December 12, 2003

LEFT NOT RIGHT

Andrew Bolt reviews pre-war predictions:

Greens leader Bob Brown, for example, said more than 100,000 children would be killed, and the Australian Sociological Association, in a letter signed by 300 notables, warned of a "probable loss of 100,000 civilians".

But the most detailed attempt to "imagine failure" was made a year ago by the Medical Association for Prevention of War, in a report endorsed by Labor's president, Carmen Lawrence.

"Total possible deaths on all side during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000," it said. "Civil war . . . could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used, the death toll could reach 3,900,000."

Add to this the million refugees predicted by the UN, the environmental holocaust predicted by the Greens, and the famine, riots, soaring petrol prices and explosion of the entire Middle East predicted by so many other apocalyptics.

And none of it happened.

Poor confused people. They deserve our pity.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 12, 2003 01:22 PM
Comments

It's more like they deserve a painful shot of reality.

Posted by: bnoury at December 12, 2003 at 01:40 PM

That's quite possibly the best Bolt article I've ever read, and that's saying something.

Posted by: gaz at December 12, 2003 at 02:10 PM

Andrew Bolt writes:

"Total possible deaths on all side during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000"

So what was the total death count for all sides, then, if this figure of at least 48,000 is wrong? I've heard a few wild claims, but is there a reasnoable estimate available?

Posted by: Jethro at December 12, 2003 at 02:40 PM

I guess next they will accuse coalition forces of raising the dead. Well why not, as it is consistant with their expectations.

Posted by: Charles at December 12, 2003 at 03:16 PM

Let's not bicker and argue over who predicted how many deaths. The important thing to remember is that those predictions were metaphors...or puns. No, they were palindromes!

Posted by: timks at December 12, 2003 at 03:32 PM

Jesus Christ you people are stupid. We were only going on the estimates YOUR LEADERS LIED ABOUT.
Get it? If you hadn't had LIED about the threat of WMD's in the first place, then nobody would have said things like: 'children will die.'
Do you get it?
And where are those 'children killing' weapons of mass destruction anyway?

Posted by: Jack at December 12, 2003 at 04:40 PM

BTW Tim-
Miranda must be really getting under your horrible, scaly reptilian skin skin if you decided to delete his posts, 'just for fun' as you say in your usual 'I'm a sewer creature lurking under the skin of a nice guy' routine.

Posted by: jack at December 12, 2003 at 04:45 PM

No Tim, total deaths in Iraq easily exceeded 260,000. And then the conflict came and Saddam's murderous sausage grinder of a regime came to a non-grinding halt.

Why doesn't each new mass grave merit as much Big Media attention as each individual soldier killed today?

Posted by: charles austin at December 12, 2003 at 05:45 PM

Yes Jack, Saddam Hussein never, ever used WMD's and would never have dreamed of doing so. He was a kind hearted, gentle and yes, even a lovely man who is a great loss to his country and indeed the world.

And Tim, if your skin really is "horrible, scaly and reptilian" there are many wonderful lotions out there. Maybe your skin can even one day be as golden and as soft as Jack's.

Posted by: gaz at December 12, 2003 at 05:48 PM

jack's point re: predictions made on information available is on point.

the combined military might of the west's cowboys & cowgirls was going in to wrestle WMD out of Iraq as i recall the soft soap. i'm no militarian, but were the nukerler & chemical weapons facts accurate, it may have been an unholy mess.

consequently, the figures of casualties may have approached the 6 figure predictions.

i'll just get onto bolty, and have him take recalibrated figures based on the actual reality facing the coalition upon entry to Iraq. he's a man that hates to see the goalposts moved.

should have that in next weeks's column,

Posted by: chico o'farrill at December 12, 2003 at 07:31 PM

Jack got reeeeal purty skin. Real purty mouth too. I bet he liek to sqeal like a pig.

Posted by: Amos at December 12, 2003 at 08:00 PM

Reasonable calculations that I've seen indicate that there are 17,000 more people alive today than would have been had Saddam been allowed to continue his normal practices.

That seems to be a conservative estimate, as more and more mass graves are found...

Posted by: Parker at December 12, 2003 at 11:01 PM

You're all missing the point. It's all about the OIIIIIIIIIIILL

Posted by: Osamas Psychotic Proctologist at December 12, 2003 at 11:32 PM

"Jesus Christ you people are stupid. We were only going on the estimates YOUR LEADERS LIED ABOUT.
Get it? If you hadn't had LIED about the threat of WMD's in the first place, then nobody would have said things like: 'children will die."

I love it when a loser tries to spin the dumbshit his way.

Posted by: Harry at December 13, 2003 at 12:27 AM

Amos must be from Georgia. Anyway, the leftists should be reminded that since they know best about any given subject, why in the world would they use estimates from that lyin' sack a' shit Dubya?
Tim, if you have a Wal-Mart there, I recommend Udder Balm as a satisfactory emollient for that reptilian dermis.

Posted by: Doc at December 13, 2003 at 12:46 AM

I think Doc is referring to 'Bag Balm' - used by dairy farmers on their cows with chafed udders, and then discovered by women as a soothing skin cream.

Tim, tell us - are your udders chafed?

Posted by: Parker at December 13, 2003 at 01:33 AM

too many Jacks--or jacks--and those other jacks are real morons.

And why is it "YOUR LEADERS"? As I recall, a good lot of the 'Iraq's got WMDs' crap came from the UN inspectors who dragged their feet and obfuscated and occasionally managed to find WMDs BEFORE the war.

Or am I the only one who remembers forbidden tech coming to light in tiny drib and drabs?

Posted by: jack at December 13, 2003 at 06:58 AM

Yes, you've been exposed to--the truth!!!! Oh no!

Posted by: Big Dog at December 13, 2003 at 12:02 PM

Lefty Jack, are you aware that absolute inability to say "Yes, we were completely wrong about the casualty estimates and this is how I think it happened" followed by something that makes sense is the biggest reason people are tuning into Fox and tuning you out?

Posted by: John Nowak at December 13, 2003 at 05:48 PM

The interesting bit here is that the "they lied" crowd never mentions Chirac, de Villepin, Schroder, and Fischer. I mean, those four repeatedly said before the war that Iraq had WMDs. They're in countries with their own independent intelligence services. They opposed the war. Why did they lie?

There are only three possible answers, of course. They didn't lie and in Iraq today there are stockpiles of WMDs; they didn't lie and were mistaken about Iraqi WMDs; or they lied to help make the case for a war they publically opposed.

If we accept either of the first two explanations, there's no reason to assume they don't apply to Bush, Blair, or Howard; the "they lied" is the shrill cry of partisans out for blood, not a reasonable opinion. If it was the third, then France and Germany deliberately, intentionally, and actively engaged in a deception operation that killed Coalition troops.

So which is it? Did Bush, Blair, and Howard tell the truth as they best knew it, or are Chirac and Schroder co-murderers of Americans, Australians, and British citizens?

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at December 13, 2003 at 08:22 PM

Jack says "we were only going on the estimates your leaders lied about." He admits that the "antiwar" crowd, apparently including himself, believed in the existence of large stocks of wmds also. So Bush and Blair were merely repeating what practically everybody believed. How then does that make them "liars"?

Posted by: doyned at December 14, 2003 at 02:32 PM