Do these people just pull numbers out of the air? Throw a dart or spin a wheel maybe? The Lancet Study, which was debunked as way too high, claimed 600,000. This one claims a million.

Taking it at face value, HuffPo is already touting this as proof of some kind of American genocide that we’re simply denying. Yeah, because we all know that civilian casualties while fighting for a nation’s freedom from oppression is equal to this.

Anyway, about the study. You’ll be (not) surprised to learn that the so-called “research partner” for this new study is the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies. Yeah, you know what other study the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies was a “research partner” for? The Lancet Study. Did I mention that that was debunked?

Via Ace, who was completed his own study.

You know that guy willing to work with Democrats and Republicans alike? You know, reach across the aisle and unite the country once more? End this extreme partisanship and close the gap in this divided nation? Remember him? Yeah, he’s the most Liberal Senator of 2007.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal’s 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

He’s gotten more Liberal as time has gone on, finally reaching the pinnacle of being named the most Liberal Senator. As Allah writes:

In case you were wondering why his message is 10 parts gassy “change” to every one part specific policy proposals, here’s why. So successful has the Messiah been in focusing attention on his own charisma, oratory, and “narrative” and away from his actual record that even 20% of the readership of a site like this is willing (momentarily) to vote for him over McCain. How doctrinaire is he? He’s to the left of Russ Feingold.

And, just to remind you, Feingold favors impeachment and ending funding for Iraq.

Yeah, the man who can bring the nation together. Right. And don’t think the media will take him to task for this. No siree. Just keep concentrating on his message of “hope”.

Damning piece via Bryan. Hard to dispute.

As for McCain “the straight-talker,” how can anyone explain his abrupt about-face on two of his signature issues: immigration and tax cuts? As everyone knows, McCain led the battle not once but twice against the border-security-first approach to illegal immigration as co-author of the McCain-Kennedy bill. He disparaged the motives of the millions of people who objected to his legislation. He fought all amendments that would limit the general amnesty provisions of the bill. This controversy raged for weeks. Only now he says he’s gotten the message. Yet, when asked last night if he would sign the McCain-Kennedy bill as president, he dissembles, arguing that it’s a hypothetical question. Last Sunday on Meet the Press, he said he would sign the bill. There’s nothing straight about this talk. Now, I understand that politicians tap dance during the course of a campaign, but this was a defining moment for McCain. And another defining moment was his very public opposition to the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He was the media’s favorite Republican in opposition to Bush. At the time his primary reason for opposing the cuts was because they favored the rich (and, by the way, they did not). Now he says he opposed them because they weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. That’s simply not correct.

Even worse than denying his own record, McCain is flatly lying about Romney’s position on Iraq. As has been discussed for nearly a week now, Romney did not support a specific date to withdraw our forces from Iraq. The evidence is irrefutable. And it’s also irrefutable that McCain is abusing the English language (Romney’s statements) the way Bill Clinton did in front of a grand jury. The problem is that once called on it by everyone from the New York Times to me, he obstinately refuses to admit the truth. So, last night, he lied about it again. This isn’t open to interpretation. But it does give us a window into who he is.

Ace also links, but includes Robert Novak’s column saying he has not one, but multiple sources concurring with John Fund’s claim that McCain said Alito was too conservative.

That was the background for conservative John Fund’s Wall Street Journal online column the day before Florida voted. Fund wrote that McCain “has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because ‘he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.’ ” In a conference call with bloggers that day, McCain said, “I don’t recall a conversation where I would have said that.” He was “astonished” by the Alito quote, he said, and he repeatedly says at town meetings, “We’re going to have justices like Roberts and Alito.”

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund’s source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:

“Wouldn’t it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?” one lawyer commented. McCain replied, “Well, certainly Roberts.” Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.

*cough*.

To which I respond by throwing more money in Romney’s cash pot. Mitt is the only thing standing between McShamnesty and the nomination. Now he’s become the first candidate to make a major ad buy in California and several other Super Tuesday states.

Despite John McCain’s spending a while attacking Mitt Romney over Iraq comments this evening, McCain himself considered Iraq benchmarks in 2007. The penalty for not meeting those? He hinted at a potential withdrawal.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain’s thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.

McCain said Thursday that he hadn’t yet decided on precise benchmarks. “They’d have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them,” he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: “I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options.”

As Bryan, and the AZ Star write, that suggests withdrawal.

McCain in no way is withdrawing his backing for the war or President Bush’s plan to add 21,500 troops. It was unclear what consequences or timetables McCain would spell out, or whether he believes that Congress has the authority to enforce them.

Still, several Senate Democrats who oppose the troop buildup and also may seek the presidency said they were struck by McCain’s comments.

“We Catholics call that an epiphany,” said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., who is sponsoring the main Democratic resolution opposing the troop buildup.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said: “I called for that . . . several weeks ago. I’m glad that John McCain agrees with me.”

Straight Talk.

I’m going to be live-blogging Super Tuesday (February 5th) just as a I live-blogged the Florida Primary. I’ve updated the live-blog site, changed the template around a bit, figured a few things out and taken a second blogger on. Over 2o states will vote, with 1,048 Republican delegates up for grabs.

Was wondering if anyone else would like to volunteer to join me in live-blogging. It’s pretty simple, with an easy Twitter-like box to enter your updates in. You can send out as many or as few updates as you’d like. If you’re interested, please feel free to contact me.

Also, if you’ll be posting or live-blogging about Super Tuesday, please email me. I’ll add your blog to my list of resources and links.

Thanks!

ABC News reports that longtime Dem-spoiler Ralph Nader is considering a run in ‘08.

Ralph Nader has formed a presidential exploratory committee, and said in an interview Wednesday that he will launch another presidential bid if he’s convinced he can raise enough money to appear on the vast majority of state ballots this fall.

Nader, who ran as an independent candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, told ABCNews.com that he will run in 2008 if he is convinced over the next month that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign — and attract enough lawyers willing to work free of charge to get his name on state ballots…

“When Kucinich threw in the towel, now you have Edwards gone — who’s going to carry the torch of democratic populism against the relentless domination of powerful corporations of our government?” Nader said. “You can’t just brush these issues to the side because the candidates are ignoring them.”

He says his candidacy is as important as ever. Could we be this lucky?

His website, where he’s currently accepting donations.

Via Hot Air.

As we all know by now, John Edwards has decided to drop his bid for the Democratic nomination. CNN:

“It is time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path,” Edwards said in New Orleans, the same city where he first declared his run for the 2008 Democratic presidential race.

With his wife, Elizabeth, and children at his side, Edwards said he couldn’t predict “who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,” but he said it would be a Democrat.

“We must do better if we want to live up to the promise of this country we love so much,” he said.

Edwards has thus far only amassed 26 delegates to the Democratic convention. He does have, however, supporters in the states yet to vote, which is most of the country. So, what happens to those votes? Does Obama or Hillary benefit from this? MSNBC’s First Read:

So where does Edwards’ support go? In South Carolina, Edwards won white men. Could this become the new swing voting group? Obama does well with white men in general election match-ups, but has seen his support drop among these folks in the primary. Now, if Obama has any shot at beating Clinton, he’s going to have to win this key voting bloc. It’s rare white guys are considered a swing vote, but in a Clinton vs. Obama race, it appears they will. Obama needs them more than Clinton.

My prediction is it benefits Clinton more.

As for Silky’s endorsement? He won’t say…yet. I’m betting on him going with Obama. If he sees Obama having the most potential to win the nom (and White House), he’ll latch on for the ride. Silky for AG, anyone?

Last night the Republican race became a two-man competition: Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mitt Romney. America’s Mayor Rudy Giuliani, having bet his entire campaign on the Sunshine State, will drop his bid later today. The question now is: Where should Giuliani supporters go?

Both McCain and Romney have their strengths. McCain is a war hero, an experienced politician, a hawk on pork spending and a strong supporter of victory in Iraq. Mitt Romney is an experienced businessman, an intelligent gentleman, a wonderful speaker, a strong supporter of the war on terror, and proponent of tax cuts and free-enterprise.

In the end, however, I have had to choose one of the men to support for the remainder of the Republican race. He is a strong, full-spectrum conservative, has the ability to rally much of the Republican/conservative base and is, in my humble opinion, the best man to run the nation at this time in our history.

Today I endorse Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Furthermore, I request that my fellow Giuliani supporters do the same.

Mitt is a strong supporter of free-trade, opposes big government and has an excellent foreign policy plan. He opposes amnesty and supports enforcing immigration laws.

John McCain is not, in my opinion, as conservative as Mitt Romney. Sen. McCain has authored and supported failed CFR legislation, supports the disastrous amnesty plan, opposed the successful Bush tax cuts, is a member of the Gang of 14, opposes enhanced interrogation even to keep our nation safe, and has abandoned conservatives, often in favor of major Liberals, too many times.

With Mitt Romney comes proven executive experience, intelligence, and fiscal responsibility. Governor Romney has the experience and drive to implement true conservative ideals, protect the nation and keep America strong. He is the best choice for the Republican Party, as well as the nation as a whole.

(Now, where’s my foam mitt?)

Via Allah.