Charting Iraqi Mortality

This is James Wimberley's chart of efforts to estimate the death toll on Iraq. You can read here for a fuller explanation of what the chart means, and click on the image to see a larger version. He writes:

We now have four survey estimates from three independent teams of professionals using two different good-practice methods. They all say that the excess deaths in Iraq are hugely greater than the IBC body count, let alone the numbers from the MNF or the Iraqi government. The mean estimate, combining the ORB result with my extrapolations from the three older ones, is 782,000.

Sad. Maddening. I don't really know what to say.

Comments

Well, among other things, you could note that every time anyone writes a sentence neutrally glossing the costs of the war, they should now be morally obliged to write "a war that has made the US unpopular in many parts of the world, has cost thousands of US troops' lives and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis." Not "tens of thousands of Iraqis," as I believe I saw in the most recent NY Times editorial. Any respectable gloss of the figure by now has to be "hundreds of thousands". Lo, let the word go out to copy desks across this great nation.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 16, 2007 11:43 AM

you could say that the responsibility for these deaths lies primarily with the bush administration and secondarily with the members of congress who keep pretending to be critical of bush administration policy without having the slightest interest in working to change it (yes, for example, that would be you, susan collins, you too chuck hagel, and of course you, brian baird)....

Posted by howard | September 16, 2007 12:07 PM

GIGO, exemplified!

Posted by Al | September 16, 2007 12:24 PM

If McCain can say on his face that the Dems are supporting a policy of failure and surrender, why can't Kerry respond that the Republicans are supporting a course of action that will certainly lead to more American and Iraqi deaths?

Dems are quite culpable in this.

Posted by gregor | September 16, 2007 12:25 PM

The Dems keep making antiwar noises while enabling the war. It makes them look like total jerks.

Posted by kafka | September 16, 2007 12:51 PM

you can say, again, something you have already said:

when people argue for continuing the war for bush's vanity by saying:
"but if we leave, millions will die!",

you can say:
by staying we have already killed about a million;
if we stay longer, more millions will die.

Posted by kid bitzer | September 16, 2007 12:52 PM

This may be a small point, but since the variable here "excess deaths" is additive in nature (it's the difference between deaths-that-did-occur and deaths-that-would-have-occurred) it seems weird to plot it on a log scale, as here.

Posted by J. Ellenberg | September 16, 2007 12:55 PM

Didn't Megan McArdle purport to debunk the Lancet study the last time around?

Posted by Brittain33 | September 16, 2007 1:14 PM

Brittain33, no one "debunked" the Lancet study; many people insisted it couldn't be true.

take Al, for instance....

Posted by howard | September 16, 2007 1:18 PM

Al, the uniquely perfect example of GINGO calls this graph a GINGO.

Posted by gregor | September 16, 2007 1:23 PM

Well the fundamental problem for the Al's of this world is that civilian 'collateral damage' aside we have to assume that our guys are killing and wounding more of their guys than we are getting killed and wounded in return. Given the disparities in equipment and training how could they not? To argue otherwise would be to say that our military is incompetent at its key task. Then once you add in the vast superiority of our medical capabilities you have to believe insurgent survival rates from combat wounds are much less than ours.

You really have to hate the troops to believe that some 30,000 total American casualties haven't resulted in some multiple of enemy casualties, add in the Iraqi security targets of the insurgency and the civilians blown up in suicide bombs and even discounting people we killed by 'accident' and you end up in six figures in a hurry.

The brutal arithmetic of war suggests that if a few hundred thousand Iraqi's HAVEN'T died that the US Army and Marines simply don't know what they are doing. Whereas every bit of reporting coming out suggests that they are in fact inflicting more damage than they are taking. To do otherwise would be a little thing we call 'losing'.

War supporters are stuck on a data fork here. If we are not killing people in 'combat operations' what the hell are we doing. And if we are killing people you would expect we would be killing a lot more of them than we were losing.

If Al wants to argue that guys in burnooses are one on one better soldiers than the US Army and Marines, well be my guest. But I wouldn't suggest voicing that opinion down at the bar at the VFW.

I have been against this war since before it started, not least because I knew that every dead and wounded American was a proxy for multiples of dead and wounded Iraqis. Warmongers can't have it both ways.

Posted by Bruce Webb | September 16, 2007 2:21 PM

I hope Matthw Yglesias was just as concerned about the people who were killed by Saddam's brutal regime, often after having been tortured by methods that would make waterboarding look very tame.

Posted by Isocrates | September 16, 2007 2:34 PM

oh for fuck's sake, isocrates.

your rhetoric is *so* 2004.

can't you even follow the wing-nut bouncing ball?

right-wingers stopped caring about iraqis a few years ago, when they switched from "we're going to make a democratic paradise" to "let's just glass the ingrates."

that's also when they switched from "you liberals don't care about the plight of the noble iraqis," to "you liberals tied our hands so that we couldn't defeat the heathen scum."

look, if you're going to play the role of an ignorant wing-nut in the big-leagues--which is clearly what you are auditioning for--then at least try to keep up to date, okay?

Posted by kid bitzer | September 16, 2007 2:42 PM

Isocrates-- You know we've reached the bottom when the United States has to plead a case of moral superiority to a homicidal 3rd world dictator. It's a low bar indeed...

Posted by JJ | September 16, 2007 2:46 PM

in fact, let's go a step further, isocrates: what exactly is your point?

not only is it, as kid bitzer said, so 2004, it's meaningless. saddam was not actively committing genocide in 2003; we didn't intervene to halt his everyday brutalism.

so what are you trying to tell us? we really would like to know....

Posted by howard | September 16, 2007 2:54 PM

Liberals and neoconservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into ALL white countries and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for ALL white countries and ONLY white countries to assimilate, i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and neoconservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Posted by Sir Walter | September 16, 2007 3:18 PM

This may be a small point, but since the variable here "excess deaths" is additive in nature (it's the difference between deaths-that-did-occur and deaths-that-would-have-occurred) it seems weird to plot it on a log scale, as here.

The chart shows that IBC figures are increasing exponentially. But yeah, putting the rest of the numbers on the chart isn't the most meaningful, as there aren't really enough to suggest trends.

Posted by Mike | September 16, 2007 3:22 PM

Walter, obsess much?

Posted by DJ | September 16, 2007 3:41 PM

Matthew,

You could write a second book.

I'll give you the title:

Megadeath: The untold story of America in Iraq, 2003-2013.

Posted by NE PDX | September 16, 2007 4:14 PM

"saddam was not actively committing genocide in 2003, we didn't intervene to halt his everyday brutalism. so what are you trying to tell us? we really would like to know....-howard

Well, he was still executing and torturing political opponents routinely. And the fact that he had, as you concede, committed genocide in the past certainly indicated that he might do so in the future.

As to whether the Bush intervened in Iraq partly for humanitarian reasons, I can't say for sure. You might think that you have some special insight into the private thoughts of the President and his top advisers, I couldn't possiby comment on that. What I do know is what they said, which is that they intervened for three reasons: 1) The weapons stockpiles (they believed Saddam had), 2) The ties to terrorist groups (again that they believed he had) and 3) Saddam's "criminal treatment of his own people," to quote Paul Wolfowitz.

Now, because reasons one and two turned out to be much less compelling than the Bush administration had thought, the war seems to me to have been a strategic error. So it isn't my intention to justify what I believe was a bad decision.

I just mean to question the sanctimony of those who oppose the war on moral grounds as opposed to strategic grounds. If you consider it immoral to remove a genocidal tyrant from power, then your moral code is a strange one indeed. Presumably you would have opposed any attack on Nazi Germany too.

Posted by Isocrates | September 16, 2007 4:22 PM

isocrates, if you don't understand the term "everyday brutalism," i'm sorry for you. i didn't frickin' CONCEDE that saddam committed genocide in the past (although you might bother to understand the circumstances under which he did, lest you say stupid things like that "certainly indicated that he might do so in the future," a complete irrelevancy to boot); i noted it. it was never a question.

meanwhile, if you're not trying to justify a stratgegically stupid decision, don't play little games about what wolfowitz said: he wasn't a policymaker. that wasn't the basis upon which the war was justified. the idea that you should now intervene (meaning in 2003) in iraq as a response to past genocide is just plain stupid.

as for your final pargraph: you really don't know anything, do you? you can take your misguided notion of "my" moral code and shove it, you little dimwit (how dare you declare that i would have opposed an attack on nazi germany as though such a point has anything to do with this conversation: what a little asswipe you are): there is no discussion here of opposing the war on moral grounds (although, indeed, there is a highly moral case to be made that attacking without a causus belli is an immoral action). the war is a failure precisely because it had no strategic rationale.

it continues on, killing thousands of iraqis on a regular basis, for no strategic outcome. that's what makes the deaths so appalling and hard to respond to.

as someone noted above, apparently you're trying to qualify as a big-league troll. you're off to a good start making pathetic arguments, that's for damn sure.

Posted by howard | September 16, 2007 4:32 PM

what a little asswipe you are...-howard

I can see what qualifies on this blog as rational and civilized discourse. I myself have a higher standard. But I suppose if you don't have any substantive arguments to offer, its only natural to resort to expletives and incoherent rants.

I stand by what I wrote. The invasion of iraq was very likely a strategic error, but it does opponents of the war no credit to impugn the motives of the people who decided to go to war, nor to engage in sanctimonious posturing concerning the deaths that have occurred since the invasion while saying little or nothing about those who died at Saddam's hand.

Posted by Isocrates | September 16, 2007 4:45 PM

Iso, you are an immoral moron but don't let that stop you from being rational and civilized.

Posted by Jennifer | September 16, 2007 5:11 PM

If you consider it immoral to remove a genocidal tyrant from power, then your moral code is a strange one indeed.

If you think that removing a genocidal tyrant is moral, regardless of what other consequences that action may have, then it is your moral code that needs some work.

The point that everyone on this thread is making, and which you are trying hard to avoid, is that the invasion of Iraq did far more harm than good, in humanitarian terms. That isn't sanctimony, that's moral sanity.

Posted by Biff | September 16, 2007 5:38 PM

I'am relieved to see that Matthew got over the denial phase*, and starts to elaborate his grief.

Unfortunately, not every commenter is so advanced.

*: Psst Matthew,instead of 728.000, try 1 Mio. 7 number figure. I know, it is hard. But you can do it.

Posted by cassandra | September 16, 2007 6:00 PM

J.Ellenberg, Mike: I used a log scale because that's the only way of getting both series on one chart - the gap between the IBC and the surveys is just too wide for a linear scale.

The four data points from the surveys do show a clear trend - just because I didn't plot a line doesn't mean the trend isn't there. And it's obviously qualitatively the same trend as the partial IBC measure, only at a higher level.

If you imagine Iraq as a one-sector economy whose product is chaos, it's been growing steadily since March 2003 at a clip of about 24% per annum. (I fitted this figure just now to the IBC data by trial and error, not a regression, but so what - you can redo it from the spreadsheet).

Posted by James Wimberley | September 16, 2007 6:16 PM

I. "Iso, you are an immoral moron..."-Jennifer

Oh, Jen, sometimes it is amusing to exchange wit with the witless, but I'm not in the mood at the moment.

II. "The point that everyone on this thread is making, and which you are trying hard to avoid, is that the invasion of Iraq did far more harm than good, in humanitarian terms. That isn't sanctimony, that's moral sanity."-Biff

I myself agree that the Iraq war was a mistake and that, so far at any rate, the consequences have not been positive on balance. I think that's quite different from arguing that the war was immoral (not everyone accepts consequentialism--in fact I think most do not).

I was also noticing that there are many who are upset when George Bush's decisions result in deaths, but not when Fidel Castro's or Robert Mugabe's do. If someone is an honest humanitarian and is upset about all human suffering that's fine, but if that person is instead just using the deaths of Iraqis to score political points against President Bush, that's not fine.

Finally, it's interesting that many of the same people who criticize the Bush administration for not considering the consequences of invading Iraq are themselves arguing for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences. Barak Obama, for example, recently said he doesn't think we should remain in Iraq, even if withdrawing will result in massive bloodshed. The story is here: Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide

Does this strike you as moral way to look at foreign policy: "To hell with the Iraqis, we're getiin' out." It doesn't strike me as particularly moral or noble. But then perhaps you will teach me otherwise.

P. S.: For Howard and Jennifer, consequentialism is defined here: SEP Consequentialism.

Posted by Isocrates | September 16, 2007 6:33 PM

There is Iso Iso, the creppy lying troll trolling. Lie on creepy Iso Iso troll. Do not flatter yourself that I bother to read troll morons once spotted. Lie on Iso troll.

Posted by Jennifer | September 16, 2007 6:52 PM

Bye, bye, sick sick Iso Iso.

Posted by Jennifer | September 16, 2007 6:55 PM

I think that's quite different from arguing that the war was immoral (not everyone accepts consequentialism--in fact I think most do not).

It's not different. Yes, it's a consequentialist argument. Upon hearing an argument based on a different moral theory than the one you espouse, do you always label it "sanctimony" and then question the arguer's sincerity?

I was also noticing that there are many who are upset when George Bush's decisions result in deaths, but not when Fidel Castro's or Robert Mugabe's do.

By "noticing" you mean "imagining". This thread isn't about Castro or Mugabe. I haven't heard you denounce Pinochet recently - I guess that must make you an insincere humanitarian, eh?

If someone is an honest humanitarian and is upset about all human suffering that's fine, but if that person is instead just using the deaths of Iraqis to score political points against President Bush, that's not fine.

So, in other words, you have "some special insight into the private thoughts" (to use your words, above) of the posters here that tells you what their real motivation for being upset about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is.

Finally, it's interesting that many of the same people who criticize the Bush administration for not considering the consequences of invading Iraq are themselves arguing for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences. Barak Obama, for example, recently said he doesn't think we should remain in Iraq, even if withdrawing will result in massive bloodshed. The story is here: Obama: Don’t stay in Iraq over genocide

False. Read your own link:

“There’s no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there.”

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

“It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions,” he said.

Posted by Biff | September 16, 2007 6:57 PM

When they kill hundreds of thousands they are immoral monsters. When we kill hundreds of thousands it was a strategic error.

Posted by john | September 16, 2007 7:09 PM

As to whether the Bush intervened in Iraq partly for humanitarian reasons, I can't say for sure.

Well, HRW explained, at length, why Iraq didn't meet the criteria of a humanitarian intervention, and given that argument against the assertions of a trolling asswipe, I'm obliged to prefer that view.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 16, 2007 7:16 PM

Of course, BushCheney et al can be prosecuted for war crimes after they leave Washington.

Har har.

Once again: BushCheney et al can be prosecuted for war crimes after they leave Washington.

Maybe if its repeated enough times it will become true.

Posted by Monty | September 16, 2007 7:36 PM

"Yes, it's a consequentialist argument."

Well, Biff, consequentialism has some serious problems. If, for example, Sam tries to poison Betty, but misreads the labels on the bottles and ends up giving her a salutary tonic instead, a consequentialist would have to call that a moral act. That's the sort of absurdity that results when you ignore intent and focus exclusively on consequences.

"By 'noticing' you mean 'imagining'. This thread isn't about Castro or Mugabe."

No, I don't know what the people on this thread truly believe, and I never claimed to know. I do know, though, that there are a lot of people around the world who angrily denounce George W. Bush for human rights abuses, yet make apologies for the likes of Castro, Assad, Chavez and Achmadinejad (perhaps you are not one of them). Former Democratic Congressman Joe Kennedy is one clear example. Nancy Pelosi might be another, since she decided to meet with Assad and called the road to Damascus "a road to peace"--a statement the Washington post declared "ludicrous," reminding her that:

Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri.-WPO, 4/5/07

Unfortunately, Ms. Pelosi has had much harsher words for President Bush than she did for the thuggish Assad.

Posted by Isocrates | September 16, 2007 7:38 PM

"If you consider it immoral to remove a genocidal tyrant from power, then your moral code is a strange one indeed."

So what you're suggesting is that Russia, Britain, and the rest of NATO invade the US, bomb Washington and the rest of the country into the Stone Age, kill a million US citizens, and arrest and hang Bush and Cheney?

That about it?

Yeah, I wouldn't advocate that at the local VFW meeting, either.

Christ, what a nitwit. People like this are why Bush got elected, the Iraq war started, the Iran war WILL start, and this country is doomed.

Total uneducated morons incapable of reasoning.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 16, 2007 8:04 PM

And what is MUCH worse, the jerk is morally sanctimonious about it, while accusing everyone else of being sanctimonious!

You can't get more scumbag than that - except by actually being Bush and getting people killed!

At least this clown is just some lame blog poster.

Fuck him. He's not worth responding to.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 16, 2007 8:10 PM

isocrates, while you clearly think you're some kind of clever, advanced savant, you are merely yet another tedious right-wing graduate of propaganda u, and some of us have been putting up with the kind of crap you spew for 5 long years now. i, for one, have no patience left for idiotic arguments of the sort you make; nor, for that matter, should anyone who accuses someone else of being objectively pro-hitler attempt to don the mantle of an exponent of civilized discourse.

the giveaway - above and beyond your general mode of discourse - is that immediately after your questioning the "sanctimony" of people who aren't bringing up your irrelevant points you claim that you say you never claimed to know what people on this thread truly believe.

your seem to think your wornout arguments have some merit. they don't.

you seem to think your decontextualized and or incompletely cited examples of whatever you think they are examples of are sensible. they aren't.

you seem to think we give a good god-damn if someone like you has decided that the war was an error. given, despite your pretensions, that you are among the witless, we don't.

in short, there is nothing you have typed here that demonstrates any special insight into anything: not morals, not morality, not national security strategy, not anyone else posting here. but i'm sure you're damn impressed with yourself for being so ignorant (the pelosi material you cite being a marvelous example of your lack of knowledge about anything of relevance).

Posted by howard | September 16, 2007 8:12 PM

Sam tries to poison Betty, but misreads the labels on the bottles and ends up giving her a salutary tonic instead, a consequentialist would have to call that a moral act..

Nonsense. Did you even read the link you condescendingly gave to howard and Jennifer? Calling that a "moral act" means nothing more than that Betty benefitting is a good thing. It does not mean that the act was ethical, and no non-straw person thinks it does.

The foreseeable consequence of poisoning Betty is her death. That makes the act unethical. The foreseeable consequence of invading Iraq (predicted by, for example, Dick Cheney in 1991) was a civil war.

No, I don't know what the people on this thread truly believe, and I never claimed to know.

No, you just asked whether they minded Saddam's genocides or would have approved of fighting Nazis. You're enough of a weasel that you simply imply egregious insults while maintaining the affectation of interest in civil discourse.

I do know, though, that there are a lot of people around the world who angrily denounce George W. Bush for human rights abuses, yet make apologies for the likes of Castro, Assad, Chavez and Achmadinejad (perhaps you are not one of them).

Which has nothing to do with this thread. This is why people are calling you a troll.

Unfortunately, Ms. Pelosi has had much harsher words for President Bush than she did for the thuggish Assad.

So what? Do you actually think Pelosi approves of Assad's government? Or, just maybe, that she knows that you have to negotiate with bad people sometimes to avoid worse (wait for it) consequences? Quick, for whom has George Bush had harsher words: congressional Democrats, or Vladimir Putin?

Posted by Biff | September 16, 2007 8:38 PM

I've noticed that quite a few of the absolute worst neoconized right-wing dimwits choose to adopt pompous Classical Greek pseudonyms.

Perhaps it's because they never managed to complete high school and are seeking some sort of psychological compensation...

Posted by RKU | September 16, 2007 8:40 PM

"Fuck him. He's not worth responding to."-RW Hack

The aptly named Mr Hack says that people like me are why Bush got elected, the Iraq war started, the Iran war will start and the country is doomed. Well, I did vote for Bush in 2004, though I have found him somewhat disappointing. I've never been enthusiastic about invading either Iraq or Iran. About Iran specifically, I don't pretend to know what should be done. Neither diplomacy nor military intervention seems promising.

Precisely because I don't think I have all the answers I like to read widely, including blogs. The comments on this blog have been disappointing though. I had hoped for both amusement and enlightenment--at least I got the former.

Yet I have learned something. There are a lot of people--maybe especially on the left--who want to shout down and insult anyone who disagrees them. So were all crooks, fools and liars. Go on thinking that complacently ye last men--and blink.

Posted by Isocrates | September 16, 2007 9:00 PM

"Go on thinking that complacently ye last men--and blink."

uh, iso?

are you sure you're not trying too hard to be josh "tacky" trevino?

i mean, he was a laugh riot, too, a few years ago, before his meds got out of balance.

all those hilariously pretentious sayings. all that stilted syntax. and all of those hopeless uninformed knee-jerk opinions.

i mean, i guess if that's your model then you're doing a pretty good job.

but--honestly--aren't you still showing that your wing-nut fashion sense is lamentably out of date?

"Go on thinking that complacently ye last men--and blink."

oh god--too funny. too rich.

Posted by kid bitzer | September 16, 2007 9:11 PM

In 4 years of the US Civil War, we had a population of 27 million - roughly analogous to Iraq. We had major battles, cities burning, mass graves in cities and cholera plagues galore and 660,000 killed or dead of war-related disease. Everyone knew where the bodies were. The slaughter was apparant to all.

Nothing approximates that in Iraq. 7/8ths of the country is free of the slaughter that impacts at most 6 million Iraqis out of 26 million. Most in urban areas where bodies are hard to ignore, where the "wounded" stats collected at hospitals in now way matches the concocted death numbers of the Brit pacifists.
It's just Lefty researchers suborning science to get Iraqi data gatherers to tell them what they want to hear.
Lancet, America's John Hopkins, and Brit Lefty science appear to be positioned to take huge hits when the actual numbers are known. Perverting science for advancement of ideology. A democidal Lysenkoism, if you will.

In addition, the Lefty causal chain saying Americans invaded and "responsible" for all Islamoid violence is like saying that Germany's invasion of Russia in WWI is the root cause of the mass slaughter the Communist Jews and Russians visited on the Soviet Union of some 30 million, and conversely, the COMITERN program of transnational revolution was responsible for the rise of Fascists and the 25 million deaths they caused.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 17, 2007 12:44 AM

Chris Ford-- I think we would look at the Civil War dead a bit differently if they were the consequence, of say, an invasion by the British, having practically no plan for the occupation, effectively installing a government that didn't work, allowing lawlessness everywhere, and if the predominant number of people killed were civilians, not military. Then we would look at that war a bit differently then, no?

As for the "Lysenkoism", unless you have something specific to back you up other than simple bombast, I'll take the Johns Hopkins' word over yours--just like I take the IPCC and NAS's word over the crackpot denialists that I see spouting off in climate change threads.

Posted by JJ | September 17, 2007 7:13 AM

"Islamoid"

Chris Ford, completely nutso bastard showing what it is to be a racist creep. Join Iso, Racist Chrissy.

Posted by Jennifer | September 17, 2007 11:17 AM

Chris Ford, professional racist hate-monger.

Posted by Jennifer | September 17, 2007 11:18 AM

When do we get to retire Godwin's Law?

Is one million enough, or do we have to reach 6 million victims, a full Hitler, if I may propose that as the unit by which genocide should be measured, before it becomes possible to warn that maybe, just maybe, we may be getting just a tad Fourth Reichish right here in this land of the free and home of the brave?

Posted by Glen Tomkins | September 18, 2007 12:19 AM