Blue-Dog "Fix" Makes Health Reform "Cure" Worse Than Disease

More and more House Democrats are pledging to oppose compromises on health care reform now being entertained by at least some aides to President Obama and Democrat leaders in the House and Senate.

"We have compromised and we can compromise no more," an angry Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California, declared at news conference that felt more like a rally outside the Capitol.

Woolsey and her Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair, Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva, have now attracted 60 signers for a letter condemning compromises that make the cure worse than the disease.

A deal between House Energy and Commerce Committee chair Henry Waxman and several members of the conservative "Blue Dog" caucus has been portrayed as "progress" toward reform by some top Democrats and much of the media. But without the votes of the 60 progressives who have signed a letter condemning the compromise, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is unlikely to be able to cobble together enough support to gain approval of the plan in House where Republicans continue to act as the party of "no."

Pelosi tried to downplay the revolt, saying, "We have tremendous diversity, whether it is generational, geographic, philosophical, ethnic, gender, you name it," she said. "It is a great kaleidoscope."

But the Obama administration was taking the latest development in the health care debate seriously. The president was calling liberal lawmakers Friday, and was expected to call more over the weekend, in order to ease tensions.

The progressives didn't create the crisis.

And they are certainly not acting as obstructionists in the manner that Republicans and Blue Dogs have.

Rather, they argue, the compromise between Waxman and the Blue Dogs is itself an obstruction to real reform.

The progressives say "the agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards." That's because it would, according to their savvy analysis, "reduce subsidies to low-and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs."

"In short," declares the letter that was circulated by Woolsey, Grijalva and a number of CPC members and allies, "this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies."

The full letter, which has been sent to Pelosi, Waxman, Ways and Means Committee chair Charles Rangel, D-New York, and House Committee on Education and Labor chair George Miller, D-California, reads:

Dear Madam Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Chairman Rangel, and Chairman Miller:

We write to voice our opposition to the negotiated health care reform agreement under consideration in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

We regard the agreement reached by Chairman Waxman and several Blue Dog members of the Committee as fundamentally unacceptable. This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards. Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates - not negotiated rates - is unacceptable. It would ensure higher costs for the public plan, and would do nothing to achieve the goal of"keeping insurance companies honest," and their rates down.

To offset the increased costs incurred by adopting the provisions advocated by the Blue Dog members of the Committee, the agreement would reduce subsidies to low-and middle-income families, requiring them to pay a larger portion of their income for insurance premiums, and would impose an unfunded mandate on the states to pay for what were to have been Federal costs.

In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies.

We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.

Woolsey and Grijalva had hoped to attract 50 signers for the letter.

They've now got 60 and that number is expected to grow as members feel pressure from constituents during the Aujust break.

In addition to Woolsey and Grijalva, signers of the letter include:

Corrine Brown

Earl Blumenauer

Mike Capuano

Andre Carson

Judy Chu

Yvette Clarke

William Lacy Clay

Emanuel Cleaver

John Conyers

Elijah Cummings

Bill Delahunt

Eddie Bernice Johnson

Lloyd Doggett

Donna Edwards

Keith Ellison

Sam Farr

Chaka Fattah

Bob Filner

Marcia Fudge

Luis Gutierrez

Phil Hare

Alcee Hastings

Maurice Hinchey

Mazie Hirono

Michael Honda

Jesse Jackson, Jr.

Hank Johnson

Marcy Kaptur

Carolyn Kilpatrick

Dennis Kucinich

Barbara Lee

Sheila Jackson Lee

Eric Massa

Jim McDermott

Jim McGovern

Gwen Moore

Jerry Nadler

Grace Napolitano

John Olver

Bill Pascrell

Donald Payne

Chellie Pingree

Laura Richardson

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Gregorio Sablan

Linda Sanchez

Jose Serrano

Albio Sires

Jackie Spier

Fortney "Pete" Stark

Bennie Thompson

John Tierney

Ed Towns

Nydia Valezquez

Maxine Waters

Diane Watson

Mel Watts

Robert Wexler

Progressive Democrats of America, which has worked closely with CPC members, is pledging to organize during the congressional recess to get more Democratic members of the House and Senate to go on record against compromises that thwart reform.

This is essential work because, if the Blue Dogs and supposedly moderate (but, in fact, corporatist) New Democrats carry the day, Americans really could end up paying more money for less care.

Comments (131)

1. finally, some huevos.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 07/30/2009 @ 11:57pm

2. Is this getting to be fun or what? We could not dream of such a scenario to assure a complete sweep by the conservatives in 2010 and 12! Thank you God!

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 11:58pm

3. Way cool dynamic.

   All these twists and turns are lost on 6 pack Joe. Can't they talk in terms 'working class whites' can relate to?

   Fox would never air it, but the ad could use a Cheney look alike, walking through the woods with a rifle, squirrel pelt over his shoulder, saying,

   "We'll save you enough on health insurance each month for you to buy 30 extra packs of Marlboroughs, 50 Big Macs, and 25 cases of shells for your .22".

   Another one could go on about, "Forget those liberal socialist gay veggie salads, no matter how clogged up your arteries are, with our plan, we got you covered".

   Posted by winyahn at 07/31/2009 @ 12:31am

4. New Idol of the Left makes a big splash at home!

   And then there's the AT4 CS HP: "Its special internal ballistics allows it to be fired from confined spaces, thick jungle, in front of obstacles or with own troops in close vicinity. The AT4 CS HP is preloaded with a specially developed high penetration warhead that produces an armour-penetration effect that greatly exceeds 500 mm, making it highly lethal against most types of targets on the battlefield."

   The operative words are "thick jungle." Because a whole stash of AT4's (not sure which variant) have been seized by the Colombian government from FARC terrorists. Which is not cool. Not that Saab Bofors Dynamics is selling such nifty weapons to terrorists. But in tracing the serial numbers, Colombian authorities say the rocket launchers were sold to Venezuela. In Saab's defense, however, the Swedes stopped selling to Venezuela in 2006.

   The Swedish Foreign Ministry and the Colombians are trying to figure out how this happened. The only seeming explanation is that the weapons somehow passed from Venezuelan to FARC hands. Chavez denies this vehemently. His minister of the interior and justice told a news conference that "to me it seems that this is a new attack against our government based on lies" and "it's laughable. It sounds like a cheap film made by the American government."

   First of all, the American government doesn't make commercial films. Second, there's no way such a film would be cheap. It would probably be directed by Michael Bay

   Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 12:54am

5. HOW TO WIN THE HEALTHCARE BATTLE

   the internet has been a detriment in the battle, as many are satisfied merely to read the diaries and occasionally send an email out about the public option. Here's how to really win this battle:

   1.Write a letter to your elected representative, making sure to mention the public option. Send it to the Washington office.

   2.Get as many people as you know who live in your district to write similar, but not identical letters.

   3.When you get a response from the office, check to see if it mentions the public option. If your letter does not, check your friend's letters that they get back from your representatives. When and if your representative starts sending out canned responses that specifically mention the public option, then you know that they are getting enough such letters that a staffer has been assigned to this specific issue.

   4.When their canned response shows the congressional office is reacting to the issue, call your representative' local office, and ask them for a meeting about health care. Tell them that you are going to bring a group of voters (10 would be nice, but even 5 will do). Tell them you will fax them a letter with the names of the potential attendees and their addresses. It would be nice to meet with the actual congressperson, but a meeting with the Chief of Staff is actually more effective.

   5.Fax and mail over the letter to the local office, to the attention of their chief of staff, and follow up with phone calls.

   6.Have the meeting,and specifically request that the congressperson do a specific action, whether it be co-sponsor a specific bill, or make a specific vote.

   7.Follow up with as many letters from constituents awith the same request.

   http://tinyurl.com/nemo9p

   Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 02:18am

6. Republicans are losing the health care debate

   Contra all the spin we've been hearing from BaucuCon and the GOP about health care, soak in these numbers from the NYT poll yesterday:

   1. Americans trust Obama over congressional GOPers on health care by a 55%-26% margin.

   2. 72% think Congress is moving either too slowly or at the right pace.

   3. 59% think Obama is moving either too slowly or at the right pace.

   4. 76% think health care costs pose a serious threat to the nation's economy.

   5. 66% support a Medicare-style public option for all Americans.

   If that's what the Republicans call winning the health care debate, they are even more screwed than has been reported.

   More importantly, if BaucuCon doesn't understand these numbers, then they gotta' get out more and stop hanging out with the wingnuts.

   http://tinyurl.com/lulqa9

   Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 02:23am

7. Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 11:58pm

   RIO....are Republicans the Party of God or is God a Republican?

   Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 07:38am

8. BTW, those "50"...most of them will come around.

   When the "option" becomes NO bill and RIO's scenario.

   Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 07:39am

9. Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 07:38am

   God is a Republican so thank God Christ is a Democrat.

   Posted by !immutable at 07/31/2009 @ 09:07am

10. Good stuff to open up the morning at TN....with the leisure part of my carefully allocated time!

    My.....stocks recovering, GDP down less that I thought for Q2 (but huge revisions up for past, much bigger declines that Magic's esteemed Nightmare Team couldn't grasp but I HAPPILY did)....and watching the Demo Show....in their BIG BUBBLE.....sailing to the end of the world and hit a wall of blue sky, painted clouds....while Dan Rather up above, tell the world that something UNAmerican is happening to the `Media'....

    Oh what fun, it is to ride, a one Magic open book...

    Am I having fun....never better, thank you!

    One Vote, are you out there? My son's First-Time purchase of a house was done this week!!! Thank you in advance, Mr. Magic....for that $8k he'll receive!

    Posted by Happy at 07/31/2009 @ 09:37am

11. The following by Sowell is a must-read:

    July 30, 2009

    Obama's Amateurism and Incompetence

    By Thomas Sowell

    After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.

    When that person is the President of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited.

    Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief.

    He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts, including a nuclear Iran, which has every prospect of being an irretrievable disaster of almost unimaginable magnitude. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle-- and neither can generations yet unborn. They may yet curse us all for leaving them hostages to nuclear terror.

    .....

    Group identity politics has poisoned many other countries, including at various times Kenya, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Guyana, Canada, Nigeria, India, and Rwanda. In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war.

    .....

    While the mainstream media in America will never call him on this, these repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity will not go unnoticed by this country's enemies around the world. And it is the American people who will pay the price.

    Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07 /30/obamas_amateurism_and_incompetence.html

    Posted by Happy at 07/31/2009 @ 09:44am

12. Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 11:58pm

    I recall similar crowing and posturing from you in 2006 and 2008. Palin was going to kick the ass of that illegal alien marxist islamo-fascist Barak Obama!

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/31/2009 @ 09:45am

13. One Vote, are you out there? My son's First-Time purchase of a house was done this week!!! Thank you in advance, Mr. Magic....for that $8k he'll receive!

    Posted by Happy at 07/31/2009 @ 09:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    AWESOME! Well done Hap. Different property than the townhouse?

    Posted by OneVote at 07/31/2009 @ 10:41am

14. "In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war. "-Thomas Sowell----Posted by Happy at 07/31/2009 @ 09:44am

    So Obama's going to cause mass expulsions or a possible civil war?

    Get the impression that Glenn Beck put "Obama's a racist" on the table...so Sowell had to up the bet to "Obama's going to turn us into Rwanda"...and next Charles Krauthammer's going to say "Obama wants death camps for opponents"....and then next, Ann Coulter says "Fine, I'll raise again...Obama wants to kill white babies and drink their blood!"....

    and Sowell and Krauthammer say "Too rich for me...I fold"? Then it's Crying Man and The Wicked Witch to see who wins the pot of Wacko Fringe Right-wingers?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 10:47am

15. BTW - The Cash for Clunkers is temporarily closed down due to high demand - nearly 23,000 transactions.

    Wondering if BO & Congress will pump more money into the program. I think you have to have title on the clunker at least a year before you can trade it in. Otherwise, I run out and buy one. Hey, I could probably buy one from the black market that is undoubtedly going to result once the clunkers are supposedly sent to the salvage yard...hahahahah....sure..........

    Posted by OneVote at 07/31/2009 @ 10:47am

16. I'm so glad the Dems got their fillibuster proof "majority", its so clearly working out well for them and they will have no one to blame but themselves when this all comes crashing down. Only two choices left;

    1. Move to the center, reform but not drastically change the current system will small but meaninful reform to the insurance industry (to include subsidies for the truely uninsured by forcing those younger, healthier people to buy insurance a.k.a like car insurance mandates) and work to maintain their majority in 2010/2012

    2. Keep fracturing and pushing for radical change and end up getting sweeped in 2010 and losing the presidency in 2012

    Looking at the history of the Democrat party, odds are they self-implode (again)

    Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/31/2009 @ 10:48am

17. BLUE AND DOGS

    They may call themselves "blue dogs." I prefer to call them blue and dogs, very corrupt and for sell to the highest bidder. This report by MSNBC's Dan Eggen (July 31, 2009) sickens and tells us what is wrong with today's American Congress! Speaker Nancy Pelosi was right when she drew a line on the sand on the health care debate in her news conference of July 29, 2009. She called it as it is!!! Sometimes some of us wonder how often Democrats engage in acts of self-sabotage when they grab power. That seems to us it is what many of the so-called "blue dog" Democrats are so willing to do, including of course Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Finance Committee. They and Max Baucus seem so thoroghly committed to have it their way and to obstruct the progressive agenda and the ideas of two other relevant House committees. Given their deep ties to the Insurance Industry, in another profession, that would called at the very least a conflict of interest. Democrats must never allow the blue dogs and Baucus and their Republican allies to torpeedo the progressive aganda! This is the time to stand up and fight!!!

    Posted by drsam8 at 07/31/2009 @ 11:10am

18. The following by Sowell is a must-read:

    Posted by Happy at 07/31/2009 @ 09:44am

    I just read the article, its 100% the typical tripe you'd expect from Sowell. He basically repeats a bunch of conservative bromides and couples them with a bunch of ad hominem attacks- anyone can do that.

    Posted by nkurland at 07/31/2009 @ 11:13am

19. "2. Keep fracturing and pushing for radical change and end up getting sweeped in 2010 and losing the presidency in 2012"----Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/31/2009 @ 10:48am

    Slight change and your history is correct...if party affiliation wrong-

    2. Keep fracturing and pushing for radical change (pointless wars, deregulation, Terri Schiavo moments, Social Security privitazation) and end up getting sweeped in 2006 and losing the presidency in 2008.

    There, that's better.

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 11:50am

20. Nearly 30% of Insured Have Government Plans, Up From '08

    The percentage of insured American adults who report getting their insurance through a government program, including Medicaid, Medicare, or military/veterans' coverage, has increased over the last year and a half, to an average of 29.3% in 2009 from 27.5% in 2008. While still a majority, the percentage of insured Americans who have health coverage through an employer or union has decreased to an average of 56.2% in the first half of 2009 from the 2008 average of 57.9%.

    In June 2009, 56.5% said they were covered through their employer or union versus 58.9% in January 2008. Currently, 29.0% of insured Americans have coverage through a government program, compared to 26.5% in January 2008. The 29.0% with government insurance in June is the sum total of the 20.4% of adults who have health insurance through Medicare, 4.7% through Medicaid, and 3.9% through military/veterans' coverage. The percent of insured who say their health insurance is through some other source has remained fairly steady -- averaging 13.1% in 2009 and 13.5% in 2008.

    These estimates are based on over 470,000 interviews, including approximately 26,000 per month with adults who have health insurance. While the changes are small in absolute terms, they are statistically meaningful based on the large sample sizes...

    There has been a measurable increase in the percentage of insured 18- to 64-year-olds who have health insurance through a government program, averaging 15.7% in the first six months of 2009 versus 14.5% in 2008. http://tinyurl.com/mexswl

    Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 12:21pm

21. BTW, rapidly approaching Bench's position on judybrowni....

    if it's just going to be endless RESE'ian Cut & Pastes, and only a smattering of her own opinionis...

    Ignore Pile. Anybody think that's unfair?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:00pm

22. "In short," declares the letter that was circulated by Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Lynn Woolsey, D-California, and Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, and a number of CPC members and allies, "this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies."

    In short...the far lefty loons would rather have the tax payers pay more in taxes than to have the tax payers buy their own insurance from an insurance companys..so profit is evil...the real intent for the lefty letter is to get someone else pay for the help care of the people they "represent"..

    This bill should be vetted to those who will actually pay for it...and the rest of the receivers of free health care shouls at leasdt listen to those stuck with the bill.

    My God..the govt damn near collapsed with the hand full of people trying to buy a govt subsidised car...and you want to turn over your health care to them?

    BTW, I was offered clunker money on my BMW that gets 20 MPG at 90 MPH.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/31/2009 @ 1:07pm

23. Great point Mask, both parties fall into the same trap (assume they have a sweeping mandate based on a 2-4% shift in the electorate, try to enact things that appeal to their primary bases, and end up causing a shift the other way). This is a great indication that the country needs a third party, free from the fringes, that can actually represent what the majority wants. It won't happen, since Dems and Repubs have rigged the game in their favor...but one can only hope.

    I do respectfully disagree on the "pointless" wars (Afganistan and 9/11, Irag caused by unfinished business in 1990 (I was there) and collapsing sanctions/near unanimous (albeit incorrect in the end, even Saddam's generals thought they had WMD) concern of the potential xfer to terrorists. Argue all you want that they ended up not existing, but given the info at the time, I'd prefer our president err on the side of caution (one leftover nerve gas shell detonated in a city would be horrendous). I know I'll never convince you otherwise, but we can certainly agree to disagree on the subject

    Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/31/2009 @ 1:11pm

24. Ignore Pile. Anybody think that's unfair?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:00pm

    Stop reading her the second day...

    She obviously works for a govt for health care organization or Moveon.crapp

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/31/2009 @ 1:11pm

25. john, take a moment to consider the ramifications of "profit and healthcare".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/31/2009 @ 1:39pm

26. "This is a great indication that the country needs a third party, free from the fringes, that can actually represent what the majority wants. "----Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/31/2009 @ 1:11pm

    Give me 10 issues and solutions that fit that mold.

    BTW, at present "the majority wants"...includes "Invading Iraq was a mistake".

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/121727/ Americans-Upbeat-Progress-Iraq-Afghanistan.aspx

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:52pm

27. john, take a moment to consider the ramifications of "profit and healthcare".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/31/2009 @ 1:39pm

    Take a moment and ask why you have a right to the service your auto mechanic has without him earning a profit? Then ask yourself why you should have the right to tell him how much profit, if any, he should be allowed to earn?

    same for the doctor, vet, farmer, nurse...ect...

    You, like most on the left everywhere, want services that others provide, regardless of what they had to do to learn and work to get to the point they can provide a service you want,..you want it free. This includes a doctors services.

    Profits go towards providing better, more abundant, more efficient, or more i9novative services...and in the long run cheaper...but many think profit is a dirty word.

    I believe the left and the socialists are in the process of destroying the western world as it seeks to redistribute the resources generated by one group and give it, regulate, process and control it by giving it to those who they think better deserve or manage it.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/31/2009 @ 2:07pm

28. BTW, those "50"...most of them will come around.

    When the "option" becomes NO bill and RIO's scenario.

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 07:39am

    I sure hope you are wrong, because any bill with neither Single Payer nor a Public Option will be merely a Health Insurance Industry Preservation and Profitability Act.

    And if the public gets socked with any cost increases, anyone who votes for such a bill will have a tougher time getting re-elected.

    No bill is sometimes better than Any bill, especially if it's not even a choice between the Good and the Perfect but between the Awful and the Acceptable.

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/31/2009 @ 2:15pm

29. BTW, rapidly approaching Bench's position on judybrowni....

    if it's just going to be endless RESE'ian Cut & Pastes, and only a smattering of her own opinionis...

    Ignore Pile. Anybody think that's unfair?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:00pm

    The problem for me with Rese was that he was an anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic conspiracy theorist, not that he cut and pasted a lot.

    judybrowni, on the other hand, adds useful information to the discussion. We have enough people who just add their "opinions."

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/31/2009 @ 2:18pm

30. BTW, rapidly approaching Bench's position on judybrowni....

    if it's just going to be endless RESE'ian Cut & Pastes, and only a smattering of her own opinionis...

    Ignore Pile. Anybody think that's unfair?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    ...I've been saying this for a week, at least.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/31/2009 @ 2:18pm

31. Ignore Pile. Anybody think that's unfair?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 1:00pm

    ...I've been saying this for a week, at least.

    Posted by urmygyro at 07/31/2009 @ 2:18pm

    It has become obvious that ms judy is a paid hack or a aggressive volunteer.

    Now all of her posts contain the "we need" commands and requests as if she is speaking on behalf of others.

    if enough put her on ignore, hopefully she will either leave and or something to the debate.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/31/2009 @ 2:28pm

32. For judybrowni:

    Are/Is you/it an output only bot? Or is there a human behind the spam? I think this is a Turing test candidate. Couldn't really be a person, because no person would have the endurance to assemble so much irrelevant cut and paste material for no discernible purpose. Very curious indeed.

    Posted by sntauri at 07/31/2009 @ 3:23pm

33. if enough put her on ignore, hopefully she will either leave and or something to the debate.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/31/2009 @ 2:28pm

    Except that nobody cares if Judy posts here. We don't want people like yourself and Bigpasture coming on here for the sole purpose of writing illogical screeds. Get lost.

    Posted by nkurland at 07/31/2009 @ 3:25pm

34. Posted by Happy at 07/31/2009 @ 09:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Boooooooooooooooooring! You're boring everyone. Stop boring everybody.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 4:01pm

35. Except that nobody cares if Judy posts here. We don't want people like yourself and Bigpasture coming on here for the sole purpose of writing illogical screeds. Get lost.

    Posted by nkurland at 07/31/2009 @ 3:25pm

    I see, you're just another leftist who despises the American experiment in democracy which is exemplified by vigorous debate of ideas.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/31/2009 @ 4:19pm

36. I see, you're just another leftist who despises the American experiment in democracy which is exemplified by vigorous debate of ideas.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/31/2009 @ 4:19pm

    Yet another screed. Look, if you're going to post something that meaningfully dissects, criticizes... whatever you want to call it, the plans on the table- fine, go ahead, I don't care. But it gets a little tiresome to see anything and everything boiled down to a tiresome ideological rant about "socialism" or some government conspiracy to take away people's personal freedoms. Apparently, I'm just "another leftist who despises the American experiment in democracy which is exemplified by vigorous debate of ideas." The only idea I've ever seen you put forward is government= socialism. Do you have any idea of what the actual definition of socialism is?

    This really isn't that hard, in fact, its quite simple- just look at the proposal on the table then make a criticism based on the elements of what's being proposed. And yet, for all of the posts you've made on this website, you have never done this once.

    Posted by nkurland at 07/31/2009 @ 4:46pm

37. "Take a moment and ask why you have a right to the service your auto mechanic has without him earning a profit?"

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/31/2009 @ 2:07pm

    No one suggested that premise and it's very misleading of you to compare an auto mechanic to insurance company profiteers.

    An auto mechanic fixes your car, improves your life and tangibly earns their money... they provide something of value. In the health care industry their counterparts are the doctors and nurses... and no one is suggesting that they should not earn a profit.

    What many of us are saying is that we should cut out the insurance companies (and get a handle on Big Pharma BTW). That way we can actually pay our doctors and nurses a better wage, bring costs down and improve care for all.

    If after we establish a string public option, the health insurance companies find it difficult to earn a profit, then maybe the answer is that they provide no service worthy of one.

    Posted by clearsite at 07/31/2009 @ 5:30pm

38. Anti, I see clearly from your comments that you're just another rightist who despises the American experiment in democracy which is exemplified by vigorous debate of ideas.

    Posted by winyahn at 07/31/2009 @ 5:30pm

39. "Anti, I see clearly from your comments that you're just another rightist who despises the American experiment in democracy which is exemplified by vigorous debate of ideas."

    Haw, haw!! How original! How clever!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 6:56pm

40. I cant understand what it is about govt that those here on the fringe and those in Washington see in govt that makes you want to turn over more and more of your life to government control.

    What is it that you see as an example of what govt does so well that you are willing to let them manage and have influence on your and your familys health..... Forget the politics on either side, why not take control over your own lives.

    That's what the FF gave us, they gave us control and not career politicians.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/31/2009 @ 7:01pm

41. "In short...the far lefty loons would rather have the tax payers pay more in taxes than to have the tax payers buy their own insurance from an insurance companys..so profit is evil..."

    Sad but true.

    "I cant understand what it is about govt that those here on the fringe and those in Washington see in govt that makes you want to turn over more and more of your life to government control."

    No one can understand, except radical leftists.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 7:02pm

42. This really isn't that hard, in fact, its quite simple- just look at the proposal on the table then make a criticism based on the elements of what's being proposedAnd yet, for all of the posts you've made on this website, you have never done this once.

    Posted by nkurland at 07/31/2009 @ 4:46pm

    I think the proverbial shoe is on the other foot. I have provided over the past 5 years here, alternatives on most issues, many with great detail.

    What has not happened to my recollection is YOU doing so. Not unless you posted under another name.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/31/2009 @ 7:18pm

43. The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger. $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

    Posted by funnyman12 at 07/31/2009 @ 7:21pm

44. "I cant understand what it is about govt that those here on the fringe and those in Washington see in govt that makes you want to turn over more and more of your life to government control."

    No one can understand, except radical leftists.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Check out Jon Stewart's interview with William Kristol - starting a Minute 5, but there is some priceless swirming on Sarah Palin at the start that you may not want to miss.

    http://rackjite.com/archives/3717- Jon-Stewart-William-Kristol-Health-Care-Interview-unedited.html

    I wouldn't classify Kristol as a radical leftist. Other end of the spectrum.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/31/2009 @ 7:22pm

45. Posted by judybrowni at 07/31/2009 @ 02:23am: If you are right about the support Government controlled healthcare has, what is the congress waiting for? Just pass it and Obama will sign it into law. The fact they don't shows the public support is rapidly collapsing.

    Posted by pyeatte at 07/31/2009 @ 7:25pm

46. Except that nobody cares if Judy posts here.

    Posted by nkurland at 07/31/2009 @ 3:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You know - the complainers can just use the ignore button. But they don't. They want to influence what everyone else reads. Judy has some good information in her posts on this issue. For instance the percentage of insured that alredy have government healthcare - 30% in 2009. Pretty doggone important statistic.

    Posted by OneVote at 07/31/2009 @ 7:32pm

47. Posted by BigPasture at 07/30/2009 @ 11:58pm

    RIO....are Republicans the Party of God or is God a Republican?

    Posted by Mask at 07/31/2009 @ 07:38am | ignore this person | warn this person

    So, ask a repub. if you want to know!

    Posted by BigPasture at 07/31/2009 @ 7:34pm

48. The earlier mentioned Sowell article, I have to admit, is ludicrous pap. Arguing that Obama's decision to say that Gates should not have been arrested just for being a jerk to a cop is a sign that Obama is going to cause racial animosity that could cause "polarization, mob violence and ultimately civil war" is hyperbole of the lowest sort. Since Barack Obama, as consequence of having a white mother, has skin too light to be what is normally called "black" (not that anyone actually has literally black or white skin), his claim to be white is as good as his claim to be black from a genetic point of view. Of course, people are categorized into distinct human "races" based on physical features which do not have genetic meaning, so "race" is really a social rather than genetic phenomenon, but even so, what are the odds Obama secretly has what Glenn Beck called "a deep-seated hatred for white people"? Saying that Obama could turn America into Rwanda is laughable. It shows a delusional and fantastical misinterpretation of Obama's policies and it is a pathetic way of trivializing a genocide to make a cheap point. The article is unfocused. First, it warns us about Iran. Then, it says Obama is going to make America Rwanda. Then, it accuses Obama of being a totalitarian dictator ("This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available," and apparently Obama would be able to do this unilaterally). None of Sowell's points stick, but he just keeps going on to the next one.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 7:48pm

49. Here's an example of Sowell at his most facile. "During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II". Well, everyone would agree with that, right? But Sowell doesn't like Obama's choice of words: "During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." In reality, it was more than a year after Japanese officials surrendered on the battleship Missouri before Hirohito met General Douglas MacArthur for the first time."

    Well, gee whiz, what a good point! Sowell uses this to prove Obama is an ignorant know-nothing. Obama, I think, is quite brilliant, but wasn't Sowell himself just arguing Obama was a snobby intellectual elitist?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 7:53pm

50. "$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger. $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget."

    That's a pretty damning truth.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 7:57pm

51. Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/31/2009 @ 1:11pm

    There's but one party: the Corporatocracy. It's what Eisenhower warned about. It's media arms, CNN, FOX, MSN/Lockheed, ABC, Viacom keep drowning the masses in the Left v Right miniseries.

    The march to war, the hype, the fear tactics, the post 911 bloodthirsty war drumming --- was on ALL CHANNELS.

    All have 2 things in common: $/power

    It took a Cheney/Iraq and Olympic series of scandals to get anything close to what in other modern societies is a right of center government.

    Posted by winyahn at 07/31/2009 @ 8:22pm

52. We have excellent examples of government run health care in Medicare, the VA hospitals and even in the Government run health care system provided to all members of Congress (including right wing republicans)...

    We also have excellent examples of private health care where profit comes at the cost of peoples lives such as is reflected in the recent judgement against United Health Care for $400,000,000.00 (They must make a LOT of profit to be able to pay that in judgments).

    If you're concerned about government control of your life then be an advocate for investigations into the former administration's abuses of the constitution, human rights and separation of powers.

    If you're concerned about higher taxes then support campaign finance reform so our government is no longer beholding to the corporations that bleed our coffers dry.

    If you're concerned about the redistribution of wealth then it's likely that you're one who unfairly profits from the system as it is...

    If you're truly concerned about health care, then add to the conversation of solutions... Name calling and fear based manipulations will no longer fly.

    Posted by clearsite at 07/31/2009 @ 8:32pm

53. "Anti, I see clearly from your comments that you're just another rightist who despises the American experiment in democracy which is exemplified by vigorous debate of ideas."

    Haw, haw!! How original! How clever!

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 6:56pm

    Antisocialist is an authoritarian.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 9:10pm

54. The fact they don't shows the public support is rapidly collapsing.

    Posted by pyeatte at 07/31/2009 @ 7:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yeah.

    Just like when the Repubs "controlled everything", they made such huge progress on their party's legislative centerpiece--abortion.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 9:12pm

55. That's what the FF gave us, they gave us control and not career politicians.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 07/31/2009 @ 7:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    That's largely true...until the lobbyists for outfits like Halliburton, Bechtel, ADM, and Cargill showed up.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 9:15pm

56. "I believe the left and the socialists are in the process of destroying the western world as it seeks to redistribute the resources generated by one group and give it, regulate, process and control it by giving it to those who they think better deserve or manage it."

    this has to be the single most ignorant and arrogant characterization of reality i have ever read on these pages.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/31/2009 @ 9:30pm

57. "Antisocialist is an authoritarian."

    I doubt it. He favors smaller government and opposes a governmental health care monopoly. Also, he favored the liberation of Iraq from a genocidal fascist authoritarian regime.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 9:32pm

58. big up to the progressive caucaus, especially our very own lynn woolsey and barb lee.

    they are the only politicians who are looking out for the most vulnerable of us.

    whereas maasch, et al, are obviously the most cold-hearted, racist and arrogant, and who are currently running the show on cable news and in washington.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/31/2009 @ 9:32pm

59. "He favors smaller government and opposes a governmental health care monopoly."

    what's being proposed (a public option) would not constitute a "monopoly"....

    Posted by darladoon at 07/31/2009 @ 9:34pm

60. "No one can understand, except radical leftists."

    yes, because a public option is oh so radical. only every other western country on earth has it, except us.

    what's radical is allowing private insurers to charge whatever they want; what's radical is allowing private insurers to DENY coverage on the basis that it won't turn a profit.

    that's inhumane.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/31/2009 @ 9:37pm

61. I think Charles Krauthammer sums up this health care debate best in the following article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2305226/posts From the article:

    "Three blows:

    (1) On June 16, the CBO determined that the Senate Finance Committee bill would cost $1.6 trillion over ten years, delivering a sticker shock that was near fatal. (2) Five weeks later, the CBO gave its verdict on the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, Dr. Obama's latest miracle cure, conjured up at the last minute to save Obamacare from fiscal ruin, and consisting of a committee of medical experts highly empowered to make Medicare cuts.

    The CBO said that IMAC would do nothing, trimming costs by perhaps 0.2 percent. A 0.2 percent cut is not a solution; it's a punch line.

    The final blow came last Sunday when the CBO euthanized the Obama "out years" myth. The administration's argument had been: Sure, Obamacare will initially increase costs and deficits. But it pays for itself in the long run because it bends the curve downward in coming decades.

    The CBO put in writing the obvious: In its second decade, Obamacare significantly bends the curve upward -- increasing deficits even more than in the first decade.

    This is obvious because Obama's own first-decade numbers were built on arithmetic trickery. New taxes to support the health-care plan begin in 2011, but the benefits part of the program doesn't fully kick in until 2015. That excess revenue is, of course, one time only. It makes the first-decade numbers look artificially low, but once you pass 2015, the yearly deficits become larger and eternal." ----------------------------------------- "Whatever structural reforms dribble out of Congress before the August recess will likely..."

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 9:42pm

62. ..."not survive the year. In the end, Obama will have to settle for something very modest. And indeed it will be health-insurance reform.

    To win back the vast constituency that has insurance, is happy with it, and is mightily resisting the fatal lures of Obamacare, the president will in the end simply impose heavy regulations on the insurance companies that will make what you already have secure, portable, and imperishable: no policy cancellations, no pre-existing condition requirements, perhaps even a cap on out-of-pocket expenses.

    Nirvana. But wouldn't this bankrupt the insurance companies? Of course it would. There will be only one way to make this work: Impose an individual mandate. Force the 18 million Americans between 18 and 34 who (often quite rationally) forgo health insurance to buy it. This will create a huge new pool of customers who rarely get sick but will be paying premiums every month. And those premiums will subsidize nirvana health insurance for older folks.

    Net result? Another huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, the now-routine specialty of the baby boomers; an end to the dream of imposing European-style health care on the U.S.; and a president who before Christmas will wave his pen, proclaim victory, and watch as the newest conventional wisdom reaffirms his divinity."

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 9:44pm

63. "what's being proposed (a public option) would not constitute a "monopoly"...."

    Yes, it would. Page 16 of the proposal makes private health insurance illegal.

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

    "When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

    It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

    "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.""

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 9:53pm

64. libertyfortheoppressed,

    i love the irony of your name, but i truly doubt you see the irony of it.

    btw, the bill does not outlaw private health insurance.

    Posted by darladoon at 07/31/2009 @ 11:12pm

65. "btw, the bill does not outlaw private health insurance."

    Yes, it does. Read page 16 of it. The article I quoted from IBD spelled it out for you. Look it up in a google search bar. Type something in like "health care proposal outlaws private health insurance". You are in denial.

    Of course I see the percieved irony of my name. You think I stand for excessive liberty that leads to despotism and think that Iraq is a US colonial puppet state and that Bush is as bad as Hitler.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/31/2009 @ 11:28pm

66. liberty, the bill does not outlaw private insurance. it's basically yet another industry-friendly bill sugar coated under the rubric "reform". it's hardly fucking orwellian, jesus! are you that crazy? you're on planet glenn beck.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 01:35am

67. liberty/maasch, if every other western industrialized country can insure all of its citizens AND control costs, then WHY, please tell me WHY, can't the united states? if we are the "greatest country on earth," then why can't we solve this problem?

    why do you have to spin it as if this is something orwellian, or unconstitutional, or "taking away your liberties"? it's not any of that.

    it's a way to:

    a) insure everyone

    b) control costs

    c) take care of OURSELVES

    why do you hate america?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 01:40am

68. Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 01:40am

    Obama's plan is a ludicrous, randomly assembled, incoherent combination of other countries' plans, lobbyist input, and rapidly expanded Medicare that the CBO has shown will be paid for by printing money. Medicare is inefficiently wasting money, so what do you do? Obama says the answer is to pour trillions into a system even HE admits has failed. I would much prefer Canada-style healthcare to Obama's mad proposal.

    To control costs, you would have to dramatically cut the income of doctors. This means less qualified people become doctors. It means less medical advancements. Further, life expectancy could decline if for pragmatic reasons related to cost the care for the elderly is rationed. Monopolies without competition have no incentive to innovate because we would have no choice but to accept what they would shove down our throats.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/01/2009 @ 01:53am

69. for all those complaining about the government "taking control of your life" and "making decisions for you" or "getting in between you and your doctor," keep in mind that not only is this simply NOT TRUE, the insurance companies currently do all of that and worse. much, much worse. they actually DENY people coverage so they can make MORE MONEY.

    you wanna talk about "bureaucrats making choices for you"? well, the REAL bureacrats are the insurance company thugs who make healthcare decisions for you.

    ok?

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 01:55am

70. " I would much prefer Canada-style healthcare to Obama's mad proposal."

    uh, the bill currently being written barely resembles obama's proposal.

    "To control costs, you would have to dramatically cut the income of doctors"

    oh, so doctors are just after the money? really? even though the AMA is behind the bill, as well? just keep on making shit up, pal. just keep it going. you look really painfully stupid....

    and btw, not just doctors run the system, dude. big time CEOs run the damn system, for profit. people's misery is not really their interest. their interest is shareholder dreams, profiting of human misery.

    "Monopolies without competition have no incentive to innovate because we would have no choice but to accept what they would shove down our throats"

    there is no evidence to support this. every other western country has a universal program, and has (mostly) superior statistics to ours. across the board, we are not in first place. we are way, way down the line AND we spend more than every other country.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 02:01am

71. hey liberty, why don't you get some balls and just stand on your principles: no public healthcare and no social security for anyone. serious.

    why stop at senior citizens? why not we just strip all entitlements from everyone? handicapped people. veterans of foreign wars. everyone.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/01/2009 @ 02:04am

72. OK. No social security. No public healthcare. But, we should still offer benefits to veterans.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/01/2009 @ 02:43am

73. Posted by ProudLibertarian at 07/31/2009 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    there were plenty of people in this country and others who did NOT buy the lie of WMD. Saddam's generals are not a good yard stick to measure americans.

    eventually it WILL come out that Bush and his criminals knew well that there were no WMD. by that time the american people will have moved on.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:36am

74. Antisocialist is an authoritarian. Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 9:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    so is libertyfortheoppr.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:40am

75. I'd prefer our president err on the side of caution

    I would prefer that too. Bush threw all caution to the winds by invading Iraq.

    when we use killing as our guiding star, and war is nothing but killing, we become what we are fighting against.

    a post facto reason for the Iraq war was that Saddam tortured people.

    well, Bush tortured people. why is not Bush at the end of a rope?

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:46am

76. so is so is libertyfortheoppr.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Isn't strange the handles that authoritarians choose -

    libertyfortheoppr and livliberty (Antisocialist now).

    Posted by OneVote at 08/01/2009 @ 10:29am

77. What has not happened to my recollection is YOU doing so. Not unless you posted under another name.

    Posted by antisocialist at 07/31/2009 @ 7:18pm |

    Well, clearly your ability to recollect is a complete shit show. Perhaps reading my posts before jumping to conclusions would be a better idea? But hey, why do that when its so easy to make things up?

    Posted by nkurland at 08/01/2009 @ 12:54pm

78. Just like when the Repubs "controlled everything", they made such huge progress on their party's legislative centerpiece--abortion.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 9:12pm

    I'm actually going to disagree here. Such social issues were merely used to attract and maintain a base that was otherwise voting against its own economic interests. In that sense, the use of social issues was a smashing success as a diversionary tactic.

    Posted by nkurland at 08/01/2009 @ 1:34pm

79. Antisocialist is an authoritarian. Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 9:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    so is libertyfortheoppr.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:40am

    This is laughable. the socialists who want control over every area of our life and never met a tax they didn't love, vs libertarians who believe in small Federal govt as the constitution calls for.

    These people despise what Jefferson stood for.

    < "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

    Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821

    "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

    "[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market."

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/01/2009 @ 3:57pm

80. Antisocialist is an authoritarian.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/31/2009 @ 9:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    so is libertyfortheoppr.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/01/2009 @ 08:40am

    This is laughable. the socialists who want control over every area of our life and never met a tax they didn't love, vs libertarians who believe in small Federal govt as the constitution calls for.

    Posted by antisocialist at 08/01/2009 @ 3:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Coming from a guy who is a John Yoo (Mr. Unitary Executive)fan... ...now THAT'S laughable!

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/01/2009 @ 4:39pm

81. I'll stand pat.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/01/2009 @ 4:41pm

82. "a post facto reason for the Iraq war was that Saddam tortured people.

    well, Bush tortured people. why is not Bush at the end of a rope?"

    Saddam tortured 1 million people to death, not counting 500,000 under the sanctions regime or 1.5 million in wars of aggression.

    Did Bush ever chain people to benches and have them gang raped?

    Did Bush ever chop off people's limbs with axes?

    Did Bush ever amputate people's toungues?

    Did Bush ever force people to clean prison cells knee-deep in human blood?

    Did Bush ever imprison people in confined spaces in complete darkness for years at a time before killing them with poison?

    Did Bush ever murder the parents of a child in front of the child's eyes?

    Did Bush electrocute people?

    Did Bush crucify people?

    Did Bush ever bury hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children alive?

    Did Bush ever kill people by hammering a six-inch nail into their forehead?

    Did Bush ever poison tens of thousands of people with chemical weapons?

    Did Bush ever use cigarettes to poke people's eyes out?

    Did Bush ever bury people up to their neck in concrete?

    Saddam did all of these things and more.

    Bush just waterboarded three AQ terrorists, one of whom was the mastermind of 9/11.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/01/2009 @ 5:34pm

83. Did Bush ever poison tens of thousands of people with chemical weapons?

    Saddam did all of these things and more.

    Bush just waterboarded three AQ terrorists, one of whom was the mastermind of 9/11.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/01/2009

    Reagan gave Saddam those chemical weapons and Dumbsfeld shook his blood stained hand.

    Also, if that's the expectations you have of a U.S. President, to not be as bad as Saddam, what is the point.

    We could have Jack the Ripper or Tex Watson as POTUS, they haven't killed as many people as Saddam either.

    Posted by koroviev at 08/02/2009 @ 05:38am

84. Bush just waterboarded three AQ terrorists, one of whom was the mastermind of 9/11.

    all of this is a lie.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 09:27am

85. Here we go again, the topic is health care and the watering down of care to make the Insurance industries capitalist's happy. Great documentary on HBO "The Yes Men fix the World" a real eye opener on the after affects of Milton Freidman's economic doctrines.

    But wait you say you are tired of being told "That's not covered, we won't pay for the anesthesiologist another $600 out of your pocket for your colinoscopy, or A possible cure for your cancer wait thats experimental we won't pay so you die to protect their profits. Yet you are required to pay and pay and pay while the Insurance CEO's take multi-million's in bonus's.

    Oh ya it costs to much, the government can't run health care, the witless minions who carry water for the profiteers continue to boast. Yet we have the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medical here in Calif all run by the "Government".

    So to all of the anally retentive protagonist's of health care reform its time for the Dem's to play the way the REPUP"S DID when they and their "Unfettered Capitalist's" handlers created this mess and pass real health care reform for all Americans.

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/02/2009 @ 11:08am

86. get the colonoscopy no matter the cost. it could save your life.

    you too Liverty.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 11:20am

87. Oh ya it costs to much, the government can't run health care, the witless minions who carry water for the profiteers continue to boast. Yet we have the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medical here in Calif all run by the "Government".

    not to mention all those gov't employees. no complaints from those folks. seems the gov't does just fine providing health insurance for many, many millions of people. they don't complain about the cost for this blue chip service either.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 11:23am

88. To: libertyfortheoppressed, and those who refuse to look beyond the end of their collective noses.

    When you equate the abuses of Saddam and GW, what about the abuses of say Union Carbide in Bhopal, India where their chemical plant leaked gas killed thousands and years later is still killing and refused to clean it up because it hurt their bottom line.

    You pick your causes and ignore the rest of the abuses created by those you support even though your ass will be thrown under the bus to protect their greed, by all means be one of those with your head on the block while shouting unfettered support for the axeman as he cuts off your head.

    Posted by dycel8r at 08/02/2009 @ 11:34am

89. "Bush just waterboarded three AQ terrorists, one of whom was the mastermind of 9/11.

    all of this is a lie."

    Care to elaborate? What is a lie? Bush didn't torture AQ terrorists? Who did he then? Randomly selected Arabs and Muslims because he just plain damn hates them and is a Christian fundamentalist?

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 12:13pm

90. Saddam tortured 1 million people to death, not counting 500,000 under the sanctions regime or 1.5 million in wars of aggression.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/01/2009 @ 5:34pm

    Wow, this is an incredible feat of revisionism! The sanctions regime was, from the get go, a U.S. led sanctions regime administered under the auspices of the UN to give a fig leaf cover of internationalism. This might explain why both Dennis Halladay and Hans von Sponeck resigned on grounds that the sanctions regime was genocidal.

    Or perhaps even more damningly, when told by Leslie Stahl that 500,000 Iraqi children died she responded with: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Granted, she may have slipped up, but this essentially explains the mentality.

    Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 1:57pm

91. I love how leftists that praise the UN accuse the UN, not Saddam, of genocide.... but then of course add that it is all "evil empire" America's fault that the UN imposed the sanctions.

    (By the way, if anyone doubts my figures, type in a yahoo search bar "Iraq Kanan Makiya New York Times Regrets Only". The first article that comes up is a NYT article estimating Saddam killed one million people not counting his wars of aggression. The NYT estimates the Iran-Iraq war only killed another million people, but add in 100,000 Iraqis, thousands of Kuwaitis, and all the UN forces killed in the Gulf War and you get a figure of over 1.1 million in wars of aggression in addition to one million directly killed. This amounts to 2.1 million not counting 500,000 in the sanctions, which would give you over 2.6 million. But there are higher estimates for the Iran-Iraq war.)

    According to the Duelfer report, the sanctions were all that ensured he didn't develop WMD, and even with them, North Korea was still planning on selling him some until the coalitition began preparing to invade Iraq. This suggests that Saddam must bear at least SOME of the culpability for the deaths. Before the implementation of the OFF program, the UN also deserved some of the blame.

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 2:59pm

92. After it was implemented, Saddam had as much food if not more than he did before the Gulf War. The US State Department has extensively detailed this. It also has documentary evidence showing that Saddam smuggled all of the food and nursing supplies that he could OUT of Iraq by the tons to sell on a black market. They go into great detail about this and numerous other abuses perpetrated by Saddam in the following link: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm From wiki: "The Lancet and Unicef studies observed that child mortality decreased in the north and increased in the south between 1994 and 1999 but did not attempt to explain the disparity, or to apportion culpability: "Both the Government of Iraq and the U.N. Sanctions Committee should give priority to contracts for supplies that will have a direct impact on the well-being of children," UNICEF said. However, others did attempt to explain this disparity, or use this to apportion culpability. In The Nation, 2001, David Cortright argued that Iraqi government policy, rather than the UN Sanctions, should be held responsible. He wrote:

    The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. ... The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief"

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:03pm

93. The State Department article I linked to is utterly damning. From it:

    "Sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the international community in the wake of Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait. They are intended to prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions can only be lifted when Iraq complies fully with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Saddam Hussein's regime remains a threat to its people and its neighbors, and has not met any of its obligations to the UN that would allow the UN to lift sanctions.

    The international community, not the regime of Saddam Hussein, is working to relieve the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis.

    Impact of Sanctions

    Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

    • Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people.

    • Baby milk sold to Iraq through the oil-for-food program has been found in markets throughout the Gulf, demonstrating that the Iraqi regime is depriving its people of much-needed goods in order to make an illicit profit. "

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:06pm

94. Saddam tortured 1 million people to death, not counting 500,000 under the sanctions regime or 1.5 million in wars of aggression.

    these are not realistic numbers. no clear numbers exist. so clowns like this one can just make it up. we are not fooled.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 3:08pm

95. sanctions, cont.

    "• Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

    Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

    There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

    • Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis.

    • Saddam's priorities are clear: palaces for himself, prisons for his people, and weapons to destroy Iraq's citizens and its neighbors. He has built 48 palaces for himself since the Gulf War. He would not use Iraq's resources to improve the lives of Iraqis. Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region.

    Iraqi oil exports are now at near pre-war levels and revenues are above what Iraq was receiving during the Iran-Iraq war. For the six-month period June-November 1999, Iraqi oil exports are projected to exceed $6 billion (see chart 1).

    • Previously Iraq had said it was unable to produce enough oil to meet oil-for-food ceilings because the UN refused to approve contracts for spare parts for its petroleum industry. The facts demonstrate otherwise.

    • In the two and a half years that the oil-for-food program has been functioning, Iraq has been able to sell over $14.9 billion in oil. Iraqi oil exports are near pre-war levels, and rising world oil prices are allowing more oil-for-food goods to be purchased. "

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:10pm

96. tortured to death a million? poppycock. all you need to do is look at the holocaust and the very large operation of death camps necessary to pull this off logistically.

    I am not trying to sanitize the Baath party. I just don't buy the phony justification of the absurd Iraq war.

    Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 3:11pm

97. "• The oil-for-food program has delivered $3.7 billion worth of food, $691 million worth of medicine, and more than $500 million worth of supplies for electrical, water/sanitation, agricultural, education, oil industry, settlement rehabilitation and demining projects. • Despite Iraqi obstructionism, oil-for-food has raised by 50% the daily caloric value of the ration basket and has steadily improved health care for Iraqis. Infrastructure repair in areas such as agriculture, electricity, and water and sanitation is being undertaken. Iraq has claimed it was unable to produce enough oil to meet oil-for-food ceilings because the UN refused to approve contracts for spare parts for its petroleum industry. The fact is that hundreds of millions of dollars of spare parts have been delivered and Iraqi oil production is expected to exceed pre-Gulf war levels. • Since the start of the oil-for-food program, of the 7,560 contracts received, 5,901, or 78.1%, have been approved. Their total value is $7.7 billion. • The 448 contracts on hold as of August 1999 include requests for items that can be used to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Many of these items are on the list described in UNSCR 1051, the list of goods which must be notified to and inspected by UNSCOM and the IAEA. As Iraq is not permitting either organization to perform its UN-mandated functions, there can be no assurance that Iraq would not divert these dual-use items.

    Iraqi Obstruction, not Sanctions, Hinders Effectiveness

    For five years, Iraq resisted international efforts to establish the oil-for-food program.

    • Concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, the Security Council attempted to create an oil-for-food program in 1991 that would allow Iraqi oil to be sold, with proceeds...

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:11pm

98. "In 1995,­over Iraq's protests--the Security Council adopted another oil-for-food resolution. Again, Iraq refused to accept it. It was only after another year and a half of Iraqi delays and international pressure that the Iraq regime agreed to accept oil-for-food.

    The August 1999 UNICEF Report on Child Health demonstrates that Iraqi mismanagement, -- if not also deliberate policy -- not sanctions, is responsible for malnutrition and deaths.

    • In Northern Iraq, where the UN administers humanitarian assistance, child mortality rates have fallen below pre-Gulf War levels. Rates rose in the period before oil-for-food, but with the introduction of the program the trend reversed, and now those Iraqi children are better off than before the war.

    • Child mortality figures have more than doubled in the south and center of the country, where the Iraqi government -- rather than the UN -- controls the program. If a turn-around on child mortality can be made in the north, which is under the same sanctions as the rest of the country, there is no reason it cannot be done in the south and center (see chart 2).

    The fact of the matter is, however, that the government of Iraq does not share the international community's concern about the welfare of its people. Baghdad's refusal to cooperate with the oil-for-food program and its deliberate misuse of resources are cynical efforts to sacrifice the Iraqi people's welfare in order to bring an end to UN sanctions without complying with its obligations.

    • The UN has reported that, despite Iraqi claims of infant malnutrition, the government of Iraq has ordered only a fraction of the nutrition supplies for vulnerable children and pregnant and nursing mothers recommended by the UN and for which money has been set aside under..."

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:14pm

99. ..."the oil-for-food program. Only $1.7 million of $25 million set aside for nutritional supplements has been spent by Iraq. In the past eighteen months, Iraq has ordered no nutritional supplements.

    • The United Nations has reported that $200 million worth of medicines and medical supplies sit undistributed in Iraqi warehouses. This is about half the value of all the medical supplies that have arrived in Iraq since the start of the oil-for-food program. Saddam can move his troops and missiles around the country, but claims that he doesn't have enough transportation to distribute these medicines, even as he alleges that children are dying due to sanctions.

    • Despite a 50% increase in oil revenues, Iraq has increased the amount earmarked for food purchases by only 15.6%.

    • Baghdad has reduced from $8 million to $6 million the amount allocated to the supplemental nutritional support program for malnourished children and pregnant and lactating mothers.

    With Iraqi oil revenues burgeoning, it's hard to understand why the people of Iraq aren't better off. The reason is because the government of Iraq is mismanaging the oil-for-food program, either deliberately or through incompetence.

    • Despite reports of widespread health problems, the government has still not spent the full $200 million for medical supplies allocated under phase five of the oil-for-food program (which ended in May). Only 40% of the money was used to purchase medicines for primary care, while 60% was used to buy medical equipment."

    There is more in the State Department document http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

    Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:18pm

100. Now's the part where you tell me the State Department is just making this all up.

     "tortured to death a million? poppycock. all you need to do is look at the holocaust and the very large operation of death camps necessary to pull this off logistically."

     Hmmm? Aren't you leftists arguing that, contrary to what morgues in Iraq and the Iraqi ministry of health say, the war has killed over a million people?

     My estimates are from the NYT.

     I repeat: if anyone doubts my figures, type in a yahoo search bar "Iraq Kanan Makiya New York Times Regrets Only". The first article that comes up is a NYT article estimating Saddam killed one million people not counting his wars of aggression. The NYT estimates the Iran-Iraq war only killed another million people, but add in 100,000 Iraqis, thousands of Kuwaitis, and all the UN forces killed in the Gulf War and you get a figure of over 1.1 million in wars of aggression in addition to one million directly killed. This amounts to 2.1 million not counting 500,000 in the sanctions, which would give you over 2.6 million. But there are higher estimates for the Iran-Iraq war.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:22pm

101. From the NYT article:

     "By the time the American invasion began in the spring of 2003, the toppling of Saddam Hussein appeared to be one of those rare historic moments when the men of force and the men of hope could stand together. For here, in Hussein, was one of the world's indisputably evil men: he murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants -- friends on friends, circles within circles -- making an entire population complicit in his rule."

     Now's the part where you tell me that the NYT is just making this up.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:24pm

102. "we are not fooled."

     Who is this "we" you speak of, emile?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:25pm

103. According to the Duelfer report, the sanctions were all that ensured he didn't develop WMD, and even with them, North Korea was still planning on selling him some until the coalitition began preparing to invade Iraq. This suggests that Saddam must bear at least SOME of the culpability for the deaths. Before the implementation of the OFF program, the UN also deserved some of the blame.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 2:59pm

     Almost gave them what? The ballistic missiles that they still can't develop six years later? The nuclear material that is now, 6 years later, sufficient for about 5 nuclear bombs, at most?

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 4:07pm

104. Hmmm? Aren't you leftists arguing that, contrary to what morgues in Iraq and the Iraqi ministry of health say, the war has killed over a million people?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:22pm |

     Now you're blaming the entire death toll from the 2003 invasion on Saddam too. Is there anything the U.S. is ever responsible for?

     This is by far the most warped attempt at rewriting history I've seen on this website. It's actually kind of funny. You know that UN Resolution 1441 didn't amount to authorization for the war, right? After all, after passing the resolution John Negroponte said: "This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12"

     In fact, the ambassador from the UK was even more direct, stating: "There is no 'automaticity' in this resolution.

     And yet, we never even bothered to submit a second resolution that would have authorized force. Quite simply, it would have been vetoed, instantly.

     Call me crazy, but it seems that if the war had any legal basis, a second resolution would have been submitted. At the very least the "spikes of activity" identified by the Downing Street Memo as intensified sorties flown in an attempt to elicit a response that could be spun as justification for the war, would have been unnecessary.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 4:23pm

105. "Hmmm? Aren't you leftists arguing that, contrary to what morgues in Iraq and the Iraqi ministry of health say, the war has killed over a million people?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 3:22pm |

     Now you're blaming the entire death toll from the 2003 invasion on Saddam too. Is there anything the U.S. is ever responsible for?"

     No, I'm not, you idiot. I was responding to emile claiming that Saddam didn't have nearly enough concentration camps to have killed one million people. emile wrote: "all you need to do is look at the holocaust and the very large operation of death camps necessary to pull this off logistically." emile leaves out that Saddam killed 100,000 Kurds in 1988 and killed 300,000 people in April 1991 alone. This leaves Saddam with another 600,000 to kill over 24 years. That is not unlikely. By emile's logic, it would be impossible one million died in the war, but I was not suggesting that one million did, that they all died because of Saddam, and that these were the only deaths Saddam was ever responsible for (that would mean Saddam didn't kill anyone while he was in power, stupid). If you notice I pointed out that morgues in Iraq do not agree with that figure.

     Again, is the NYT lying when it says Saddam killed one million people and slaughtered another million in his war against Iran? And is UNICEF lying when it says 500,000 died under the sanctions regime? I would add that Saddam killed thousands of Kuwaitis, many UN soldiers, and caused the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis during the Gulf War. Saddam killed 2.6 or 2.7 million people, and some estimate more (though some estimate less).

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

106. "Now you're blaming the entire death toll from the 2003 invasion on Saddam too. Is there anything the U.S. is ever responsible for?"

     By the way, if I wrote something based on this limited an ability to comprehend basic use of the English language in posts on a message board and based on such a ludicrous misunderstanding of what someone wrote, I'd be pretty embarassed.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 4:56pm

107. By the way, if I wrote something based on this limited an ability to comprehend basic use of the English language in posts on a message board and based on such a ludicrous misunderstanding of what someone wrote, I'd be pretty embarassed.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 4:56pm

     Even so, I'd argue a far bigger embarrassment is being so intellectually limited as to have to resort to, say, blaming deaths from sanctions imposed on Iraq on the government itself when both administrators of the program stepped down, citing their genocidal nature. Or maybe even taking a death toll from a war, and attributing 100% to one side. Both sides committed some fairly large atrocities. And we both know that if Iran faced a different adversary in that war, you'd merely flip your argument and attribute that same death toll to them, 100%. Of course all of this pales in comparison to your adulation of Bush administration officials for "liberating" Iraq when in fact many of these same people were aiding him through the worst of his atrocities. Dear God man, your gall is absolutely intolerable. Your entire argument consists of a complete conflation of basic information combined with a willingness to weave and bob through any information until it forms a path to the convenient answer.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 5:41pm

108. "Or maybe even taking a death toll from a war, and attributing 100% to one side. Both sides committed some fairly large atrocities. And we both know that if Iran faced a different adversary in that war, you'd merely flip your argument and attribute that same death toll to them, 100%. "

     Iraq attacked Iran unilaterally. It was aggression. Only Iraq used chemical weapons. If Iraq had not done that, there would not have been any deaths.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 5:50pm

109. Iraq attacked Iran unilaterally. It was aggression. Only Iraq used chemical weapons. If Iraq had not done that, there would not have been any deaths.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 5:50pm

     Wow, way to affirm the fact that you're incapable of objective analysis. Even though Iraq did attack unilaterally, Iran, like Iraq, launched multiple offensives that prolonged the war. So really this is nowhere near as simple as you're trying to make it. You would think trying to make arguments like yours with a straight face would get embarrassing at a certain point.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 7:22pm

110. Your entire argument consists of a complete conflation of basic information combined with a willingness to weave and bob through any information until it forms a path to the convenient answer.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 5:41pm

     it seems you are describing yourself.

     <Or perhaps even more damningly, when told by Leslie Stahl that 500,000 Iraqi children died she responded with: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Granted, she may have slipped up, but this essentially explains the mentality.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 1:57pm>

     It was Democratic Secretary of State Madeline Albright, not CBS newswoman Leslie Stahl.

     <According to the Duelfer report, the sanctions were all that ensured he didn't develop WMD, and even with them, North Korea was still planning on selling him some until the coalitition began preparing to invade Iraq. This suggests that Saddam must bear at least SOME of the culpability for the deaths. Before the implementation of the OFF program, the UN also deserved some of the blame.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 2:59pm

     Almost gave them what? The ballistic missiles that they still can't develop six years later? The nuclear material that is now, 6 years later, sufficient for about 5 nuclear bombs, at most?

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 4:07pm>

     You are confusing Iran and Iraq.

     So in just two posts you got the wrong person and the wrong country. Yet you accuse liberty of conflating basic information.

     you need to go back to school.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/02/2009 @ 7:34pm

111. You are confusing Iran and Iraq.

     So in just two posts you got the wrong person and the wrong country. Yet you accuse liberty of conflating basic information.

     you need to go back to school.

     Posted by antisocialist at 08/02/2009 @ 7:34pm

     Maybe, just maybe, if you had read the post you would know that I was saying that six years later North Korea (not Iran or Iraq) remains incapable of developing a large scale nuclear stockpile, let alone the ballistic missile. Neither of my two posts you quoted were about Iran.

     And yes, I meant to type madeline albright.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 8:05pm

112. "You would think trying to make arguments like yours with a straight face would get embarrassing at a certain point."

     How clever! How original!

     "Even though Iraq did attack unilaterally, Iran, like Iraq, launched multiple offensives that prolonged the war."

     I simply said that the aggressor should be responsible for the war, not the defender or retalliator. I would agree that some of Iran's actions during the war were unethical and needlessly aggressive, but if you are arguing that they qualify as aggression, then you leftists had better stop arguing that we can trust the Mullahs with a nuclear bomb because they have never initiated aggression against their neighbors.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:21pm

113. "blaming deaths from sanctions imposed on Iraq on the government itself"

     Iraq's rape of Kuwait prompted the sanctions. Iraq, we now know, had secret plans to resume and hide WMD programs that it would have been capable of carrying out if the sanctions were lifted. The sanctions would have been lifted but for this. Even this alone would give Saddam some responsibility for the deaths.

     But let's go further. Saddam had an obvious incentive to create a humanitarian catastrophe by obstructing the sanctions in order to get them lifted. Baathist newspapers exaggerated the death toll "from the sanctions" to almost two million. Saddam used slush funds from his manipulation of the OFF program to pay off pro-Saddam and "anti-war" politicians like George Galloway who would then feign moral outrage over the suffering.

     The sanctions naturally resulted in massive deaths before the introduction of the OFF program because they prevented Iraq from recovering from the destruction of its infrastructure during the first Gulf War. What may suprise you is that the OFF program was proposed by the UN in 1991. Saddam refused to accept it. He stone-walled desperate attempts by the international community to get humanitarian aid into Iraq for FIVE YEARS before accepting the program. Once the program was in place, he was caught, month after month, smuggling by the tons all of the food and nursing supplies he could out of Iraq to sell on a black market. In the north of Iraq, not only did child mortality rates improve from what they were in the years before, they actually improved so much that they were BETTER than what they were BEFORE the Gulf War.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:37pm

114. The State Department said: "• In Northern Iraq, where the UN administers humanitarian assistance, child mortality rates have fallen below pre-Gulf War levels. Rates rose in the period before oil-for-food, but with the introduction of the program the trend reversed, and now those Iraqi children are better off than before the war. • Child mortality figures have more than doubled in the south and center of the country, where the Iraqi government -- rather than the UN -- controls the program. If a turn-around on child mortality can be made in the north, which is under the same sanctions as the rest of the country, there is no reason it cannot be done in the south and center"

     So why wasn't it done? If there were no excess deaths from the sanctions where the UN administered the program, it follows that the reason was not because Saddam lacked the resources (which he illegally sold on a black market) to avoid such deaths. Saddam WANTED all of those Iraqi children to die.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:42pm

115. Let's look at some more of the evidence I quoted above, from the State Department. You refused to respond to any of it.

     "• The United Nations has reported that $200 million worth of medicines and medical supplies sit undistributed in Iraqi warehouses. This is about half the value of all the medical supplies that have arrived in Iraq since the start of the oil-for-food program. Saddam can move his troops and missiles around the country, but claims that he doesn't have enough transportation to distribute these medicines, even as he alleges that children are dying due to sanctions."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     "• Despite a 50% increase in oil revenues, Iraq has increased the amount earmarked for food purchases by only 15.6%."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     "• Baghdad has reduced from $8 million to $6 million the amount allocated to the supplemental nutritional support program for malnourished children and pregnant and lactating mothers."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     "With Iraqi oil revenues burgeoning, it's hard to understand why the people of Iraq aren't better off. The reason is because the government of Iraq is mismanaging the oil-for-food program, either deliberately or through incompetence."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:46pm

116. • "The UN has reported that, despite Iraqi claims of infant malnutrition, the government of Iraq has ordered only a fraction of the nutrition supplies for vulnerable children and pregnant and nursing mothers recommended by the UN and for which money has been set aside under the oil-for-food program. Only $1.7 million of $25 million set aside for nutritional supplements has been spent by Iraq. In the past eighteen months, Iraq has ordered no nutritional supplements."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     "In 1995,­over Iraq's protests--the Security Council adopted another oil-for-food resolution. Again, Iraq refused to accept it. It was only after another year and a half of Iraqi delays and international pressure that the Iraq regime agreed to accept oil-for-food. "

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     "Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     "• Iraq is actually exporting food, even though it says its people are malnourished. Coalition ships enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq recently diverted the ship M/V MINIMARE containing 2,000 metric tons of rice and other material being exported from Iraq for hard currency instead of being used to support the Iraqi people."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:53pm

117. I simply said that the aggressor should be responsible for the war, not the defender or retalliator. I would agree that some of Iran's actions during the war were unethical and needlessly aggressive, but if you are arguing that they qualify as aggression, then you leftists had better stop arguing that we can trust the Mullahs with a nuclear bomb because they have never initiated aggression against their neighbors.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:21pm

     I'd agree beyond a doubt that Iraq initiated a war of aggression. That being said I merely claimed Iran repeatedly launched offensives that prolonged the war. That's it. Its just a little absurd to attribute the entire death toll to Iraq when Khomeini was ordering human wave attacks.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 8:54pm

118. "• The oil-for-food program has delivered $3.7 billion worth of food, $691 million worth of medicine, and more than $500 million worth of supplies for electrical, water/sanitation, agricultural, education, oil industry, settlement rehabilitation and demining projects. • Despite Iraqi obstructionism, oil-for-food has raised by 50% the daily caloric value of the ration basket and has steadily improved health care for Iraqis. Infrastructure repair in areas such as agriculture, electricity, and water and sanitation is being undertaken. Iraq has claimed it was unable to produce enough oil to meet oil-for-food ceilings because the UN refused to approve contracts for spare parts for its petroleum industry. The fact is that hundreds of millions of dollars of spare parts have been delivered and Iraqi oil production is expected to exceed pre-Gulf war levels. • Since the start of the oil-for-food program, of the 7,560 contracts received, 5,901, or 78.1%, have been approved. Their total value is $7.7 billion. • The 448 contracts on hold as of August 1999 include requests for items that can be used to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Many of these items are on the list described in UNSCR 1051, the list of goods which must be notified to and inspected by UNSCOM and the IAEA. As Iraq is not permitting either organization to perform its UN-mandated functions, there can be no assurance that Iraq would not divert these dual-use items."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:58pm

119. "Iraqi oil exports are now at near pre-war levels and revenues are above what Iraq was receiving during the Iran-Iraq war. For the six-month period June-November 1999, Iraqi oil exports are projected to exceed $6 billion (see chart 1).

     • Previously Iraq had said it was unable to produce enough oil to meet oil-for-food ceilings because the UN refused to approve contracts for spare parts for its petroleum industry. The facts demonstrate otherwise."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     "• Kuwaiti authorities recently seized a shipment coming out of Iraq carrying, among other items, baby powder, baby bottles, and other nursing materials for resale overseas (see photo 1).

     Saddam Hussein's priorities are clear. If given control of Iraq's resources, Saddam Hussein would use them to rearm and threaten the region, not to improve the lot of the Iraqi people.

     There is ample proof that lifting sanctions would offer the Iraqi people no relief from neglect at the hands of their government

     • Sanctions prevent Saddam from spending money on rearmament, but do not stop him from spending money on food and medicine for Iraqis."

     Why do you think that is, if all the deaths are America's fault?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 9:00pm

120. From wiki "The Lancet[32] and Unicef studies observed that child mortality decreased in the north and increased in the south between 1994 and 1999 but did not attempt to explain the disparity, or to apportion culpability: "Both the Government of Iraq and the U.N. Sanctions Committee should give priority to contracts for supplies that will have a direct impact on the well-being of children," UNICEF said.[16] However, others did attempt to explain this disparity, or use this to apportion culpability. In The Nation, 2001, David Cortright argued that Iraqi government policy, rather than the UN Sanctions, should be held responsible. He wrote: The differential between child mortality rates in northern Iraq, where the UN manages the relief program, and in the south-center, where Saddam Hussein is in charge, says a great deal about relative responsibility for the continued crisis. As noted, child mortality rates have declined in the north but have more than doubled in the south-center. ... The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are also the result of Baghdad's failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.[45]

     In The New Republic, 2001, Michael Rubin argued that: The difference [t]here is that local Kurdish authorities, in conjunction with the United Nations, spend the money they get from the sale of oil. Everywhere else in Iraq, Saddam does. And when local authorities are determined to get food and medicine to their people--instead of, say, reselling these supplies to finance military spending and palace construction--the current sanctions regime works just fine. Or, to put it more bluntly, the United Nations isn't starving Saddam's people. Saddam is.[46]"

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 9:07pm

121. "In The Nation, 2001, David Cortright argued that Iraqi government policy, rather than the UN Sanctions, should be held responsible."

     So even the Nation can help counter the pro-Saddam propaganda of the far-leftists.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 9:09pm

122. So, nkurland, any response?

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 9:10pm

123. Iraq's rape of Kuwait prompted the sanctions. Iraq, we now know, had secret plans to resume and hide WMD programs that it would have been capable of carrying out if the sanctions were lifted. The sanctions would have been lifted but for this. Even this alone would give Saddam some responsibility for the deaths.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 8:53pm

     Just keep in mind that OFF was only started in October 1997. That was nearly a year and a half after Madeline Albright defended the deaths of 500,000 children. The most common estimates place the death toll at around 1 miillion, 1.5 million if you include other causes such as the effects of depleted uranium. Its pretty clear that the vast majority of deaths occurred prior to the advent of OFF.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 9:26pm

124. I merely claimed Iran repeatedly launched offensives that prolonged the war.

     instead of surrendering? a truly bizarre statement.

     and US? eight years in Afghanistan. what are we looking for, another THIRTY YEARS WAR?

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/02/2009 @ 9:28pm

125. "Just keep in mind that OFF was only started in October 1997. That was nearly a year and a half after Madeline Albright defended the deaths of 500,000 children."

     Once the program was initiated, there were no deaths where the UN administered it. None. Only where Saddam did. Saddam caused all the deaths once it was implemented because it provided enough humanitarian aid to prevent any excess deaths. You say "but it wasn't implemented before 1997". So? That is Saddam's doing.

     To repeat, since you are slow on the uptake: (from the SD document)

     "For five years, Iraq resisted international efforts to establish the oil-for-food program.

     • Concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, the Security Council attempted to create an oil-for-food program in 1991 that would allow Iraqi oil to be sold, with proceeds deposited in a UN-controlled account and used to purchase humanitarian goods for the Iraqi people. Iraq rejected the Security Council's original proposal.

     • In 1995,­over Iraq's protests--the Security Council adopted another oil-for-food resolution. Again, Iraq refused to accept it. It was only after another year and a half of Iraqi delays and international pressure that the Iraq regime agreed to accept oil-for-food.

     The August 1999 UNICEF Report on Child Health demonstrates that Iraqi mismanagement, -- if not also deliberate policy -- not sanctions, is responsible for malnutrition and deaths."

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 9:47pm

126. "The most common estimates place the death toll at around 1 miillion,"

     http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=664

     "by UN figures as many as eighty thousand Iraqi children per year were dying as a direct result of Saddam's "gaming" of the oil for food and medicine program"

     That would give you 960,000 Iraqis as the HIGHEST estimate possible. I thought that UNICEF was just as reliable, but if you insist on 1 million, that's good for me. That means that Saddam killed over 3 million people.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 10:16pm

127. That would give you 960,000 Iraqis as the HIGHEST estimate possible. I thought that UNICEF was just as reliable, but if you insist on 1 million, that's good for me. That means that Saddam killed over 3 million people.

     Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/02/2009 @ 10:16pm

     I would think 960,000 deaths qualify as "around 1 million. Besides, there are other estimates.

     For example: The UN estimated a totsl 1.2 million died1991- 1997 alone. And there are others

     The highest figure I've heard (which includes bombs and the effects of depleted uranium) arrives at a total of 1.7 million.

     There's something of wide range here, but the most common etimates are around 1 million, give or take

     Posted by nkurland at 08/02/2009 @ 10:50pm

128. the US invasion of Iraq, or the Iraq as it used to be known, added a considerable number to that total. all in vain.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 08:17am

129. the US invasion of Iraq, or the Iraq as it used to be known, added a considerable number to that total. all in vain.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 08:17am

     For all intents and purposes it'll still be our war in large part if a residual force stays beyond 2011. We may be "withdrawing, but we are not leaving quietly. Word is that we have been trying to get the Iraqis to agree to joint patrols since U.S. soldiers are now prohibited from patrolling cities.

     Posted by nkurland at 08/03/2009 @ 10:17am

130. Posted by nkurland at 08/03/2009 @ 10:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

     it's a muddle.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 10:47am

131. like Caesar's Gaul, Iraq should be divided into three countries, with oil revenue sharing.

     Posted by emile duBois at 08/03/2009 @ 10:48am