All too often, people here in the United States fail to take in to consideration what is actually happening in Iraq. We get our worthless televised news reports from Iraq (worthless because even if done with the best of intentions, they can't even begin to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), and then we listen to pundits bloviate over what the half-true (at best) news reports indicate. Because of this, I like to hear what Iraqis and US troops in Iraq have to say - not because they are necessarily 100% right, but because they are usually 100% fair.
In light of this, Omar over at Iraq the Model has something to say regarding that report of 665,000 dead Iraqi civilians since the start of the liberation of Iraq:
Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.
Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.
We believe in what we’re struggling for and we are proud of our sacrifices.
I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.
No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.
They shamelessly made an auction of our blood, and it didn’t make a difference if the blood was shed by a bomb or a bullet or a heart attack because the bigger the count the more useful it becomes to attack this or that policy in a political race and the more useful it becomes in cheerleading for murderous tyrannical regimes. (Ed. note: We apologise for the un-censored obscenity, but we believed it was necessary in order to fully capture Omar's intention)
Omar is right: the blood of Iraqis, as well as the blood of American and other Coalition forces, is being used in a sick political game designed to gain advantage in American elections, rather than help the Iraqi people triumph over their enemies, or help American and Coalition forces defeat the enemy. This is a real event, this liberation of Iraq - this isn't some poll-tested policy proposal designed to puff up one side and bring down the other...real, flesh and blood human beings are fighting and dying for liberty, and it is sick and disgusting that some are using this as a mere political club.
I heard Kerry on Sunday drone on about how our liberation of Iraq has left us with insufficient forces to deal with North Korea - implying that he'd war with NK, if only Bush hadn't wasted our military substance in Iraq. This is just more gamesmanship - Kerry wouldn't war with NK unless his wife's fortune depended on it. But it is useful, he thinks, to play this game - and who gives a damn what happens to the actual people of Iraq and North Korea? Its not like Kerry will actually have to see them - they are out of sight, out of mind and, as human beings, bear no relation to the most important of all things, victory at the polls. Were it the other way 'round - had we liberated NK in 2003 and left Saddam alone to build a nuke by 2006 - then Kerry and all the liberals would just say the same thing, with only the names of the countries in question reversed.
This is a war to the death between good and evil, and the liberal/left is treating it as a political football...
HAT TIP: Dean's World.
Posted by Mark Noonan at October 16, 2006 09:06 AM
Comments
Though I do agree with the notion that exploiting death is a travesty, is it exploitation to use the number of deaths related to a policy to examine that policy's effectiveness?
Posted by: Georgia Frawg at October 16, 2006 12:18 PM
The last I checked, we have a full division parked on the border with the Norks. The Second. Exactly how much more do we need there? If history has taught us anything, there is no more lethal, better trained, more motivated force on the face of the planet than the US ARMY. Men of free-will and courage will crush those who are conscripted and serve by way of fear, and in service of a dog-eating, pompadoured midget. Kerry is an idiot if he doesn't understand that.
Posted by: rob at October 16, 2006 12:20 PM
"and it is sick and disgusting that some are using this as a mere political club." You then continue to say, "and the liberal/left is treating it as a political football..." By ACCUSING the democrats of using it as polical leverage you are contradicting yourself, unless of course the point was to depict yourself as disgusting.
Its people like YOU who disgust me and millions of other Americans who just want peace and cannot just ask to NOT GO TO WAR, for they will simply be buried under your endless filthy rhetoric (Bill O'Reily and FOX).
Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2006 12:32 PM
You may have a slight point, Frawg, if it wasn't for the fact that the figure that the study came up with is totally flawed to begin with. Yet the MSM touts it as fact.
One could honestly come to no other conclusion than to parade an inherently flawed, incredibyly skewed figure is not an attempt to compare numbers with effectiveness.
Rather, it is a blatant attempt to use obfuscation to sway public opinion. And that, Frawg, is inexcusable.
Posted by:
Psycmeistr at October 16, 2006 12:48 PM
Georgia,
Is it the Democratic position to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible? This seems to range from "immediately" to "with a schedule" to "when the situation is stable". I honestly can't tell what the Democratic position is. Reading posts here and listening to some (but not all) of the Democrat politicians I get the impression that the first two options are what the Democrats want. Am I wrong?
Does “changing course” in Iraq mean leaving immediately or does it mean publishing a schedule? If so – please be clear about it. I guess that isn’t really directed at you Georgia – I’ve asked the crowd before and never really seen a consistent answer. I also don’t see consistency from the politicians.
I don't think too many people left or right would argue against the point that a reckless withdrawal from Iraq would certainly lead to civil war. But what is “reckless”?
If we are seen as retreating from Iraq with our tail between our legs, what will happen? At the least this could lead to a new tri-state division or with one or more ethnic groups ruling (with the other(s) devastated). But, it appears to me that the liberal crowd is OK with this since the dead will not include Americans (no matter how large the number) and whoever wins will sell the world oil anyways.
What about a withdrawal from Iraq as seen by other nations? Afghanistan, PROK, Pakistan, Venezuela,… How will these nations perceive a pull out? I guess that foreign lives don’t matter?
Posted by: Kahn at October 16, 2006 01:00 PM
"I honestly can't tell what the Democratic position is".
That's exactly why this election will be so interesting. Either people will vote for change without an actual plan or the stay the course incompetence.
Posted by: lovedaright at October 16, 2006 02:22 PM
Posted by: Warriornation at October 16, 2006 03:08 PM
As Warriornation has said, the Lancet report has been destroyed. Here's another detailed debunking of the Lancet report from Iraq Body Count:
"Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates"
Posted by: Freedom1 at October 16, 2006 04:51 PM
This is no different than the flu vaccine shortage, forged documents or the Al Qaqa explosives non-fiasco. Pure crap packaged and delivered right before the election. Now Harry reid is admitting he didn't file his land sale correctly, and the news isn't even picking it up.
Posted by: Rich at October 16, 2006 05:40 PM
Pawlenty has raised property taxes and cut funding for K-12 education. This is why Hatch will win.
Posted by: Lomstradamus at October 16, 2006 07:31 PM
Warriornation, that "article" is very easily debunked. Mark Goldblatt - the writer of that article - wonders if the survey group was taking into account the effects of United Nations sanctions on Iraq prior the invasion — which, if the conflict hadn’t occurred, would logically still be in place. Well, when he had actually read the report, he wouldn't have wondered very long: the impact of the sanctions before the invasion were taken into account. The researchers included the 14 months preceding the invasion in their survey and calculated and used the death rate from that period.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje at October 16, 2006 08:31 PM
Do you really think for one hot second we really see the truth of whats really going on in Iraq? All the good stuff? Spare me the horse manure. The American republic does not see whats going on in Iraq alright. The maiming. The butchering. The cold callous sight of brains blown out. Children left homeless and scared. Crying. Endless crying. Weeping. Oh who gives a damn. They are only "Iraqi's". Do you really think for one hot second this administration would really show America whats going on?
Spare me the load of cr*p.
Posted by: raker13 at October 16, 2006 10:23 PM
raker13
We don't have too, The proof is right before your eye's open them and you will see!!
Jeremiah
Posted by: Jeremiah at October 16, 2006 11:51 PM
As Warriornation has said, the Lancet report has been destroyed. Here's another detailed debunking of the Lancet report from Iraq Body Count
Uhm, actually, no. Goldblat should read the report before he wonders "if the survey group was taking into account the effects of United Nations sanctions on Iraq prior the invasion — which, if the conflict hadn’t occurred, would logically still be in place". When Goldblat or warriornation had actually read the report, he would have noticed that the impact of the sanctions was accounted for by calculating the death rate from the 14 months before the invasion, when the sanctions were still in place. By substracting this death rate from the death rates in the years after the invasion, they were also substracting the deaths which would have resulted from the sanctions when the invasion had not taken place.
The "critique" from IBC is nothing more than an argument from incredulity: they can not believe it so it must be false. They mention what the implications of such high death rates should be but they provide no evidence at all that these implications are not occurring. And because they can't believe that the implications are occurring, they believe the deathrates are false. That's circular reasoning.
Note that the IBC has limited itself tremendously in what is recorded in their database: they scan online, western(!) mediareports about civilian casualties and require at least two independent sources. The (western) media is located in a few major cities in Iraq. There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje at October 17, 2006 12:09 AM
So Raker, are you saying George Bush is supressing the MSM? Are you saying they control all your journalist buddy heros? Wow, the plot thickens! I'd love to stay and see were this one goes, but the endless crying is keeping me busy!!!
Posted by: bearmanUSMC at October 17, 2006 12:46 AM
Oh jeez I don't know, well I do know that Newsweek had a cover reporting the turmoil in Afganistan going on RIGHT NOW, and released that cover to the rest of the REAL world. They had a separate cover just for the U.S. A cute little cover about family. How endering and useful.
Posted by: raker13 at October 18, 2006 07:56 PM
Wow. A wild-eyed lib actually commenting on the duplicity of Newsweek. Get the smelling salts, Sally!
Yes, Raker indulged in a fine example of Liberal hysteria, disguised as compassion. But while painting such a vivid picture of blood and guts and suffering and mayhem, he somehow managed to put anything in perspective.
For example, prior to our involvement in Iraq, even more mayhem and bloodshed were a daily occurance---and it was often for the sake of ENTERTAINMENT, not in the pursuit of liberty and freedom. Or did our rakish fellow traveller just forget about the ritualized rapes, the mothers and fathers forced to watch their tiny daughters being raped by dozens of adult men before being disembowled alive? Seems like he was pretty comfortable with the hundreds of thousands who were dragged from their beds and never seen again, though their families sometimes heard stories of the grotesque tortures they had endured before finally dying.
Iraq is, for many, a terrible place. But Iraq was, for many more, an even more terrible place before we got there. And at that time there was no hope for anything better, and no belief that the deaths were for a cause.
As for comparisons, all seem to depend on a completely static Iraq---one that would have been, in 2006, exactly the same as it was in 2003. That is just silly. We have to acknowledge that in those three or four years, Iraq would have changed dramatically. If we had not invaded, we would not now be looking at the same Iraq we faced back then, any more than the North Korea of this week is the same country, and the same threat, it was five years ago.
We have abundant evidence and testimony that Iraq had WMD and moved them out of the country before we invaded, and that they were planning to restart their nuclear program. So why is it that the Libs never project an uninvaded Iraq as being stronger, better armed, and more lethal than it was back then? Because that serves their purpose, that's why---the same reason they say and do everything else. But a realistic look at facts indicates that we would probably be having to deal with an Iraq with a far more advanced nuclear capability, a far more developed WMD program, and whatever the consequences would have been of continued financial support of terrorists bent on attacking the United States and its citizens.
Posted by: Almiranta at October 18, 2006 11:10 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
Though I do agree with the notion that exploiting death is a travesty, is it exploitation to use the number of deaths related to a policy to examine that policy's effectiveness?
The last I checked, we have a full division parked on the border with the Norks. The Second. Exactly how much more do we need there? If history has taught us anything, there is no more lethal, better trained, more motivated force on the face of the planet than the US ARMY. Men of free-will and courage will crush those who are conscripted and serve by way of fear, and in service of a dog-eating, pompadoured midget. Kerry is an idiot if he doesn't understand that.
"and it is sick and disgusting that some are using this as a mere political club." You then continue to say, "and the liberal/left is treating it as a political football..." By ACCUSING the democrats of using it as polical leverage you are contradicting yourself, unless of course the point was to depict yourself as disgusting.
Its people like YOU who disgust me and millions of other Americans who just want peace and cannot just ask to NOT GO TO WAR, for they will simply be buried under your endless filthy rhetoric (Bill O'Reily and FOX).
You may have a slight point, Frawg, if it wasn't for the fact that the figure that the study came up with is totally flawed to begin with. Yet the MSM touts it as fact.
One could honestly come to no other conclusion than to parade an inherently flawed, incredibyly skewed figure is not an attempt to compare numbers with effectiveness.
Rather, it is a blatant attempt to use obfuscation to sway public opinion. And that, Frawg, is inexcusable.
Georgia,
Is it the Democratic position to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible? This seems to range from "immediately" to "with a schedule" to "when the situation is stable". I honestly can't tell what the Democratic position is. Reading posts here and listening to some (but not all) of the Democrat politicians I get the impression that the first two options are what the Democrats want. Am I wrong?
Does “changing course” in Iraq mean leaving immediately or does it mean publishing a schedule? If so – please be clear about it. I guess that isn’t really directed at you Georgia – I’ve asked the crowd before and never really seen a consistent answer. I also don’t see consistency from the politicians.
I don't think too many people left or right would argue against the point that a reckless withdrawal from Iraq would certainly lead to civil war. But what is “reckless”?
If we are seen as retreating from Iraq with our tail between our legs, what will happen? At the least this could lead to a new tri-state division or with one or more ethnic groups ruling (with the other(s) devastated). But, it appears to me that the liberal crowd is OK with this since the dead will not include Americans (no matter how large the number) and whoever wins will sell the world oil anyways.
What about a withdrawal from Iraq as seen by other nations? Afghanistan, PROK, Pakistan, Venezuela,… How will these nations perceive a pull out? I guess that foreign lives don’t matter?
"I honestly can't tell what the Democratic position is".
That's exactly why this election will be so interesting. Either people will vote for change without an actual plan or the stay the course incompetence.
A must read on this entire thing here, including a liberal site that also destroys the Lancet report
As Warriornation has said, the Lancet report has been destroyed. Here's another detailed debunking of the Lancet report from Iraq Body Count:
"Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates"
This is no different than the flu vaccine shortage, forged documents or the Al Qaqa explosives non-fiasco. Pure crap packaged and delivered right before the election. Now Harry reid is admitting he didn't file his land sale correctly, and the news isn't even picking it up.
Pawlenty has raised property taxes and cut funding for K-12 education. This is why Hatch will win.
Warriornation, that "article" is very easily debunked. Mark Goldblatt - the writer of that article - wonders if the survey group was taking into account the effects of United Nations sanctions on Iraq prior the invasion — which, if the conflict hadn’t occurred, would logically still be in place. Well, when he had actually read the report, he wouldn't have wondered very long: the impact of the sanctions before the invasion were taken into account. The researchers included the 14 months preceding the invasion in their survey and calculated and used the death rate from that period.
Do you really think for one hot second we really see the truth of whats really going on in Iraq? All the good stuff? Spare me the horse manure. The American republic does not see whats going on in Iraq alright. The maiming. The butchering. The cold callous sight of brains blown out. Children left homeless and scared. Crying. Endless crying. Weeping. Oh who gives a damn. They are only "Iraqi's". Do you really think for one hot second this administration would really show America whats going on?
Spare me the load of cr*p.
raker13
We don't have too, The proof is right before your eye's open them and you will see!!
Jeremiah
Uhm, actually, no. Goldblat should read the report before he wonders "if the survey group was taking into account the effects of United Nations sanctions on Iraq prior the invasion — which, if the conflict hadn’t occurred, would logically still be in place". When Goldblat or warriornation had actually read the report, he would have noticed that the impact of the sanctions was accounted for by calculating the death rate from the 14 months before the invasion, when the sanctions were still in place. By substracting this death rate from the death rates in the years after the invasion, they were also substracting the deaths which would have resulted from the sanctions when the invasion had not taken place.
The "critique" from IBC is nothing more than an argument from incredulity: they can not believe it so it must be false. They mention what the implications of such high death rates should be but they provide no evidence at all that these implications are not occurring. And because they can't believe that the implications are occurring, they believe the deathrates are false. That's circular reasoning.
Note that the IBC has limited itself tremendously in what is recorded in their database: they scan online, western(!) mediareports about civilian casualties and require at least two independent sources. The (western) media is located in a few major cities in Iraq. There are about 90 major towns and cities in Iraq.
So Raker, are you saying George Bush is supressing the MSM? Are you saying they control all your journalist buddy heros? Wow, the plot thickens! I'd love to stay and see were this one goes, but the endless crying is keeping me busy!!!
Oh jeez I don't know, well I do know that Newsweek had a cover reporting the turmoil in Afganistan going on RIGHT NOW, and released that cover to the rest of the REAL world. They had a separate cover just for the U.S. A cute little cover about family. How endering and useful.
Wow. A wild-eyed lib actually commenting on the duplicity of Newsweek. Get the smelling salts, Sally!
Yes, Raker indulged in a fine example of Liberal hysteria, disguised as compassion. But while painting such a vivid picture of blood and guts and suffering and mayhem, he somehow managed to put anything in perspective.
For example, prior to our involvement in Iraq, even more mayhem and bloodshed were a daily occurance---and it was often for the sake of ENTERTAINMENT, not in the pursuit of liberty and freedom. Or did our rakish fellow traveller just forget about the ritualized rapes, the mothers and fathers forced to watch their tiny daughters being raped by dozens of adult men before being disembowled alive? Seems like he was pretty comfortable with the hundreds of thousands who were dragged from their beds and never seen again, though their families sometimes heard stories of the grotesque tortures they had endured before finally dying.
Iraq is, for many, a terrible place. But Iraq was, for many more, an even more terrible place before we got there. And at that time there was no hope for anything better, and no belief that the deaths were for a cause.
As for comparisons, all seem to depend on a completely static Iraq---one that would have been, in 2006, exactly the same as it was in 2003. That is just silly. We have to acknowledge that in those three or four years, Iraq would have changed dramatically. If we had not invaded, we would not now be looking at the same Iraq we faced back then, any more than the North Korea of this week is the same country, and the same threat, it was five years ago.
We have abundant evidence and testimony that Iraq had WMD and moved them out of the country before we invaded, and that they were planning to restart their nuclear program. So why is it that the Libs never project an uninvaded Iraq as being stronger, better armed, and more lethal than it was back then? Because that serves their purpose, that's why---the same reason they say and do everything else. But a realistic look at facts indicates that we would probably be having to deal with an Iraq with a far more advanced nuclear capability, a far more developed WMD program, and whatever the consequences would have been of continued financial support of terrorists bent on attacking the United States and its citizens.