Casualties of War
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Mission NOT Accomplished
At least 753 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the U.S. began it's unprovoked war there. At least 441 U.S. troops have died since Bush declared "mission accomplished." The Iraq Body Count web site is currently reporting that between 8979 and 10833 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the war.
The only mission that has been accomplished is the bringing down of Saddam Hussein, who posed no real military or terrorist threat to the U.S. No WMD have been found, nor are any likely to be found. The U.S. and the world are no safer. The U.S. has overextended its military might and is now less capable of dealing with real terrorist threats. More people hate the U.S. now than before the war began. The national debt is larger than ever. The U.S. has lost the respect of many nations due to its refusal to act cooperatively and responsibly in world affairs. Most Iraqis want the U.S. to leave.
The Bush administration says it's bringing democracy to Iraq. What kind of democracy is it that is imposed by a foreign power by military force? Iraq is still ruled by a dictator with bloody hands, only his name is now George Bush.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Incompetent Aide Said Responsible for State of the Union
The Bush administration couldn't get the public to swallow the story that George Tenet was to blame for the lies in the President's State of the Union Address. So now they are trying to get us to believe it was all the fault of Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser.
According to this new story, Tenet made Hadley remove the statement about Saddam seeking uranium from Africa from a presidential speech in early October. The controversy about that statement was explained to Hadley in two memos and a phone call. But when it came time for Hadley to work on the State of the Union Address, just 3 months later, he had completely forgotten about the controversy!
Even more remarkable, White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush retained confidence in Hadley. How can he have confidence in someone with such poor short term memory! Unless, of course, Hadley doesn't really have any memory problems at all, and this entire story was just made up to keep Bush from having to admit that he is responsible for what he says.
Do they really expect us to believe that the State of the Union Address was written by a lackey whose memory of his own actions doesn't extend beyond 3 months, and that no one else checked what he wrote before the president read it before congress?
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Surely He Didn't Mean It
As quoted by Reuters: "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq," said [U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz, who is touring the country to meet U.S. troops and Iraqi officials. Also, "Those who want to come and help are welcome," he said. "Those who come to interfere and destroy are not." See: Wolfowitz Warns Iraq's Neighbors Not to Interfere
Bush's Gang apparently thinks being gay is something to be ashamed of
PlanetOut.com reported that "The White House allegedly retaliated against a journalist who reported last week about U.S. troops' morale problems in Iraq by alerting a popular Web site that the journalist is Canadian and openly gay." See: Gay smear follows newsman's Iraq report
Friday, July 04, 2003
Letter to President Bush
To: President@WhiteHouse.gov
Subject: bring em on
Dear Mr. President,
I think you should personally go stand guard alone in front of the Baghdad National Museum, where one of our troops on that assignment was recently gunned down, before you start making remarks like "bring 'em on". Then we will see if you are really as gutsy as you pretend to be.
Sincerely,
Duane
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Poll Finds Americans Misled by Bush and His Gang
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that "A third of the American public believes U.S. forces have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll. Twenty-two percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons." The truth is that no such weapons have been found and none were used.
Many people also believe that there was a connection between Iraq and the events of Sept 11, but there was not. Bush tried to make a connection in the public mind by describing the preemptive attack on Iraq as "one victory in the war on terror that began Sept. 11." None of the hijackers was Iraqi, contrary to popular belief. In fact, the majority were Saudi.
"Hugick said his analysis showed those who were misinformed were not necessarily those who had less education."
See: War poll uncovers fact gap
Bush Lied about WMD
The Observer reported that "An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist."
No evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq.
See: Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds
Friday, May 30, 2003
Salam Pax Again
The AP (London) reported today that the Guardian has signed Salam Pax to write a biweekly column beginning Wednesday. This is somewhat surprising considering the fact that Salam Pax wrote the following in his blog on May 22:
"A day before that I sold my soul to the devil. I talked to Rory from the Guardian. Look, he paid for a great lunch in a place which had air-conditioning and lots of people from foreign. It was fun talking to him but when Raed saw me after 'the talk' he said I looked like someone had violated me. So there is a bit of guilt."
See: British paper signs Iraqi blogger as columnist
Saturday, May 24, 2003
Salam Pax
After a long absence, Salam Pax has resumed publishing his blog from Baghdad. (Click the link at the left.) He claims that the person going by the name "salam pax" who is writing on the website of the new student run, and only independent, newspaper in Baghdad, Al-MuaJaha-"The Iraqi Witness", is not him.
Saturday, May 17, 2003
The Fictional Aspects in the "Rescue" of Jessica Lynch
Can it be called a rescue if the person being "rescued" isn't being held captive?
The Guardian reported last Thursday that the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch was staged for the cameras and timed to draw attention from "the talk...of coalition forces bogged down, of a victory too slow in coming." It reports that the U.S. forces knew going in that there would be no resistance, that the Fedayeen were no longer at the hospital where Jessica was being treated for her injuries.
The Guardian also reported that "Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Al-Houssona had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance," but when the ambulance approached the American checkpoint it was met with gunfire.
When asked, the Pentagon refused to release the raw video footage of the "rescue".
See: The truth about Jessica
Friday, May 02, 2003
Bush Ends the War with Lies and Propaganda
Bush's speech to the crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln was riddled with lies. One of the most blatant was his continued attempt to connect Iraq with the events of 9/11. He said "The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on 11 September 2001, and still goes on." Yet no connection has been shown to exist. None of the terrorists who carried out the events of 9/11 were Iraqi. A significant number were from Saudi Arabia, with which the U.S. is still on friendly terms.
Bush continued to talk of so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He said "We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated." Yet no such weapons have been found. And let's not forget the forged documents that the U.S. knowingly used in defense of this bogus WMD argument to win the approval of Congress for the war.
Bush pushed the lie that the people of Iraq were in general joyous to see the American troops. He said "In the images of celebrating Iraqis, we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom." He said nothing about the fact that the news media, cooperating with the military, manufactured those images. He didn't mention the anti-American protests or the fact that many Iraqis are eager to see the U.S. out of their country.
Bush would like us to forget the Iraqi civilian casualties, which the U.S. military doesn't even count. He said "With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians." Yet thousands of civilians died and thousands more were wounded. Many will be maimed for life. How conveniently he ignored the events of recent days where American troops fired into crowds of civilians, killing and injuring the innocent. Where's the precision in that?
Bush and his gang would like us to believe that Iraq was a danger to the U.S., but it just wasn't so. The only weapons of mass destruction used in Iraq were those the U.S. and British used. The Iraqis had no effective means even to defend themselves against the U.S. and British forces. The put up little more than a show of fighting, while they died by the thousands.
Bush spoke obliquely of culture. "Men and women in every culture need liberty like they need food, and water, and air. Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices." Yet the world looked on with sadness and disgust at the destruction of thousands of years of cultural artifacts in Iraqi museums that the Bush administration chose not to protect.
Bush told the troops "You are defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm." No, they weren't. Their country was not under attack, nor even the threat of attack, by Iraq. And it was mostly the innocent they killed and maimed in Iraq.
See: Bush speech: Full Text
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
George Bush's Unjustified War
[note: this post will be evolving for awhile]
The Bush administration has tried various arguments to justify to the American people, and to the world, its war against Iraq. Were any of them any good? What sort of provocation or situation is required to justify a war of the sort the U.S. fought in Iraq?
1. The argument that the war with Iraq is a defense of the U.S.
Self defense is widely recognized as a justification for violence, at least when violence is reasonably thought to be a necessary response to an attack in order to save one's own life. But, Iraq had not attacked the U.S.; nor was there any reason to believe that an attack was imminent. The U.S. was an unprovoked aggressor in the war with Iraq.
2. The argument that Iraq was somehow involved in the attack against the U.S. on 9/11
The main problem with this argument is that it appears to be simply not true. There is no evidence, at least none that has been made public, to connect Iraq with the events of 9/11.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Hermann Goering to Gustave Gilbert, as quoted in the Nuremburg Diary
3. The argument that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that this should be effectively prohibited
While the U.S. claimed that it knew for a fact that Iraq has such weapons, it refused to provide proof or any convincing evidence for that claim. The U.S. had ample opportunity to direct U.N. inspectors to sites where such weapons could be found and it failed to do so.
Worse, the Bush administration used forged documents about Iraq's alleged nuclear program to help persuade Congress to give the go-ahead for the war.
Throughout the largely one-sided war, Iraq used no weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. and British troops, not even as a last resort, when they were getting creamed. And while the U.S. has looked hard for such weapons since it has taken control of Iraq, no such weapons have been found.
Now the Bush administration is suggesting that maybe no weapons of mass destruction will be found after all. So was this "justification" for war, which the Bush administration touted with so much certainty before the war, based on a lie?
4. The argument that the U.S. should liberate the people of Iraq from an oppressive dictatorship, guilty of many human rights violations against its own people
The Bush administration didn't come up with this reason until after it had exhausted the other reasons for war. How can people believe that it is justified to kill perhaps thousands of innocent civilians in order to save some some people from possibly being tortured and killed?
Saturday, April 26, 2003
What will $100 Billion Buy?
Steven Jones writes in the San Francisco Bay Guardian about what we could have bought with the money Congress set aside for the war in Iraq. These lost opportunities are part of the cost of the war. Congress set aside $100 billion dollars, just for starters. What can you buy with $100B? Jones reports:
"Pay off the current budget deficits facing each of the 50 states", or
"Create a fund to pay for every California child under the age of 18 (9.25 million people) to attend college at a UC campus for four years", or
"Quadruple what the federal government spends on K-12 education", or
"Provide health care to all uninsured children in the United States for the next five years", or
"Save almost all of the rain forests in Latin America and the Caribbean (834 million acres, or roughly one-fourth of the world's forest cover)", or
...
See: The real costs of war
Saturday, April 19, 2003
DARPA Cancels Funding for OpenBSD
Salon.com reports that DARPA cancelled an open-source software project after one of the programmers expressed anti-war sentiments in a story published by The Globe and Mail of Toronto. "I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built," de Raadt told the newspaper.
See: DARPA cancels open-source software project after anti-war comments
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Bush Advisors Resign in Protest
Reuters reports that two Bush administration cultural advisors have resigned in protest over the U.S. failure to protect the priceless historical treasures of the Baghdad museum.
"Antiquities experts have said they were given assurances months ago from U.S. military planners that Iraq's historic artifacts and sites would be protected by occupying forces." But it didn't happen. Either the military did not place a high enough priority on protecting the museum, or there were insufficient troops to do the job. The Bush administration has previously been criticized for sending too few troops to Iraq and for trying to fight the war on the cheap.
As a result of the Bush administration's failure, " Baghdad's museums, galleries and libraries are empty shells, destroyed in a wave of looting," reports Reuters.
The historical treasures that were destroyed were not of significance to Iraq alone. Included were records of some of the earliest human civilizations and as such they were the treasures of humanity.
See: US Culture Advisers Resign Over Iraq Museum Looting
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
U.S. Soldiers Coerced into Religious Ritual
The Miami Herald reports that a Southern Baptist army chaplain is coercing soldiers into baptisms.
''It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized,'' Army chaplain Josh Llano of Houston said. "Every day, soldiers take the plunge for the Lord and come up clean for the first time in weeks," the Herald reports. "First, though, the soldiers have to go to one of Llano's hour-and-a-half sermons in his dirt-floor tent. Then the baptism takes an hour of quoting from the Bible."
See: Army chaplain offers baptisms, baths
Toppling of Saddam's Statue an Event Staged by the U.S. Military
Did the news media lead you to believe that there was a big crowd of Iraqis at the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Fardus Square?
The New York Times reported the scene like this:
"U.S. marines sent a towering bronze statue of Saddam Hussein crashing to the ground amid loud cheers and riotous scenes on a central Bagdhad square on Wednesday. U.S. troops briefly draped an American flag over the face of a giant statue of President Saddam Hussein in central Baghdad on Wednesday as they prepared to topple it in front of a crowd of Iraqis."
The Information Clearing House had a different spin on what happened: "A wide angle shot in which you can see the whole of Fardus Square (conveniently located just opposite the Palestine Hotel where the international media are based), and the presence of at most around 200 people--most of them US troops (note the tanks and armored vehicles) and assembled journalists."
See: A tale of two photos
Also: Is This Media manipulation on a grand scale?
