"If the democrats were in charge this election would have never happened!"

[IranianDemocrat]

Hannity to Lierberman 5 minutes ago. What a nut, like the sham election is such a perfect justification for a war...

[Cha]

1. They have to say something...Now if

the Dems just don't buy into how they're "framing the debate"!!

[hector459]

41. And 1500 US soldiers would be alive and 100,000 Iraqi civilians would be

alive, and the beautiful nation of Iraq and the seat of civilization would not be almost destroyed, 10,000 US soldiers would not be maimed, and most of the Iraqi people would have decent living conditions, and the future of our children would not be headed for economic chaos because of the huge debts of the Bush administration.

[Cha]

54. Ah, speaking ..reality..

What a concept!

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yavin4]

68. Then What Is The Number?

As the invading and occupying force, it's our responsibility to keep an ACCURATE count of the number of civilian casualties. The 100K may indeed be inflated, but not by much. It's possible that it may be over 100K.

Look, one weekend of "positive" media spin out of Iraq changes nothing and solves nothing. Conservatives like you are so damn quick to gloat over anything. I'd bet anything that you were gloating when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier with that "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftynyc]

77. And what would be your source for that info (eom)

[rodeodance]

2. I hate nean spirited gloating!!

[rooboy]

3. And about 10000 American families would have celbrated Xmas...

without having to cope with a relative who was either dead, disabled or demented.

[quaker bill]

4. and perhaps as many as 100,000 Iraqi's would still be alive.

[Sandpiper]

5. If the Democrats were in charge, 100,000 Iraqis and 1431 US Soldiers

Would still be alive.

[Kerrytravelers]

6. For once, Hannity is right. If the Dems were in charge, there wouldn't be

any Iraqi elections, for all the reasons posted above.

[draintheblood]

7. Stop quoting that 100,000 figure!

I see that number quoted all the time -- "100,000 Iraqis dead!" -- but that number is very unreliable. One death is one too many, but let's try at least to be more vague about the number. If you say 100,000 to a Republican, he's going to knock back at you with all of the data that indicates that that number is wrong.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, but it's saying stuff like this without verifying it that makes it so easy for neocons to not take us seriously.

[Kerrytravelers]

9. Draintheblood, you're right, the Rethugs will quote back to us...

I think the number comes from the foreign press. We should all double check the numbers and use the citation when speaking so no one will be able to refute us.

[draintheblood]

23. Thank you for understanding the point I was trying to make.

The point is that neocons hear that sort of thing and they pull out an arsenal of facts and figures to disprove it. Hilary would never quote the figure because she knows it would be wrong. Kerry never quoted that figure either because HE knew it was wrong.

But I see from some of the replies to my post that this is NOT the kind of forum where people are open to Dems getting their act together and getting our information RIGHT so that we're a strong and formidable debater against neocons.

[sonicx]

24. "The point is that neocons hear that sort of thing"

"and they pull out an arsenal of facts and figures to disprove it."

please cite those facts.

[draintheblood]

29. Do you want the most common one?

The Iraqi Ministry of Health started keeping track of death records when the invasion began. Between April and September of 2004, they recorded approximately 3,500 deaths (the figure was a little under, around 3,480 but let's round to the nearest thousandth). One month later, the figure soars to 100,000. On what planet does it make sense for 6000 Iraqis to have died PER MONTH? The figure went up to 15,000 and THAT made more sense, but to go from 3500 to 100,000 is just ridiculous. And if you look at the methodology that the universities used, it's pretty suspect. But you present yourself as well-read; I'm sure you read up on their methodology already.

Listen, you can stick to the 100,000 figure like a dog with a bone. It sounds good. But as I said somewhere else, don't snivel at DU when you're refuted by the neocons.

And by the way, wanting to have accurate information (or at the very least, not wanting to spread unverified and highly suspicious information) does NOT mean that one is a traitor to the Democrats or to liberal principles. It just makes one harder to dismiss when debating with neocons. Seriously, dude, if you get this pissed off when a Democrat dares to question this information, how effective are you when you're debating with a neocon?

[sonicx]

32. since when am I pissed off?

I'm fine. Stop being so defensive. It looks bad. btw, where are your links?

and again, why do I care what a neocons think?

[fob]

43. As long as you're a stickler for accuracy, you should know that when you

round from 3480 to 3500, you can say you are rounding to the nearest HUNDRED, the nearest THOUSAND is 3000, but you obviously are trying to round up so 4000 is what you should use. I suppose in a hurry using 3500 as the nearest THOUSAND would work, most people will get what you mean. However, the nearest thousandTH is WAAAAYYYY off. 3480.0048 rounded to the nearest thousandTH would be 3480.005, again wanted to make sure don't get tripped up debating a neo-con.

[quaker bill]

49. April to September 2004 rather misses the "shock and awe" bit.

Our government has reported killing more insurgents alone than the 3480 figure would account for.

We have dropped far more than 3480 bombs. Do you think they missed?

Do you really think that our troops could have expended this much ammunnition and only produced a body count of 3480? Are they really that poor at marksmanship?

What do you think we have been shooting at for nearly 24 months now?

Do you really think the bombs were so "smart" that they only hit unoccupied buildings?

My money would be on the notion that the 100,000 figure underestimates the actual count.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. I'm A Statistician. Please Explain The Suspect Methodology

I'm a awaiting your expert opinion. Also, i'd be interested to know how the 15k squares with the Pentagon's own admission of 70k.

The Professor

[Kerrytravelers]

28. You are welcome.

[Ms. Clio]

38. You two are so cute

The 100,000 figure comes from a respected medical journal, The Lancet.

[ProfessorGAC]

64. An Arsenal Of Facts?

Exactly what would those facts be? The foreign press, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, ALL, using statistically valid techniques have estimated numbers in excess of 100k. Which facts would they use against mine? Even our own Pentagon has estimated it to be at least 70,000 noncombatants. (You know, collateral damage.)

So, again: Which facts would they have to refute the statement, since my facts are readily available through any google search, even into our own dotgov websites?
The Professor

[LynnTheDem]

51. Again, bullshit.

The number comes from a study by John Hopkins University through the UK medical journal, the Lancet.

Both very highly respected.

Read the report before judging.

[spooked911]

11. welcome to DU-- but what's wrong with the figure?

It is obviously an estimaiton, but was published in a respected medical journal, wasn't it?

Welcome!
:toast:

[Sandpiper]

16. It was published by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Hard to get much more respectable than that in the medical field.

[sonicx]

20. pffff, liberal propaganda!

;)

[draintheblood]

21. ~ sigh ~

And it was also dismissed. Even John's Hopkins doesn't stand by the number any more and took great pains to indicate that they did not do the research but were quoting from a SOURCE that did the alleged research and concluded with that figure. That's like saying that if the Yale Law Society quoted an unreliable figure in the context of a larger discussion, the Yale Law Society AGREES with and SUPPORTS that figure.

If you want to continue using the figure, go ahead -- but don't complain at DU about being dismissed by neocons.

DTB

[sonicx]

22. sources please...

btw, why the fuck should I care what cons think?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

39. If we're dismissed by the neocons, it means we're doing something right

The study was published in the very respected British medical journal The Lancet

[LynnTheDem]

52. Bullshit. Hopkins DOES stand by their number, and NO the report was NOT

"dismissed".

You however, are another story.

[G_j]

67. the study was by far the most extensive and painstaking research

done to date. They had no need to 'play' with the numbers.

[BillySherm]

86. The figure can't be substantiated

by logic. 60 years after the fact, the number of civilians killed in Germany during World War II ranges from 300,000 to over a million. That is with the benefit of public records, first and second hand accounts, and countless studies. A poll taken in the midst of a war in Iraq can't be that accurate. Considering the care the military takes in minimizing civilian casualties during this war compared to the carpet bombing of entire cities during WWII, the 100,000 figure does not seem realistic at all.

[rasputin1952]

57. Welcome to DU draintheblood....

:hi:...:D

[jayfish]

76. When Are The Neocons...

going to dismiss the "45-minute" TTL claim that they took from British intelligence?

Jay

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftynyc]

75. If you have a more "reliable" source - feel free to share. (eom)

[jayfish]

78. Did You Read All About It At...

Free Republic? Since you will not be able to backup your propaganda with any facts why don't you, just for fun, post one of Saddam's lies.

Jay

[draintheblood]

19. Thank you for the welcome :)

I have had an account here for months but never posted until tonight. Just been too busy.

If I recall correctly, the 100,000 figure was pretty much disputed (and discredited) as soon as it was made public, but because it sounds shocking, a lot of Dems still throw the figure around and quote it as fact.

The 100,000 figure is at least 5 to 6 times higher than any other reports or sources, all of which put the combined civilian and combat deaths at 15,000 to 20,000. I remember reading an article (will try to locate it and link to it) from a few weeks ago that said that if the 100,000 figure were true, it would mean that something like 200 Iraqi CIVILIANS (meaning: excluding combat-related deaths) would have had to occur each and every single day since the invasion. I'm sorry but it defies all logic to think that 200 Iraqis died every single day.

You will never hear a reputable Democrat quote that number because common sense dictates that the number cannot possibly be correct. It would be much better for us (we Democrats) to stop quoting such an unreliable and easily dismissed figure -- and if one of our senators or governors quotes it, be quick to write them and beg them to stop. This is where the "tinfoil hat" criticisms come from and I, for one, would rather quote accurate numbers and sound logical and rational when I debate with neocons that immediately quote numbers that make me sound like I don't do any research on the net or look into the "factuality" of things.

In case I didn't make it clear: I am NOT trying to cause trouble here. I simply think it's in every Democrat's best interest to quote reliable information and confound the neocons rather than quote information that they can refute in no time.

DTB

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sandpiper]

34. When someone starts out with "I am NOT trying to cause trouble"

It's a pretty safe bet that the exact opposite is true.

Sort of like when an athlete says "it's not about the money."

[draintheblood]

35. Un-freaking-believable.

Yep. You have me pegged. I'm just a big old trouble-making troll.

You know, I've been a member of DU since October 2004 (so much for quickly signing up today so I could troll -- no, much more sinister and nefarious to sign up in October .. and wait MONTHS to troll DU and cause trouble! I'm an evil genius!) and in those weeks, I've read some great commentary here and sometimes some serious reflection about why we lost the election and why we weren't taken more seriously as a party. One of the conclusions I've come to is that far too many Dems read ONLY the news and blogs that support their point of view and read NONE of the news and blogs that have are diametrically opposed to everything we believe. Neocons, on the other hand, read everything Dems write and they sit there and surf and go the freaking library and everything just so they can refute everything we say. Most of it, they're up a creek -- but some of the things we repeat are too suspect to be taken seriously. They may be shmucks for beleiving Iraq had WMDs, but we're shmucks for quoting a 100,000 number without realizing how many deaths that would have to translate into PER DAY to be even slightly realistic.

I'll go back to lurking.

Oh yeah, and I'll sign up for a login at Daily Kos. It's almost February and I really feel like trolling and causing trouble in, say, May or June.

Yep. I'm an evil genius.

[sonicx]

36. ahem...

"One of the conclusions I've come to is that far too many Dems read ONLY the news and blogs that support their point of view and read NONE of the news and blogs that have are diametrically opposed to everything we believe."


Then you haven't been paying attention.


"Neocons, on the other hand, read everything Dems write and they sit there and surf and go the freaking library and everything just so they can refute everything we say."


I think you need a nap. :crazy:

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cadmus]

45. "Un-freaking-believable."

Don't you understand? You are disturbing the superb accoustics in our little echo chamber!

[jayfish]

80. Do You Have A Mouse In Your Pocket?

If you don't like it, go watch CNN. Oh, and where is the factual refutation to the 100,000 figure?

Jay

[jayfish]

79. Bu-Bye.

Why bother lurking? It's all just Kool-aid anyway ...right?


Jay

[Ms. Clio]

40. It's just astonishing how many people

suddenly decided to just start yakking it up today, of all days.

And really, I believe it.

Uh huh.

[LynnTheDem]

53. Bullshit. Your "recall" is faulty.

The only ones "dismissing" the Lancet report are rightwingnuts.

[PaulaFarrell]

58. 200 deaths a day in a war zone sounds perfectly plausible to me n/t

[spooked911]

81. Thanks for the reply-- it makes sense. I thought the study was from

a respectable group, but I also agree 200 deaths a day sounds high even for such a hellish place.

I haven't read the study but I assumed it was legit.

Have you read it?

They must say how they quantitate the deaths and must have some basis for it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Webster Green]

17. Us?

:shrug:

[sonicx]

18. saying stuff unverified...

like WMDs?

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. So we're supposed to use the government's numbers?

Oh. That's right. The government isn't counting.

The 100,000 number was being kicked around six months ago. By this time it is almost certainly 150,000+.

ON EDIT

And what makes you think they will ever take us seriously if we use their numbers when we know they are liars, and they know that we know but don't call them on it?

[tuvor]

44. Maybe someone from the bush administration could provide a number. LOL

When the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated the figure of 100,000 killed in Iraq and published their findings in one of the world's leading scientific journals, the Lancet, Downing Street questioned their methodology, saying "the researchers used an extrapolation technique, which they considered inappropriate, rather than a detailed body count". Of course "a detailed body count" is the one thing the US military will not allow anyone to do.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1387399,00.html

If someone wants to refute the hundred thousand, they're more than welcome to provide their own evidence.

[LynnTheDem]

50. bullshit.

Did you bother to actually READ the CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE Lancet/John Hopkins report?

No, I didn't think so.

[The Straight Story]

55. won't matter to the cons anyway - they will say more died under saddam

So this is a cut in the rate of death for the people there....

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quiet.american]

8. A little girl would not have been covered in her parent's blood, too

if the Democrats were in charge.

That's one difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

[Rapcw]

10. If democrats were in charge this war would have never happened n/t

[ryban]

12. Jeb Bush and Lieberman are using the same talking points ...

LAKE BUENA VISTA - Gov. Jeb Bush told Republicans on Saturday that Iraq might not be having elections today if thousands of Floridians had not volunteered to help his brother keep the White House.

<snip>

"This weekend, I think history will show, is one of the most historic weekends. Tomorrow (Sunday) will be an incredible day for the history of freedom and democracy around the world," Bush said, referring to the Iraqi elections.

"Just imagine had you not worked. Imagine, had we not recruited literally thousands and thousands of volunteers, what tomorrow would look like," he said. "Thank God we have George W. Bush as president of the United States."

<snip>

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/10770070.htm

[Tinoire]

14. What Election?

(btw, welcome back)

The part about the CNN camera crew is sickening.

Posted in full with Dahr's permission (posted at end). If you would like to donate to this excellent reporter, please go here

"Here comes “The Freedom”"

My friend from Baquba visited me yesterday. He brought the usual giant lunch of home cooked food he always brings when he comes to see me. I’m still eating it, actually. I had it again for dinner tonight. Ah, the typical Iraqi meal.

He owns four large tents, and rents them to people in his city to use at funeral wakes, marriage parties, tribal negotiation meetings and to cover gardens, among other things.

During the Anglo-American invasion of his country back in the spring of 2003, when refugees from Baghdad sought shelter from the falling bombs, many of the families inundated his city. After his house was filled with refugees, he let others use his tents, for free of course.

Refugees from Fallujah are using them now.

At least 35 US soldiers have died in Iraq today. 31 of them died when a Chinook went down near the Jordanian border. At least four others died in clashes in the al-Anbar province. A patrol on the airport road was bombed, destroying at least one military vehicle. The military hasn’t released any casualty figures on that one yet.

“Bring ‘em on,” said George Bush quite some time ago, when the Iraqi resistance had begun to pick up the pace.

Today, during a press conference he spoke about the upcoming elections in Iraq.

“Clearly there are some who are intimidated,” he said, “I urge alls (not a typo) people to vote.”

Let me describe the scene on the ground here in “liberated” Iraq.

With the “elections” just three days away, people are terrified. Families are fleeing Baghdad much as they did prior to the invasion of the country. Seeking refuge from what everyone fears to be a massive onslaught of violence in the capital city, huge lines of cars are stacked up at checkpoints on the outer edges of the city.

Policemen and Iraqi soldiers are trying to convince people to stay in the city and vote.

Nobody is listening to them.

Whereas Baghdad is filled with Fallujah refugees, now villages and smaller cities on the outskirts of Baghdad are filling up with election refugees.

Yet these places aren’t safe either. In Baquba attacks on polling stations are a near daily occurrence. Mortar attacks are common on polling stations even as far south as Basra. A truck bomb struck a Kurdish political party headquarters in a small town near Mosul, killing 15 people, wounding twice that many. A string of car bombs detonated at polling stations in Kirkuk, which was already under an 8pm-5am curfew, killing 10 Iraqis.

Here in Baghdad, although the High Commission for Elections in Iraq has yet to announce their locations, schools which are being converted into polling stations are already being attacked.

Iraqis who live near these schools are terrorized at the prospect.

“They can block the whole city and people cannot move,” says a man speaking to me on condition of anonymity, “The city is dead, the people are dead. For what? For these forced elections!”

He is angry and frustrated because his street is now blocked as he lives near a small yellow middle school that is going to be used as a polling station.

Nearby some US soldiers are occupying a police station, as usual. One of them saw me taking photos and tried to confiscate my camera.

It didn’t matter that I showed him my press badge. After some talking he let me delete the photos and move on, camera in hand.

Sand barriers block the end of a street, the school where the insides are already in disrepair sits just behind them.

At least 90 streets in Baghdad are now closed down by huge sand and/or concrete barriers and razor wire. The number is growing daily.

“Now I’m afraid mortars will hit my home if the polling station is attacked,” he adds. He’ll be moving across town to stay at a relative’s house, which is not near one of the dreaded polling stations.

An owner of a small grocery shop nearby is just as concerned. He had to negotiate with soldiers to have them leave an opening on the end of the barrier so people could access his place of business.

“I’m already living off my food ration, and have little business,” he says while pointing at the deserted street, “Now who wants to come near my shop? All of us are afraid, and all of us are suffering now.”

A tired looking guard standing nearby named Salman chimes in on the conversation. “I would be crazy to vote, it’s so dangerous now,” he says with a cigarette dangling from his hand, “Besides, why vote? Of course Allawi will stay in. The Americans will make it so.”

A contact of mine just returned from spending a week in Fallujah. We shared some of the food brought from my friend in Baquba.

“I’d been in Fallujah for a week and all I’d seen was tough military tactics,” he tells me, “They are arresting people and putting them in these trucks, blindfolded and tied up. Everywhere I looked all I saw was utter devastation.”

He spoke with many families who told him one horror story after another, death after death after death.

“Then today, the military brings in a dozen Humvees and ground troops to basically seal off a small area near a market,” he continues, “In the middle of them is a CNN camera crew filming troops throwing candy to kids and these guys in orange vests start cleaning the streets around them.”

He laughs while holding up his arms and says, “I’d never seen those guys anywhere in the city before. I don’t know where they came from.”

After a pause to take a drink of soda he adds, “I’d never seen any boots on the ground at all, and all of the sudden there are all these marines standing around like everything was ok. It was the first time I’d seen any soldier not in a Humvee or a Bradley. I was really surprised.”

“All of it was 100% staged. Good PR before the election,” he says. Then in a reference to mainstream America he adds, “Fallujah is fine, now go back to sleep.”

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000186.php#more

====
News From Inside Iraq
Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself.

His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource and he is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The NewStandard and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald and Islam Online, to name just a few. Dahr's dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese and Arabic. On the radio, Dahr is a special correspondent for Flashpoints and reports for the BBC, Democracy Now!, and numerous other stations around the globe.

Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country. Dahr uses the DahrJamailIraq.com website and his popular mailing list to disseminate his dispatches.

Get more information about Dahr in his interview in Newtopia Magazine.

http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/
===


Permission granted to post in full:

----Original Message Follows----
From: Dahr Jamail
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Contact From the Dahr Jamail Iraq Web Site
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:37:37 +0300

Thanks a lot xxx,

Please post whatever of my work you like and keep up the great work.

Best,

Dahr


[e-mail] wrote:

>The following message was sent to you from a visitor to
>DahrJamailIraq.com. The person entered: [e-mail]
>as the return email address. If you reply to this message, it will
>be sent to [e-mail].
>
>******
>Hello Dahr,
>
>First I need to tell you how AWED I am of the good work you\'re
>doing in keeping us informed of what\'s really going on in Iraq- not
>that we would believe the mainstream media for one minute but your
>information is VERY important to the antiwar movement.
>
>I would like your permission to repost some of your writings at the
>reasonably Leftist web-site www.democraticunderground.com. Most of
>the posters there are passionately antiwar and have been fighting
>this madness for years.
>
>I am trying to fight that creeping propaganda from the
>right-wing. I promise to give you FULL credit with a link taking
>people back to your site (which I\'ve already been extensively
>advertising). The site has over 60,000 registered users (though I\'d
>warrant only about 2000 are active) and many lurkers. Would you
>please allow me to repost a few of your blog entries in their
>entirety? I am determined to fight the sickening propaganda that
>there\'s any sort of an \"election\" in Iraq.
>
>God bless you whether you say yes or no. You are a hero in my eyes.
>
>Sincerely and gratefully,
>
> ((me))

[Blue_State_Elitist]

15. And at that point

Lieberman proclaimed that indeed Hannity was wrong and cite as evidence Kerry's interview on Meet the Press this morning in which he specifically referenced his support of Iraqi elections during the campaign.

Oh yeah, we're talking about spineless Joe... forget that thought.

[njdemocrat106]

25. Of course it wouldn't

We wouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place. I'm no fan of Saddam, but are things really better over there since we invaded?

[ObaMania]

27. and the worst part is...

.. shitbag Lieberman probably agreed with him.

[leftynyc]

61. You're wrong - but don't let that get in the way

of a perfectly good hate.

[prodigal_green]

30. if the Democrats had been in charge in the 1980s

Saddam would never have gotten the support he did from the United States to build up his dictatorship, purchase chemical and biologican weapons, gas Iranians and Kurds, invade Kuwait and thus present a challenge to US interests in the Middle East which led to this war and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dead, injured and displaced.

The test isn't in the voting, it is in the actual running of democracy. Good for the Iraqis who voted. I won't take that away from them. I just wonder what the freeper response will be when they elect a council that boots out US soldiers and corporations.

[Sleepless In NY]

42. Thank God the Democrats were in charge during WW2

I say this because of all that FDR & Truman did with the help of their Allies, to win that war & the ensuing peace. While bush & his father cant even seem to control one country, Iraq. And because Ann Coulter always runs around saying "Democrats can never win a war" Bushit! Someone should remind her of FDR & Truman & the fact it was on Nixon/Ford's watch we lost in Vietnam. Republicans hate it when you bring either point up. As far as I'm concerned, it if wasn't for republicans getting into bed with Saddam, & training Bin Laden to be a "Freedom fighter"& the ever vacationing bush, we never would have had 9/11.

[Rebel_blogger]

73. Actually, it took roughly 10 years to rebuild Germany after WWII

The following is a quote from a 1946 Life Magazine article:

The German attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared. This official views the situation as so serious that he and others are protesting the withdrawal of 1,600 experienced military-government officers from the German governments on township, county and regional levels between Nov. 1 and Dec. 15."

[BillySherm]

85. If this war were run like WWII

we'd all be really upset. Internment of American citizens based upon ethnicity, a pentagon office of press-censorship, carpet bombing, and I don't think anyone needs to be reminded of how it all ended. 2 atomic bombs and 7 years of rebuilding in Japan, and a half-century long Cold war with one of FDR and Truman's "allies". Bush and Rumsfeld have their Abu Ghraib, but FDR and Stimson had their Biscari Airfield.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Piperay]

46. If the Democrats were in charge the rest of the World

wouldn't hate our guts and believe that we are fucking idiots! :mad:

[TWiley]

47. If the Democrats were in charge, this WAR would have never

happened, and therefore this election.

He might be right, in a convoluted sort of a way.

[KG]

48. who is the bigger idiot - Hannity or Lierberman?

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. bush** couldn't find another way to get rid of Saddam without

going to war? bush** couldn't find another way of bringing "democracy" to the people of Iraq without destroying their Country, without killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 1500 U.S. troops? :shrug: All this death and destruction was worth it just so the people of Iraq could vote in a sham election for "democracy"? Hannity is either in deep denial or a major league liar, whoring for his tax cuts.

[ComerPerro]

59. If Bush wasn't a liar this never would have happened

Bush sold the war by saying that Saddam had WMD. We would invade and take him out if he failed to disarm.

Well, guess, what? Apparently he had no WMD. We invaded for no reason.

But, then again, this was a valuable humanitarian mission.

Oh... ... ... wait. Why would a President who is supposedly keeping us safe from terror pull thousands of troops and billions of dollars from the hunt for Osama bin Laden (remember him, anyone?) to a mission of liberation and spreading democracy?

I guess it is because it is the right thing to do, and is our moral obligation.

Oh... ... ... wait. What's this?

"We do have an obligation, but we can't be all things to all people. We can help build coalitions but we can't put our troops all around the world. We can lend money but we have to do it wisely. We shouldn't be lending money to corrupt officials. So we have to be guarded in our generosity."

"The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president."

"I would like to (go after Saddam), of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him."

"(Somalia) Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either."

"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before."

"think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops."

"but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious."

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be."

"I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. "



So maybe Bush can tell us why exactly we are in Iraq...

"After all, a lot of the energy is produced from the Middle East."

[mattclearing]

60. Yeah, and 100,000 people would still be alive.

They missed out on the voting, didn't they?

[Skidmore]

62. So what did Joe say in reply?

[tom_paine]

72. I don't even need to hear it to know Joe was grovelling

Did he beg permission of his Nazi Master to reply, or just wholeheartedly agree?

[Jack The Tab]

82. Gawd.. I can just hear his voice in my head...."well, you know Sean....

..people have respect for this president and I believe that when the president says he wants fair elections in Iraq.....blah blah blah...

Can we just get this guy out of our party?

[entanglement]

87. How does this guy Lieberman

even qualify as a 'liberal' of any kind? He's pro-war, pro-mega-corporation, pro-PATRIOT act, pro-torture, supports Ariel Sharon / Likuds... the list could go on and on.

[Dawgs]

74. Hey Rethugs, if most Republicans got what they wanted...

All Iraqis, Muslims, and any Middle Easterners would have been blown to hell. Don't try to fucking pretend that you guys actually give a shit about this people.

Sorry, it's too fucking late. You guys are responsible for this mess. Now deal with it.

[robbedvoter]

83. What Dems, Joe? Gore/Lieberman?

If not for Joe's treason (count fake military ballots!), you may have been the one, a*hole!

[Swamp Rat]

84. There was NO election in Iraq.

I guess I'll just keep repeating this over and over for all the trolls here.

The "Iraqi Election" is just a crappy, fictional TV show for American consumption.