home

The Death Toll in Iraq

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:57:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

By sneaking in and out of Iraq, the president avoided adding himself to this tragic statistic:

The number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq has reached 2,500, the Pentagon said on Thursday, more than three years into a conflict that finds U.S.-led forces locked in a struggle with a resilient Sunni Arab insurgency. ...

In Washington, the Pentagon also said 18,490 U.S. troops had been wounded in the war, which began in March 2003 with a U.S.-led invasion to topple President Saddam Hussein.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed.

Update: Here's the compassionate response from the White House:

Reacting to the new milestone on combat deaths, White House press secretary Tony Snow said, ''It's a number.''

< Oppose Any Repeal of the First Amendment | No Remedy When Police Fail to Knock Before Executing Search Warrant >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Death Toll in Iraq | 105 comments (105 topical)
    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:16:14 AM EST
    But on the bright side the Iraqi oil is still in the ground and not being shipped to China. TChris where are your priorities. Worried about a few lives when the health of EXXon mobil and such companies and the elites that run is at risk. I mean really. /sarcasm

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bob on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:23:27 AM EST
    My take on the whole Iraq PR blitz is to cover the fact that there have been 2.500 deaths of US military personnel. This is another fake "We have turned the corner" moment. Next week, we will be bac in the mode of suicide bombers and IED's

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:49:03 AM EST
    Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. Yeah, well Saddam probably would have killed some of the same people anyway. [/snark]

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:52:11 AM EST
    21,000+ American casualties. Congratulations again Georgie.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:18:39 AM EST
    20k causualties....the occupation that keeps on giving. The US Armed Forces, being sent everywhere they shouldn't be. Hope the teens and pre-teens are paying attention...signing up to defend the country does not mean that's what you will be doing...you could end up an occupier.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:26:01 AM EST
    but according to ppj, ted kennedy is worse because of an accident 40 years ago, and this is all clinton's and liberald fault, anyway

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:45:25 AM EST
    At a time when the US population was roughly half what it is now, we lost 3,000 dead taking Guadalcanal. One thousand marines died in 72 hours taking Tarawa. Six thousand died at Iwo Jima, and 12,000 at Okinawa.
    Just curious, what do those deaths have to do with the deaths caused by the senseless occupation of Iraq?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    And will one of you goofballs tell us just how it is that this war benefits Exxon-Mobil? Really, before you spout such nonsense you ought to acquire a rudimentary understanding of how the world market for oil functions.
    Pabst Blue Ribbon, We don't share the same taste in beer. Certainly there is a local microbrew that would be more satisying on these hot summer days than PBR. No? I was wondering if you could be so kind as to inform us on how the world market for oil really functions. Us goofballs could use your expertise. We were under the impression that Iraq had a substantail amount of oil reserves. These could be developed by many oil companies and Exxon Mobil could be one of thes companies. But, I don't know, I am just a good ball. I thought Exxon Mobil would love to have access to these Reserves. But, more than that, I assumed that there was a strategic interest in our presence in Iraq, because it would give us greater control over world oil markets, so our economy would not be at the whim of Iran, Saudi Sheiks and Chavez. But, again, I am just a goofball who doesn't want to trivialize the loss of US troops in Iraq or the wounded. I also carry around this goofball idea that morale is sinking in Iraq among US Troops stationed there. I don't know where I got that goofball idea. Please grace us with some of your hard facts to straighten out our thinking. Tell us about world oil markets you know so much about. Tell us your insight into morale. And, please, keep giving us more statistics so we can feel better about the number of troops lost in Iraq to IEDs, suicide bombs and small arms fire.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    The WWII strawman rears its head again. Alot more people died in the Crimean War too. Whats your source for the troop morale hypothesis? Oh oxycotin boy says so? Say no more, its gotta be true.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    Jondee I also signed on to treaty agreeing not to bring up WWII so I won't but I feel this treaty should also include Vietnam the favorite lefty strawman for comparisons. I love that the left is so concerned about the 2,500 but never bothers to ask or even recognize that most of those that gave their lives supported the mission and would not want the US to give up. It is sad the the left is forced to commemorate a number in response to the good news out of Iraq this week. We're not leaving so get over it.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:17:52 AM EST
    Comparing casualties in past wars is not the same as comparing the wars, or their rationales - it's a way of understanding the cost in real terms. Along those lines, Iwo Jima, Feb 19-March 26 1945:
    Iwo Jima was the only Marine battle where the American casualties, 26,000, exceeded the Japanese -- most of the 22,000 defending the island. The 6,800 American servicemen killed doubled the deaths of the Twin-Towers of 9/11.
    2500 deaths (not all combat, either - bear in mind that the military has an ongoing accident rate) - is not heavy in historical terms. Every death is a tragedy, but this site's morbid obsession with the numbers is just ridiculous - especially since it typically pops up around "round numbers". I also note that TL has stopped beating the "oh no, the draft!" drum, possibly because: -- the military is meeting its recruitment goals -- the military is getting incredible numbers of re-ups -- the reserves are meeting their recruitment goals -- the only ones calling for a draft are Democrats, in an obvious ploy to generate University protests The thing is, everyone in the military is a volunteer - no one is there against their will. They know the danger, they know where they are likely to be deployed. The recruitment and retention numbers say something about how they feel about the mission.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:18:56 AM EST
    BigUni12 - Perhaps you can show us where I have been beating on poor Ted? I don't think I have mentioned his running off, special treatment, etc. in regards to the death you refer to more than twice, maybe three, times in three years. Now I have quoted his pro-war anti- Saddam comments frequently. Your turn, BU. Now that you have shot your mouth off, let's see you stand and deliver. Peaches - You don't like PBR? I knew there was something about you... ;-) Jondee - You are right about WWII. We should never mention it in relation to the WOT. After all, people would have been put in jail for the type of comments that many on the Left now routinely make. TChris - Your wrote:
    By sneaking in and out of Iraq, the president avoided
    Would you have prefered that we paint a bullseye on the side of Airforce One and give the terrorists the exact time it would be landing?? BTW - Since this is my "bring Bubba" in week, let me remind you that Clinton didn't even go to the site of WTC1. Guess he was too busy feeling our pain to travel....

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    You're right Jim. Same situation as WWII. "We're" just more liberal now. Sorry about that. When the Junta consolidates its power, maybe you can do something about that. In the meantime, continue to make claims. You define yourself well.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    Will someone tell me what the deaths of fifty thousand US troops and two million Vietnamese achieved. Will someone tell me what the deaths of not yet counted US troops and Iraqies will achieve. Not even a history lesson in the case of the former. And in the latter when this mess runs it's course, it will be for, at the very best of outcomes, nothing.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:54:08 AM EST
    We don't share the same taste in beer. Certainly there is a local microbrew that would be more satisying on these hot summer days than PBR. No?
    I must diagree Peaches....an ice ice cold Pabst on a summer day is quite pleasing. At half the price of a micobrew. Pabst is the king of cans...and working class all the way. TY oscar...I've been screaming "there is no victory there" till I'm blue in the face. Are we gonna stay till there is nothing to win and nothing left to lose?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    Will someone tell me what the deaths of not yet counted US troops and Iraqies will achieve.
    the oil not going to China. Its that simple.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    It was Art Tatum's fav beer. Bit of trivia for ya. If they had any brains, they'd use that in a commercial. How many of those young guys in Iraq would prefer to be sucking a cool one in the shade right now (while Shrub tasted some cold steel)? Nice segue eh?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    soccerdad...I thought China was our new manufacturing hub. I'm curiuos, why would US interests be adamant about keeping China's hands off the oil. Seems to me oil for them means more cheap plastic crap for us. What am I missing?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:06:23 AM EST
    Soc - The Chinese aren't dumb. Whats their responce to this possibilty going to be you think/

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    Peaches next time your in downtown Nashville @ a honkey tonk make sure you ask the bartender for an ice cold PBR in a can while you enjoy the poeple and the music. No better way to spend a Friday/Saturday night.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    Soc the lame oil comment is as bad as the WWII direct comparisons. The obvious statement is this war is no where near as great a conflit as any war this country has ever fought. But the left or anti-war critics will use any milestone any setback to try and somehow turn the clock back to 2003 and 2004 when they lost the debate to enter into this conflict. Becasue they can't get over this occurance, the loss of Al Gore, the loss of the democratic majority the loss of John Kerry they beat dead horses to death in hopes that somehow the professor will show up in his DeLorean and take us all back to 1979 when democrats mattered in this country. Get over it. Root for the good guys, critisize the methods the tactics but give up on retreat and stop celebrating setbacks and meaningless milestones in an attempt to proove that you should have won an argument you lost. Bush will stay in Iraq until its over and won. Since we all know that this is the case why not root for the good guys. The United States Military who you claim to care so much about.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    Kdog, A hot day is about the only time I might be able to drink a Pabst. I'm a beer snob and I like supporting my local brewmeisters. Summit Pale Ale--can't beat it. Those American beers in cans all taste like water in comparison. We want to control the oil China has access to. We will give them enough to keep us supplied with products, but we would like to control their ability to become a rival superpower. There are a lot of things going on that is confusing. Chavez has offered to sell the US oil for $50.00 per barrell in an exclusive deal. What is stopping him from giving China a similar deal if he hasn't already? The politics around oil are complex and the ability to predict the future availability is also difficult. THe ME is approaching peak production. What is unique about the oil in the ME is that it is cheap. Oil in Venezuala and Canada is expensive. When the Suadis flood the market with oil it drive down the price of oil it makes it too costly to produce oil in other countries. In the 80s and 90s this was devestating to venezuala. However, with the price around $70 per barrell, Chavez now has a chance to produce oil at a profit. Which is why he has offered an exclusive offer to the US. HE can make a profit and start producing a lot of oil and gain more influence in the world. SOme estimates show Venezuala as having the largest amount of oil reserves. From what I understand about the heavy oil in Venezuala, once pumping starts it cannot be interrupted without having disastrous effects on the oil field. So, Chavez doesn't want to start producing at top capacity until he is sure prices won't fall in the future and he always has a market to sell in--thus, his offer to the US. If the US could, I think we would encourage the Saudis to produce more oil to put more pressure on Chavez and drive down the prices further. But, I think the Saudis are about maxed out on production. Controlling Iraqi oil and keeping it out of Chinas hands, which as a large economy can be a big player and market for oil producing nations, keeps the US as the sole supreme power and in control of global politics.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:32:48 AM EST
    Slado, No one knows anything about what dead people supported or didn't support. The dead don't talk. Like Pat Tillman's brother said, and I paraphrase, "Thanks for your thoughts. Pat wasn't a religious guy, and he's not in heaven with God. He's dead in a box in the ground." And how could you accurately poll discontent among deployed soldiers when they are PUNISHED for dissenting opinions? Logic tells you, since only dissent is proscribed, a decent number of dissenters would rather not give themselves more problems while they're over there -- so they keep their mouthes shut. Soldiers, I'm willing to wager, pretty much reflect the society they come from. That is, they were gung-ho at first and full of adrenaline from being pumped up with a lot of patriot and saving-the-country b.s. by their superiors and, especially, civilian misleaders; but now, with reality right in their faces, a good number have lost their military mojo. And much more desperately than people safe here at home who've changed their opinion. I remember marching against the war with my son before we went into Iraq, and I well remember what doomsaying, terrorist-loving, liberal wimps we were considered by most people. Now most of those same name-callers have changed their tune from Battle Hymnn of the Republic to American Idiot (and by that I mean no insult, but merely the Green Day song and lyrics). Have a fantasitic, no, a CRANtastic day.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:39:01 AM EST
    Dadler you may be right maybe they are just as equally as split but I doubt very seriously that they mark casualty milestones, dongrade the achievments their fellow soliders or they themselves personally achiever or conisder their mission impossible, for the most part. Again if you opposed this war I have no problem with it but for some it seems to me it is more about being proven right then some moral objection. We are there, 2,500 have died in support (willingly or not) of a mission that we need to acheive. Why not finish the job and honor their memory instead of raising the white flag during a week of so much good news on the ground? And what about the iraqi's. They want peace and a new life. it has not gone as planned, some if not most are scared and upset but do we do them any good if we hand it over and let the country fall apart. Fortunately GW isn't going to let that happen so this arguement as far as withdrawel is mute.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    Wow ppj, great imagination, did not think you had it in you. But then again you probably got the idea from the downing street memo of flying US spy planes painted with UN colors over Iraq in 2003 to provoke war with Saddam.
    Would you have prefered [sic] that we paint a bullseye on the side of Airforce One and give the terrorists the exact time it would be landing??
    Not a bad idea, although the Iraqi resistance would not have the means to take it out. BTW- What would happen in other sovereign nations if an unannounced aircraft tried to land. Answer: Iraq is not a sovereign nation and its leaders are of lower rank than its occupiers. So much for democracy.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    As anyone who is at the least familiar with US policy in the ME realizes that out policy is and has always been centered about the supply of oil. This has been going since at least 1953 when the CIA installed a new government in Iran because the previous leader had nationalized or threatened to nationalize all oil companies. But I donr expect you to be any less ignorant about this that climate, or is it that you just have fun taunting us? Either way, a waste of time

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:48:08 AM EST
    Slado - "Some" moral obligation? Its more about being proven right? You mean this about national pride or something? Excuse me if Im being obtuse, but it sounds to me like you're more concerned with vindication of an agenda and a strategy than with long term ramifications, loss of life and well being etc.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    Snow is a real FOX in press secretary clothing. His latest personal attacks:
    1. Whereas Bush "snuck off" to visit Iraq, Carter "used to sneak off and fish on the weekends." 2. "[U]nlike in the Carter years, where...you had the humiliation of hostages being taken in Iran," in Bush's case, "you've got the president who's showing up in Baghdad and talking with the new government."
    think progress video

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    Yeah, hostages that were held until the stiff took office and we started shipping them arms.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:09:51 PM EST
    Think progress link.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    Thanks Oscar, I forgot to check the link.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:20:48 PM EST
    Peaches next time your in downtown Nashville @ a honkey tonk make sure you ask the bartender for an ice cold PBR in a can while you enjoy the poeple and the music.
    Can't I get a microbrew in Nashville? Jondee, In regards to Slado (who I appreciate for his manners of late), it always appears to me as if he views democracy as a competition similar to a football game or nascar race that has clear winners and losers. This competition takes place once every four years and if your side wins, it has political capital to spend, meaning the policies the winning side puts forward should proceed unabated. In this democracy as sport view we all have to take a side and we only have two sides to choose from. then we get on that side a root like hell for a win. If we lose we are expected to whine and cry, but remain the losers on the sideline. In reality, democracy has much more in common with a cooperative, than a competition with winners and losers. The democracy as sport goes along well with free markets and capitalism and first amendment equals unlimited campaign finance contributions, since the only goal is to win anyway. Sad it is and I don't know how to change it, because this democracy as sport view of our political system is prevalent in our society and supported by most of our myths and institutions from a very young age.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#33)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    Will someone tell me what the deaths of not yet counted US troops and Iraqies will achieve.
    War is money. - Skumdum

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:47:50 PM EST
    Peaches - Sometimes I think the ones who talked about spiking the reservoirs back in the day were right. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Now if we could just get the fundies to accept the Robert Graves Jesus/mushroom-cult thesis, maybe they'd go along with it.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    "It's a number" among which I wish he and his compatriots would be counted. Actually, I think "It's a number" may be the most "compassionate" response we've heard from the White House.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#36)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:55:08 PM EST
    Slado, The being-proven-right motivation can equally be used against those pro-war folks who live with their head in the clouds about how things are going.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    It shows that the occupation of Iraq is actually quite well run.
    We should congraduate the DOD on the low number of casualties.
    What world Narius, what world?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    There is no war in Iraq.Bush is a racist bent on killing dark skinned Muslims. 2500 US Troops plus whatever fiqure of Iraqi's who have been slaughtered because of there skin color.. I question how can it be a war if we are killing Iraqi's. More of them died than our Soldiers. Leave it to our commander in chief who has a personal hate for dark skinned muslims. Perhaps Changing Iraq to our way of life not only thru democracy but also christianity. In other words more will die because of Bush. That's why there is resistance. Bush is a christian or a born again killer of muslims. Iraqi's get there heads chopped off just for mentioning the name Jesus Christ and now Bush wants to get the Iraqis out of the dark ages is like asking the pygmies of Africa to eat with a knife and fork. Those are long odds.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    First, Exxon/Mobil has no more access to Iraqi oil than anyone else.
    not yet, but eventually. The other part of the oil picture is keeping it away from China

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    So we're doing it all for the children of Iraq, eh Blue Ribbon? No child left behind, right? Thanks for all that good activist work you did all those years against the sanctions btw. The children thank you.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    You might try switching to Steel Reserve. More bang for the buck and Rush says you can mix it with the Oxy.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#43)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:40:55 PM EST
    Peaches, lately? Come on I'm always straight, patient and "right". There are many microbrews in Nashville but to truley get the experience of Country music, spitting tabacco and country line dancing you don't wash your troubles down with a Blue Moon and lemon you grab a 16oz "tallboy" of "PBR", sorry PBR, hopefully still with the plasitic on it from your 4pac. Jondee, soc, Dadler etc... I do not simply hope to be proven right I hope that MY country and MY military acheive their goal of a peaceful Iraq. I admit mistakes were made, crimes commited (Abu Grahib etc...) but feel that this media, opponents hold our military and this war up to an impossible standard that no war or military could hope to meet. I agree that if not for the war we'd have none of these worries but again that option is off the table. So to those who favor immediate withdrawel would you rather win or quit now? If it's quit now do you care what happens if we leave and will you accept full responsiblity for that chaos that may/maynot result?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peaches on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    Pabst, Thanks for taking the time to enlighten us dupes, stupes and gooks. Your knowledge of world oil markets is surely breathtaking.
    Second, were that oil still under the control of Saddam and taken off the world market, the value of Exxon/Mobil's products would increase dramatically, sending its profits far higher than they are today.
    Don't mean to quibble here, but we have yet to get iraqi oil production to preinvasion levels last I heard. Small detail. An oil expert like you also knows that cheap oil is not the goal of controlling world oil markets. The goal was never to get all of Saddams oil on the market. In fact, this was one of the uncertains about Saddam that the oil barons such as those at Exxon Mobil would get so nervous over. Saddams ability to increase the supply of oil to world markets threatened our ability to work with the Saudis to keep the price of oil in an acceptable range which is not to high or too low. But, you knew that, the expert that you are--right?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#45)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 01:54:33 PM EST
    Slado, What if your country doesn't "win", what if your military can't "control" the country and yet the Iraqi's still manage to better themselves? That's essentially the situation now. If it were, we wouldn't need the current security crackdown in the first place. We've realized we CAN'T do it and need to get the Iraqis to do it themselves, as fast as they can, however they can, because we need to change the perception -- the reality is a different story. Also, more than mistakes were made, to downplay them is to virtually ignore them. We'll never know what could've been, obviously, but continuing to do the same things that got us to that point doesn't really seem sharp. Are we employing Iraqis en masse yet to rebuild their own country? Are we getting to the bottom of the corporate theft and war profiteering? Are we genuinely punishing those responsible for abuses of Iraqis? (Besides punishing the underlings, the "few bad apples", or so the painfully psychologically ignorant line goes.)

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:10:05 PM EST
    Finally, the reports on morale are legion, and have been supplied by innumerable expert sources, including some who were critics of the war to begin with (see, e.g., Barry McCaffrey), and I have many sources of my own who confirm these reports--my nephew just returned.
    Dear Beer man, Ask your nephew how this affects his morale.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#47)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:18:39 PM EST
    Nothing in Iraq was worth this price of admission. JR, The thing is, everyone in the military is a volunteer - no one is there against their will. How reassuring.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    Jondee I also signed on to treaty agreeing not to bring up WWII so I won't but I feel this treaty should also include Vietnam the favorite lefty strawman for comparisons.
    You're so kind to make the offer. However, I am turning it down since I believe you're only making it because you have the good sense to realize that the WWII analogies are BS while the Vietnam analogies are on target. Right down to the point of us now seeing "the light at the end of the tunnel" for the umpteenth time. There is one big difference, though.
    I love that the left is so concerned about the 2,500 but never bothers to ask or even recognize that most of those that gave their lives supported the mission and would not want the US to give up.
    Interesting "exit poll" results. What seance were you at to come up with that factoid? You may have been channeling the 101st Keyboard Battalion by mistake. But they are only dead in the sense of no longer having a conscience.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#49)
    by scribe on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    Ahh, this is better than cutting veterans' benefits again. This week: (a) Bush has summit on Iraq, then (b) Bush sneaks into Iraq, giving the "sovereign" there five minutes' notice of the meeting. (c) Bush gets back and House Rethugs start debate about how great Iraq war is (transparent election-year propaganda). (d) Iraqi PM decides that, to stop insurgency, there'll be amnesty and pardon for insurgents, but only for those attacks on US troops. (e) US Rethug Senators debating Iraq war, asked about Iraqi amnesty and pardon, say it's a GOOD IDEA: Ted Stevens (so long as he gets his Bridge to Nowhere), Lamar Alexander (Once and maybe future presidential timber), Saxby Chambliss (what a guy - defames Max Cleland, a real war hero, then says it's all right to amnesty those killing and having killed US troops), John Cormyn (OK to amnesty those killing troops, but G-d forbid anyone even think about abortion, and he "understands" why people would want to act violently toward judges, all their "activist" leanings and that), Mitch McConnell, too.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    Ernesto, come on you can't have it both ways. I made the offer because it was correct. This war IS different then Vietnam and WWII. Dadler. The US policy has all along been to build up the Iraqi military and security forces. How have we just now realized this? The Iraqi's couldn't have overthrown Saddam without us. To believe otherwise is naive at best. So without that intervention is your point that now they don't need us? I think they need us less and less everyday but we're not to the point yet were we can leave entirely. When we are we will. I call them mistakes because mistakes are always made in war but they are not intentional and not predictable except in hidsight and by critics. We've adjusted and are winning despite the constant griping and complaining from those who've never supported the mission and keep moving the goalposts.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:23:18 PM EST
    The Iraqi's couldn't have overthrown Saddam without us.
    Sure they could have, the oppressed were in the majority. BTW, we didn't invade, to institute regime change, we did it because they could fire WMDs at us on 45 minutes notice. And we knew all of that was a lie before we went in.
    I think they need us less and less everyday
    If you mean they want us there less and less, I might agree.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    If you wait an hour or so untill tonights BBC Newsnight updates, tonights program has Paxman interviewing a US general. This guy is a pro Bush/war general, sorry I didn't catch his name,he is the spokesman for Iraq policy, you should find it interesting. And for those not familiar with Paxman it may be a little eye opener for you. Though tonights interview was quite placid by Paxmans standards, it will give some insight as to how questions should be asked. The interview is somewhere round the half way mark but you can push the program on till you find it.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:42:52 PM EST
    Slado, If the Iraqis couldn't have overthrown Saddam on their own, how on earth have they bogged us down for so long there? Heard about Gaddafi lately? I don't buy it. Dictators are fairly easy to deal with and depose from within compared to religous zealots --see every communist country that, unlike the right's prediction it wasn't possible with those evil folks, gave up power through free elections. Who did the Sandanistas look to on how to step down? Jimmy Carter. Oh the irony. And, pardon my gasp, but WE stupidly, moronically, ignorantly, brazenly, and, from soon thereafter, regretfully DISBANDED THE IRAQI ARMY, threw all those folks out of work, and threw the place into chaos. Since then it's been an uphill battle, since we've had to rebuild a semblance of a security force IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIGHTING THE CHAOS THAT DISBANDING THE ARMY IN THE FIRST PLACE CREATED. We are pathologically unable to practice the amount of humility and self-criticism we expect from others, and, in lacking such, greatly diminish our ability to BE TO OTHERS the humane and moral and always well-intentioned power we ceaselessly crow about being. That we can't sense the audience ain't buyin' it like they used to, well, that's just inept on our part. We have the UN waiting to be led by a United States of humble and progressive power. And what are we doing, just acting like a dipsh*t bully. It's depressing and tiresome to hear our complaining without our trying to MAKE POSITIVE NOISE in our participation and, more importantly, our actions and self-critical ability. You'd think we could do better than China at THAT, wouldn't you?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    The Iraqi's couldn't have overthrown Saddam without us.
    And who are they going to get to overthrow us? Things are much worse now then during Saddam's reign and Bush is talking very long term occupation.
    First, Exxon/Mobil has no more access to Iraqi oil than anyone else.
    As far as the oil the less that gets pumped out of Iraq the more $$ gets made by Exxon/Mobile. I am sure that they know we have their best interests at heart. Anyone surprised that oil is much more expensive now that we have occupied Iraq. In fact I wouldn't be surprised it the bombing campaign planned for Iran had nothing to do with nukes. They are a red herring or McGuffin. More likely the plan is to destroy their oil production so the stuff stays in the ground. Imagine the $$ to be made by vastly reducing the oil supply, Not to mention the short traders who will be given enough time to get their portfolios in order. Greg Palast has some surprising historical facts regarding Iraq and the oil industry. Well worth a read.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#55)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 04:30:41 PM EST
    Squeaky, That's a great read. Palast is always a fountain of information.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#56)
    by John Mann on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:44:02 PM EST
    And, pardon my gasp, but WE stupidly, moronically, ignorantly, brazenly, and, from soon thereafter, regretfully DISBANDED THE IRAQI ARMY, threw all those folks out of work, and threw the place into chaos.
    It wasn't just the army - it was the entire civil service, all thanks to interim Dictator Bremer in his project of "de-Baathification. This had the greater effect of providing ample recruits for the resistance. I've always believed that since Saddam had so much notice that the Americans were going to invade Iraq, he had plenty of time to disband the military and stash weapons that would later be used by the resistance - which is why American forces faced so little opposition in their rush to Baghdad.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:44:06 PM EST
    Here is an interesting turn of events which should bring home the troops ASAP.
    This afternoon on the Senate floor, several Senate Republicans are DEFENDING the proposal to give amnesty to terrorists who have killed or wounded American troops. Here is a quick compilation:
    At last someone has their thinking cap on. Iraqis do not want to be occupied by foreign troops who will shoot them without the least bit of provocation in their own homes. And the Republicans seem to agree. link

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 06:56:18 PM EST
    An aid to PM Maliki
    "The prime minister himself has said that he is ready to give amnesty to the so-called resistance, provided they have not been involved in killing Iraqis," Kadhimi said Thursday.
    The dems are up in arms:
    "It is shocking that the Iraqi prime minister is reportedly considering granting amnesty to insurgents who have killed U.S. troops," Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said. "On the day we lost the 2,500th soldier in Iraq, the mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom. I call on President Bush to denounce this proposal immediately."
    WaPo From the other side of the aisle:
    "I really believe we ought to try to find some way to encourage that country to demonstrate to those people who have been opposed to what we're trying to do, that it's worthwhile for them and their children to come forward and support this democracy. And if that's amnesty, I'm for it. I'd be for it. And if those people who are, come forward... if they bore arms against our people, what's the difference between those people that bore arms against the Union in the War between the States? What's the difference between the Germans and Japanese and all the people we've forgiven?" - Sen. Ted Stevens
    Crazy times. Certainly time for the troops to come home

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    So much for keeping up with the thread. Nice one scribe. You hit the nail right on the head. From E&P: Tony Snow on U.S. Death #2500 in Iraq: "It's a Number" Slightly OT Was Michael Gordon caught spying at Gitmo??

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 07:56:26 PM EST
    Peaches writes:
    In reality, democracy has much more in common with a cooperative
    Uh, especially if your side lost the election, eh?? BTW - I understand that the most popular beer in Europe right now is..... Coor's Light.... See? I told you those folks were screwed up. Squaky (sic) Thanks, but your imagination is still the best. You still think the Demos are going to take control of the House and Senate. John Mann - Yes, it is always a hard call on whether or not to disband an army, and it is easy to say we should have kept then in power. Yet how would the Shiites have reacted to the Sunni control of the army and the bureaucrats? Not very well I would guess. Dadler wrote:
    Soldiers, I'm willing to wager, pretty much reflect the society they come from.
    They did when the draft was in effect. They do not anymore. In fact, I would posit that they are better than the society they protect. But either way, you will find that soldiers fight for each other. For the squad, the crew, the team. By and large they have no lofty goals, what they seek is to survive and do their jobs. Ask your brother. BTW - I hope he is well?? Sailor writes:
    BTW, we didn't invade, to institute regime change, we did it because they could fire WMDs at us on 45 minutes notice.
    Actually, no. As Bush said in the '03 SOTU, Saddam was not an imminent threat.
    Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option
    oscar - There are several things about Vietnam that are positive, First, it demonstrated to China and the Soviets that we would fight. Prior to this engagement we had proven in Korea that we had no stomach for a long war. That gave pause to China who, it appeared, would easily swallow up all of SE Asia. Secondly it demonstrated that too many of military commanders were politicians rather than fighters and that we didn't need the two to be mixed. Thirdly it showed us how to fight a war of mobility, and how to use all of our weapons. This lesson was apparent all through Vietnam, but it took years and years for it to sink in. And finally it forced the fellow travelers and socialists out into the open for all to see. And though the new Left did take control of the Democratic Party, it essentially lost the general population and marginalized itself. PBRman - If we ever meet I'll buy you one or twenty.... Of whatever you are drinking.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 08:13:39 PM EST
    Things are turning around in Iraq. Rove and his magic.
    This is just awesome. The US found some al-Zarqawi documents that prove that we are smokin 'em outa their caves and that we've gottem on the run! And Bush was right all along! Yeaaaah!
    digby

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:22:30 PM EST
    Actually, no. As Bush said in the '03 SOTU, Saddam was not an imminent threat.
    The "45 minute" claim was actually from "Phony Tony" Blair. You seem to have lost your scorecard for keeping track of the liars that pushed for the Iraq debacle.
    oscar - There are several things about Vietnam that are positive
    Yes, you can be positive that none of those who planned the Iraq invasion ever got within 5 time zones of that particular misadventure in attempted empire building.
    Thirdly it showed us how to fight a war of mobility, and how to use all of our weapons. This lesson was apparent all through Vietnam, but it took years and years for it to sink in.
    Yeah and it still hasn't sunk in with certain folks. Like Donnie "You have to go with the Army you have, not the Army you'd like to have" Rumsfeld, for instance.
    PBRman - If we ever meet I'll buy you one or twenty.... Of whatever you are drinking.
    Oh goody, Kool-aid all around! Jim's buyin'!

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 09:44:59 PM EST
    Ernesto, come on you can't have it both ways. I made the offer because it was correct. This war IS different then Vietnam and WWII.
    OK...let's compare notes. Here's what I have: Vietnam... A superpower gets bogged down in a guerilla war while trying to prop up a puppet government. WWII... A traditional military power begins invading foreign countries and suspending civil liberties after its leader exploits a terrorist attack on one of its landmarks. OK...I was wrong about WWII. There are some definite parallels there as well to this current reich...err period...in our history.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#64)
    by Andreas on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:04:36 PM EST
    Ernesto Del Mundo wrote: "WWII... suspending civil liberties after its leader exploits a terrorist attack on one of its landmarks." To add one detail: The Reichstag in Berlin was set on fire by the Nazis themselves. Book Review The Reichstag Fire, 68 years on Alexander Bahar, Wilfried Kugel: Der Reichstagbrand - Wie Geschichte gemacht wird 5 July 2001

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:13:30 PM EST
    5 July 2001
    Whoa...interesting timing. So I guess in 2069 the truth will come out and Cheney and the Boyz are goin'down. We'll still be in Iraq, with dead soldiers and Chinese prisoners providing Dick with a never ending supply of new organs.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#66)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:49:57 AM EST
    PBRMan I think the only thing you commanded in the Mekong Delta was your mama! Assuming you were in the U.S. Navy, care to tell us what unit you were with? Like PBR 110 of RivDiv 531. If what you say is true, I only want to know one thing, how did you keep your men from fragging you? :-)

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 05:41:57 AM EST
    Hard to know what to make of the new Zarwaqi document found sometime in the three weeks before Zarwaqi was killed. It is either authentic, al Qaida psyops, or US psyops. Hard to believe it is real. juan cole digby

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 05:53:31 AM EST
    Ernesto - And what does Blair's comment have to do with demonstrating to Sailor what Bush DID NOT say? Got any more great comments that someone DID NOT say? And yes, the US military is busy re-inventing itself. Many of the old line doesn't want to change, still fighting the last war and all that. Squeaky - Note you are still hawking Cole. Here's a link to an article that definitely helped me understand Cole, as well as Squeaky.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 06:20:02 AM EST
    There are several things about Vietnam that are positive
    countered by over 55,000 negative ones. Vietnam was escalated on a lie, the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Just like iraq when bush and condi and rumsfeld and cheney were all screaming about mushroom clouds and smoking guns, all the time knowing it was a lie and just an excuse to initiate the PNAC pplan for global domination.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#70)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:18:35 AM EST
    ppj-your McCarthy tactics are disgusting. Even though you think McCarthy was a great man, most of the commenters here at TL think he was an evil destructive force. The current attempt by your Likud friends to destroy academic freedom in the US is reprehensible. You are a fake as your primary goal is spreading Likud and neocon propaganda here at TL. You have never read Juan Cole except the neocon cliff notes supplied to you by Benador et al, nor have you ever been interested in serious debate. Your attempt to smear Juan Cole by dissemination false propaganda written by your friends is abhorrent. The last discredited story by Benador via their client Amir Taheri was the one about Iranians forcing Jews to wear special identifying badges. I am surprised you did not link to it on TL, or maybe I missed it. I have challenged you before to discuss/debate any primary text by Cole. Obviously you have never read him but only right wing neocon smears by Benador Associates. You should be banned from this site for disseminating propaganda and colluding in a systematized campaign to smear any academic who is critical of Israel. I don't care how much you pay TL. This kind of evil needs to be cut off every time it rears its ugly head. I have always been amazed that a small group of right wing jews would use the very same tactic that once were used by the Nazis. Maybe it is just a right wing thing. Clearly these neofascists have learned from history. Instead of repeating nazi mistakes they have retooled and refined their tactics. Most would not call that learning the lessons of history, most would call it repeating history.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#71)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:53:48 AM EST
    And yes, the US military is busy re-inventing itself. Agreed. And BTW, it's pronouned Fronkensteen. You get my drift? Rummy failed in his sexy strategy of building a new monster, causing tens of thousands of deaths. Arrest him for war crimes.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#72)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:59:45 AM EST
    Secondly it demonstrated that too many of military commanders were politicians rather than fighters and that we didn't need the two to be mixed. Rummy's solution was to get rid of any military commanders that did not suck up to the political line. Is that the proper solution? 9 out of 10 Iraqis we asked didn't answer because they are dead.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 08:18:58 AM EST
    Peaches writes: In reality, democracy has much more in common with a cooperative.
    Uh, especially if your side lost the election, eh??
    Yes, Jim. When I wrote this I thought I should immediately retract it. What I meant to say was in an ideal democracy. I know, you will never stop reminding me that we have a constituional republic, not a democracy. I would just remind you that this country was founded on ideals that we should always strive to achieve and the constitutional republic is an attempt to approximate an ideal democracy where we are all equal in each other's eyes (Or God's, if you prefer a religious foundation). So, in reality democracy as sport does carry the day--Your side won and my side lost. But I would still rather we remain united as Americans with many different and often times opposing views who strive to make our thoughts known to each other. Even if, by some small chance, what you percieve as my side wins, I would still prefer you have your say while waiting for the next opportunity for your side to regain the upper hand. Throughout it all, it would be nice if we might strive towards the day when the sides drawn up no longer bring any utility and we can worry more about who is growing the nicest tomatoes in the neighborhood rather than what is happening on the other side of the world and where the next bomb needs to be dropped.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 08:48:02 AM EST
    Squeaky - Your response is perfect. I never said I agreed with the article, just that it helped me understand Cole and Squeaky. And it does, and your response adds to it. You speak of McCarthy? He was the one wanting actors fired for saying unpopular things. He wanted no debate. So when you demand that I be banned, aren't you acting in his grand tradition? I wrote in another thread that it is possible to understand why people have done something, and yet find it wrong. BTW - You speak of propaganda, yet you never commented about the Guardian article that is in direct conflict with what the DOD says. If you are so concerned with truth, why aren't you asking for the Guardian to provide a source, or to retract? BTW - You're on. The next open thread, let's examine some of the things Cole has written. I'm looking forward to it. BTW - Freudian slip?
    This kind of evil needs to be cut off every time it rears its ugly head.
    Sailor - Well, there you go again, using the "lie" word. So while I agree that the incident was a mistake, I see no "lie." But hey, that's just the Social Liberal in me displaying a little tolerance and belief that most people want to do good, not bad. Che - Failed? Heck, we haven't had the first bolt of lightning yet. As for "disagreement," there are several types. The first is disagreement over tactics. The second is disagreement over strategy. And the third is disagreement over political objectives. For example. Patton's commanders could disagree over tactics and be heard by him with no negative hits. Patton could disagree over strategy and be heard with no negative hits until his disagreements fell over into the political objectives. Still he was tolerated because of his leadership skills. However, when the war was over and he publicly disagreed with getting rid of all Nazi political types in any position that was the end. He had disagreed with a civilian political objective. The major difference between then and now is that rather than speak up as an active military officer and suffer the consequences, we are seeing retired officers risking nothing. The genius of our system has always been that the military fight and the civilians govern. This mixing of the two by critics who are retired military is very troubling. It is a pity that your side can't see that.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 08:53:30 AM EST
    Peaches - You know, if you will specify that both sides do it, I'll agree that it is bad, to a degree. The degree is that if you're not careful you wind up with an embedded base of bureaucrats serving an embebbed base of "elected" officals. I think we are pretty well there. A constitutional amendment limiting terms?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#76)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    A constitutional amendment limiting terms?
    I think that would be a good place to start. Another idea is choosing Our representatives like jury duty--randomly. When one is called to serve, one has a duty to serve. Elections are not democracy, imo. I am surprised that this has not been at least experimented with on a local level. The fact that it has not means we do not trust the citizenry. Which means we have failed in our attempts to educate and produce citizens capable of serving our country by making important decisions for the community. Our society is dominated by experts who we trust to make all of our decisions. It is time citizens think of themselves as equal to the experts. This is a risk for republicans and Democrats. Republicans have to trust that the citizens won't take hard earned property from the wealthy if citizens rule. Democrats have to trust that citizens won't institute a religious or fundamentalist state. But, that is what democracy is. Trust in your fellow citizens, Right?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:31:40 AM EST
    Tony Snow = What a f*cking tool. Were I one of those parents of a deceased soldier, and I heard all the deceased are "just a number", I think Tony would be stepping outside to take the first punch in anger he's probably ever taken in his life. How do these pr*cks live with themselves? What a sh*tweed.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#78)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    According to Jefferson, what our forefathers created was and is a democracy, regardless of how those on the right like to spin it. Ever wonder why the righties like JimakaPPJ have come to regard democracy as a dirty word? You can just tell it leaves a bad taste in their mouth d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y. Just pronouncing it makes them ill, and the underlying idea obviously scares the Sh-t out of them. Democracy, keep saying it, it drives them bananas. Of course they're all for majority rule when it comes to suppressing the rights of others, as in gay marriage. But the moment the people start asserting there will and telling the president he can't turn our country into a fascist dictatorship where the leader makes Machiavellian decisions based on his faith and his beliefs, in direct opposition to the facts... as happened in Iraq. The very reason we have a constitutionally based democratic republic is to protect us from just such people who would subvert the will of the masses in order to do away with the rights of those in the minority, or drag us into a trumped up war. The Constitutional Congress never intended that the president should become the unquestioned ruler, in fact that's what they most feared. That's why we have three branches of government and not one, although at the moment it seems like one instead of three. The imbalances that we currently see in our system are rather appealing to some who feel most comfortable when they are taking orders unquestioningly. Such people are not true Americans, they are pseudo-Americans who will support any political force which shares their aims, regardless of how egregious or unconstitutional those aims may be. I guess they're hoping that when the new order is established they'll receive first citizenship, and be able to lord over all the rest of us peons. Their dream come true. They're easy to recognize these days, they're the ones showering the Emperor with triumphs and shouting "Long live the empire".

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#79)
    by Aaron on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:50:57 AM EST
    Squeaky Damn, you put Jimbo in his place, nice work. JimakaPPJ How much do you pay talkleft to comment here, I want to compare rates. They told me I was getting a discount, but I think that's bull.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:21:39 AM EST
    And what does Blair's comment have to do with demonstrating to Sailor what Bush DID NOT say?
    I was just pointing out that Blair used a different set of lies as justification for invading Iraq than Bush did. The main point of course is that they are both liars. Let's not lose sight of that! Thank you.
    And yes, the US military is busy re-inventing itself. Many of the old line doesn't want to change, still fighting the last war and all that.
    So that's why the troops had to buy their own body armor while waiting for Rummy to even notice that a Humvee ain't much of a match for an IED?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    Aaron, Keep on keepin' on, my friend. We gotta keep pounding it home, with as much intellect and humanity and humor as we can. We gotta welcome 'em as we whoop 'em.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    Peaches, We have all these great microbrews, why NOT some micropolitics on the street by street level. This is where technology should be helping us. With every neighborhood council able to communicate others instantly. And still, we're stuck in the old paradigm and afraid to change it and require ourselves to get GENUINELY involved in the grimy work of democracy.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:01:10 AM EST
    Squeaky - Your response is perfect. I never said I agreed with the article, just that it helped me understand Cole and Squeaky. And it does, and your response adds to it.
    And you never said that you don't disagree, how cowardly. Most would turn to the primary source rather than a source that is part of organized right wing smear campaign to better understand a writer. Given the choice you choose the smear. Would you also send people to LGF so that they could better understand TL's writings?
    So when you demand that I be banned, aren't you acting in his grand tradition?
    No at all. You are spreading black lies much the way McCarthy did and there is no value in that except to destroy someone's career with baseless lies. Anyone that is part of a machine like should be shunned. Feel free to take to the streets with your dirt and slime, but banning that kind of thing from a private site is the opposite of McCarthyism.
    If you are so concerned with truth, why aren't you asking for the Guardian to provide a source, or to retract?
    WTF does the guardian article have to do with any of this? Are you comparing Benador with the Guardian? If you are you are really off your rocker. More likely it is a pathetic attempt to change the subject.
    BTW - Freudian slip? This kind of evil needs to be cut off every time it rears its ugly head.
    Are you rewriting Freud as well? How can this be construed as a Freudian slip. Perhaps you are disassociating?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    Squeaky - Remember you're talking to the genius/scholar that put Time, News Week, and The Nation all in the same category a while back.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:23:21 AM EST
    "Would you also send people to LGF.." Undoubtably. Or was that a rhetorical question?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:32:27 AM EST
    The Swift-Slime-for-Truth machine marches on. Hey, do you seriously think when they beat nary an eyelash over 50,000 dead, maimed and traumatized little kids that they're going to give a flying rat's a*s about smearing a leftwing proffessor? We're dealing with classic, unfeeling, ends-justify-the means, fascist sc*m here.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#87)
    by Peaches on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    Dadler, The micropolitics is a good suggestion. I believe that politics should be kept local. I am sure there is some formula that determines the quality of a microbrew reflecting the origins of the brewery and the final place one drinks the beer. As good as Guinness tastes on draught in the local Irish pubs in St. Paul, MN, it tastes even better in Boston and much much better in Dublin. The same would apply to politics. The closer one is to the community that will feel the effects of a decision, the more qualified they are to make the decision. That is the main reason we should not be in Iraq. It is the most powerful argument for keeping politics local. That said I do not trust technology to deliver democracy. Democracy is not suppose to be efficient. It is suppose to be messy and slow. Liberalism is defined by change and true liberals believe that democracy and the ideals defining it are something to be achieved. They require hope and determination to achieve a better world. Thus, liberals are always willing to experiment with new ways to attempt to reach closer to the ideals behind democracy. Conservativism is defined by the status quo. Change, especially economic change, can sometimes happen way too fast for a generation or even several generations to realize the harmful effects that might accompany change. Thus, liberalism does need a balance of conservatism in an ideal democracy, imho.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 11:44:50 AM EST
    I Wake Up Screaming: Al Qaeda in the White House
    As I contemplate the continuing, widening destruction wrought by Bush and his henchmen both at home and abroad, screaming seems to be the only appropriate response. Such a reaction is warranted not only by the endless death in Iraq and the continuing destruction of that country, but by the Bush administration's embrace of torture, by its ceaseless assault on individual rights and civil liberties, by its rejection of science and reason as a matter of fundamentalist policy -- to say nothing of the numerous other horrors, the incidents at Haditha and Guantanamo, and what I think is the likely attack on Iran in the near future. (I will soon be writing much more about Haditha, Guantanamo and Iran.)
    More excellent writing from Artur Silber.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:18:08 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    Most would turn to the primary source rather than a source that is part
    Oh, really? Have you taken many Lit courses? I haven't, but the ones I have taken I was assigned a lot of reading about the author, both critical and otherwise. An author's past, politics, education, family, military experience (or lack of) everything about the person, colors and affects the author. Squeaky, your problem is that you don't want critical thinking, or else you wouldn't have accused me of being like McCarthy when it is you that is making statements to suppress free speech. Who was it that said something like "the more disagreeable the speech the more important it is to be protected?" Didn't you claim something similar about Ward Churchill? The link is published on the internet. How true it is I have no idea, and I doubt that you do. Perhaps when we have our open thread debate you can prove it wrong. Until then I just put it into the "information" stack. Now, let us return to your claim re propaganda. My point, which you must understand because you are not dense, is that you claim the link to be "propaganda" and make much noise about my reading it and referring to it. My comment is that you embraced the Guardian article because it claimed that a terrorist committed suicide because the military didn't tell him he was going to be set free. That matched your world view. Now. The DOD says that is not true. Yet I see no outrage on your part demanding the sources for the article and/or a retraction. How about a little balance??? No? Surprise, surprise, Sgt Carter. And the slip? Yes, I believe it was. ;-)

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#90)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    PPJ demanding that someone be balanced in their view. This may be his most hypocritical statement yet. Physician heal thy self.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:30:04 PM EST
    Jondee-
    The Swift-Slime-for-Truth machine marches on. Hey, do you seriously think when they beat nary an eyelash over 50,000 dead, maimed and traumatized little kids that they're going to give a flying rat's a*s about smearing a leftwing professor?
    The irony is that Cole is hardly a left wing professor. His only 'crime' was to engage in debate about the white elephant in the room namely Israel. For that he has been relentlessly attacked. His attackers recently contacted major Yale donors who wrote critical letters about Cole to the University. His appointment was withdrawn, even though he had majority support from the department. PPJ was part of the smear campaign. He has never read Cole. Most likely the highly organized bullies that went on a campaign to smear him never read a word of his either.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#92)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:42:06 PM EST
    ppj is just attempting to hijack yet another thread with OT nonsense and easily disproved untruths. And it worked. back on topic, this says it better than I can:
    I'm tired of the right wing war whore lovers who think this war is a videogame. The honored dead are meaningless to them.
    [...] Somebody's baby. How do you tell a mother her baby boy is dead because an idiot wanted to be a war president and had to one-up his daddy because he's got mommy issues that his sorry, alcoholic a$$ never dealt with when he was growing up because Georgie-boy never had to grow up?
    [...] But the gruesome reality is it doesn't. The 2,500 lives were spent needlessly fighting an unnecessary war based on lies.
    And that makes the pain even more heartbreaking.


    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 02:27:14 PM EST
    Oh, really? Have you taken many Lit courses? I haven't, but the ones I have taken I was assigned a lot of reading about the author, both critical and otherwise. An author's past, politics, education, family, military experience (or lack of) everything about the person, colors and affects the author.
    BS cubed. Any course that would set out to study Juan Cole would focus on primary material.
    Squeaky, your problem is that you don't want critical thinking,
    Since when have you ever been engaged in critical thinking. Never. Presenting material from an organization whose only purpose is to smear Academics critical of Israel is hardly 'critical thinking'. It is nasty political warfare and has nothing to do with free thinking or academics.
    Who was it that said something like "the more disagreeable the speech the more important it is to be protected?" Didn't you claim something similar about Ward Churchill?
    I have never written about Ward Churchill.
    My comment is that you embraced the Guardian article because it claimed that a terrorist committed suicide because the military didn't tell him he was going to be set free. That matched your world view.
    The Guardian article is journalism whether you like it or not, or whether their story turns out to be incorrect. Benador associates is,among other things, a self avowed organization whose mission is to destroy the supposed 'left bias' in Academia by maliciously lying, smearing, and using big money pressure to destroy professor's careers who they decide are 'decadent', just like the Nazi's did. Your comparison holds no weight whatsoever.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    Sailor - I think the thread went haywire about 30 hours ago when people started talking about China, oil and microbrews vs PBR. Followed by you wanting to claim Bush said an attack from Iraq was imminent. Squeaky - You actually missed out on the Churchill thingeee? Hard to believe, but does that mean you also don't support the substance of:
    Who was it that said something like "the more disagreeable the speech the more important it is to be protected?"
    Again. All Lit courses I have taken had a ton of assigned reading about the author as well as the author's actual works. I thought the latter was so obvious as to not need mentioning, but I do so now to remove one of the crutches you cling to. You write:
    The Guardian article is journalism whether you like it or not, or whether their story turns out to be incorrect
    That is no answer. The question is, why aren't you interested in the accuracy of it? And we both know the answer. Because it fits your world view. You are biased.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 05:27:01 PM EST
    Spin and squirm all you want. There is no justification for your hit job on Juan Cole an academic who you know nothing about first hand. By linking a right wing smear campaign and then saying well I never said I agreed with it is pathetic. There is no excuse or counter argument for participation in an organized effort to ruin someone's career because he is attempting to open up a debate you want to silence. End of story.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 05:39:40 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ... "go f*ck yourself". Dick Cheney

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 06:50:57 PM EST
    RaulDuke - Glad to read your most intelligent comment. I am sure that was your top response. May I say that I have little doubt of your high intelligence, debating capabilities, etc., etc. Squeaky - Twist and turn? You know Squeaky, you have provided absolutely no argument that makes any sense. Your claim of censorship of me is standard Left Wing fare...Freedom of speech for everyone who agrees with them, and no one else. You claim propaganda, yet you won't speak out against the Guardian article which the DOD says is wrong. So what proof do you have that Juan Cole deserves no criticism, no discussion of his past habits and his current comments? BTW - Did you read the article? I mean what is so bad?? It says Cole has expertise, has testified, etc. His blog is readable..speaks Arabic...
    and his views on the invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq war, both of which he supported (while also voicing concerns about U.S. unilateralism), seem to bolster his credibility, reassuring readers that he doesn't suffer from the knee-jerk anti-Americanism found in many Middle East studies departments.
    on the other hand...
    Having done hardly any independent research on the twentieth-century Middle East, Cole's analysis of this era is essentially derivative, echoing the conventional wisdom among Arabists and Orientalists regarding Islamic and Arab history, the creation of the modern Middle East in the wake of World War I, and its relations with the outside world. Worse, Cole's discussion of U.S. foreign policy frequently veers toward conspiratorial anti-Semitism. This is hardly the "informed" commentary Cole claims it to be.
    It says that Cole subscribes to the theory that the ME's problems are caused by the European powers, etc... That is hardly a unique position, especially if I can judge it based on what I have seem on TL. It goes on to claim that there has been no real discussion re that theory since the mid '30's and etc... There is really nothing new or unexpected. What is not understandable, dear Squeaky, is that you have reacted as if you were a husband who has been found with a pair of panty hose in his car's glove box, stammering and claiming everything from someone is out to get him to that he wears them himself on really cold days... All in all, it makes your claims appear weak. So when the Open Thread comes, let's have it.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    ppj-do your homework and maybe I will engage with you on Cole. Considering your start, it doesn't look so interesting. Parroting others BS makes you look like, well a parrot.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#99)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 08:12:42 PM EST
    true that, jim. felt good. notice i used your "cribbed quote" technique, only i didnt have to cut and paste. you bore me to tears with your ticky-tacky lock-step fabrications. you're more excruciating than Limbaugh. at least he can blame the drugs. time for the nice lady to bring your pudding.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#100)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 08:18:46 PM EST
    You claim propaganda, yet you won't speak out against the Guardian article which the DOD says is wrong.
    Yeah like the DOD always tells the truth. Well they will after they are caught lying. Now put on your brown shirt and take another nap.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    I dont know why you're being so harsh with Jim, he's obviously wrestled with his conscience and meditated at length about this issue and genuinely believes that the time for silence about faltering standards of scholarship in our seats of higher learning has ended. You people just have to politicize everything dont you?

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 08:53:58 PM EST
    JonD, that was as dry as a martini in a cotton mill. cheers!

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#103)
    by Sailor on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 09:30:34 PM EST
    Funny how a dry wit can show a thirst for the truth;-)

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    Cheers my friends. Now I have a powerful thirst. God Im suggestable.

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#105)
    by Andreas on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 10:25:00 PM EST
    In the face of this catastrophe, there is no significant "peace faction" within either the Democratic or Republican Party demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. In the name of "supporting our troops," these big business politicians call for continuing the war, guaranteeing that the slaughter of both Iraqis and US troops will continue. They are in fundamental agreement not only with the military operation, but with the reasons the US went to war in the first place--to secure oil resources as well as to advance American geo-strategic interests in the Middle East and internationally. This bipartisan support for US imperialist policy was demonstrated clearly on Thursday with a 98 to 1 vote in the Senate to authorize another $66.6 billion in military spending requested by the Bush administration for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While media attention focused on the raging "debate" in the House of Representatives over the Iraq war, the House had approved the war spending only two days earlier.
    A grim milestone in the Iraq war: 2,500th US military death By the Editorial Board of the WSWS, 17 June 2006 (One of those 98 is John Kerry.)

    Re: The Death Toll in Iraq (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 06:25:15 AM EST
    Squeaky - In otherwords you don't have the nerve. Okay. But the invite still stands. RauolDuke writes:
    true that, jim. felt good. notice i used your "cribbed quote" technique, only i didnt have to cut and paste.
    If you really want to play, use words as they are defined. "cribbed quote" implies dishonesty.. Can you tell me how a quote is dishonest??? Let me help you. You will now come back and say you meant "out of context quote" and I will say that I provide links so that the reader can read the total... SD - So you say the DOD lies?? Well, then there is the PERFECT opportunity for the Guardian to prove their point by saying who told them. This is like the Leopold thing. A decidedly Leftist reports something wrong, and when caught, won't say who told them. Do you any idea how bad that makes the Left look? And you think the public wants to turn running the country over to people who get involved in such dumb actions??

    The Death Toll in Iraq | 105 comments (105 topical)