prop 87, the alternative energy referendum, also went down handily.

I have a post-election post in my head, which I've been ruminating on since last weekend. It's coming, I just don't have time to write it now. The working title of the piece is "I Blame Bush," so stay tuned.

A final note before I rush off to class, and I'm sincere about this. Despite yesterday's defeat, today is a good day.

Posted by: annika at 07:53 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm leaving this link at the top until polls close on Tuesday.

Click here if you want to refer to my California ballot proposition recommendations.

Posted by: annika at 08:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

It's open comments. Just leave your election day story here. How did it go? What do you think?

I'm voting later today, after class. I might join in the liveblogging fun at Six Meat Buffet later tonight, so check in there too.

Posted by: annika at 12:41 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

1 wtf? when LGF does open comments, there's like 700 c0mments. I can't even get one?!

Posted by: annika at November 07, 2006 03:05 PM (zAOEU)

2 Sorry Annie, As an absentee voter, I feel a little out of touch with the process...and I didn't get a sticker, either.

Posted by: Mark W at November 07, 2006 03:10 PM (BJVEF)

3 I may vote, who knows, no close races here

Posted by: Scof at November 07, 2006 03:48 PM (a3fqn)

4 I early voted on Halloween. It was at the library. I thought about checking out a book, but then I didn't. Afterwards, I went trick-or-treating at a church fair. The candy was lackluster; the hot dogs were excellent.

Posted by: Leif at November 07, 2006 03:55 PM (tYFtb)

5 We absentee voted in MO. The funny thing was they sent me a military ballot and my husband a regular one, which meant he had to get it notarized. No big deal, but it seems they should've known which one to send to him.

Posted by: Sarah at November 07, 2006 04:18 PM (7Wklx)

6 I voted before work in my pajamas at 6:30AM. My senate vote went to Tom Kean. The Democrat incumbant is one more in the culture of corruption the state democrats seem to embrace, but NJ voters are stupid and will probably re-elect him despite this. I didn't vote down-the line Republican, my congressman (who has no detectable threat) had been very responsive to a couple of issues I've written to him about, and despite being a democrat, I'm happy with Rush Holt (NJ) so he earned my vote. Township committee had no republican challengers so I wrote myself in. I was the 2nd person to vote from my district, my wife was the first, that place was empty aside from the election volunteers at 6:30AM. I can't wait to see the results from across the country, though I fear the outcome.

Posted by: Rob at November 07, 2006 05:40 PM (Q2xwR)

7 What a bunch of homos. I went to the polls, and voted with the unwashed. In deference to them, I too was unwashed and just off a bike ride, plus the Santa Annas are blowing so it was about 80, nice and stinky. At the polling place where I had voted the last two times, I found that I no longer vote there. Big fucking surprise, I've been moved a half dozen times in the eight years I've lived here. Went home and fucked with the San Diego County BOE website until it shit out my current polling place. That took about a half hour. Went to the newly remodled library two blocks away, and wandered around until I found the polls. Not a single fucking sign in front of the bibliotheka, but inside I was efficiently directed to the correct precinct by freshly scrubbed eager types. After making me sign by my name, I was handed a smartcard, which I plugged into the first free Diebold touchscreen machine where I voted the straight Annikan ticket with one deviation. Did I mention that I was between a woman in her ninties who was reading the ballot aloud, very annoying, and some foreign fuck who was having trouble reading at all, while he was sneezing and hacking all over me? Well I was. After finishing my selections, and leaving my neighbors struggling with the tech side of things, I handed my smartcard back to the fetching gal at the table, and requested a handful of hand sanitizer. They had none. I went home and washed. In the interest of full disclosure. Diebolds is headquartered in my hometown, Canton, Ohio. That is unless they've gotten smart like me and moved on. What a moneymaker this wheez must be for them. It wasn't much easier than filling in the little circle on the scan sheet.

Posted by: Casca at November 07, 2006 05:52 PM (2gORp)

8 You shoulda voted absentee in Canton; maybe your vote might have meant something.

Posted by: shelly at November 07, 2006 06:43 PM (SLFj+)

9 But then, who can really concentrate on this meaningless stuff when really important news is breaking - like Brittany Spears kissing off her asshole dependent?

Posted by: shelly at November 07, 2006 06:47 PM (SLFj+)

10 I would have voted for you Rob. I just voted. Brisk business at my polling place, but no lines. And no problems. Fox just announced DeWine lost, Menendez won, and Santorum lost. As I predicted so far.

Posted by: annika at November 07, 2006 06:48 PM (qQD4Q)

11 Hello, I noticed the huge number of replys in the LGF blog. I voted absentee a while ago. I'm from Maryland and voted for Steele and am hoping that my one vote will turn the tide for him!

Posted by: Drake Steele at November 07, 2006 06:50 PM (+vXQY)

12 ELECTION PREDICTION: IF THE DEMS WIN, THEN THE ENEMY WILL HAND OUT CANDY IN GAZA JUST LIKE THEY DID ON 9/11.

Posted by: reliapundit at November 07, 2006 07:18 PM (wQPyA)

13 I was one of the unwashed voting the straight annika ticket after a few hours of sheetrocking my kitchen. I especially voted a BIG NO for a special new $150 million library in downtown Oakland billing property owners an additional $500 fucking each per year for 30 years knowing they would not be able to finish the motherfucker without going way over budget in a million fucking years. FUCK THEM ALL TO FUCKING HELL!

Posted by: d-rod at November 07, 2006 07:30 PM (A7mUo)

14 Shelly, as you know, minor league ballot box stuffing is not beneath me, however in this case it would have been pissing in the wind. Effort is admirable, accomplishment is valuable.

Posted by: Casca at November 07, 2006 07:41 PM (2gORp)

15 I spent the a.m. w/ my ballot guides and the computer, researching candidates and issues and marking the guides w/ my votes in bright red Sharpie. I liked the Diebold machine. It was quick and easy. I waited for my illiterate neighbor to come banging on my door at dinner time, like she did in '04, cursing her 41-year-old son who wasn't home from work in time to take her to the polls. It would've taken forever to talk her through the ballot so I'm glad she was covered this time.

Posted by: Joules at November 09, 2006 11:18 PM (u4CYb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Along the same lines as my "Memo To The Disgruntled Independent Voter" below, I have a message for those voters whose main issue is opposition to abortion.

What are you doing thinking about staying home tomorrow? I understand your frustration at Bush, and the Republicans, and their betrayal of conservative values. But I also know that a Democratic Congress will lead directly to fewer restrictions on abortion, and more pro-abortion federal judges. Maybe you're okay with that, but I won't have that vote on my conscience.

If you say you're pro-life, your only choice is to vote — and to vote Republican. Staying home is not an option.

Posted by: annika at 08:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

I agree that the number one issue in tomorrow's election is the war in Iraq. I also agree that things are not going well over there, and it's time for a change. I understand that a lot of independent voters want to give the Democrats a try, with the hope that maybe they can do better than Bush in what seems like a no win situation. Believe me, I share your frustration.

But remember, not all change is good. Sometimes things can change for the worse. Please read Frederick Kagan's column in the Weekly Standard. Here's a key excerpt.

The pullback of U.S. forces to their bases will not reduce the sectarian conflict . . . . It will increase it. Death squads on both sides will become more active. Large-scale ethnic and sectarian cleansing will begin as each side attempts to establish homogeneous enclaves where there are now mixed communities. Atrocities will mount, as they always do in ethnic cleansing operations. Iraqis who have cooperated with the Americans will be targeted by radicals on both sides. Some of them will try to flee with the American units. American troops will watch helplessly as death squads execute women and children. Pictures of this will play constantly on Al Jazeera. Prominent "collaborators," with whom our soldiers and leaders worked, will be publicly executed. Crowds of refugees could overwhelm not merely Iraq's neighbors but also the FOBs themselves. Soldiers will have to hold off fearful, tearful, and dangerous mobs. Again, endless photographs and video footage of all this will play constantly. Before long, it will probably prove necessary to remove the embedded U.S. troops from the Iraqi military units. The situation will become too dangerous; the Iraqis will increasingly resent the restraint the embeds place on their actions; and the U.S. military will become fearful of being implicated in death-squad activity. It is a matter of chance whether the embedded troops are pulled before any are kidnapped or taken prisoner by Iraqi military units turning bad or being infiltrated by radicals.

. . . There will be no "decent interval" here during which we withdraw in reasonably good order--the withdrawal itself is likely to occur in the midst of rising violence. Instead of pictures of Americans on the embassy roof in Saigon, we will see images of Iraqi death squads at work with U.S. troops staying on their bases nearby. And let us not forget that in the world of Al Jazeera, we will be accused of encouraging those death squads. The overall result will be searing and scarring. The damage to the morale of the military could be far greater than what will result from burdening soldiers with longer or more frequent tours of duty in a stepped-up effort to achieve victory. Those who are concerned about the well-being of the Army should fear defeat of this type more than anything.

Do you want your vote to be responsible for the reign of terror that will inevitably follow our retreat from Iraq? I know no matter how pissed I am at the mistakes and the lack of progress, I don't want that blood on my conscience.

There is no third way; there is only defeat or victory. And thus the choice tomorrow is clear, because you know what the Democrats want to do. Even if you don't believe the Democrats want us to lose, you should give serious thought to whether you want us to lose, and to what would happen if we were to begin withdrawing forces from Iraq now, when they're needed there most.

Posted by: annika at 02:39 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 618 words, total size 4 kb.

Just keep repeating to yourself:

Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco
Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco
Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco

Posted by: annika at 03:26 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

On Tuesday I went on the record, saying that the Democrats will pick up five Senate seats to split the upper house 50/50. I just spent the last hour re-analyzing the latest polls, and I stand by that prediction.

Democrats will gain seats in Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Rhode Island. Republicans will fail to take over Democratic seats in Maryland, New Jersey and Minnesota. Republicans will hold on to their seats in Virginia and Tennessee.

The races where I might be wrong are, of course, the hotly contested Montana and Missouri elections.

Montana perplexes me. I don't know enough about the issues to say why, but Democrat Tester has consistently polled ahead of Republican Burns since April. It might be Tester's haircut. Tester's ads portray him as a regular guy, someone you could have a beer with. By contrast, Burns seems more like, well, Mr. Burns. The race is still close. The latest Zogby poll has Burns down by a percentage point. But I'm still calling it for Tester. I think Montanans are turned off by Burns' alleged Abramoff connections, and Tester is a native who looks the part. I also think you can probably trust Montana poll numbers more than you would some other state's.

In Missouri, Republican incumbent Jim Talent is polling about three points behind Democrat Claire McCaskill. The polls have switched back and forth all year between the two candidates. If I'm wrong about any of my predictions, Missouri is likely to be the one. But I think Missouri is a weird state; it seems so evenly split between red and blue. One thing I think McCaskill has going for her is that there are large urban areas where the Democrats can use fraud to add a few unearned points to her total. Talent seems like a good guy though, and I hope he wins.

I could also be wrong about Virginia. I predict Republican incumbent George Allen will hold on to win, despite recent polls showing Democrat Jim Webb with a one to five point advantage. I'm sticking with Allen because I trust Virginia is at heart a conservative state, and I don't trust the pollsters there. When was the last time a Democrat won a national election in Virginia? Okay, Chuck Robb, but he was a centrist. Webb may have a certain appeal to conservatives, but if voting for him means handing the Senate over to the Democrats, I think Virginians will do the right thing.

Finally, I'm still sticking with my prediction that Maryland's open Senate seat will remain in Democrat hands. When was the last time a Republican won a national election in Maryland? And my fraud theory holds here too. I really hope Steele wins, though. After what they've done and said about him, Steele's Democrat critics ought to wear sheets and hoods. It's disgusting.

My best case scenario for Republicans has them maintaining a Senate majority by three seats. Santorum, DeWine and Chafee are toast. But if Steele, Talent and Burns win, there's our three seats. Of course I'm still assuming that Allen and Corker win Virginia and Tennessee, but I think they will.

The House is way too complicated for me to analyze, so like I said before: trust Gerrymandering.

Update: See how far out on a limb I am? Only one guy at the Weekly Standard agrees with me.

Posted by: annika at 12:32 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

Drudge has been running this story about Where's Nancy? He claims that Nancy Pelosi has been hidden from public appearances since October 21, two weeks ago. I don't doubt it. She's as bad for the the Democratic Party's PR as John Kerry, only twice as dumb.

Drudge says:

The woman who would be speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has oddly stayed out of the national spotlight in the week leading up to the big vote.

The high profile, potentially history-making democrat has turned low-key.

The last photo of vanishing Pelosi on the wires was from an October 21 fundraiser.

And since Pelosi appeared on the controversial October 22 broadcast of 60 MINUTES, national TV hits have all but been nonexistent.

[Pelosi did appear on CNBC's On the Money on 10/24 and on ABC on 10/26, as THINK PROGRESS points out. But the sightings have dramatically dwindled.]

Former Speaker of the House, Republican Newt Gingrich believes he knows one reason why the congresswoman has largely dropped out of public sight ever since 60 MINUTES.

"It seems clear that some Americans have glimpsed a future with her third in line for the presidency, and they don't like what they see," says Gingrich. "She has become largely invisible as a result."

A source close to the congresswoman explains she has been busy behind the scenes.

Pelosi made a brief public appearance with Bill Clinton this week in San Francisco.

After providing a long schedule of her weekend events, a Pelosi aide added that her favorite stop was the taping of a World Wrestling Entertainment podcast on the importance of young people voting, the WHITE HOUSE BULLETIN reports.

Posted by: annika at 06:10 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.

Read and understand:

If you vote for Democrats in this election, you might think youre voting for a perfectly nice centrist Democrat, but the "Anti-war" wing of leftist thought will take that perfectly nice candidate that you voted for and use it as evidence that their side in the argument is actually perferred by Americans. Not the "centrist American" side, but the loathesome "We hate America" side. Your vote will be used to prove it.

They will take that protest vote of yours to argue "America is in descent", that our sins have finally caught up with us and we need to be sorry for all the evil we have done in the world, and look at all the people who agree with us! They will argue that fundamental changes in our country are necessary to make up for our crimes of the past, that our its our military is actually what causes wars, that people in the military should be prosecuted and they are what causes other people in the world to hate us and not our lovely and socially relevent "pop-culture".

. . . If Democrats are tossed yet another defeat this time, they will learn. They will get the message. They will remove the leech of "Anti-war" from their crotch and we might start to see Democrats like Harry Truman again. Democrats who don't apologize for America or being an American.

And that will be good for all of us.

Posted by: annika at 03:19 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm playing "God Bless America" on the CD player. Off to read a couple of articles in National Review and I'll have my Church of Conservatism needs met for the week.

Posted by: Joules at November 02, 2006 04:10 PM (u4CYb)

2 When the Democrats go down in flames in this election, I hope there is an another group that learns its lesson. For the past three elections, MSM has manipulated the news, sabotaged our anti-terrorism efforts and attempted to destroy our economy. They have done all this to force left-wing rule down the throats of all Americans. MSM has ignored falling revenues, cancelled subscriptions, decreasing viewers, and massive media layoffs. Maybe after losing three straight elections, MSM will join America again and just report the news.

Posted by: Jake at November 02, 2006 04:39 PM (V6rxT)

3 absolutely, Jake!

Posted by: annika at November 03, 2006 07:12 AM (qQD4Q)

4 The Hate-America crowd will not be purged from the Demoncrat party until the Vietnam generation and their children are dead. It is an article of faith among them, that all who carried the burden of that war were ignorant murderers, rapists, and baby killers... you know, what Kerry said. Don't worry, we might start whacking these NGCS's any day now.

Posted by: Casca at November 03, 2006 07:55 AM (2gORp)

5 "They will remove the leech of "Anti-war" from their crotch" leech and crotch...hmmm...yes, yes he must be talking about Democrats ...and looks like it will be Michigan-Louisville in Glendale for the BCS, whodathunk?

Posted by: Scof at November 03, 2006 11:59 AM (a3fqn)

6 Wow! Did Michagoose already beat OSU? I musta lost track of the date - or the year. Nah, I'm afraid BIG RED will be in Glendale, along with some once beaten team. I'm also afraid that the best Michigan could possibly hope for is Pasadena, where once again, USC will hand you your ass and eat your lunch.

Posted by: shelly at November 03, 2006 02:16 PM (SLFj+)

7 "It is an article of faith that all who carried the burden of that war were ignorant murderers, rapists, and baby killers... " You said it Casca. Now the Iraq invaders are the newest rendition of this noble American tradition.

Posted by: Strawman at November 03, 2006 02:47 PM (9ySL4)

8 "Murderers, rapists, and baby killers" are criminals and are treated such in our military. Hopefully, Straw, you are not suggesting that our military in Iraq engages in this sort of behavior as a general rule. If you are, then you are both reprehensible and stunningly ignorant. There is no military in the world that does anymore to root out corruption and criminality in its ranks than does the US military. The lie that this was common and accepted in Vietnam is just another Left-wing myth perpetuated by the likes of John Kerry and other America haters.

Posted by: blu at November 03, 2006 04:31 PM (IDpQp)

9 The Dems will learn? I doubt it...

Posted by: Mike@CopTheTruth at November 03, 2006 05:17 PM (YadGF)

10 Loiusville for the nat'l championship, lol, that's a good one!

Posted by: annika at November 03, 2006 05:29 PM (qQD4Q)

11 Blu, We've had this discussion before. I am sure you know exactly what I mean. The cruelty in VN and the criminality of many. not most, many GI's is well known. Remember I am VN vet age, lost friends and relatives in this confilict, repatriated ABC News' vienamese employees to my home town, (my sister was in charge of ABC's camp Pendleton repatriation station where 4000 South Vietnamese employees were put up on the way to being place in jobs and given citizenship) I have some direct knowledge.

Posted by: Strawman at November 03, 2006 06:07 PM (9ySL4)

12 As an archivist of Straw's BS, I'm getting a sense of deja vu again. I'm about as touched by his "compassion" towards South Vietnamese refugees as much as Macaulay Culkin was during a visit to the Neverland Ranch. [Your blowing smoke out your ass. My sister worked for ABC news and was in charge of resettling the 3000 "dependents" as they were called, of the network. CBS and NBC had similar numbers. The network employees and their families were given some kind of automatic citizenship after Saigon fell since they would have been killed or imprisioned by the ARVN as traitors and collaborators. The networks gave them money and resources including job placement. I met many of them who were resettled in the NY area. These are the people you heard interviewed. You think they are an unbiased bunch? They lived well, benefitted from the occupation and sold out their country.] BTW, from the same thread, Straw displays his sincere adulation for our veterans: [Killerjoe, I guess the basic disagreement is that the N. Vietnamese were not our enemy until we invaded their country. Sort of like the Iraqi people who are fighting back now just like you would if your country were invaded. We are the most aggressive fucks the world has seen since the fall of the British Empire. I felt sorry for the people of Vietnam, all of them. We ruined their country and killed millions doing it. You no doubt helped and are still proud of it. You should try and get that off your chest. That is what Kerry did upon coming home. He had the courage to say the killing was a travesty bordering on the criminal; our government lied about the justification for war, and the plan, like BushÂ’s was a joke. You had the courage to kill in the course of invading a country that did you and America no harm and you have stayed ignorant of the history to this day. WhoÂ’s the dumb scumbag?] -From Strawman's (formerly known as Mike) Greatest Hits, Volume 1

Posted by: reagan80 at November 03, 2006 08:02 PM (dFOlH)

13 How the hell did I not know about this guy's blog before? I'm pretty damn impressed. He needs to get more pimpage!

Posted by: TBinSTL at November 04, 2006 12:40 AM (bYmT0)

14 Varifrank's article sounds like the warning's of the strategist who thought up "Contract with America", a real life surprise pulled on the American people. With Bush's and the GOP's abysmal poll numbers, even a "war president" and his cohorts won't have enough influence to stem the tide of change. We'll see if the Republicans take to whining, as they had complained the Democrats had done. Being an independent before an election is like being at ringside seat at a title match. Pass the popcorn!

Posted by: will at November 04, 2006 09:20 AM (h7Ciu)

15 Hey Raygun, He called you a pimp, for me no less! Terrific. I thank you for reposting my relitively well written but better reasoned posts. (get the invoice in for the archivist fee before the end of the year, OK?) They were to the point when I wrote them and have aged well as we have seen the wonderful progress of the Bush plan in the ME. (I think you mistook my sentiment about the South VN coming to the US. I, like the ARVN, felt them to be traitors and thought they should have stayed and been rehabilatated just as you my friend would have shot, I mean rehabilitated, a colonist in Boston who gave material and personal support to the British) Bravo for Bush. I certainly feeling good and way safer, how about you Ray? Feeling good? Feeling lees scared out of you runny underware? THe advances in limb and face reconstruction are great, the C-147's outfitted as ICU's are really something to see, and the boost to the wheelchair rugby and basketball leagues is pushing them closer to a contract with ESPN. I applaud it all. You too, right? ANd Blu tells me the wonderful economic tide that's flowing in here in the states will be rising Iraq's boats soon as well. New housing is just around the corner, Parsons is knocking out thoses hospitals and police stations like my mom's toll house cookies! Hezzbolla and Hammas are theowing in the towel and making lots of con cessions, the Saudi's are playing a big part too. They are exerting lot's of clout and sending peacemakers to twist a few arms. Condi's racking up frequent flyer miles and soon will take a few free weeks in Bali, and how about Rummy, boy he just keeps hitting them out of the park. Every new strategy he tries wow's em. PAcified Bagdad's ass didn't he? I hear they added ten square meters to the green zone and put up a new gaurd tower. Gotta sign off before I run outa breath, Iraq is amazing! My kid is thinking of appling to the University for graduate work (poly sci major) and hthen might establish residencey since ther new democracy has such opportunity to do some good in the region. Amaazing! Gotta go, my palms are getting raw from the clapping. Oh, the generals and Richard Perle? Fuckem what do they know!

Posted by: Strawman at November 04, 2006 11:53 AM (9ySL4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sen. John Kerry:

You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you donÂ’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

If you offend somebody, whether you intend to or not, you should apologize.

I apologize to no one for my criticism of the President and his broken policy.

But given that John Kerry began his political career by throwing his military ribbons over the White House fence in protest over a military service which he claimed led to widespread and systematic atrocities — which he later admitted that he never witnessed, and which were later proven to have been completely made up — I sincerely doubt that his "explanation" is genuine.

If John Kerry intended to insult the president with his "botched joke," why then are the words "president" or "Bush" nowhere to be found within the text of that joke?

If John Kerry really fucked up the script so badly, why then didn't he immediately clarify himself? We've all been in that situation. When I mis-speak, and inadvertently give offense, that's what I do. It's customary, even through embarrassment, to say, "I'm sorry, what I meant to say was..." But Kerry didn't do that until the firestorm began this morning. Now that he's busted, it's a little hard to believe his denials.

Here's an instructive thought experiment. What if, instead of touching the third rail of conservative politics by insulting the troops, John Kerry's "botched joke" had imputed stupidity to African Americans? Would he then have apologized quickly and repeatedly? You bet your ass he would have, and he'd have done it based on John McCain's maxim I quoted above: "If you offend somebody, whether you intend to or not, you should apologize." The fact that John Kerry, even now after "admitting" he made a mistake, still refuses to apologize to the American military he claims to respect so much, is tantamount to insulting them a second time. He doesn't think they're worth the courtesy.

What really happened is that John Kerry had a "Dixie Chicks" moment. Like Natalie Maines in England, Kerry thought he had a sympathetic audience of liberal college students to whom he could pander, by sharing a little inside humor. "Heh, heh, I know you guys despise the military and think they're dummies. I do too. Ain't I cool? Vote for Angelides."

Should any of this matter? Probably not, since Kerry can't be voted out of office this year. (Personally, I think Kerry should be forced to resign from his seat on the Committee on Foreign Relations. Nobody with his history of undisguised contempt for American military personnel should be allowed to sit on such a committee, with that body's concomitant influence over the deployment of those same soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.) But that's a different question from whether any of this will matter. And I hope it does. Not only because it may forestall the Democratic takeover I predicted earlier, but because Kerry's latest blunder probably and irrevocably scuttled any hope he might have had of trying for his party's nomination in '08. Democratic power brokers will never ever forgive him for this gaffe, nor should any of us.

Update: Kerry apologizes.

[Technorati tag: John Kerry; cross-posted at The Cotillion]

Posted by: annika at 08:31 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 603 words, total size 4 kb.

I've been following the polls and the elections closely, but until now I've avoided making any predictions. Now, a week out, I'm ready to cut through all the MSM's pro-Democratic propaganda and all the pie-in-the-sky optimism from the right wing press.

Here are my predictions. The Senate looks tight, but I think it will take a miracle for the Republicans to retain control. By my calculations, it will be a 50/50 split after next Tuesday. Republicans will lose in MT, OH, NJ, PA and RI. I think Corker will beat Ford, keeping TN Republican, but I could be wrong about that. In MD, Steele deserves to win, and though I mistrust polls generally, they can't be that far off. I don't think Steele will do it.

An evenly divided Senate is a de facto Democratic majority, since there are enough turncoat RINOs in the Senate to do Harry Reid's bidding. The Dems also know how to play rough and they will insist on some sort of accomodation on committee chairs. Republican Senate leaders, never known for stiff spines, will cave in to these demands.

As for the House, I have just two words for you: trust Gerrymandering. The Republicans will hold the House.

Divided government here we come. Now maybe in peacetime, a Democrat Senate was tolerable, but Kerry's despicable anti-military insults yesterday illustrate clearly why the Democrats cannot be trusted with any position of leadership.

Posted by: annika at 10:23 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

1 There's only one poll that counts, and it's taken on election day. Dewine deserves to lose, but it is laughable that Sharrod Brown will win in Ohio. He is a Kucinich type flake, and an empty suit like Casey. The word is "low turnout", that works for us. Worst case, the D's end up in a blowback situation for '08. Can you say President Hunter?

Posted by: Casca at October 31, 2006 10:58 AM (Y7t14)

2 You could be right about the Senate. My guess at this point, which I think is too early, is that the Dems are +4 or +5. Still, either party can pull a Kerry in the last few days. Also, there can always be some world event that shapes perception. Two weeks are an eternity when things are this close. I think you are correct about the House, but the Dems still win 10+ seats.

Posted by: blu at October 31, 2006 11:14 AM (IDpQp)

3 Did I write two weeks? Oops! Well even a week is an eternity. Let's hope the Rep $ advantage makes a difference.

Posted by: blu at October 31, 2006 11:16 AM (IDpQp)

4 How do independents figure in? If there are two independents and both caucus with the Dems, do the "count" in the Dems favor if it ends up 49-49-2? Or does Cheney still hold the tiebreaking vote?

Posted by: ken at October 31, 2006 11:43 AM (hFZJx)

5 Ken, I'm pretty sure that the I's can caucus with either party. In this case, both the I's are committed to the Dems.

Posted by: blu at October 31, 2006 11:49 AM (IDpQp)

6 I disagree. I think there will be a record turnout of Republicans that exceeds the huge turnout of 2004. Republicans will not turnout because they like the Republican candidates. No, the Republicans will turn out to spit in the eye of the MSM and to get revenge on the MSM for their vote suppression techniques, news suppression and left-wing cheerleading. Republicans also want revenge on Democrats for all their outrageous insulting statements. We are mad as hell, and we are not going to take it anymore.

Posted by: Jake at October 31, 2006 12:15 PM (V6rxT)

7 Annika, let's hope your prediction about the Senate is as accurate as your predictions on Monday Night Football have been.

Posted by: Jason H. at October 31, 2006 02:26 PM (jTuRA)

8 Annie, before the Kerry "f" up I would agree with you, but I think a lot of pissed off repubs and independents just might remember how much they hate these guys and go out to vote against them, rather than voting for the Republicans.

Posted by: kyle8 at October 31, 2006 04:29 PM (OPhHb)

9 The Associated With Terrorists Press is running a story with Dems insiders predicting them winning 35 seats (giving them a 20-seat majority). The MSM has been running stories like this for the past two weeks. Any contrary opinion gets buried in the middle of the story. The cheerleading will be constant and loud the next few days. I've yet to see one-story about how Kerry's fuck-up might affect things. That's not part of the template.

Posted by: blu at October 31, 2006 06:01 PM (IDpQp)

10 Annie: Stick to the books. Politics is a very difficult game, a body contact sport, indeed. The most important vote, every session, is the very first one. All the others are just details. We will definitely hold the Senate, even if it is with 50, and that includes the RINO's. But if you control the Agenda, you control the pace and the issues, and don't scoff at it. I'll take every vote we can get. I also agree that we will hold the House. I am in San Francisco for a few days, hanging out with people who are intoxicated by the thought of a Pelosi Speakership. They are doing the end zone dance, before they have crossed the goal line. We Republicans are mad, and are all voting; the Democrats are dancing. My only question is: From which bridge will Nancy jump after she doesn't get the new drapes? George Washington, Golden Gate, Francis Scott Key, Golden Gate or 14th Street? Your guess is as good as mine.

Posted by: shelly at November 01, 2006 04:02 AM (Eodj2)

11 Shelly, I have to agree with you. All the old war elephants have seen this dance before. It's really hard to pickup seats. That's why you need a tidal wave like '94, you remember, the Clintons, national health care, and a congress full of check kiters. Pelosi's thugs have done a great job of October surprising and sliming the shit out of R's this year. Heh, knocking off Bob Ney was a coup. They have been masterful. The Delay thing was all part of the plan. One hopes that R's learn the lesson, which I think Boener will, and spend the next cycle ripping these NGCS's a new asshole. Ultimately, our targeted cash, and ground organization carries the day. Plus the tide of history is running R, and has been since Nixon.

Posted by: Casca at November 01, 2006 08:17 AM (Y7t14)

12 The Dems peaked too early--around Foley. But this is going to go down to the wire and be very close regardless of who ultimately winds up on top. If I had to bet, I'd go with exactly the opposite result as Annie's prediction: R's hold the Senate, D's take the House, but razor-thin margins in each. The GOP will lose PA and RI, but I think we'll pick up NJ since Menendez is such a disastrously terrible candidate and Kean has name recognition. And I do think Mike Steele will win in Maryland: Prince George's County especially will swing in his favor way beyond what the polls suggest, because black voters do not want to tell pollsters they'd vote Republican. That should be enough to even counter any voting shenanigans in Baltimore.

Posted by: Dave J at November 01, 2006 07:01 PM (GKQ+L)

13 You didn't mention Virginia. Webb and Allen have been in a statistical dead heat in the last several polls I've seen.

Posted by: Matt at November 02, 2006 08:39 AM (10G2T)

14 i think Allen will win.

Posted by: annika at November 02, 2006 09:27 AM (zxtCi)

15 We'll see. Webb just released his response to the NRA questionnaire, and he got 24 of 25 substantive questions right. I give him half-credit for the other one. (Maybe he just hasn't thought it through.) That'll play well outside Northern Virginia, though it may also be a sign of desperation.

Posted by: Matt at November 02, 2006 10:57 AM (10G2T)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Don't like waiting in line? Here's an idea, idiots. Get to your polling place early.

Here's another idea. Vote absentee.

When I go to the Post Office and there's a long line, it doesn't mean I'm being discriminated against. It just means there's a lot of customers. And if I show up at the Post Office at 5:00 and they shut the door in my face, it just means that I should have got there earlier.

Another thing, idiots. If you can't figure out the ballot, fucking ask somebody to help you. Or study the sample ballot before you show up.

It ain't that hard. If voting is so important to you that you are ready to scream disenfranchisement at the drop of a hat, why not take the time to avoid problems by planning ahead.

Unless of course, crying fraud is part of your strategy for winning.

P.S. If you're one of the unfortunate voters who has to use one of these beasts, and you encounter problems, blame Florida and disregard the above. I've never trusted the idea of computer voting, its an example of knee-jerk overreaction to a nonexistent problem.

Posted by: annika at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

Here are my California ballot proposition recommendations. It might be interesting to you, even if you're not from California, since it provides an insight into the workings of my political mind.

As I've said before, I have an easy way to decide on any bond issues. I vote no as a rule on every bond measure, no matter how tempting it sounds (with one exception, I vote yes on all prison bonds*). It seems to me that bond measures are a way for this state's government to spend beyond its means, even though excessive spending is its biggest problem. My philosophy is that the legislature should do its job and prioritize the budget so we won't have to rely on bonds to get things done.

I'm also sick and tired of two or three school improvement bonds every time we have an election. They generally win, because nobody (except me) wants to vote to keep kids learning under leaky roofs and without enough crayons or construction paper. Yet every election, the schools hold out their hand for more. Whatever happened to the promise that the California Lottery was supposed to solve all our school problems? I'm told that "Our schools win too" was the motto back in '84 when the lottery initiative passed. Well, I for one won't play that game anymore. Whatever they're doing with all that money isn't working, so let's cut off the spigot and force them to try something else.

Here's the propositions on the statewide ballot:

Prop 1A: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PROTECTION This initiative would force the government to use gasoline sales tax revenues for transportation improvements only, instead of dumping that money into the general fund so the legislature can squander it as they love to do. I vote YES.

Prop 1B: HIGHWAY SAFETY, TRAFFIC REDUCTION, AIR QUALITY, AND PORT SECURITY BOND Here's an example of a bond measure with worthy goals, which I will reject simply because of my hard and fast rule about bond measures. If the legislature would do its job, cut the frivolous spending, and cut regulation and taxes to keep businesses from fleeing the state, we'd have enough money to do this kind of shit without mortgaging our future with 39 billion more in bond debt. I vote NO.

Prop 1C: HOUSING AND EMERGENCY SHELTER TRUST FUND More bonds. Hey, I'm all for helping out battered women and their kids, low-income seniors, the disabled, military veterans, and working families. But again, if this is such a priority, the legislature should find a way to do it without adding to the bond debt. Otherwise, let's encourage private charities to continue their good work in this area. I know that there are many fine non-profits that help battered women and provide shelter for their families, because I did pro-bono work for one of them last year. I vote NO.

Prop 1D: KINDERGARTEN–UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND Another school bond. See above. I vote NO.

Prop 1E: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND FLOOD PREVENTION BOND Another bond. I vote NO.

Prop 83: SEX OFFENDERS. SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS. PUNISHMENT, RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS AND MONITORING This initiative tightens punishment and monitoring of violent sexual predators. Again, where was the legislature on this? Why is such an important public safety issue being left up to the initiative process? A definite YES vote.

Prop 84: WATER QUALITY, SAFETY AND SUPPLY, FLOOD CONTROL, NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION, PARK IMPROVEMENTS, BONDS All important and worthy goals, which I support — Just not by increasing the bond debt. I sound like a broken record here. I vote NO.

Prop 85: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINORÂ’S PREGNANCY This proposition would require a doctor to notify parents when a minor comes in for an abortion, with certian exceptions. If I had a kid, I'd want to know if she was going to have an abortion. I don't care if some other kid doesn't have a good relationship with her parent. I'd want to know about my daughter. It's that simple. I vote YES.

Prop 86: TAX ON CIGARETTES This initiative would add $2.60 in taxes to each pack of cigarettes. Right now, they're about $5 a pack. If this initiative passes, a pack would cost more than it does in New York City. I was shocked at the cost of cigarettes during my last trip to New York. I suppose I should favor this proposition because it might motivate me to quit. But realistically, even though I grumbled, I still paid the seven bucks when I was in New York. I generally oppose sin taxes, because they encourage the black market. We already have enough problems with drugs and illegal aliens coming across the border without creating a whole new market for contraband. I vote NO.

Prop 87: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. RESEARCH, PRODUCTION, INCENTIVES. TAX ON CALIFORNIA OIL PRODUCERS This is the most controversial measure on California's ballot. President Clinton is doing tv spots in favor of this plan, which would create a whole new alternative energy research bureaucracy funded by a tax on oil drilling in California. The opposition ads are disingenuous because they do not say that the law would prevent oil companies from passing on the tax to the consumer. It sounds tempting, especially to those who don't understand economics. But when you do the research, this proposition reveals itself as one of the worst ideas to come down the pike in a long time. Virtually every major newspaper to opine on the issue agrees that it's a horrible idea. And I'm talking the San Francisco Chronicle, the L.A. Times, the Sacramento Bee, the O.C. Register and the Wall Street Journal. That's a pretty wide sampling of the editorial spectrum there. I'd encourage anybody undecided on this measure to read those editorials, which can be found here. As much as we'd all like to stick it to the oil companies, It doesn't make much sense to punish them for developing domestic oilfields in order to achieve energy independence. If it's no longer profitable to drill in California, guess where our oil will come from? That's right, overseas. I also have a problem with the prohibition against passing the new tax on to the consumer. In my view, the way to encourage alternative energy sources is to let the free market work. High gas prices are the best way to create a demand for the new technology, not a poorly regulated and graft ridden new bureaucracy. I vote NO.

Prop 88: EDUCATION FUNDING. REAL PROPERTY PARCEL TAX The schools got their hand out again. They're like the cookie monster, except it's not Chips Ahoy they want, it's your money. This time they want to add $50 to everybody's property tax bill. If we let them, next year it will be another $50 or maybe $100. Just say NO.

Prop 89: POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, PUBLIC FINANCING, CORPORATE TAX INCREASE, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS Another corporate tax increase at a time when California needs to stop business from fleeing out of state. How is that a good idea? And how is it a good idea to make it harder for ordinary Californians to run for office by requiring "a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters?" This initiative also puts limits on political contributions to state candidates, which is a free speech issue. I vote NO.

Prop 90: GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION, REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY The last ballot initiative is the Protect Our Homes Act, which I first heard about from Tim Sandefur. This is the anti-Kelo initiative. It would basically prevent the state government from using its eminent domain power to grab your property and give it to some corporation, which is what happened in the Kelo case. If you hated Kelo, vote for this. I vote YES.

There you have it. Since I encourage all my blog's visitors to be in complete agreement with me, I suggest that you Californians print out this post and take it with you on November 7th.
_______________

* The reason I vote against school bonds and for prison bonds is not because I'm a heartless bitch. I understand the argument that better schools may lead to fewer criminals. But school bonds always win, and yet we still need prisons. Insofar as my one vote can be a message, I plan to send that message. Where school bonds are concerned, my message is that the state should use the gobs of money we send them for schools each year more wisely. As for prisons, they're an unpopular but necessary part of our infrastucture, and my message is that I want them built. As the late Ann Richards said of Texas' vast prison system, when asked what kind of a message it sent to the world: "If you commit a crime in Texas, it means we got a place to put you."

Posted by: annika at 10:35 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 1482 words, total size 9 kb.

And just in case you thought a cease fire in the north meant peace all over Israel, think again.

Just because the anti-semitic media in this country doesn't deem it news don't meant this shit ain't still happening almost every fucking day.

P.S. The comments under the article are crazy. Man, if a Kassam rocket landed in my yard, but I was only "lightly injured" do you think I would: a) say "no harm no foul," and go on with my day, or b) get pissed as hell and start screaming nonstop until I saw warplanes flying back from Gaza with empty hardpoints.

via Morning Coffee

Posted by: annika at 09:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

Score one for our side.

"It cannot be ruled out that the drawings have offended some Muslims' honor, but there is no basis to assume that the drawings are, or were conceived as, insulting or that the purpose of the drawings was to present opinions that can belittle Muslims," the court said.

The seven Muslim groups filed the defamation lawsuit against the paper in March, after Denmark's top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

The plaintiffs, who claimed to have the backing of 20 more Islamic organizations in the Scandinavian country, had sought $16,860 in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

h/t Right Thinking Girl

Posted by: annika at 08:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

I got an e-mail from Nancy Pelosi today. No lie. I'm on some Democrat list, inexplicably. I thought it was a weird e-mail because it was titled "what we need to do," yet she pretty much avoided mentioning any of the key issues of the day. So much for a Democratic version of the Contract With America.

Here is the entire text of the e-mail:

Dear annika,

You know how high the stakes are -- so I'll get right to the point: there's never been a more critical time to highlight the priorities everyday Americans share.

Right now, working families suffer because corporate lobbyists write the laws. Our seniors can't get the drugs they need because the drug companies get everything they want. And President Bush continues to threaten one of our society's greatest accomplishments -- Social Security -- with his risky privatization schemes.

Congress needs to focus on an agenda that benefits the American people:

* Impose new rules and regulations to break the link between lobbyists and legislation
* Allow the government to negotiate with drug companies and fix Medicare Part D
* Stop Social Security and Medicare privatization plans in their tracks
* Raise the minimum wage to $7.25
* Cut the interest rates on student loans in half
* Roll back subsidies to Big Oil and gas companies
* Enact all the recommendations made by the independent 9/11 Commission

And that all needs to be done in the first 100 hours!

Working together, we will make that happen. Please help Americans United today:

http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/100hours

There's a lot at stake in the coming weeks, but we must never lose focus on the task at hand: building a better country. Your work changes the national debate, raising awareness about the misplaced priorities of the current leadership.

Last year, Americans United led the national media campaign against Social Security privatization -- and won.

Now, with so much more at stake, will you help us win again?

http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/100hours

Onward to victory.

Nancy Pelosi
Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives

(It's nice that the Democrats want to cut student loan rates in half, but if you can't afford 8% over thirty years with the almost unlimited deferment schemes available, something is seriously wrong with your post college career path.)

I'm sorry but that was a weird e-mail. It's weird because she said absolutely nothing about the big issues that people are arguing about — the issues that are going to get people off their ass and down to the voting booth less than two weeks from now.

She said nothing about Iraq.

Nothing about the War on Terror.

Nothing about impeachment.

Nothing about tax cuts.

Nothing about gay marriage.

Nothing about abortion.

Nothing about crime.

Nothing about North Korea.

Nothing about Iran.

Nothing about the border.

The Democrats are either a party with no agenda or a party with a hidden agenda. Either way, they absolutely cannot be trusted with a majority.

Posted by: annika at 07:40 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 503 words, total size 3 kb.

According to today's New York Times,

In many ways, the economy has not looked so good in a long time.

“Voters overwhelmingly don’t approve of the president on the economy,” said Amy Walter, a senior editor at the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan firm that handicaps political races. “It comes down to the issue of credibility. And so many voters feel so pessimistic about the direction of the country.”

As you can see, since WWII, unemployment has been over 5% a lot more than it's been under. Yet you still get comments like this one:

Ann O’Callahan, a 64-year old Irish immigrant in suburban Philadelphia, defines herself as a social conservative. She voted Republican in 2000, but switched to the Democrats in 2004. This year she plans to vote Democratic again, mainly because of the economy. “I am very disturbed by the economic policies of the Bush administration,” she said.

Ms. OÂ’CallahanÂ’s district, PennsylvaniaÂ’s Seventh, is an island of relative affluence. The median income in the area, according to the Census Bureau, topped $63,000 last year, more than a third higher than the national median. According to Economy.comÂ’s analysis, based on county data, unemployment this year in the district should average 3.8 percent, well below the national average.

But, Ms. O’Callahan said, jobs were not enough. “I work with job placement so I see up close how a lot more work is demanded of people, how benefits are disappearing, how hourly rates have been stagnant throughout the Bush administration,” she said. She said that jobs were plentiful, “but paying $8 an hour with no benefits.”

We need entry level jobs. They're where most people start out. And they're good for students and retired people. Look at what's going on in France where "youths" are burning busses and attacking police because their country won't allow businesses the freedom to offer entry level jobs.

With the Dow over 12,000 and unemployment under 5%, I say the economy is doing great.

Posted by: annika at 02:06 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 4 kb.

Is the line between intellectual dishonesty and bald-faced lying a fine line or is it a wide chasm? Whichever it is, The Lancet and those who masturbate over its latest Iraqi war dead estimate have leapt across that line with ease.

A study published in the Lancet this week estimates that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of war since 2003. . . .

. . . The researchers—led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins University—gathered data on more than 12,000 people in clusters of houses around Iraq, and tried to figure out how many people had died both before and after March of 2003. By comparing the pre- and post-invasion mortality rates, they figured out how many deaths could be attributed to the war, and then extrapolated from their sample to the country's entire population. [via Slate.com]

Historian Gwynne Dyer (who wrote the very readable book War, which pretty much made me want to be a history major) is against the Iraq war. He predictably gushed over the Lancet's study:

Johns Hopkins University, Boston University and MIT are not fly-by-night institutions, and people who work there have academic reputations to protect.

The Lancet, founded 182 years ago, is one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world.

Riiiiight.

The most disturbing thing is the breakdown of the causes of death.

Over half the deaths -- 56 per cent -- are due to gunshot wounds, but 13 per cent are due to air strikes. No terrorists do air strikes. No Iraqi government forces do air strikes either because they don't have combat aircraft. Air strikes are done by "coalition forces" (i.e. Americans and British) and air strikes in Iraq have killed over 75,000 people since the invasion.

Oscar Wilde once observed that "to lose one parent ... may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness."

To lose 75,000 Iraqis to air strikes looks like carelessness, too.

Now, I didn't do too well in statistics, so I won't pick apart the Lancet's methodology, no matter how suspect it seems to me (it was based on interviews?!). But I do have a history background and the 655,000 number seemed wildly far-fetched to me the instant I saw it. Wildly far-fetched.

I immediately wondered why the study's authors had not considered placing the estimate into historical perspective. That would be a kind of "smell test," which I suspected the study might not pass.

Consider this. In 3½ years, the Lancet figures we have been responsible for 655,000 civilian deaths. (Not casualties, deaths. The term "casualty" includes missing, wounded and POWs.) For comparison, I simply went to two easily available sources: The Oxford Companion to World War II, and the often less reliable Wikipedia.

According to those two sources, Japanese civilian deaths in World War II ranged from 400,000 to 600,000. One generally expects the Wikipedia figure to be at the higher range, and that was true in this case. I also consulted Wings of Judgment, by Ronald Schaffer, a somewhat left leaning historian of the two World Wars. Shaffer gave an estimated range from 330,000 to 900,000 Japanese deaths (p. 14 , which coincidentally is almost exactly the range that the Lancet used for Iraqi civilian deaths (392,979 to 942,636).

Looking at all three sources, the Wikipedia estimate of 600,000 Japanese civilian deaths seems most reasonable. So the obvious question to me is this:

Are we to believe that the United States has killed more Iraqi civilians in the current war than we killed Japanese civilians during World War II?

I have no doubt that there are very many anti-war kooks who would not hesitate to believe that, but it sure doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Keep in mind that we attacked Japan repeatedly with unguided incendiary bombs in WWII, while we mostly relied on precision guided bombs when bombing Iraq. Also remember that the aerial bombing in Iraq occurred in the first three weeks of the war, and thereafter was only used to support certain offensives like in Fallujah, etc.

Keep in mind that the purpose of strategic bombing in WWII was to kill civilians and that we intentionally targeted Japanese civilians for over a year. In Iraq, we make a great effort to avoid civilian deaths. In fact, Iraqi civilian deaths are counter-productive to the war effort and can be used as a propaganda against us by our enemies, as the Lancet study proves.

Keep in mind that we flattened two Japanese cities in WWII with nuclear weapons, and that those attacks weren't even as deadly as the Tokyo firebomb raid in which three hundred B-29s burned the city to the ground and killed almost 100,000 civilians in one night. We bombed the crap out of Japan so thoroughly that we had pretty much run out of cities to destroy by the end of the war.

It was a lot easier to kill Japanese civilians by firebombing than it is to kill Iraqis today. The Lancet figures that most Iraqis (56%) were killed by gunshots, which is probably the least efficient way of killing mass numbers of people. Remember that Japanese civilians lived in houses made of paper and wood, and that the population density of Iraq is nothing compared to Japan in the 1940s. During the Tokyo raid, escape was near impossible. Shaffer wrote:

The fire storm quickly roasted those who stayed in under-house shelters. Alleys and small gardens filled with flaming debris. Shifting flames blocked exit routes. Abandoning their efforts to check the inferno, firemen tried to channel people across already burned areas, and where there was still water pressure they drenched people so they could pass through the fire. Some inhabitants ducked themselves in firefighting cisterns before moving. . . .

Choking inhabitants crawled across fallen telephone poles and trolley wires. As superheated air burned their lungs and ignited their clothing, some burst into flames, fire sweeping up from the bottoms of trousers or starting in the cloth hoods worn for protection against the sparks. Residents hurried from burning areas with possessions bundled on their backs, unaware that the bundles had ignited. Some women who carried infants this way realized only when they stopped to rest that their babies were on fire.

. . . Thousands submerged themselves in stagnant, foul-smelling canals with their mouths just above the surface, but many died from smoke inhalation, anoxia, or carbon monoxide poisoning, or were submerged by masses of people who tumbled on top of them, or boiled to death when the fire storm heated the water. [p. 134]

More: Confederate Yankee wonders, "where are the bodies?"

[cross-posted at A Western Heart; Technorati: Iraq]

Posted by: annika at 10:40 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1242 words, total size 9 kb.