Iraq 6-3-07:14 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Wow, it's nice to have money. You can say things like this and no one will be able to refute him.

The Donald bashes Bush and all his cronies:

3-18-2007 Trump: "Bush is the worst President in history of U.S., the Iraq War is a catastrophe"

===================================================
1-1-07 3,000 American soldiers dead

11-27-06 Iraq called "Civil War" now by everyone except "The War President"

Which is it??? Now with Poll
=====================================================
New question - Will the U.S. be out of Iraq before Bush leaves office?

Obviously something would force the issue because Bush insists he will not pull the troops out of there while he is in power.

Last throes - Mission Accomplished:

3-14-2007 Pentagon says violence in Iraq "civil war" for the first time

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military for the first time Wednesday said in a new report that some of the violence in Iraq can be described as a civil war

Members of the Bush administration have been loath to say that the U.S. military is struggling to quell a civil war, and the report agreed that the term does not capture the complex situation there.

But it added, "Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a 'civil war,' including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence and population displacements."




========================================================
A concerned AT member sent me this link that the Washington Post is putting out on Sunday.

Looks like Americans are finally starting to want to no longer give a free pass to the Republican establishment that has ruined the U.S. like a dictarship.

It's too early to tell as the November Election results will be the gauge as to whether or not there will be a sea change.

I understand there is always some Nepotism but traditionally at least qualified people were used however this series shows the Bush regime has taken Nepotism to a whole new level.

We must throw the baby out with the bath water to affect change or history will simply show the U.S. as becoming as corrupt as a Dictatorship.

9-17-2006 Best-Connected Were Sent to Rebuild Iraq

After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers.

But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.

To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction.

What they needed to be was a member of the Republican Party.

O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions about domestic politics:

Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000?

Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror?

Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade .

Many of those chosen by O'Beirne's office to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq's government from April 2003 to June 2004, lacked vital skills and experience.

A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange.

The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting.

The decision to send the loyal and the willing instead of the best and the brightest is now regarded by many people involved in the 3 1/2 -year effort to stabilize and rebuild Iraq as one of the Bush administration's gravest errors.

Many of those selected because of their political fidelity spent their time trying to impose a conservative agenda on the postwar occupation that sidetracked more important reconstruction efforts and squandered goodwill among the Iraqi people.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Goes hand-in-hand with Ashcroft selecting four people with atrocious records running prisons to setup shop at Abu Ghraib.


We can all expect a little bit of cronyism in any administration (a nice ambassadorship to Greece or something) but kid to open a stock exchange? A Debutante in charge of a multi-billion dollar budget?


Jesus H. fvcking Christ!
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
They'd probably rail against North being a criminal or traitor and ignore what was in the book. If they were to read the book and forget that the author is a scumbag they might comment that the Military did a great job despite being overseen by an incompetent Donald Rumsfield. In my opinion without having read the book I think the Military did a great job in both wars, it's the occupation afterwards that has been dismal but how can it be their fault as they were/are hamstrung by a faulty plan or no real plan at all.

Now my opinion on Afghanistan is that the was was justified where as the invasion of Iraq wasn't. Of course I was initially behind it but with reservations and those were that the reason given had to be bullet proof and if they weren't then I would have and do now consider it unwarranted.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
12,772
3,166
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
last i checked, the clinton administration did not invade a foreign country, remove the current government and then attempt to re-build everything from scratch. lets not compare apples to oranges here. the first bush did not enter baghdad and left saddam in power and there was a reason for that decision. 'who' wrote the article does not matter when facts like this stand on their own:

"A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting."

There is no defense for such rudimentary mistakes, period.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.

When are you going to learn that referring to the Clinton Administration is no excuse and only serves as a duh-version from the topic at hand? Never, I suspect... :roll:

As for "the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq" I'd gladly high-five Oliver over that comment. Our military performed better than all expectations in both conflicts. It was only *after* the tanks stopped rolling that we had issues.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
This administration has always preferred loyalty over competence. What did you expect? The few competents that came in have been let go - e.g., Colin Powell.



 

5to1baby1in5

Golden Member
Apr 27, 2001
1,246
107
106
Originally posted by: conjur
Goes hand-in-hand with Ashcroft selecting four people with atrocious records running prisons to setup shop at Abu Ghraib.


We can all expect a little bit of cronyism in any administration (a nice ambassadorship to Greece or something) but kid to open a stock exchange? A Debutante in charge of a multi-billion dollar budget?


Jesus H. fvcking Christ!

The same kind of brainless (but loyal) fvcks are running things over here too. The only thing is nothing is really going wrong in order to test them (except Katrina, health care, terrorism...).
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.

When are you going to learn that referring to the Clinton Administration is no excuse and only serves as a duh-version from the topic at hand? Never, I suspect... :roll:

As for "the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq" I'd gladly high-five Oliver over that comment. Our military performed better than all expectations in both conflicts. It was only *after* the tanks stopped rolling that we had issues.

When are you going to learn to read stuff in its context?

The point of this thread is that jobs were given to people who supported Bush or at least his policies, my reason for brining up Clinton was to point out that he did the same thing, every politician does it.

Does not make it right, but don't get all upset when Bush does it if you didn't complain when Clinton did it.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.

When are you going to learn that referring to the Clinton Administration is no excuse and only serves as a duh-version from the topic at hand? Never, I suspect... :roll:

As for "the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq" I'd gladly high-five Oliver over that comment. Our military performed better than all expectations in both conflicts. It was only *after* the tanks stopped rolling that we had issues.

When are you going to learn to read stuff in its context?

The point of this thread is that jobs were given to people who supported Bush or at least his policies, my reason for brining up Clinton was to point out that he did the same thing, every politician does it.

Does not make it right, but don't get all upset when Bush does it if you didn't complain when Clinton did it.

You're a typical Bush Apologist.

Clinton didn't invade a Nation on false pretense and put his friend's daughter in charge of billions of dollars in re-construction contracts.
 

straightalker

Senior member
Dec 21, 2005
515
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I understand there is always some Nepotism but traditionally at least qualified people were used however this series shows the Bush regime has taken Nepotism to a whole new level.
Level 3 (1933) ---> THIRD REICH

Level 4 (2006) ---> FOURTH REICH
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.

When are you going to learn that referring to the Clinton Administration is no excuse and only serves as a duh-version from the topic at hand? Never, I suspect... :roll:

As for "the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq" I'd gladly high-five Oliver over that comment. Our military performed better than all expectations in both conflicts. It was only *after* the tanks stopped rolling that we had issues.

When are you going to learn to read stuff in its context?

The point of this thread is that jobs were given to people who supported Bush or at least his policies, my reason for brining up Clinton was to point out that he did the same thing, every politician does it.

Does not make it right, but don't get all upset when Bush does it if you didn't complain when Clinton did it.

How the F do you know I didn't? And see? That's exactly the sort of poor reasoning your alleged "arguments" are based on. And you're right about one thing - two wrongs don't make a right. So why even bring it up in the first place?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.

When are you going to learn that referring to the Clinton Administration is no excuse and only serves as a duh-version from the topic at hand? Never, I suspect... :roll:

As for "the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq" I'd gladly high-five Oliver over that comment. Our military performed better than all expectations in both conflicts. It was only *after* the tanks stopped rolling that we had issues.

When are you going to learn to read stuff in its context?

The point of this thread is that jobs were given to people who supported Bush or at least his policies, my reason for brining up Clinton was to point out that he did the same thing, every politician does it.

Does not make it right, but don't get all upset when Bush does it if you didn't complain when Clinton did it.


MURDER MONEY
 

Horus

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2003
2,838
1
0
Originally posted by: straightalker
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I understand there is always some Nepotism but traditionally at least qualified people were used however this series shows the Bush regime has taken Nepotism to a whole new level.
Level 3 (1933) ---> THIRD REICH

Level 4 (2006) ---> FOURTH REICH

Don't overreact. It's incredibly moronic what happened here, but don't compare it to Nazi Germany!
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Comparing the WaPo (hardly an anti-Bush newspaper) to a book written by an Iran-Contra criminal and wholly partisan creep Ollie North??

:laugh:



Esp. since just two days ago you used a WaPo article to defend your Bush-apologist stance.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Comparing the WaPo (hardly an anti-Bush newspaper) to a book written by an Iran-Contra criminal and wholly partisan creep Ollie North??

:laugh:



Esp. since just two days ago you used a WaPo article to defend your Bush-apologist stance.


I am very serious.. ProfJohn is paid by the RNC ..
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience.
Wow . . . just wow! Personally, I believe Democrats have shown themselves to be incompetent in a variety of endeavors. But it appears Republicans use incompetence as a selection criterion.

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."
Ironic, considering George Bush didn't start the war for Iraqis, either . . . OIF my arse!

That's what happened with James K. Haveman Jr., who was selected to oversee the rehabilitation of Iraq's health care system.

Haveman, a 60-year-old social worker, was largely unknown among international health experts, but he had connections.
I know I can be a pretentious arse from time to time but WTF?! Why not send a telemarketer to rebuild the telecommunications systems? How about a CSR from Time Warner cable to set up broadband? Hire the a regional rep for Coca-Cola (Dasani) to fix the water treatment plants?

Haveman replaced Frederick M. Burkle Jr., a physician with a master's degree in public health and postgraduate degrees from Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and the University of California at Berkeley. Burkle taught at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, where he specialized in disaster-response issues, and he was a deputy assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, which sent him to Baghdad immediately after the war.

He had worked in Kosovo and Somalia and in northern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. A USAID colleague called him the "single most talented and experienced post-conflict health specialist working for the United States government."

But a week after Baghdad's liberation, Burkle was informed he was being replaced. A senior official at USAID sent Burkle an e-mail saying the White House wanted a "loyalist" in the job. Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the president.
Amazing . . . just friggin' amazing. Does anyone really doubt that Michael Brown/FEMA was par for the course?

He urged the Health Ministry to mount an anti-smoking campaign, and he assigned an American from the CPA team -- who turned out to be a closet smoker himself -- to lead the public education effort.
They might as well put this guy in charge of the Interior Ministry with this slogan, "IED . . . just say no!"

In May 2003, a team of law enforcement experts from the Justice Department concluded that more than 6,600 foreign advisers were needed to help rehabilitate Iraq's police forces.

The White House dispatched just one: Bernie Kerik.
---
He lacked postwar policing experience, but the White House viewed that as an asset.
---
"I'm here to bring more media attention to the good work on police because the situation is probably not as bad as people think it is," Kerik replied.
---
Kerik's first order of business, less than a week after he arrived, was to give a slew of interviews saying the situation was improving.
---
When it came to his own safety, Kerik took no chances. He hired a team of South African bodyguards, and he packed a 9mm handgun under his safari vest.
---
Kerik held only two staff meetings while in Iraq, one when he arrived and the other when he was being shadowed by a New York Times reporter,
---
"I was in my own world," he said later. "I did my own thing."
Anybody that reads this WaPo article and doesn't think the George W. Bush junta isn't the most decrepit excuse for leadership in the past century . . . may be dumb enough to work for them.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Comparing the WaPo (hardly an anti-Bush newspaper) to a book written by an Iran-Contra criminal and wholly partisan creep Ollie North??

:laugh:



Esp. since just two days ago you used a WaPo article to defend your Bush-apologist stance.

What a F'n hypocrite PJ is. Jesus tapdancing Christ, if you're going to attack the source like a partisan idiot, at least be consistent! :roll:
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Isn't Woodward, the guy who wrote 2-3 pro-Bush books the Editor of WaPo? Isn't he the guy who tried to help cover up the Valerie Plame thing too by going on TV as an objective reporter and saying it was a non-story only to later on be exposed as one of the jounalist who was leaked to and was part of the investigation?

Ya, they hate Bush ;)
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
12,861
10,040
136
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Comparing the WaPo (hardly an anti-Bush newspaper) to a book written by an Iran-Contra criminal and wholly partisan creep Ollie North??

:laugh:



Esp. since just two days ago you used a WaPo article to defend your Bush-apologist stance.

Nice one.

So "Prof", is The Post a valid source or not? Which is it? Can't have it both ways.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,585
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am suspect of the source of this article/book. An anti-Bush newspaper writes a book that is anti-Bush, should we be surprised?

I can't find any reviews by politically neutral or right wing magazines or web sites so I will with hold judgment until then.

From what I have read it does look pretty bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking that the Clinton's and just about every other politician doesn't do the same thing, or have you forgotten about the travel office scandal?

Think of it this way, how would you people on the left react to a book by Oliver North that talked about the great job our Military did in Afghanistan or Iraq? Be honest.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

Comparing the WaPo (hardly an anti-Bush newspaper) to a book written by an Iran-Contra criminal and wholly partisan creep Ollie North??

:laugh:



Esp. since just two days ago you used a WaPo article to defend your Bush-apologist stance.

Thank you so much for that Conjur, that put such a smile on my face it actually hurt a bit. I love when people get their own hypocritical bullcrap thrown in their face. Wow, a P&N post has actually made my day.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Who is right?

655,000 Vs 50,000

Can't have it both ways.

10-10-2006 Study: 655,000 Iraqis die because of war

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire.

"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000.

The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study ? that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.

Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.

A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
While it's important which estimate is right, no matter WHICH one is right, we have a problem. The fact that there isn't a hard and fast number, or even a reasonable estimate, says how little we apparently care about Iraqi deaths in this conflict. Personally I think if we're trying to win the moral battle in the Middle East, it might help if we looked like we gave a crap about the people in the region...the fuzziness of the Iraqi death estimates is hardly a step in that direction.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
It is probably much higher than 50,000.. WHY.. because mr bush readily accepted the 50,000 number as legit.. must mean it was highly favorable to him .. vs this giant number that might have been hiding.