Slashdot Mirror

Could you be more specific?

Are you talking about the 1,000,000+ casualties when Saddam invaded Iran in 1980?

Or are you talking about the 300,000-400,000 casualties of Saddam's war on the Iraqi people?

Or are you talking about the 20,000 - 35,000 casualties when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990?

Or are you talking about the the 14,000 - 17,000 counted at Iraqibodycount which is a one time cost to stop Saddams murderous regime?

Or are you talking about the ... "creative" numbers in that now famous Lancet article? It is really amazing. The United States has a mortality rate of 8.5/1,000 whereas they found Iraq had a mortality rate of 5/1,000 before the war (p. 4, results) which they used to "calculate" a total of 8,000 to 194,000 excess deaths with the "most likely" value of 98,000. (Check out those confidence intervals.) Some find those numbers fishy, or simply unrealistic.

Do you care about the millions that Saddam killed? If so, don't worry, he won't be killing anymore.

Doofus. Kerry lost. Get over it.

Please read this article
Hardly a right wing publication.

For those who won't click to read it, it says -

Still Raging Against the Machines
Debunking another election conspiracy theory.
By Josh Levin

In response to my piece on election conspiracy theories, many readers have asked about supposed irregularities in Florida counties that use optical-scan voting machines. In Baker County, where 69 percent of registered voters identify as Democrats, 77 percent of voters went for Bush. Dixie County: 78 percent registered Democrats, 69 percent for Bush. Franklin County: 77 percent registered Dems, 59 percent for Bush. Holmes County: 73 percent registered Dems, 77 percent for Bush. (USTogether.org has more charts and graphs of this data here and here.)

These are just the most egregious examples. If we trust the exit polls, about 90 percent of voters nationwide vote based on party affiliation. That means that, according to USTogether's calculations, if Floridians voted according to party affiliation in the state's 52 optical-scan counties, the GOP would lose about 600,000 votes--perhaps not enough to swing the election, but a huge number nonetheless. The theory goes that since all eyes were on the counties with new touch-screen machines, it would be far easier to futz with the numbers in the less-scrutinized optical-scan counties. Optical-scan machines are used to count paper ballots, and the results are then fed into a computer. If someone could hack into the computer, they could surreptitiously change the vote count.

The big problem with this theory is that this year's results match those from 2000. (And with the exception of Dixie, which used punch cards in 2000, all of these counties used optical-scan machines four years ago.) In 2000, Baker County had 83 percent registered Democrats, and 69 percent of the county's voters went for Bush. Dixie County had 86 percent registered Democrats, and 58 percent went for Bush. Franklin County: 81 percent registered Dems, 53 percent for Bush. Holmes County: 83 percent registered Dems, 68 percent for Bush. (For complete 2000 results in Florida by county, look here. For 2000 results as compared to voter registrations, look here.)

While each of these counties had a lower percentage of Bush voters in 2000 than in 2004, the 2000 election was much closer than this one. Each of these counties also appears to be moving toward the GOP. In all four, there is a lower percentage of registered Democrats and a higher percentage of registered Republicans in 2004 than in 2000.

Of course, you could argue that this similarity to the 2000 results just points to an even bigger conspiracy. But that's a bit, well, crazy. Take a look at the geography: All four counties are either in Florida's panhandle--known by some as the Redneck Riviera--or the northern part of the state. Like their neighbors in Georgia and Alabama, northern Florida voters tend to be very conservative. Baker, Dixie, Franklin, and Holmes counties are represented in the House by two Republicans and a Blue Dog Democrat who lists his No. 1 issue as "Second Amendment rights." Democratic registrations here are more an artifact of history than evidence of massive fraud.

Update, Nov. 10, 2004: For a thorough debunking of the Florida op-scan conspiracy based on an examination of 28 counties in the 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential elections, check out Yevgeny Vilensky's analysis here. Also, it seems there's not much to another alleged scandal that readers have been asking about--Keith Olbermann's report that there were 93,000 more ballots cast than registered voters in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. You can find an explanation for the supposed disparity here.

You might benefit if you widen your reading list a little.

There are some issues with how that 100k number was obtained and reported.

And Fox news isn't the only one reporting numbers that greatly differ from that 100k. But surely you know that, right?

By the way... when that same AP story is published by Fox, is it automatically suspect because it is on Fox? Or does Fox have to be the only one reporting the story to make it suspect? Could it be that you would benefit if you watched more Fox news? I'm going to bet yes.

Have a look at those confidence levels. Yup, 95%. That is, a one in twenty chance that the effect simply does not exist. Look at the relative risk ratios (leave out Falluja; I don't think anyone is really very surprised to see a higher mortality rate there): 1.1-2.3. It isn't just that it is an absurdly wide one (note, a relative risk ratio of 1 would mean no effect whatsoever) it is that if this paper was written to generally accepted statistical standards it would never have been published. With a 95% confidence level a relative risk ratio of anything less than three is regarded as statistically insignificant. Just to clarify that, by "insignificant" no one is stating that it is not important to those people who undoubtedly have been killed during the War. What is being said is that we don't have enough information to be able to say anything meaningful about it. "Statistically insignificant" means "we don't know".

In effect, what has been found in this paper is nothing. Nada. Zip.

Except of course that one of the two leading medical journals in the world has published a piece of shoddy research four days before the US elections with the obvious motive of influencing them. Sad, that, and my apologies as an Englishman that it should be one of my countrymen who did such a thing.

Hmm, at 200 thousand per-year, he'd run out of people pretty soon.

The problem is you are using bad numbers as you can see here and here.

You can start getting a better handle on the numbers here and here.

The AP's survey was not a comprehensive compilation of the nationwide death toll, but was a sampling intended to assess the levels of violence. Figures for violent deaths in the months before the war showed a far lower rate.

That doesn't mean Iraq is a more dangerous place than during Saddam Hussein's regime. At least 300,000 people were murdered by security forces and buried in mass graves during the dictator's 23-year rule, U.S. officials say, and human rights workers put the number closer to 500,000.

"We cannot compare the situation now with how it was before," Nouri Jaber al-Nouri, inspector general of the Interior Ministry, said recently. "Iraqis used to fear everything. ... But now, despite all that is happening, we feel safe."
--
In Baghdad, a city of about 5.6 million, 4,279 people were recorded killed in the 12 months through April 30, according to figures provided by Kais Hassan, director of statistics at Baghdad's Medicolegal Institute (search), which administers the city's morgues.
---
U.S. forces have records for the numbers of claims for compensation from Iraqis for personal injury, deaths of family members, or for property damage caused by U.S. military action in "non-combat" situations.

Some $3 million has been paid to about 5,000 claimants, American officials said last month. About 8,000 claims had been rejected and 3,000 were pending, they said.

The officials declined to provide a breakdown of the figures to show how many claims were for deaths. They also said a single incident involving U.S. forces could lead to multiple compensation claims.
---
The human rights organization Amnesty International (search), based in London, estimated in March that more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed "as a direct result of military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation."

"This figure is an estimate as the authorities are unwilling or unable to catalogue killings," the group said in a statement.

There are no precise estimates for deaths during last year's invasion.

The Associated Press conducted a major investigation of wartime civilian casualties, documenting the deaths of 3,240 civilians from March 20 to April 20, 2003.

That investigation, conducted last May and June, was based on a survey of about half of Iraq's hospitals, and counted only those deaths for which hospitals had good documentation. The report concluded the real number of civilian deaths was sure to be much higher.

10-20k killed seems likely. 30k - 40k, maybe. 100k? I doubt it.

The Iraqis as a people are much better off this year.

Yeah, right. +1, Insightful.

I think so. Think of it. No more UN imposed sanctions. Saddam's mass murdering regime is no longer filling mass grave

I also find it surprising that Florida was so clearly for Bush given how tight it was last time. (Maybe retirees care more about terrorism and Iraq than I thought?)

Much of Ohio uses Diebold voting machines, which leave no paper trail. Early in the campaign, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell, a GOP fundraiser, promised to deliver Ohio to Bush. :(

Question: If someone committed fraud, would it be better to make it a decisive victory in order to avoid scrutiny?

These guys should start with the big counties in states such as Florida and Ohio that seemed to turn out contrary to prediction.

I will say that it is a more-than-slight slap in the face against most Bush supporters in that it is implicitly suggesting that there are two types of Bush supporters. There are those who support the President because they are "simple" (i.e. not intelligent) like he is and there are those who support Bush because they know that he isn't really running the show and they support his handlers.

Slate.com has promised to release raw exit polls regardless of what the rest of the US media giants are doing.

This may be the case, but here'swhy they may simply refuse to hear an election appeal.

I thought it was interesting...

-bs

Dammit slashdot!! You killed everyone's favorite election predictor site! Oh well, http://www.slate.com/ has a good map, similar to http://www.electoral-vote.com/. Let's see if MSN's servers are any better.

Well said. I will offer a few things.

You are correct about Bin Laden and the Palestinians.

Regarding the claims of 100,000 Iraqis being killed, it is at best, very misleading, and at worst junk science. But hey, at least the Lancet editor rushed it through the peer review process to what... maybe effect the elections? That sort of thing helps shore up your confidence in the science.

Actually the Jihadists will not ultimately be satisfied with just an isolated United States. In their view even the United States must answer the demand of: Islam or death! Read Bin Laden's letter to America. In it you will see that his first actual demand is that the United States convert to Islam. His second demand, when fleshed out, is that we abandon the separation of church and state, impose Islamic Sharia law, and enforce its morality code, etc.. You have already touched upon the implications of that: death for any who commits adultery, death for homosexuals, no more drugs or alcohol, no immorality, pornography, etc. Bin Laden says that if we don't meet his demands, they will keep killing us. Just dropping support for Israel won't do it either. We have to become an Islamic nation under Sharia, or else.

The people that think we were attacked because we "stick our noses where they don't belong", or didn't sign this or that treaty are clueless about what this war is really about, and what it will take to keep us safe.

For what its worth, Slate suggests the civilian death toll is closer to 8 thousand.

And here's some left leaning blogs that seem to agree: Marc Cooper and Matthew Yglesias
Honestly, that is a huge variation in numbers, and I'm not sure who to believe.
But I suspect it will be difficult to argue that Iraqi civilians were less likely to die in the long term under Sadaam. So, if you choose that route, good luck to you.

Slate, not exactly a publication known for supporting the war in Iraq, suggests this number is probably closer to 8 thousand.
And these two: Marc Cooper and Matthew Yglesias, anti-war types from the left, seem to agree.

Full disclosure, I got this from Instapundit.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference?the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period?signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English?which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language?98,000?is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.

Aside from that being rather absurd of a statement in general, the 100,000 math is off.
http://slate.com/id/2108887/

it's pretty accurate to characterize these deaths as being the result of American acts.

It's pretty inacurate to characterize so many deaths though. To quote the study, "We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period." That means that there is a 95% chance that somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 Iraqis have died because of Americans. 98,000 just happens to be the middle point in this horribly imprecise study. Read more.

Deaths were estimated at 98,000, but Slate points out that the 95% confidence interval on this estimate is 8,000-194,000 deaths. In other words, they are 95% sure that the true number of dead lies in this range. This estimate excludes surveys in Fallujah.

Not exactly precision estimates, you'll notice. The other critical thing pointed out by the Slate article is that this calculation tries to get at the number of deaths due to the invasion by factoring out the normal death rate. However, the Lancet study may have significantly underestimated the average Iraqi's chances of death before the invasion. For instance, if I say that 5 people would have died without the invasion, and we know that 10 people died, we know the invasion killed 5 people. BUT if my estimates says that 7 people would have died without the invasion and 10 died after an invasion, then the invasion has only killed 3 people.

Based on media reports, iraqbodycount.net estimates the (reported) deaths at 14181-16312. It is probably much higher than that, unless the media is doing a great job getting out there and reporting all the deaths. So who knows. It is probably higher than 15,000. Off by a factor of two, maybe at 30,000? Unfortunately its just about impossible to know.

It's still a tragedy regardless.

Probably because there's no points for second place in American democracy. Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote, and almost beat him in electoral votes, but the Democratic party has had little influence on the course of the nation the past four years. Think about it: ten million more Nader votes wouldn't have made as much difference as a few hundred more votes for Gore in Florida.

HOWEVER, there is an interesting story on Slate.com about trying to promote the agenda of progressive third parties without tipping things to Bush (http://www.slate.com/id/2108641/). The concept is called "vote pairing". The idea is that you get supporters of independents in swing states (Florida, Wisconsin) to connect online with Kerry voters in decided states (California, Utah, Texas) and they agree to swap votes: the independent voter will vote for Kerry in the swing state, and the Kerry voter will vote for the progressive(Nader/Cobb/Badnarik) in the secure state. The idea is that by working together, voters can vote against Bush where it matters and for a progressive where it won't throw things to Bush. The web the VotePair site is http://www.votepair.org/. Given how close the race was in 2000, it is conceivable that this could actually make a difference. So far, they have gotten a lot of interest from Kerry voters who would like to see their vote count in a swing state, but they don't have enough third party voters participating.

I don't think he would want Ashcroft's job if he's serious about pursuing his agenda of "oiling" free American markets: New York's Martin Act empowers the state's attorney general to subpoena any financial information and confront any business that has any business ties to New York--that's right, not just businesses situated in New York. You'll notice Spitzer very rarely takes his issues to the court and instead wields the threat of litigation to influence the targeted companies' stock prices and instigate institutional change.

More information:
From National Review
From today's Slate

Right, as I said before, only one of them actually served with John Kerry, the rest of them said they did, but didn't in any meaningful way. The people on John Kerry's boat have stood behind him. The claims have shown to either be unfalsiable (with claims along the lines of "although I don't know Kerry, I served with him and he can't be trusted"), or lies. The whole premise is stupid, complaining about his Purple Hearts. Take it up with the Navy, people. You can't issue yourself any purple hearts...

Beside, even Bush has (eventually) denounced the ads. You disagree with him?

Like I said, i knew you would go after Ben Barnes. He doesn't like Bush, perhaps because of what he already knows about him? The fact is, he was in a position to help, and said he did. If he doesn't like Bush now, perhaps it's because of what he witnessed before? That's a supposition, but so is your position.

For statistics about MacNeil / Lehrer see FAIR's analysis.

Also, please explain how the liberal media didn't show how weak the case for the Iraq was really was. Explain how the New York Times and the Washington Post had to apologize for, in essense, being a mouthpiece for Bush.

That's 1 electoral vote per every 262,000 people.

Those numbers are correct, but they don't tell the whole story. You're focusing on the ratio between population and electoral votes (which helps small states), but there's another important factor: winner-take-all allocation of those electoral votes.

WTA creates unfairness too, but it helps larger states. The math on it is harder to work through, but think about probabilities. The power of one person's vote is equal to the chance her single vote will tip the balance in that state, multiplied by the number of votes that state has. George Bush has a low chance of winning CA, but he still campaigns there, because if he were to somehow make it over the top, the Kerry campaign would be DEAD. There's no way they could come back from that 70-point hit.

All things considered, California votes have the most power, and Nevada the least, with Montana and Kansas down in the bottom 20%. That math is from Electoral College Primer 2000, although I'm copying the data from a Microsoft article.

In this context, "WMD" means anything that was prohibited by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement.

No. In the context GWB used to justify the Iraq invasion, WMD is something that poses a major threat to the USA. Nothing Iraq had qualifies. $500,000 spent in Austin TX could buy you better terrorist capabilities than they had.

Lots of radical leftists want to re-define the term so that "WMD" only means working nuclear bombs or whatever.

That's how Dubya choose to define it. But you're right, I've heard he may be secretly liberal after all.

Interesting series of articles on Slate regarding this:

"America's Worst College"

Let's choose our president by popular vote.

Why the "50 Floridas" argument is wrong.

Why the "no more majorities" argument is wrong.

Interesting series of articles on Slate regarding this:

"America's Worst College"

Let's choose our president by popular vote.

Why the "50 Floridas" argument is wrong.

Why the "no more majorities" argument is wrong.

Interesting series of articles on Slate regarding this:

"America's Worst College"

Let's choose our president by popular vote.

Why the "50 Floridas" argument is wrong.

Why the "no more majorities" argument is wrong.

The Bush video's opening white-on-black graphic says, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Next comes a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry.

one has to wonder whether airing such a controvercial movie on the eve of an election helps or hurts the political process by influencing the vote with last-minute emotions rather than thoroughly contemplation."
As opposed to the recent speeches at the RNC?
Zell Miller, who told lots of "Truths" (Propaganda that purports to be unbiased),
or the Terminator, who made that comment about girly men, now there is a thoughtful issue.

Personally, I would rather watch something where the bias has been admitted and is known.

Zell's falsehoods.

Well, I live in israel and we don't have PBS here (well, duh),

It might come on if you wait a bit. PBS (and also the BBC) lease their programs internationally, often to other government-sponsored stations. I've heard of 2 PBS shows airing in Israel (no idea what channel)

hm...now that I think of it, is it even legal to do that?

No, but that never stops anyone.

Microsoft has been selling the Liberal Media Center for years.

...didn't read the article...

Slate.com recommended dumping IE for Firefox: http://www.slate.com/id/2103152/ Salon also had a similar reaction, but isn't owned by Microsoft. Slate, however, may be on the block.

Unless the UNIX computer was his brain, the article makes no mention of his use an anagram finder...

At the top of the article is a small menu with days of the week. Click on 'Mon' or http://slate.com/id/2105210/entry/2105211/. Took me a bit to find it too.

Should we ban the big banner Hummer because its big

Actually, oversized SUVs are banned by weight limits in many residential areas, but the bans are not enforced.

or the solar power car that crashes into other vehicles due to a little bit of wind?

The only mention of wind is speculation by a local cop. But yes, smaller vehicles are more affected by wind - including motorcycles. Shall we ban them?

Today's Slate featured piece was by a black woman lawyer called Racist Like Me...it raises some interesting points about how the accusation of racism tends to be a conversation- (and thought-) stopper, and how as a culture we should probably be more engaged in this kind of discussion.

It's far from obvious that "Wall Street" wants Google to "fail" --- they're underwriting the Google IPO. Who do you think Morgan Stanley and CSFB are?

What's more, it's not obvious to everybody that Google's approach is necessarily motivated by helping individual investors (like the average Slashdot reader). For example, take Henry Blodget's recent column on Salon:

However, it's important to remember a few things. First, auctions are not a new IPO mechanism. They have been tried in numerous countries over the last 25 years (including the United States) and, in almost all cases, have been discarded in favor of the traditional American IPO method. Second, what's good for the company (high price) is often bad for investors (less upside). Third, those willing to pay the most for shares may not be those best qualified to evaluate their worth. Fourth, and relatedly, auctions are generally not better for individual investors (i.e., us). When individuals "win" auctions (e.g., get stock), it is often because they outbid professional investors who have better information and/or a better sense of value. In such cases, the future stock performance is usually lousy, and the "winners" end up losing.

A Dutch Auction doesn't necessarily kill the initial pop in a stock offering (there's an argument that it'll increase the value of Google's shares in the early days), and it doesn't cut the underwriters out of the action. They just keep the money they'd be doling out to cronies.

Finally, "do-no-evil" pledge or not, there are objective criticisms of the way Google is handling this IPO, and they aren't coming from Wall Street.

Personally, I wouldn't know the first thing about the true motivations behind Google's actions, but my totally uninformed take is that Google is doing an auction IPO just to be iconoclastic.

...And in Switzerland, La Tribune de Geneve scorned Armstrong as haughty and described the U.S Postal Service team's effort as "a typically American business that scorns humanity." It went on to chide the cancer survivor: "Mankind is not fond of those who gorge themselves on success without suffering and without showing compassion for their fellows."

Slate recently (June 30) had an article on how Mozilla's Firefox "trumps" Internet Explorer, which was enough to convince me to switch browsers.

It's an interesting read... the real selling point to me, frankly, wasn't the increased security (which I can get through a good firewall), but the TAB feature. The ability to open links as a tab within the current page is a true browser innovation for which there is no IE equivalent or patch.

The average consumer won't go looking for that article, and they know it.

Correct. Skip the direct article link and go straight to slate (ouch!) by typing www.slate.com into your web browser.

Even looking for it, it took me a while to find the headline. Finally I did. It says: "Webhead: Mozilla vs. the Explorer Monster," and it's accompanied by a picture of a plastic godzilla toy. Who the heck is gonna click on that?

HDTV is not worth spending you money right now.
Look at the GE TVs. They are cheap and will last until HDTV standards are stabilized.

Slate had a travel diary by a GeekCorps guy in Mongolia- seems they have a similar policy. IMO, a lot of third world countries have fairly unimaginative beauracracies..
He says (and I quote) "what's going wrong with Mongolia's Internet policy. Here's an example: In most parts of the world, the 2.4 ghz portion of the radio spectrum is set aside for unlicensed use by low-power, short-range devices--like Wi-Fi (aka 802.11b) wireless Internet cards and cordless telephones--without government permission. The result has been an astounding explosion in the deployment of wireless Internet connections, from home networks to the T-Mobile hotspot at each of the 17 Starbucks on your block. In Mongolia, however, the regulatory authority has ruled that companies and users must obtain official licenses (and pay costly licensing fees) to use the 2.4 ghz range for any purpose. Even to set up a wireless home network requires government permission and the payment of fees. This policy can best be described as bonkers."

Slate's Webhead reviews it here.

Actually, Microsoft-owned Slate Magazine is running an article claming that Theo deRaadt of OpenBSD has found a way to fix all buffer overflows. The journalist encourages Microsoft to copy it from BSD into Windows.

The record companies claimed that cassette tapes allowed easy "pirating" of music and evil thieves weren't buying records anymore.

However, sales climbed back up in the 80s, despite the fact that cassette tapes weren't outlawed. Jenkins theorizes that it was actually "personality-free" disco that convinced people to stop buying records. He then draws parallels between disco and today's "teen-pop".

Both are intellectually underachieving, cookie-cutter styles that have made stars of performers not known primarily for their skills as singers, songwriters, or musicians.

It's an insightful article. Definitely worth a read.

Personally, I was never a big music listener, but the RIAA has pretty much turned me off every buying a CD again.

...at the hilarious Dad Again series on Slate.

If you spot the "demonstrating genuine leadership" letter, send it to these folks who've listed 74 and climbing.

So head on over MSNBC and Slate since you won't be reading CNN or Time anymore.

One online magazine did all that? Now I know who to blame!

In any case, I'm not sure how far this return-to-the-mainframe idea will take us; we've had the technological framework for doing this for years -- think RPC, OpenStep's Distributed Objects, Sun's GRID engine -- but where's the real value to the department's bottom line?

I spent a number of years working on an extremely computationally-intense business process for the not-so-late, not-so-lamented WorldCom. For about half of that time, I was running the systems architecture and administration group, so performance management was a huge concern. We chewed up a lot of user time, but we were primarily hampered at every layer of the process by I/O (disk and network) and memory constraints. The same has been true of the accounting and provisioning systems I've worked with since then: the enterprise-level bottlenecks these days are things that can't be purchased on demand.

I'm sure there's a market for these kinds of services -- medical imaging, for example, though the network costs would be high -- but something to bet the Big Blue (computing) Farm on? I just don't see it. *shrug*

Google invents McNews

.ad afgjk uba dooba doo DRUDGE REPORT 2002
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers

WASH POST: Bush Admin Split over Iraq...

IRAQ 'CLOSE TO NUCLEAR BOMB GOAL'

Passive smoking can kill your cat... TIMEWARNER to charge flood victims for cable boxes... Archerd: Democrats seeking Hollywood money... Republicans will tie ANWR to Iraq; Say threat in Baghdad necessitates oil drilling in Alaska... Ventura Goofs On God... AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP ON THE HOUR
AP HEADLINES
AP BREAKING
SEARCH
Headline:
Date Range:
Within 14 Days Within 13 Days Within 12 Days Within 11 Days Within 10 Days Within 9 Days Within 8 Days Within 7 Days Within 6 Days Within 5 Days Within 4 Days Within 3 Days Within 2 Days Within 1 Day
Any word(s) in article:


ANANOVA
DOW JONES
BLOOMBERG
PAKISTAN WIRE
PAKISTAN BROADCASTING
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO WIRE
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
U.S. NEWSWIRE
WORLDWIRES
XINHUA ABC NEWS
AD AGE DEADLINE
BBC
BBC AUDIO
BILLBOARD
BOSTON GLOBE
BROADCASTING & CABLE
CBS NEWS
C-SPAN SCHEDULE
CHICAGO TRIB
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CNN
CNN TRANSCRIPTS
DAILY VARIETY
D.C. DAYBOOK
E!
ELECTRONIC MEDIA
EMERGENCY NET
ENT WEEKLY
FINANCIAL TIMES
FORBES MAG
FOX NEWS
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIB
HILL
H'WOOD REPORTER
HUMAN EVENTS
INSIGHT MAG
INVEST BUS DAILY
JERUSALEM POST
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW
LA DAILY NEWS
LA TIMES
LUCIANNE.COM
MEDIA CHECK
MEDIA LIFE
MSNBC
MUCHMUSIC
NATION
NATIONAL ENQUIRER
NATIONAL REVIEW
NEW REPUBLIC
NY DAILY NEWS
NY OBSERVER
NY POST
NY TIMES
NEW YORKER
NEWSBYTES
NEWSWEEK
N. KOREAN NEWS
PEOPLE MAG
R & R
REASON MAG
ROLL CALL
SKY NEWS
SLATE: PAPERS
STAR
TIME MAG
TV SHOPTALK
[U.K.] DAILY MIRROR
DAILY RECORD
[U.K.] EVENING STANDARD
[U.K.] EXPRESS
[U.K.] GUARDIAN
[U.K.] INDEPENDENT
[U.K.] NEWS OF THE WORLD
[U.K.] PEOPLENEWS
[U.K.] STAR
[U.K.] SUN
U.K. TABLOIDS
[U.K.] TELEGRAPH
[U.K.] TIMES
US NEWS
USA TODAY
VILLAGE VOICE
WASH POST
WASH TIMES
WEEKLY STANDARD
WORLDNETDAILY
UPDATE: Mob Kills 2 in Ill. After Van Crash... US Senate Fails to Pass Medicare Drug Plan... Agents leaving Border Patrol in droves, union says... French spa to host next G8 summit... GLASSMAN/HASSETT: Dow 36000 Revisited... MATT DRUDGE
3 AM GIRLS
CINDY ADAMS
ARMY ARCHERD
DAVE BARRY
MICHAEL BARONE
PETER BART
BOB BARTLEY
STEPHEN BATTAGLIO
MARILYN BECK/SMITH
BLANKLEY
GLORIA BORGER
L. BRENT BOZELL
BRESLIN
DAVID BRODER
PAT BUCHANAN
BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN
ELEANOR CLIFT
RICHARD COHEN
PAUL COLFORD
JOE CONASON
ANN COULTER
STANLEY CROUCH
MICHAEL DALY
LOU DOBBS
MAUREEN DOWD
STEVE DUNLEAVY
ROGER EBERT
JOSEPH FARAH
SUZANNE FIELDS
ARI FLEISCHER
MICHAEL FLEMING
ROGER FRIEDMAN
JOHN FUND
LEAH GARCHIK
BILL GERTZ
GEORGIE GEYER
JONAH GOLDBERG
ELLEN GOODMAN
MARTIN GROVE
LLOYD GROVE
PETE HAMILL
CARL HIAASEN
NAT HENTOFF
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
H'WOOD REPORTER E-MAIL
ARIANNA HUFFINGTON
INSIDE BELTWAY
INSIDE POLITICS
INSIDE THE RING
MOLLY IVINS
AL KAMEN
MICKEY KAUS
KEITH J. KELLY
MICHAEL KELLY
MICHAEL KINSLEY
HARRY KNOWLES
MORT KONDRACKE
KRAUTHAMMER
LARRY KUDLOW
HOWIE KURTZ
JOHN LEO
DAVID LIMBAUGH
RUSH LIMBAUGH
HAL LINDSEY
RICH LOWRY
MICHELLE MALKIN
CHRIS MATTHEWS
MARY MCGRORY
MICHAEL MEDVED
DICK MORRIS
PEGGY NOONAN
BOB NOVAK
OFF THE RECORD
KATE O'BEIRNE
MARVIN OLASKY
BILL O'REILLY
PAGE SIX
ANDREA PEYSER
JIM PINKERTON
JOHN PODHORETZ
TV PROGRAMMING INSIDER
WES PRUDEN
ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY
REX REED
RICHARD REEVES
J. MAX ROBINS
RICHARD ROEPER
RUSH/MOLLOY
BILL SAFIRE
SCHLAFLY
TOM SHALES
GAIL SHISTER
LIZ SMITH
MICHAEL SNEED
JOE SOBRAN
THOMAS SOWELL
ANDREW SULLIVAN
HELEN THOMAS
CAL THOMAS
HUNTER S. THOMPSON
NEAL TRAVIS
TV COLUMN
DEB WEISS
JEFFREY WELLS
GEORGE WILL
WALTER WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON WHISPERS
BILL ZWECKER
GERTH ZEROS IN ON CHENEY... AIRLINES TO TRIM FLIGHTS ON SEPT 11... Accounting controls on EU budget 'unreliable'... Man Accused of Raping Nine Women He Met Through Internet... Pentagon: Hamas experimenting with chemical weapons... AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
AFP INTERNATIONAL
AFP NEWS WRAP
AFX
UPI WIRE
UPI NATIONAL
UPI WORLD
AP/REUTERS PHOTO WIRE
REUTERS ROUNDUP
REUTERS SPOTLIGHT
REUTERS WORLD
REUTERS POLITICS
REUTERS ODD
SEARCH






*FINDS ANY STORY LINKED ON DRUDGE WEATHER ACTION
QUAKE SHEET x x x x x VISITS TO DRUDGE
07/31/02

004,776,309 IN PAST 24 HOURS
107,519,403 IN PAST 31 DAYS
895,224,122 IN PAST YEAR DRUDGE ARCHIVES DRUDGE REFERENCE DESK EMAIL: DRUDGE@DRUDGEREPORT.COM SUPER-POWERED BY ALLEGIANCE TELECOM... DRUDGE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB SPEECH TRANSCRIPT