That 100,000 Dead Iraqis Number

[quote]Sifu wrote:
BB I don’t know why you still bother. It long ago became clear to me that most of the participants on this forum are closed minded, bigoted individuals who obstiantely refuse to see the other side and just want to argue rather than have a meaningful discussion of the pro’s and cons.

There is a group of posters on this forum who didn’t think we should have gone into Iraq and now that we are there they look for all the bad news they can find while ignoring any good news. [/quote]
Actually there is a group who didn’t like being misled into war, and resent the inept management by civilians that helped to contribute to the bad news. Most of this group would also be optimistic for the new reason we’re in Iraq----democracy.

Roy Batty wrote:

“from supposed biased sources (like moveon.org

Ridiculous sentence of the year.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

100meters/lumpy wrote:

“Actually there is a group who didn’t like being misled into war”

But, who don’t mind if their President lies under oath as long as he is a Democrat.

Oh, to say you were “misled” you’d have to accept that the vast majority of elected democrats and the world intelligence were in on the “misleading.”

Remember, “Bush lied, the Pope just died.”

“and resent the inept management by civilians”

You mean the Republicans only.

“that helped to contribute to the bad news. Most of this group would also be optimistic for the new reason we’re in Iraq----democracy.”

One of the original reasons. See W. speeches. Oh, said group will never give credit to the Administration for changing the world.

Remember, “George H.W. Bush bought W. the Presidency. He is also responsible for paying for the Iraqi elections, police force, sanitary commission, power stations, and Iraqi chimney sweepers.”

Thanks George H.W. Bush and Halliburton for everything!!!

JeffR

P.S. Still waiting for my check!!!

[quote]100meters wrote:
Shooting the messenger…well the standard is of a similar ilk as nro and we all know how “well it was going in Iraq” totally dead wrong article. I’d compare motivations of sources, and most likely avg results leaning to a higher number (hell there finding 50 bodies at a pop just about every damn day) I don’t understand how 100,000 matters to the standard though?[/quote]

It matters because of how it’s used – which is as an indictment of the action in Iraq. And it’s used to argue against assertions that the War was a net positive for Iraqis in terms of the people Saddam and Co. were offing prior to the Iraq War.

As such, the size of the number matters a lot – and that 100,000 number seems much too large, both in relation to other sources and due to the factors pointed to in the latest post I put up.

I would like to commend redwingline on his/her research.

This is one of the most devastating posts to the “Bush lied, the world died” crap.

One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

“Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, “There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.”

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry’s comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller’s statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman’s contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

Devastating!!!

JeffR

[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
BB,
You can’t have it both ways. You are quick to discount any articles that disagree with your agenda when they come from supposed biased sources (like moveon.org). His point is that the Lancet is generally considered non-partisan, and is the most respected medical journal in the world. They are respected because they have a very high standard on what gets published, and methodologies must be sound and face intense scrutiny.

I am not typing this to kill any messengers. I have heard of the Lancet study, but I have not personally read it or the refutes to their claim so I really don’t have anything to say on that issue. I think that is the point that DrS was trying to convey, just much more succinctly than I.[/quote]

Where in the hell have you been, Roy?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
Shooting the messenger…well the standard is of a similar ilk as nro and we all know how “well it was going in Iraq” totally dead wrong article. I’d compare motivations of sources, and most likely avg results leaning to a higher number (hell there finding 50 bodies at a pop just about every damn day) I don’t understand how 100,000 matters to the standard though?

It matters because of how it’s used – which is as an indictment of the action in Iraq. And it’s used to argue against assertions that the War was a net positive for Iraqis in terms of the people Saddam and Co. were offing prior to the Iraq War.

As such, the size of the number matters a lot – and that 100,000 number seems much too large, both in relation to other sources and due to the factors pointed to in the latest post I put up.[/quote]

Then number matters…but not to the standard.

Lame, but of course you know this.

LOL!! Jeffy just owned every damn one of you ABB anti-war guys. Good freakin’ post man!!! (three exclamation points!!!) :slight_smile:

[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters/lumpy wrote:

“Actually there is a group who didn’t like being misled into war”

But, who don’t mind if their President lies under oath as long as he is a Democrat.

[/quote]

Jeff, you can’t compare lying to cover up having your cock sucked, with lying to start a war. There’s a slight difference in scale there pal- perhaps a 100 000 Iraqis plus 2 000 American dead difference? Not to mention the umpteen billions of dollars.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
LOL!! Jeffy just owned every damn one of you ABB anti-war guys. Good freakin’ post man!!! (three exclamation points!!!) :)[/quote]

Gee, great post from you. Amazing. Jeff tells me you give good head, too.

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Gee, great post from you. Amazing. Jeff tells me you give good head, too.
[/quote]

And deano whoops out a huge oral sex straw man…This fight is all but over, folks.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Gee, great post from you. Amazing. Jeff tells me you give good head, too.

And deano whoops out a huge oral sex straw man…This fight is all but over, folks.

[/quote]

It’s rainman, strawjack. Get it right!

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters/lumpy wrote:

“Actually there is a group who didn’t like being misled into war”

But, who don’t mind if their President lies under oath as long as he is a Democrat.

Jeff, you can’t compare lying to cover up having your cock sucked, with lying to start a war. There’s a slight difference in scale there pal- perhaps a 100 000 Iraqis plus 2 000 American dead difference? Not to mention the umpteen billions of dollars.

[/quote]

I think that it is pretty clear that if Bush is guilty of anything it is of acting on bad intelligence (CIA’s not his).

Anytime anyone breaks out the “Bush Lied” argument I think it hurts their case because most people realize he didn’t lie. (At least any more than any other politician does).

If the antiwar crowd wanted to say he used poor judgement by acting on bad intelligence they would have a much better case but it just doesn’t sound as good.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I think that it is pretty clear that if Bush is guilty of anything it is of acting on bad intelligence (CIA’s not his).

Anytime anyone breaks out the “Bush Lied” argument I think it hurts their case because most people realize he didn’t lie. (At least any more than any other politician does).

If the antiwar crowd wanted to say he used poor judgement by acting on bad intelligence they would have a much better case but it just doesn’t sound as good.
[/quote]

Also, Zap, it’s a lot harder to rhyme a slogan like “Bush made a misjudgement…” than “Bush lied…” if you’re an unemployed/college employed hippy whipping up signs for the daily protest.

Dean wrote:

“Jeff, you can’t compare lying to cover up having your cock sucked, with lying to start a war.”

Must have missed the lies that W. told. Sorry, would you refresh my memory.

“There’s a slight difference in scale there pal- perhaps a 100 000 Iraqis plus 2 000 American dead difference? Not to mention the umpteen billions of dollars.”

I’m sorry, where did you get the 100,000 number? Thought that was another liberal talking point like “If you elect W. Roe v Wade will be instantly repealed.”

Let me type it one more time: Clinton appears to have been a sexual predator. Paula Jones had every right as an American citizen to protect herself (or do you disagree). When she was taken into Clinton’s office by State troopers (who the public pays), and solicited, that is sexual harassment. Or do you disagree because Clinton is a Democrat. You cool with that?

Have you heard about the rape allegations? What would have happened had the investigation not been stonewalled? Rape cool with you? Sexual harassment using public funds cool?

Now, lying under oath. That cool with you? What do you think the ramifications of the Chief Executive for enforcing laws lying under oath would be? Not just lying, but flaunting.

You cool with Clinton deciding what lies are appropriate? You cool with him being above the law?

That a cool precedent?

How about pressuring his staff to make false statements?

Cool?

Even the democrats didn’t think so. While they didn’t have the moral compass or the vision to see what many of us say, and throw his ass out of office, they did vote for a serious censure.

Even the Democrats could figure out that this was wrong.

Oh, the Bar knew it was unacceptable. They disbarred him.

Now, for once and for all, would you please stop looking at one part of this while ignoring the wider implications. It sounded good on Crossfire, but it doesn’t even scratch the sordid surface of this.

JeffR

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think that it is pretty clear that if Bush is guilty of anything it is of acting on bad intelligence (CIA’s not his).

Anytime anyone breaks out the “Bush Lied” argument I think it hurts their case because most people realize he didn’t lie. (At least any more than any other politician does).

If the antiwar crowd wanted to say he used poor judgement by acting on bad intelligence they would have a much better case but it just doesn’t sound as good.
[/quote]

Excellent point.

But I think there’s a big difference between the true anti-war crowd such as Kusinich (sp) and his ilk, and the ABBer’s who aren’t so much against a war as they are against the Commander in Chief.

I can respect the true anti-war position to a much higher degree than I can the partisan ABB position.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

But I think there’s a big difference between the true anti-war crowd such as Kusinich (sp) and his ilk, and the ABBer’s who aren’t so much against a war as they are against the Commander in Chief.

I can respect the true anti-war position to a much higher degree than I can the partisan ABB position.

[/quote]

I agree. War is horrible. There is nothing wrong with being morally against war. Just apply your moral judgements to both sides of the conflict as required.

Much of the antiwar rhetoric is political tripe.

Wasn’t there a post a while back that said the numbers could be reconciled?

Does this mean that the media jumped on the wrong number, or that people didn’t look very closely at the report and jumped to conlusions about it having a political agenda of its own?

Where’s the beef?

What does it matter that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths is tainted? What is an acceptable number? 10,000 Deaths? Perhaps 5,000? War is a horrible thing. Innocent people will die. These two facts have remained unchanged throughout Western History. I think it is pointless to discuss numbers, because in the end, and that is what matters, numbers do not tell the entire story. How many people died in WWII? How about in WWI? Okay, lets take some regional conflicts, how about when the Hutu?s and Tootsies (sorry about the misspelling) slaughtered each other? War is War is War. It does not matter if it is declared or not, people killing other people are wrong. The only thing that makes it socially acceptable is the reasons.

Iraq is going to remain a low intensity protracted conflict, similar to the LTTE in Sri Lanka or the Kashmir conflict.

So let people mess up the numbers, because it does not matter. 1649 Americans dead is the most recent number by the way.

I do believe we did a good thing by removing Saddam from power, and I hope beyond hope that we remove the rest of the dictators of the world from power. Either by negotiations or with a 5.56 ball mm round to the head.