The Iraq / war on terror thread

[RichardNixon]

Don't bother than, this is stupid. I thought I argued all your points, cleary you don't think that I did. This could go on forever, but I am going to end this right now. This is the last post I am going to make in this thread. Enough of this. Booker and SLC can debate this instead.

[Booker Floyd]

December 7, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are concerned that the Department of Defense has been under-reporting casualties in Iraq by only reporting non-fatal casualties incurred in combat.  We write today to request that you provide the American people with a full accounting of the American casualties in Iraq since the March 19, 2003 invasion, including a full accounting of the fatalities, the wounded, those who have contracted illnesses during their time overseas, and those suffering from mental afflictions as a result of their service in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.  We are concerned that the figures that were released to the public by your Administration do not accurately represent the true toll that this war has taken on the American people.



On November 21, 2004, CBS' 60 Minutes led its program with a segment on the subject of uncounted "non-combat" casualties. They interviewed badly injured soldiers who were upset by their being excluded from the official count, even though they were, in one soldier's words, "in hostile territory...". The Pentagon declined to be interviewed, instead sending a letter that contained information not included in published casualty reports. "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq," wrote the Department of Defense. John Pike, Director of GlobalSecurity.org told 60 Minutes in that segment that this uncounted casualty figure "would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of over 20, maybe 30,000."

As you know, more than one in four U.S. troops have come home from the Iraq war with health problems that require medical or mental health treatment.  Thus, with more than 300,000 troops having served in Iraq, this amounts to at least 50,000 cases of mental trauma.   Moreover,  101,000 of the 431,000 troops who have returned home from service in Iraq and Afghanistan and  who have separated from the military, have sought help. This figure shows the Pentagon's official Iraq casualty count of 2,082 U.S. troops killed, and 15,477 wounded as of today, to be inaccurate by several multiples.  What we cannot understand is why you are only reporting the total American casualty figure at just over 15,000 when you know that this figure is not an accurate representation of the facts and does not represent the entire picture of American lives affected by the war.  We also need to understand where your numbers are coming from and how you arrived at them given the facts and data that has been released from the Pentagon. 

Based on the data that have been released by your Administration and the unofficial data that are coming out of the Pentagon, what we can be certain of is that at least tens of thousands of young men and women have been physically or psychologically damaged for life.  To be exact, the figure ranges somewhere between 15,000 and 101,000 today.  This is a staggering range of casualties by any standard, as these casualties will affect the lives of at least hundreds of thousands of family members and others.  We cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we understand the gravity of the situation that we are faced with. 

Since the March 2003 invasion, our troops have been dying at a rate of about 800 a year, with most killed in action by crude but powerful roadside bombs.  More than 90 percent of the deaths have come after you declared an end to "major combat operations" on May 1, 2003.  Moreover, the Pentagon reports that of the service members returning from the Iraq war this year, 47 percent saw someone wounded or killed, or saw a dead body. This is no small matter that can be downplayed by superficial reassurances designed to temporarily assuage the uneasiness of the American public.  The effects of this war will remain for many years to come and each and every one of us will have to cope with it.

The American people have sacrificed a great deal as a result of this war and they deserve to know what you know. Those who have sacrificed deserve to know that their sacrifice counted and that their service abroad was as recognizable as that of our fallen soldiers.  Further, the failure of your Administration to acknowledge the loss of Iraqi lives prevents the American people from having a complete picture of the cost of this war.  We urge you to honor your duty as our Commander-in-Chief to keep the American people regularly informed of the true human cost of the Iraq War.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Conyers, Jr.

Rep. Sam Farr

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva

Rep. Carolyn Maloney

Rep. Betty McCollum

Rep. Jim McDermott

Rep. Jan Schakowsky

[Booker Floyd]

Joe Lieberman is a hypocrite:

It?s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation?s peril.

- 12/7/05

In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president?s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It?s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It?s not about searching for scapegoats; it?s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge.

- 7/28/03

But Joe was seeking the presidential nomination at the time, so I guess its okay.?

From the 10/4/2003 Washington Post:

In the day's sharpest attack, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) accused Bush of deceiving Americans over everything from national security to helping the poor. "There has been one value repeatedly missing from this presidency, and that value is integrity," Lieberman said. "By deception and disarray, this White House has betrayed the just cause of fighting terrorism and tyranny around the world." Leaking the CIA employee's name "was the politics of personal destruction at its worst," he said.

[RichardNixon]

Word is ol' Rummy may step down and Liberman could be tapped to replace him.

[Booker Floyd]

Word is ol' Rummy may step down and Liberman could be tapped to replace him.

Lieberman has dispelled that rumor.  That doesnt necesaarily mean it wont happen, but I dont think its likely.  The Deputy Secretary is likely to take over should Rumsfeld resign (which Id say is likely to happen sometime next year).

[RichardNixon]

I'm going to miss 'ol Rummy. Remember the "known knowns, unknown knowns, unkown knowns, and unknown uknown" thing?

[sandman]

like i said, anything a politician says is calculated, and may not reflect their true beliefs.

i wouldn't be surprised if rummy steps down. the republicans have to get some momentum going. bush's approval ratings are up - they need to keep it going. all part of a plan for the elections in '06 and '08.

here's another potential move....have cheney step down due to "health concerns". and make rice VP to put her in a better position for a run for prez.

also, look out for mark warner. he could make a move and ruin hillary's bid.

[Booker Floyd]

like i said, anything a politician says is calculated, and may not reflect their true beliefs.

You said that about Jack Murtha, and theres simply no evidence to apply that logic to him.  Hes 73 years old, unambitious, unconcerned with the spotlight, unthreatened in election, and uninterested in towing the party line (which his position is not), not to mention historically hawkish and intimately concerned with the military and its issues.  Yes, most politicians are very calculated, but Murtha isnt most politicians and if youre going to suggest that his statements have been disingenuous or politically calculated, you should provide some evidence.

here's another potential move....have cheney step down due to "health concerns". and make rice VP to put her in a better position for a run for prez.

I think this "Rice for President" movement is very unrealistic.  Even if it were, I would imagine her "mildly pro-choice" position would be a bit of a problem. 

also, look out for mark warner. he could make a move and ruin hillary's bid.

Warners becoming quite a star and is probably the second most-likely candidate to receive the nomination.  If he doesnt get it,  hes probably first-choice for V.P.

[sandman]

Joe Lieberman is a hypocrite:

It?s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation?s peril.

- 12/7/05

In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president?s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It?s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It?s not about searching for scapegoats; it?s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge.

- 7/28/03

But Joe was seeking the presidential nomination at the time, so I guess its okay.?

From the 10/4/2003 Washington Post:

In the day's sharpest attack, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) accused Bush of deceiving Americans over everything from national security to helping the poor. "There has been one value repeatedly missing from this presidency, and that value is integrity," Lieberman said. "By deception and disarray, this White House has betrayed the just cause of fighting terrorism and tyranny around the world." Leaking the CIA employee's name "was the politics of personal destruction at its worst," he said.

hmmm...so you mean to tell me democrats try to destroy bush's reputation in times leading up to elections by calling him a liar? makes you wonder what the dems truly believe, and who is actually being dishonest?

also, don't try to re-write history by saying bush invaded iraq cause he thought it would be easy. clinton signed the iraq liberation act in 1998. regime change was needed.

[sandman]

interesting move by the RNC in response to dean's idiotic comments....

http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx

[Booker Floyd]

hmmm...so you mean to tell me democrats try to destroy bush's reputation in times leading up to elections by calling him a liar?

No, Im talking about Joe Leiberman.

But speaking of hypocrites:

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."  - Secretary Of Defense, Dick Cheney (4/29/91)

also, don't try to re-write history by saying bush invaded iraq cause he thought it would be easy.

Im not even sure what this is in reference, but since you brought it up...

"I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators." - Vice President Dick Cheney

And this is with whom you place your faith.?

clinton signed the iraq liberation act in 1998. regime change was needed.

No matter how you spin it, the Iraq Liberation Act was not a call for American invasion.? It was meant to support democratic opposition to Husseins regime, provide humanitarian assistance, and assist in the replacement regime.? In fact, Section 8 of the act states: "Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this act."

Section 4 spoke to the use of DOD services, military education and training, and defense articles for opposition forces.

[Booker Floyd]

French Told CIA of Bogus Intelligence
The foreign spy service warned the U.S. various times before the war that there was no proof Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ex-officials say.

By Tom Hamburger, Peter Wallsten and Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writers


PARIS ? More than a year before President Bush declared in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA in secret communications that there was no evidence to support the allegation.

The previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and the French, described in interviews last week by the retired chief of the French counterintelligence service and a former CIA official, came on separate occasions in 2001 and 2002.

The French conclusions were reached after extensive on-the-ground investigations in Niger and other former French colonies, where the uranium mines are controlled by French companies, said Alain Chouet, the French former official. He said the French investigated at the CIA's request.

Chouet's account was "at odds with our understanding of the issue," a U.S. government official said. The U.S. official declined to elaborate and spoke only on condition that neither he nor his agency be named.

However, the essence of Chouet's account ? that the French repeatedly investigated the Niger claim, found no evidence to support it, and warned the CIA ? was extensively corroborated by the former CIA official and a current French government official, who both spoke on condition of anonymity.

The repeated warnings from France's Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure did not prevent the Bush administration from making the case aggressively that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons materials.

It was not the first time a foreign government tried to warn U.S. officials off of dubious prewar intelligence.

In the notorious "Curveball" case, an Iraqi who defected to Germany claimed to have knowledge of Iraqi biological weapons. Bush and other U.S. officials repeatedly cited Curveball's claims even as German intelligence officials argued that he was unstable and might be a fabricator.


The case of the forged documents that were used to support claims that Hussein was seeking materials in Africa launched a political controversy that continues to roil Washington.

A special prosecutor continues to investigate whether the Bush administration unmasked a covert CIA operative in a bid to discredit her husband, a former diplomat whom the CIA dispatched in February 2002 to investigate the Niger reports. The diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, like the French, said he found little reason to believe the uranium story. The investigation into the leak led to the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.

The French opposed U.S. policy on Iraq and refused to support the invasion. But whether or not that made top U.S. officials skeptical of the French report on Niger, intelligence officials from both countries said that they cooperated closely during the prewar period and continued to do so. And the French conclusions on Niger were supported by some in the CIA.

The CIA requested French assistance in 2001 and 2002 because French firms dominate the uranium business internationally and former French colonies lead the world in production of the strategic mineral.

French officials were particularly sensitive to the assertion about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear materials given the role that French companies play in uranium mining in France's former colonies.

"In France, we've always been very careful about both problems of uranium production in Niger and Iraqi attempts to get uranium from Africa," Chouet said. "After the first Gulf War, we were very cautious with that problem, as the French government didn't care to be accused of maintaining relations with Saddam in that field."

The French-U.S. communications were detailed to The Times last week by Chouet, who directed a 700-person intelligence unit specializing in weapons proliferation and terrorism.

Chouet said the cautions from his agency grew more emphatic over time as the Bush administration bolstered the case for invading Iraq by arguing that Hussein had sought to build a nuclear arsenal using uranium from Niger.

Chouet recalled that his agency was contacted by the CIA in the summer of 2001 ? shortly before the attacks of Sept. 11 ? as intelligence services in Europe and North America became more concerned about chatter from known terrorist sympathizers. CIA officials asked their French counterparts to check that uranium in Niger and elsewhere was secure. The former CIA official confirmed Chouet's account of this exchange.

Then twice in 2002, Chouet said, the CIA contacted the French again for similar help. By mid-2002, Chouet recalled, the request was more urgent and more specific. The CIA was asking questions about a particular agreement purportedly signed by Nigerian officials to sell 500 metric tons of uranium to Iraq.

Chouet dispatched a five- or six-man team to Niger to double-check any reports of a sale or an attempt to purchase uranium. The team found none.

Chouet and his staff noticed that the details of the allegation matched those in fraudulent documents that an Italian informant earlier had offered to sell to the French.

(Continued at link)

[Booker Floyd]

Its amusing to think that folks like D accept the White House talking points under the presumption that if they were purposely misleading or withholding intelligence, the president would be surely be investigated and impeached.? Pretty simple logic, but very wrong.?

A matter such as the one addressed in the article I just posted might be better understood if somebody in Congress tried investigating it, right?

Congressman Says American Public Deserves To Know How Infamous 16 Words About Iraq Seeking Uranium From Africa, Now Proven False, Made It Into Final Draft Of Speech; Measure Would Force Administration To Give Congress All Documents Related To 2003 State of the Union & October 2002 Speech That Didn't Include Such Claims Because CIA Said They Were Unsubstantiated

Washington, DC -- In an effort to find out how the now infamous 16 words about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, which turned out to be false, made it into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) today introduced a House resolution that would require the White House to present Congress with all drafts and documents related to the crafting of that speech. Hinchey's measure would also require the White House to deliver to Congress all drafts and related documents surrounding an October 2002 speech that the president made in which he discussed a possible mushroom cloud from an Iraqi nuclear weapon, but did not mention an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium from Africa after the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) said such claims were unproven. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Ranking Member on the House Committee on Government Reform, and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee, are original cosponsors of Hinchey's resolution.

"With the Administration's uranium claims at the heart of the ongoing CIA leak investigation, it's imperative that we find out exactly how a false claim about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons made its way into the final version of President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address," Hinchey said. "Of particular interest is how and why the uranium claim made it into the State of the Union Address, when just three months earlier the CIA removed a similar uranium reference because the intelligence supporting such a claim was 'weak.' The Congress and the American people deserve to see every draft, every e-mail, and every memo that details the evolution of both the State of the Union Address and the October 2002 speech that omitted the uranium reference. Since the White House refuses to be up front and honest about how the false uranium claim made it into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, it is up to the Congress to take every piece of information that went into the crafting of that speech and put together the puzzle to determine what went wrong."

In his 2003 State of the Union address President Bush said, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It has been reported that the original draft of the State of the Union address stated that, "we know that [Hussein] has recently sought to buy uranium in Africa," but after the White House consulted with the CIA, the speech was changed to refer to the British view rather than the American view.

In response to the uproar over an op-ed article disputing the uranium claims that was written by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Wilson, had her identity as an undercover CIA operative revealed to the press by members of the Bush Administration, then-CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement in which he took responsibility for the false uranium claim in the State of the Union address. Tenet did admit that CIA officials who reviewed the draft of the State of the Union Address containing the remarks on the supposed Niger-Iraqi uranium deal "raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with [White House] National Security Council colleagues" and "ome of the language was changed."

On October 7, 2002, prior to the 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush delivered a speech in which he made reference to Iraq using nuclear weapons and urged action against Iraq, saying that the United States, "cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," a reference to the potential for Iraq to use a nuclear weapon. The president stopped short of saying Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapon. According to the Senate Intelligence report, the uranium references remained in the speech until at least its seventh draft when the National Security Council removed it at the CIA's behest.

"We need to find out why the CIA took out the uranium reference in President Bush's October 2002 speech, but apparently allowed that claim to remain in the State of the Union address just a few months later," Hinchey said. "In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors still had not found evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and there was some talk in Congress about withdrawing the war resolution passed months earlier in order to give inspectors more time. It seems clear to me that the uranium claim was used to cement congressional approval for a war with Iraq by essentially scaring the American people into believing Iraq posed an imminent danger. We need to see all the drafts and documents related to the State of the Union address to get to the bottom of this once and for all."

The Hinchey measure to acquire the documents surrounding the State of the Union address and the October 2002 speech is considered a resolution of inquiry, which is a type of bill that seeks factual information from the executive branch. If the measure is adopted, the White House would have 14 days to present Congress with all of the requested documents.

---

You would think that Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Committe on International Relations, would also like to get to the bottom of this, but instead he tried killing the resolution.? Thankfully not all Republicans in the committee are as inept as Hyde and the committe deadlocked 24-24, meaning the resolution will live a bit longer.? Hopefully common sense prevails and the inquiry is accepted.

[SLCPUNK]

 This is how the murderers in the white house honor our troops? Here is a big FUCK YOU to Bush for doing this shit.  And fuck you who support this asshole! Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about our troops. If he did he wouldn't be sending them home with the luggage.

(Video on link below.)

SAN DIEGO -- There's controversy over how the military is transporting the bodies of service members killed overseas, 10News reported.

A local family said fallen soldiers and Marines deserve better and that one would think our war heroes are being transported with dignity, care and respect. It said one would think upon arrival in their hometowns they are greeted with honor. But unfortunately, the family said that is just not the case.

Dead heroes are supposed to come home with their coffins draped with the American flag -- greeted by a color guard.

But in reality, many are arriving as freight on commercial airliners -- stuffed in the belly of a plane with suitcases and other cargo.

John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight.

"When someone dies in combat, they need to give them due respect they deserve for (the) sacrifice they made," said John Holley.

John and Stacey Holley, who were both in the Army, made some calls, and with the help of U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, Matthew was greeted with honor and respect.

"Our familiarity with military protocol and things of that sort allowed us to kind of put our foot down -- we're not sure other parents have that same knowledge," said Stacey Holley.

The Holleys now want to make sure every fallen hero gets the proper welcome.

The bodies of dead service members arrive at Dover Air Force Base.

From that point, they are sent to their families on commercial airliners.

Reporters from 10News called the Defense Department for an explanation. A representative said she did not know why this is happening.

http://www.10news.com/news/5504608/detail.html

[D]

What are they suppose to do? Carry it across the ocean?

I dont understand, so they fly the bodies over on cargo planes, whats the big deal?

I always thought the color guard stuff was for their funerals, I think people are goin a little too ape shit over this.

[SLCPUNK]

No family should be told they can pick up their kid at the airport.

The coffins should be treated correctly, before off loading a flag should be draped over them, and an honor guard should be waiting to take the coffin to their loved ones.

Not on a fork-lift like a fucking crate of potatoes.

Although the biggest fury is that they are in a casket at all.

I also guess that you wouldn't mind if it was your brother coming home like that either 'eh?

[sandman]

the family and friends of someone i know that died in iraq said everything was handled with class. all communication and logistics exceeded their expectations.

[shades]

No family should be told they can pick up their kid at the airport.

The coffins should be treated correctly, before off loading a flag should be draped over them, and an honor guard should be waiting to take the coffin to their loved ones.

Not on a fork-lift like a fucking crate of potatoes.

Although the biggest fury is that they are in a casket at all.

I also guess that you wouldn't mind if it was your brother coming home like that either 'eh?

quit acting like you care about the kids you are NOT supporting.
Isnt that contradictory of your own views.
YOU are the one that should be ashamed at how you are treating and sounding out against those dead bodies and their kin.

Shame on you.
Move to Canada already

[Booker Floyd]

quit acting like you care about the kids you are NOT supporting.
Isnt that contradictory of your own views.
YOU are the one that should be ashamed at how you are treating and sounding out against those dead bodies and their kin.

Shame on you.
Move to Canada already

So youre never going to explain your Harriet Miers conspiracy theory?

[shades]

Bush could nominate Abraham Lincoln and the dems would have criticized him.
What with the Stove Top hat and all.

So Harriet is paraded out.
Like bait .
Dems beat her up, call her a lightweight, Bush puppet, etc.

Bush has her withdraw her name,
If the next nomination met the same resistance,
 the dems look like their just bashing anybody that comes along, and they know it.
So they have to back off, even if its just enough to tilt the scales to confirmation.
All this done right in front of their very eyes.
Genious

Even you can grasp this move