I like to point out whenever I can that the White House was originally called the Presidential Palace and that name was dropped due to the royal connotations - not that it isn’t a palace mind you. So, since we have a palace, why not have a King? Except for election and term limits (not minor I admit) the “unitary Presidency” has all the hallmarks of kingship. The ability to send to war for instance (despite specifically making this a legislative function from the Constitution). The power of pardon is inherited directly from monarchies. And all the armed guards, limos, special jets and what not are all similar to what royals get in other countries. The question is why do people like this?

This unitary presidency is pure nonsense. The power to make war, fund war, raise revenues through taxation, make legislation, and even remove the President is all put in Article I. Notice Article one, not two. It’s one for a reason. The Presidency has very specific ministerial functions laid out in Article II. He/she cannot dissolve congress, raise revenues or formulate policy (excepting negotiating power with foreign powers…AND consent of the Senate). He/she can veto legislation, but can be overridden. It really is clear the President was not meant to be this important. But people like this…I guess.

Thanks for the updated numbers btw. I knew the data was old.

Ever. Again.

Conservatives, you are not American. Go.

No, US soldiers didn’t put a bullet into 500000 Iraqis personally, but the chaos and the civil war that came after the invasion that killed those people is our fault. Really it is.

I can live with a more conservative number by the way. How about 100000 Iraqi dead>? Are we more comfy with that? Let your sparklers fly this day then…

You mean like this?

Not all them. Just yours.

Yes the 500,000 number is most accurate estimate that has been arrived at. It has been widely criticized, its authors have as well, however its methodology hasn’t been widely questioned. The very first estimate the Johns Hopkins team came up with was criticized for its methodology. The authors widened the sample surveys and addressed several other concerns. The numbers they arrive at are not exact, they are estimates. 500,000 was the mean if I remember right. It is just as likely the number is higher than that (and it would be higher now since the data is old).

However, what are you trying to do? The morgues are overflowing, bodies are dumped in rivers etc. Even MSM American media reports these things. And, what’s more, what if you’re right, despite yourself, and there are 60,000 dead Iraqis. For what? Over what? Why did they die? The staggering numbers of needless deaths perhaps can be put in perspective of the US. You, no doubt, were upset about 9/11 and the nearly 3000 dead out of a country of about 300,000,000. That’s roughly 1/100,000 th of our population. Iraq is roughly 25,000,000, with the most conservative of all possible numbers, 50,000 dead or 1 in every 500 Iraqis is now dead. In America it would be like losing 600,000. Can you imagine that? And remember those numbers are preposterously low. The Johns Hopkins study is .02 of the Iraqi population or the same as 6 million in America. FYI, the Bush administration criticized the Johns Hopkins study but used their same methodology to arrive at their Darfur genocide numbers. No matter how you slice it, it’s terribly sad and pointless.

Stealing their oil. Why yes that is exactly what the US is up to. Now we’re not a communist nation, so the US won’t own the oil, it’s actually Western oil companies. The oil legislation, which Iraqis won’t pass, actually establishes a 30 year board where western oil companies get to sit at the table and “help” the Iraqis bring their crude to market. The US controls the entire process as they do the government who would be killed if they didn’t have 24/7 US protection in the Green Zone. The Constitutional officers were “elected” in the first bogus “election” we staged. In that one we kicked a great many parties right off the ballot (we wrote it), we didn’t allow any parties to campaign more than two weeks I believe, and we didn’t allow any party to state their position on US occupation, 1/3 to 1/2 the country didn’t have voting available, the sites were secret until usually the day of the “election” and the ballots were “counted” by the US military.

The Sunnis boycotted the “election.” Since there were no Sunnis we simply appointed some Sunnis patsies ignoring democracy. This group was given a constitution written by US lawyers. The “elected” established rules for the first real election, but again it was simply the US drafting it for them. Many walkouts. Meanwhile the oil ministry was given to Chalabi to run *the same guy we had on the pay roll all these years. The US then ran the next set of elections much like the first, except this time the Sunnis did vote in some numbers. Nonetheless, the “vote” was conducted by the US military. It took this groups about 6 months to finally elect the ineffectual puppet we have in Maliki. Despite it being the number one priority (according to the US) the oil law will not be passed by the people arranged to be elected. (Shia and Kurds have the oil and see little reason to split revenue with the Sunnis.) This is where we stand now. Our own bought and paid for gov’t, only existing under our constant protection, will not pass our oil law. The country fights on.

That is how we’re stealing their oil. I’m sick of dealing with people such as yourself who are either truly ignorant of EVERYTHING or (more likely) choose to look at the situation in a light that makes the US look good. I have real trouble believing anyone with an average IQ and any education whatsoever honestly doesn’t know why we’re in Iraq. If there was oil in Africa we’d be fighting wars there. Richard Perle, one of the war’s architects, admitted the war was illegal as early as November of 03. Many other conservatives have admitted it is a war over resources. It is now 2007, there is no reason for any thinking person to question the true motivating factor behind this, it is and was oil.

Surprising when you elect two oil men for President and VP you get a war over oil? Shocking! And of course, I’m all ears to hear your thoughtful explanation about what this is truly about if not oil….non-existent WMDs? Democracy we don’t support in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or even for Iraq previously when we dealt with Saddam? The 9/11 Islamo fascists who hated Saddam’s secular gov’t? Realist is an ironic moniker don’t you think?

Fine, different methods. Are you ignoring the criticisms of the Lancet study?

Also, even if the Lancet figure for Iraqi civilian deaths was close to being accurate, you have to be delusional to think that “We just murdered a half million Iraqis” with “We” meaning US troops. As I asked above, how many have died due to sectarian violence? Foreign Fighters?

Also, if accurate, these figures would imply the death of an average 500 people per day, or 2.5% of Iraq’s population. Is Halliburton digging mass graves in secret to hide all those bodies? You’d think that kind of death rate would stand out. You know, overflowing morgues, people digging graves left and right, etc.

Mr. Apple, please allow me to introduce Miss Orange. Lancet used a random sampling technique. IBC uses only news reports.

Half a million? You’re obviously referring to the widely questioned and disputed Lancet study. Iraq Body Count puts the current range of reported civilians killed in Iraq as 66807-73120. And how many of those do you think were killed by their own countrymen (i.e. Baathist insurgents, Shiite vs. Sunni sectarian conflicts)? How many were killed by foreign fighters (i.e. Al-Qaeda in Iraq) as retaliation for supporting the US or in an attempt to spread sectarian violence? The remainder can probably be attributed to US or Iraqi troop actions (No doubt all deliberate killings, in your opinion).

And steal their oil? How exactly did we steal it? Last time I checked, all oil is under the control of the Iraqi government and all proceeds from oil sales are held by (or in trust for) the Iraqi government and have been since 2003. Did Halliburton build a secret pipeline to siphon off Iraqi oil to sell it on the side?

“No War for Oil” might look catchy on a bumper sticker or protest march banner, but the reality doesn’t support the rhetoric.

I don’t feel patriotic.

I’m shocked, SHOCKED!

Don’t worry, I wasn’t waiting for your approval before doing so.

You have a problem with criticism of America, that’s your deal. I have no problem bad mouthing America, your assumption is that it is somehow wrong to do so.

It’s a free country, so you’re free to criticize anyone and everyone. No one said it was wrong. I just happen to think you’re an asshole for doing so today. And I’m just as free to say so.

You and your “progressive” compatriots have 364 other days to wail about how awful and evil this country is. Maybe you should give it a rest for just one fucking day.

As far as straying from the progressive path. Well, if that’s how you characterize calling Howard Zinn an idiot, then yes I’m doing just that.

Thanks for confirming my observation.

Let’s look at the Zinn post that Oliver links to, shall we?

Number of bad or evil acts by the US (or early English settlers) noted: 7

Number of good or in some way benign acts by the US noted: 0

Tell me again how I’m misreading him as saying anything other than we’ve “done far more evil in the world than good”.

I would ask you to (if you can tolerate it) listen to Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, they use the same arguments to avoid dealing with America’s sordid history. “The hate America first crowd.” No defense of the critique, simply an ad hominum, it’s a complete non sequitur. Presume I’m evil, rotting corpse of Saddam Hussein returned for the grave. Would my point about colonialism, proxy wars and genocide in S.E. Asia be any less valid?

I think it’s interesting that these ad hominums usually DO work to put the critics on the defensive, and I think it shows how inculcated and indoctrinated the US populace is with American propaganda. But I say again, so what. Think ill of me, exaggerate my criticism by claiming I said the US did no good (absurd and pointless to boot). So just assume I think the US is totally evil if it makes you reason more clearly. Now justify the behavior and your continued support of the US.

As far as straying from the progressive path. Well, if that’s how you characterize calling Howard Zinn an idiot, then yes I’m doing just that. When you call a peace loving, activist, intellectual of the left names, I think you can safely assume people on the left will be critical of you.

Mdhatter - Zinn isn’t allowed on netword TV, neither is Chomsky, Amy Goodman is seldom on, same goes for Robert Jensen. One could actually go on for pages and pages about the liberals denied a MSM outlet. Nonetheless you “have had enough of Zinn and his one-sideness.” Are you a groupie, touring his sold out lectures? Where are you getting inundated with Mr. Zinn? I’d like to know.

My experience has been that finding progressive views (even on public radio) is difficult. I’m pleased when I can hear them. I think most would agree, and that being the case, Zinn is supposed to waste everyone’s time speaking about all the good the US has done, despite how easy it is to hear such views? I would agree with you if Zinn and progressives had an outlet, but I’ve yet to discover it except on the web. So when I go to hear Chomsky, I don’t need to hear him give Chris Matthews, Tim Russert militaristic, US glorification I can get multiple times a day from multiple sources.

Finally, as some have posted, Zinn doesn’t say the US is exclusively bad, nor does Chomsky or any other progressive I’ve heard of. I’ll agree he focuses on the bad in public discussions, but , again, why should he repeat the Fox News version when we all were taught it by heart in school? He has limited opportunity.

Realist-What do I care if you want to celebrate this country. Go for it. You have a problem with criticism of America, that’s your deal. I have no problem bad mouthing America, your assumption is that it is somehow wrong to do so. Your sarcasm has little justification in my view. What are the great services the US has done? The US helped keep slavery going, got in involved in WW I for god knows what reason. The US did good fighting Hitler and Japan, I don’t think people question that. The