"U.S. Was 'Dead Wrong' in Prewar Assessments, Commission Says"
WASHINGTON, March 31 - A report made public this morning concludes that American intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" in almost all of their prewar assessments about the state of unconventional weapons in Iraq, and that on issues of this importance "we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/politics/31cnd-intel.html?ex=1112936400
Iraq Body Count: 3/31/05
Americans Killed: 1532
Americans Wounded: 11,595
Iraqi Dead: Est. 100,000
http://icasualties.org/oif/
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Friday, March 25, 2005
Halting the Spread of What?
In keeping with George Bush's plan to halt the spread of terror in the world, The US State Department is reported to be on the verge of selling a fleet of F-16 fighter jets to our good friends in Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/politics/25cnd-military.html?ex=1112418000
I suppose we could look at this as a fitting reward for keeping Osama bin Laden safe and secure in those caves along the Afghanistan border while we take care of more important business in Iraq. Or maybe we could look at this as repayment for the way they have helped to keep nuclear weapons technology out of the hands of ............oh wait, there was that business of selling nuclear technology to Iran but I guess that's heavy water under the bridge now.
In yet another example of how George is a man of conviction, he is showing his zealot-like resolve in following through with this sale even over the objection of Pakistan's nuclear neighbor, India. After all, we shouldn't let the potential to heat up the always turbulent relationship between these two frequently battling nuclear powers stop us from protecting our reputation for being the world's largest exporter of death and destruction in the world.
I'm sure it never occured to the State Department to, oh I don't know, maybe give food or medicine or possibly some heavy equipment for creating roads and other infrastructure improvements. You know, some things that might raise the quality of life of the average Pakistani so they wouldn't "envy" us so much that half of them want to kill us. Well, I suppose if putting more pollution in the air can be called "Clear Skies" and clearcutting acres of old growth can be called "Healthy Forests", selling fighter jets to a totalitarian regime with nuclear capability can be called "halting the spread of terror".
Chad (The Left) Shue
Still somewhere in Oz
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/politics/25cnd-military.html?ex=1112418000
I suppose we could look at this as a fitting reward for keeping Osama bin Laden safe and secure in those caves along the Afghanistan border while we take care of more important business in Iraq. Or maybe we could look at this as repayment for the way they have helped to keep nuclear weapons technology out of the hands of ............oh wait, there was that business of selling nuclear technology to Iran but I guess that's heavy water under the bridge now.
In yet another example of how George is a man of conviction, he is showing his zealot-like resolve in following through with this sale even over the objection of Pakistan's nuclear neighbor, India. After all, we shouldn't let the potential to heat up the always turbulent relationship between these two frequently battling nuclear powers stop us from protecting our reputation for being the world's largest exporter of death and destruction in the world.
I'm sure it never occured to the State Department to, oh I don't know, maybe give food or medicine or possibly some heavy equipment for creating roads and other infrastructure improvements. You know, some things that might raise the quality of life of the average Pakistani so they wouldn't "envy" us so much that half of them want to kill us. Well, I suppose if putting more pollution in the air can be called "Clear Skies" and clearcutting acres of old growth can be called "Healthy Forests", selling fighter jets to a totalitarian regime with nuclear capability can be called "halting the spread of terror".
Chad (The Left) Shue
Still somewhere in Oz
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
More of why I am not a Democrat any more
I'm heading home from the grocery store, listening to our new Air America - now the only thing worth listening to except for Mike Webb and Erin Hart on KIRO), and there's a newsclip about John McCain (the whore) in Albuquerque, pressing Democrat senator Jeff Bingaman to support the Bush Social Security private accounts plan...
Now I lived in ABQ for 3 years, and I know J.B. isn't the most liberal guy in the world, but for God's sake, he's a Democrat. But here's what he says...
I'll support the president's plan for private accounts, even though it won't help Social Security be more solvent, and in the end it will result in a reduction of benefits...
Can you believe that?!?
Why don't I just rephrase that, so we all understand exactly what he just said in layman's terms:
"This is a really fucked up plan, and it will hurt the American people, but I believe I can get behind it."
And that's why the Democrats will lose again and again. Case in point: They lost me this week.
Now I lived in ABQ for 3 years, and I know J.B. isn't the most liberal guy in the world, but for God's sake, he's a Democrat. But here's what he says...
I'll support the president's plan for private accounts, even though it won't help Social Security be more solvent, and in the end it will result in a reduction of benefits...
Can you believe that?!?
Why don't I just rephrase that, so we all understand exactly what he just said in layman's terms:
"This is a really fucked up plan, and it will hurt the American people, but I believe I can get behind it."
And that's why the Democrats will lose again and again. Case in point: They lost me this week.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
More on Off Budget Funding................
This past week, The US House voted overwhelmingly and incorrectly to grant the Bush Administration's latest "Emergency Supplemental Budget Request" for Afghanistan and Iraq to the tune of $81.4 BILLION. Only 43 House members voted against this effort to keep the funding for our interventions in the Middle East off budget. Of that 43, 39 were Democrats with familiar names like Kucinich, McDermott, Jackson-Lee, Rangle, Frank, and Waters, while 2 republicans and Independent, Bernie Sanders also opposed this vote. For those in Washington's 3rd CD, Brian Baird was absent for this vote.
Congressman Jay Inslee of the 1st CD, an early and vocal opponent to the invasion of Iraq and of earlier "Emergency Supplementals", was quick to respond to criticism of his yes vote. In a letter that he sent almost immediately after his House vote, he pointed to the fact that, unlike the previous off budget requests, this request was specific in its allocation of spending and noted how the House was able to back off funding for a new embassy in Baghdad and compel the administration to go public with their plans for permanent military bases in Iraq. From Rep. Inslee's letter: "... "also made funding for military infrastructure conditional upon the Department of Defense reporting it's long term plans. In other words, if they want to build permanent bases in Iraq, they will have to report that to Congress and the American people, and can be held accountable. I vigorously oppose building permanent bases, and the President should have made it clear a long time ago that we have no intention of staying in Iraq." He went on to close his letter by explaining that a "No" vote would have been simply symbolic and said, "Please be assured that I continue to oppose the war in Iraq, and I will continue holding the Administration accountable for their policies there. I also still believe that these funds should not be requested off budget in an emergency supplemental, as they are clearly foreseeable expenses. Nonetheless, my vote on this bill was guided by the same principles that led me to oppose the invasion, and I believe it was the right one." I want to say to Rep. Inslee that, while I disagree vehemently with this vote, I appreciate the effort to reach out and offer his explanation and continued support in the effort to end our involvement in Iraq. For the entire text of Jay's letter, go to: http://www.jayinslee.com/images/pdf/LetterOnSupplementalBudgetRequest.pdf
If we Progressives want (or need) to criticize anyone in this situation, we should be directing our CONSTRUCTIVE criticism toward Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader in the House. Rep. Pelosi should have been able to offer a better and more effective argument (or "frame") for the Democratic Caucus. What might that frame look like? To begin with, we should be turning the "Support the Troops" argument back on the neo-cons by pointing out that, by hiding behind off-budget supplementals, it is the republicans who will not make the tough choices of diverting non-critical DOD dollars to our troops in the field. We should be framing the discussion around the dishonest way that these off budget request hide from the taxpayers the increase to the federal deficit and, how in this year alone, the $82 BILLION reflects an almost 20% (hidden) increase in the DOD budget. Certainly we should be talking about how, after 2 years, the Bush Administration is either incompetent or outright deceitful in its planning in Iraq. Even the most rabid neo-con would have to admit that calling an ongoing military action in a country that has now been proven to have been no threat to this country an "Emergency" is an insult to our intelligence.
Now that the House has voted, what can we do? Well, there is still a Senate vote coming up on this same issue. We can begin with letters to Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, (http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm). This will take you to a form on his Senate website. We should be letting Senator Reid and our particular senators know how we feel as a group. We should be writing letters to the editors explaining what is happening with this off budget spending. We should be submitting and passing resolutions through our local, regional, and state Democratic organizations that call for an end to this off budget spending. To be sure, we need to let our elected representatives know when we disagree with a vote but we must never lose sight of the fact that we have an obligation to lead. We only "have the power" if we use it.
Congressman Jay Inslee of the 1st CD, an early and vocal opponent to the invasion of Iraq and of earlier "Emergency Supplementals", was quick to respond to criticism of his yes vote. In a letter that he sent almost immediately after his House vote, he pointed to the fact that, unlike the previous off budget requests, this request was specific in its allocation of spending and noted how the House was able to back off funding for a new embassy in Baghdad and compel the administration to go public with their plans for permanent military bases in Iraq. From Rep. Inslee's letter: "... "also made funding for military infrastructure conditional upon the Department of Defense reporting it's long term plans. In other words, if they want to build permanent bases in Iraq, they will have to report that to Congress and the American people, and can be held accountable. I vigorously oppose building permanent bases, and the President should have made it clear a long time ago that we have no intention of staying in Iraq." He went on to close his letter by explaining that a "No" vote would have been simply symbolic and said, "Please be assured that I continue to oppose the war in Iraq, and I will continue holding the Administration accountable for their policies there. I also still believe that these funds should not be requested off budget in an emergency supplemental, as they are clearly foreseeable expenses. Nonetheless, my vote on this bill was guided by the same principles that led me to oppose the invasion, and I believe it was the right one." I want to say to Rep. Inslee that, while I disagree vehemently with this vote, I appreciate the effort to reach out and offer his explanation and continued support in the effort to end our involvement in Iraq. For the entire text of Jay's letter, go to: http://www.jayinslee.com/images/pdf/LetterOnSupplementalBudgetRequest.pdf
If we Progressives want (or need) to criticize anyone in this situation, we should be directing our CONSTRUCTIVE criticism toward Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader in the House. Rep. Pelosi should have been able to offer a better and more effective argument (or "frame") for the Democratic Caucus. What might that frame look like? To begin with, we should be turning the "Support the Troops" argument back on the neo-cons by pointing out that, by hiding behind off-budget supplementals, it is the republicans who will not make the tough choices of diverting non-critical DOD dollars to our troops in the field. We should be framing the discussion around the dishonest way that these off budget request hide from the taxpayers the increase to the federal deficit and, how in this year alone, the $82 BILLION reflects an almost 20% (hidden) increase in the DOD budget. Certainly we should be talking about how, after 2 years, the Bush Administration is either incompetent or outright deceitful in its planning in Iraq. Even the most rabid neo-con would have to admit that calling an ongoing military action in a country that has now been proven to have been no threat to this country an "Emergency" is an insult to our intelligence.
Now that the House has voted, what can we do? Well, there is still a Senate vote coming up on this same issue. We can begin with letters to Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, (http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm). This will take you to a form on his Senate website. We should be letting Senator Reid and our particular senators know how we feel as a group. We should be writing letters to the editors explaining what is happening with this off budget spending. We should be submitting and passing resolutions through our local, regional, and state Democratic organizations that call for an end to this off budget spending. To be sure, we need to let our elected representatives know when we disagree with a vote but we must never lose sight of the fact that we have an obligation to lead. We only "have the power" if we use it.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Shifting Moods in the Mis-Information Age
A story in today's Washingtons Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37812-2005Mar15.html) says, "Two years after President Bush led the country to war in Iraq, Americans appear to be of two minds about the situation in the Middle East: A majority say they believe the Iraqis are better off today than they were before the conflict began -- but they also say the war was not worth fighting in the first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll." I wonder what might make Americans so confused about the situation.
Is it possible that, in the lead up to the Invasion of Iraq, the major "news" media in this country failed to ask or answer tough questions about the basis for war that the Bush Administration was putting forward? Did the opportunity to become part of the story through the seduction of the "embedded reporter" policy cause them to become simple propaganda machines for the ne-cons and their agenda? I still find it worth noting that, according to the polls at the time of the Iraq invasion, support for the invasion never reached above 50% until the day the boots hit the sand and then it became almost impossible to separate "support our troops" from "support the policy". It is well known that to attempt to divorce the two was simply un-American.
According to the current ABC/Washington Post poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/polltrend_031405.html), "Fifty-three percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, 57 percent said they disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, and 70 percent said the number of U.S. casualties, including more than 1,500 deaths (1518 to date), is an unacceptable price. " However, "The poll also shows that more Americans believe the war has improved the chances of democracy spreading in the Middle East than believe it has diminished those prospects. ...........with a clear majority of Americans (56 percent) saying they are now confident that Iraqi leaders can create a stable government -- a dramatic turnaround since just before the elections."
Americans are notoriously optimistic but I can't help but wonder on what this "majority" is basing their optimism for the situation in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, we have witnessed an election at gunpoint in Iraq where almost an entire section of the population refused to participate and where hundreds of "candidates" appeared anonymously on the ballet for fear of reprisal. We have been seeing so-call popular uprisings in Lebanon and, to a lesser degree, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I wonder when the media will think to remind their readers and viewers that the most recent popular uprising in that part of the world led to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran or that the last change of government in Iraq, which was also supported by the US led to the installment of Saddam Hussein? Are the American people willing to remain endlessly involved militarily and economically in that region of the world to ensure "successful" conclusions to these uprisings? Do we need to be reminded of the thousands of years of cultural and political turmoil in that part of the world?
I believe it is better to be optimistic than pessimistic but I also believe it is best to be realistic and even skeptical while waiting for an outcome. There are many questions still be to be asked and answered about the situation in the Middle East. One of the most important questions still left unanswered (unchallenged?) is what are the true motives of the Bush Administration with regards to our involvement in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
It is admirable to promote democratic change where there has been oppression. However, there is a big difference between promoting change and simply poking a stick in the hornet's nest.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Is it possible that, in the lead up to the Invasion of Iraq, the major "news" media in this country failed to ask or answer tough questions about the basis for war that the Bush Administration was putting forward? Did the opportunity to become part of the story through the seduction of the "embedded reporter" policy cause them to become simple propaganda machines for the ne-cons and their agenda? I still find it worth noting that, according to the polls at the time of the Iraq invasion, support for the invasion never reached above 50% until the day the boots hit the sand and then it became almost impossible to separate "support our troops" from "support the policy". It is well known that to attempt to divorce the two was simply un-American.
According to the current ABC/Washington Post poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/polltrend_031405.html), "Fifty-three percent of Americans said the war was not worth fighting, 57 percent said they disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, and 70 percent said the number of U.S. casualties, including more than 1,500 deaths (1518 to date), is an unacceptable price. " However, "The poll also shows that more Americans believe the war has improved the chances of democracy spreading in the Middle East than believe it has diminished those prospects. ...........with a clear majority of Americans (56 percent) saying they are now confident that Iraqi leaders can create a stable government -- a dramatic turnaround since just before the elections."
Americans are notoriously optimistic but I can't help but wonder on what this "majority" is basing their optimism for the situation in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, we have witnessed an election at gunpoint in Iraq where almost an entire section of the population refused to participate and where hundreds of "candidates" appeared anonymously on the ballet for fear of reprisal. We have been seeing so-call popular uprisings in Lebanon and, to a lesser degree, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I wonder when the media will think to remind their readers and viewers that the most recent popular uprising in that part of the world led to the installment of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran or that the last change of government in Iraq, which was also supported by the US led to the installment of Saddam Hussein? Are the American people willing to remain endlessly involved militarily and economically in that region of the world to ensure "successful" conclusions to these uprisings? Do we need to be reminded of the thousands of years of cultural and political turmoil in that part of the world?
I believe it is better to be optimistic than pessimistic but I also believe it is best to be realistic and even skeptical while waiting for an outcome. There are many questions still be to be asked and answered about the situation in the Middle East. One of the most important questions still left unanswered (unchallenged?) is what are the true motives of the Bush Administration with regards to our involvement in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.
It is admirable to promote democratic change where there has been oppression. However, there is a big difference between promoting change and simply poking a stick in the hornet's nest.
Chad (The Left) Shue
Friday, March 11, 2005
The New Democrats......Party of Personal Responsibility
Ok, so 18 democratic senators caved under the pressure to allow the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Bill to go to the full Senate for amendments and a vote. After all, it has been 25 years since somebody cracked down on the abusers of the system. Upon reaching the Senate floor, where EVERY major Democratic amendment went down to defeat (with the help of various democratic senators), the bill was passed with a "healthy bi-partisan" majority.
Meanwhile, in the people's House, Adam Smith and his "New Democrats" were sending letters to Speaker Hastert, encouraging him to quickly move the Senate bill to the House so that they could show him how eager "New Democrats" are to prove that they are a party of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. From the letter that Rep. Smith and 19 other "New Democrats" (including my tarnished hero, Jay Inslee) sent to the Speaker, "We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling."
Well I'm all for personal responsibility and preventing abuse of the system so I thought I would see who has been abusing the system. I figure a good place to start would be to look at the amendments that the "Old Democrats" in the Senate were offering up. Surely they would be all about helping the abusers shirk their personal responsibility.
Let's start with Ted Kennedy. Senate Amendments 28 and 29 were introduced by Teddy to exempt people whose bankruptcies were a result of unexpected medical costs.......... Defeated:
All Republican Senators voted against these amendments. Democrats voting against Amendment 28 were Biden, Carper, Johnson and Nelson. Democrats voting against Amendment 29 were Bingaman, Carper, Johnson and Nelson. Republican Sen. Santorum was absent from the votes.
Which class of "abusers" was our friend Russ Fiengold trying to protect?
Fiengold Amendment #17: To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.
This amendment would have ensured that no elderly person in enough financial pain to cause them to seek bankruptcy protection would lose their home..............Defeated:
Each and every Republican Senator, along with Jeffords (I) and Democrats Biden, Carper and Nelson, voted to reject this amendment.
Other amendments that would have sheltered other notorious "abusers" such as veterans and servicemembers, caregivers for ill or disabled family members, and people who are victims of identity theft also went down to defeat.
So how was personal responsibility rewarded in this bill? Well if your were responsible (and wealthy) enough to move your assets to a "protected trust", you are still safe from the bankruptcy laws thanks to the defeat of:
Schumer Amdt. No. 42; To limit the exemption for asset protection trusts.
By the way, if you are filing bankruptcy because Ken Lay and the boys were "responsible" enough to hide their money in a protected trust while destroying your 401K and pension funds, don't be looking for any cover here:
Durbin Amdt. No. 49; To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy...........REJECTED
How about the part about "requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling"?
Akaka Amdt. No. 15; To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.
REJECTED
And a new clause has been added that REQUIRES those who file for bankruptcy to enroll with some form of consumer credit counseling within 180 days of the discharge of their debt.
Well if your are as happy with our "New Democrat" defenders of personal responsibility as I am, why not drop them at note and encourage them to keep up the good work?
Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Ron Kind, Rep. Artur Davis, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Stephanie Herseth, Rep. Dennis Moore, Rep. Mike McIntyre, Rep. Joe Crowley, Rep. Jay Israel, Rep. David Wu, Rep. Diane Hooley, Rep. Melissa Bean, Rep. Jim Davis, Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr., Rep. Ed Case, Rep. Jay Inslee, Rep. Shelley Berkeley, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks. I also understand that Rep. Rick Larsen is leaning in support of this bill.
Chad (The old Left) Shue
Meanwhile, in the people's House, Adam Smith and his "New Democrats" were sending letters to Speaker Hastert, encouraging him to quickly move the Senate bill to the House so that they could show him how eager "New Democrats" are to prove that they are a party of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. From the letter that Rep. Smith and 19 other "New Democrats" (including my tarnished hero, Jay Inslee) sent to the Speaker, "We believe that responsible bankruptcy reform embodies the New Democrat principle of personal responsibility, while at the same time adding important new consumer protections such as requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling."
Well I'm all for personal responsibility and preventing abuse of the system so I thought I would see who has been abusing the system. I figure a good place to start would be to look at the amendments that the "Old Democrats" in the Senate were offering up. Surely they would be all about helping the abusers shirk their personal responsibility.
Let's start with Ted Kennedy. Senate Amendments 28 and 29 were introduced by Teddy to exempt people whose bankruptcies were a result of unexpected medical costs.......... Defeated:
All Republican Senators voted against these amendments. Democrats voting against Amendment 28 were Biden, Carper, Johnson and Nelson. Democrats voting against Amendment 29 were Bingaman, Carper, Johnson and Nelson. Republican Sen. Santorum was absent from the votes.
Which class of "abusers" was our friend Russ Fiengold trying to protect?
Fiengold Amendment #17: To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.
This amendment would have ensured that no elderly person in enough financial pain to cause them to seek bankruptcy protection would lose their home..............Defeated:
Each and every Republican Senator, along with Jeffords (I) and Democrats Biden, Carper and Nelson, voted to reject this amendment.
Other amendments that would have sheltered other notorious "abusers" such as veterans and servicemembers, caregivers for ill or disabled family members, and people who are victims of identity theft also went down to defeat.
So how was personal responsibility rewarded in this bill? Well if your were responsible (and wealthy) enough to move your assets to a "protected trust", you are still safe from the bankruptcy laws thanks to the defeat of:
Schumer Amdt. No. 42; To limit the exemption for asset protection trusts.
By the way, if you are filing bankruptcy because Ken Lay and the boys were "responsible" enough to hide their money in a protected trust while destroying your 401K and pension funds, don't be looking for any cover here:
Durbin Amdt. No. 49; To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy...........REJECTED
How about the part about "requiring enhanced credit card disclosure information and encouraging participation in consumer credit counseling"?
Akaka Amdt. No. 15; To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.
REJECTED
And a new clause has been added that REQUIRES those who file for bankruptcy to enroll with some form of consumer credit counseling within 180 days of the discharge of their debt.
Well if your are as happy with our "New Democrat" defenders of personal responsibility as I am, why not drop them at note and encourage them to keep up the good work?
Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Ron Kind, Rep. Artur Davis, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Stephanie Herseth, Rep. Dennis Moore, Rep. Mike McIntyre, Rep. Joe Crowley, Rep. Jay Israel, Rep. David Wu, Rep. Diane Hooley, Rep. Melissa Bean, Rep. Jim Davis, Rep. Harold E. Ford, Jr., Rep. Ed Case, Rep. Jay Inslee, Rep. Shelley Berkeley, Rep. Gregory W. Meeks. I also understand that Rep. Rick Larsen is leaning in support of this bill.
Chad (The old Left) Shue
Sunday, March 06, 2005
By the Numbers
As we approach the 2nd anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I think it would be a good time to examine just how well we have advanced our mission there. According to The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count website (http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx) there have been 1685 "coalition" troops killed to date (3/6/2005) in Iraq. Surely we should be able to point to a declining chart if we are to accept that each of 4 significant dates relate to progress.
Period 1: March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (the end of major combat)
43 days; 173 Coalition deaths; 4.02 per day
Period 2: May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (sovereignty turned over to Iraq)
424 days; 802 Coalition deaths; 1.89 per day
Period 3: June 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq) through January 30, 2005 (Iraq Elections).
216 days; 632 Coalition deaths; 2.93 per day
Period 4: January 31, 2005 (the day after Iraq Elections) through 3/6/2005
35 days; 78 Coalition deaths; 2.23 per day
Duration thusfar
718 days; 1685 Coalition deaths; 2.35 per day
Of course something that is left out of almost every Bush Administration briefing and "main-stream" media account is the estimated number of Iraqi casualties (supposedly it is still their country). Estimates over the course of the invasion and occupation run from 10,000 to 100,000. The discrepancy is explained, in part, by counting civilians killed by direct acts of hostility versus the addition of those who die as a result of the lack of medicines, electricity, and basic access to treatment.
How do these number relate to our "mission"? Well by now only the most rabid neo-con believes we will still find WMD in Iraq. 1685 deaths for nothing there. Then there is the link to Al-Qaeda; except that the link did not exist until Bush invaded the country and deposed the man who was keeping Osama bin Laden out of the country. 1685 deaths to allow Al Qaeda INTO Iraq. How about the lives saved from Saddam's evil mass graves? Specualtion at best. According to most reliable sources, since 1991, Saddam seems to have been held in check with regard to such mass atrocities. Indeed, the argument could be made that the innocent lives lost over the last 2 years are a direct result of "our mission".
To celebrate these numbers and their meaning to "our mission", I hope to see you at a rally close to you on Saturday March 19, 2005. Show the troops and the Iraqi people that we support them by demanding we get out of that country.
Chad "the Left" Shue
Period 1: March 20, 2003 through May 1, 2003 (the end of major combat)
43 days; 173 Coalition deaths; 4.02 per day
Period 2: May 2, 2003 through June 28, 2004 (sovereignty turned over to Iraq)
424 days; 802 Coalition deaths; 1.89 per day
Period 3: June 29, 2004 (the day after the official turnover of sovereignty to Iraq) through January 30, 2005 (Iraq Elections).
216 days; 632 Coalition deaths; 2.93 per day
Period 4: January 31, 2005 (the day after Iraq Elections) through 3/6/2005
35 days; 78 Coalition deaths; 2.23 per day
Duration thusfar
718 days; 1685 Coalition deaths; 2.35 per day
Of course something that is left out of almost every Bush Administration briefing and "main-stream" media account is the estimated number of Iraqi casualties (supposedly it is still their country). Estimates over the course of the invasion and occupation run from 10,000 to 100,000. The discrepancy is explained, in part, by counting civilians killed by direct acts of hostility versus the addition of those who die as a result of the lack of medicines, electricity, and basic access to treatment.
How do these number relate to our "mission"? Well by now only the most rabid neo-con believes we will still find WMD in Iraq. 1685 deaths for nothing there. Then there is the link to Al-Qaeda; except that the link did not exist until Bush invaded the country and deposed the man who was keeping Osama bin Laden out of the country. 1685 deaths to allow Al Qaeda INTO Iraq. How about the lives saved from Saddam's evil mass graves? Specualtion at best. According to most reliable sources, since 1991, Saddam seems to have been held in check with regard to such mass atrocities. Indeed, the argument could be made that the innocent lives lost over the last 2 years are a direct result of "our mission".
To celebrate these numbers and their meaning to "our mission", I hope to see you at a rally close to you on Saturday March 19, 2005. Show the troops and the Iraqi people that we support them by demanding we get out of that country.
Chad "the Left" Shue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)