McCain admits "hundreds of thousands" Iraqi deaths
By SilentPatriot Tuesday Apr 01, 2008 9:45am
During the last two minutes or so of his interview with David Letterman Tuesday night, John McCain got asked some tough questions, including one about the grotesque number of Iraqis killed or displaced because of his Bush's War.
Letterman: 4,000 American men and women soldiers dead since we went into Iraq. Another 30,000 wounded. Untold Iraqis dead. We rarely hear that number. What would that number be? A quarter of a million? Half a million?
McCain: It's hard to make these estimates, but it's in the hundreds of thousands, obviously.
Estimating the number of Iraqi casualties, as horrific as that sounds, is extremely difficult to pinpoint given the chaotic nature of the country. The Iraq Body Count website puts the number at anywhere between 82,625 and 90,149. Other estimates, including one conducted by prestigious medical journal The Lancet in 2006, puts the number at around 600,000. Still others estimate as high as 1,194,935.
And of course we can't discount the 2 million refugees.
No matter which figure you choose to believe, we can all agree that there are far too many lives irredeemably shattered by this senseless and endless war.
Login or Register to post comments.
hands drenched in blood!!! eyes glowing red as he stares at iran!!!
statesman?
killer?
same thing!!
How many dead?
There's one other thing St. McCain DID Get Right
Lest we forget the 500,000 children who perished due to the sanctions from the early nineties on.
This is a number cited in a number of credible places.
Why aren't people booing this douchebag?
mcTRAITOR is perfect for usa govt!
If McDouchebag comes anywhere near where I live in Flordia to campaign, I hope to be able to get close enough for him to hear my boos. I will keep booing until the GOP SS haul my ass off and accuse me of being anti-american. As a 69 year old, I know there is no fool like an old fool. I've been there. I believe McCaine to be a senile old fool.
There are a nearly 5 million Iraqi refugees if you count all the people who've been displaced from their homes. (Deaths due to sectarian violence diminishes if there's nobody there to kill.)
I watched the interview with Letterman last night and McCain, if I didn't know anything about him already, came off as a reasonable, mild and thoughtful guy.
And this old fool wants to kill more Iraqi AND Iranians! Admit it Johnny, you don't give a fuck how many innocent people die as long as "victory" is achieved. I guess if you kill enough A-RABS eventually terrorism will be defeated.
Cheney. . . So?
Someone commented on a thread the other day that our casualty rate are those that fall in battle, and not later from their wounds; is there any truth to that?
They said in the latter case we have an American casualty rate of 14,000, not counting our coalition of the bribed.
Dave: "Untold Iraqis dead. We rarely hear that number. What would that number be? A quarter of a million? Half a million? Thank you Dave. How come none of the Serious Pundits ever ask about this??
As noted above, from the comments and the post, far too many Iraqi deaths have happened, all because of the illegal invasion of their country, caused by the less than benevolent presence of the U.S. military, as well as by disease, illness and starvation, after March of 2003. More needless violence and bloodshed will continue in Iraq due to the inflammatory presence of the United States. Despite this fact, none of the candidates, even including the one who claims to be the agent of hope and change, have advocated for the total and immediate withdrawal of troops from that abattoir in Iraq. None of the candidates can truly claim that they either support the troops or care about the plight of the Iraqi people. Yet one will see very few, if any, signs at the Democratic and Republican conventions which will proclaim: SUPPORT THE TROOPS BRING THEM HOME -NOW.
Kill em all and let God sort them out. Sunni, Shiite is there a difference? Freedom ain't free.
The President makes a difference, lets elect a person who doesn't scare the shit out of the rest of the world. Please?
I think Iraq Body Count is a CIA-backed disinformation project. They should be deeply ashamed. They give war backers -- including Chimpy himself, who has used their numbers on more than one occasion -- an out to peg the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at 10% or less of the real number. Disgraceful.
There is no legitimate controversy about this among experts. The number is close to a million.
cervantes @ 15:
Right, sure. Dream on.
"Ya have to break a few eggs to make an omel...an omelletta... oh, you know, one of those egg dishes where they fold the eggs over on some meat and cheese."
George W. Bush
Actually, the UN says the number of refugees is closer to 3 million, (2.77M) was the number I heard. But heck, who's counting?
How many will be dead 10 years from now because of undepleted uranium exposure?
Mike Mid City @ 14:
I hope your kidding, that is such an immature hateful statement.
Mike Mid City @ 14:
We should be very ashamed that we allowed this atrocity to be committed in OUR name, history will not forgave this nation.
We will never know how many US servicemen/women have been lost, how many Iraquis have been lost. You must remember the gov't isn't too good at keeping track of anything. Like billions of dollars disappearing in Iraq, like missiles disappearing, like Bush's service records. Things disappear. Shit happens.
harley @ 21:
liberAL @ 23:
Whenever a government act in darkness it is for one purpose only, to hide it's own darkness.
L.A. Confidential @ 24:
I remember after 9-11, and through the start of the Iraq "war", David Letterman was very PRO PRO PRO WAR WAR WAR, and PRO PRO PRO BUSH. All this while MANY of us already KNEW what Bush and company were up to. So NOW, David Letterman is supposed to be this person supposedly QUESTIONING the hawks? Puh-leese.
"So?"
- Dick Cheney
The odd thing about Iraqi "collateral damage" is booshco rarely observes the number, and then only to pin it on Al Qaeda or terrorists.
ysbaddaden @ 11:
The other really sad fact is that with (allegedly) improved body armour, soldiers are coming home with multiple amputations and horrific wounds that would have been terminal in any other war. The consequences of that havent even been considered.
I hate the term "collateral damage," I was so hoping they would change it after Timothy McVeigh used it in reference to his bombing of the Murrow Federal building in Oklahoma.
earl @ 30:
earl @ 30:
I'm not minimizing the wounded, NOW with David whats-his-face covered a good story on that. But from what the other commenter said sounded like if they died in a military hospital or at home from their wounds, they weren't counted as war casualties.
Being pro life, pro death penalty, pro war, pro corporation, pro oil, who has time to worry about brown people. I am sure history will look back at Iraq and say thank GOD Amerika was willing to kill these people to protect the peace. I have a head ache.
earl @ 32:
ysbaddaden @ 33:
Unborn American babies seem to be precious for the right wing.
Fully grown infidels not so much, it seems.
Even some of the anti-war folk only seem to care about the 4000 of our boys and girls killed. Ironically, some of them are full blooded Mexican, not citizens even.
Yet the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis death are ignored, the millions displaced not even counted.
The us has over 15 times the population of Iraq, and yet they suffered over 100 times more deaths even though they had nothing to do with 9/11. Put those numbers in perspective, and stop wondering why the rest of the world sees us as a collection of degenerates...
God have mercy on our souls...
Gee, what's a few one hundred thousand here and another one hundred thousand
there? ....Oh, excuse me, we are talking about "human lives" and not dollars wasted
on bush's war in Iraq.
ysbaddaden @ 35:
ysbaddaden @ 29:
It's the "my wife makes me beat her" defense.
It is more important to find something to do with all those bombs than it is to keep track of the number of innocent civilians killed by those same bombs. The military does have its priorities. We’ve got to use those bombs up so the MIC can make more. Feeding the monster takes precedence over everything else.
Vinny Corpuscle @ 4:
Because they don't notice another douchebag when they see one?
http://tinyurl.com/2jt7mg
Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre:
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2005/11/8
I'm sure it was all over CNN at the time.../Mc-Snark
Why doesn't anybody ever mention the 2-4 million refuges who were forced from their homes because of the U.S.-led invasion? They are a group that has been ignored by everybody, including the few progressive pundits who bring up the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed. Democratic lawmakers tend to ignore them, too.
Frybread @ 44:
Amy Goodman has numerous times.
Yet people know who Glenn Beck is, and good luck with that America.
And that is not enough for McBane - on to Iran!
king of mean @ 27:
I am missing your point, you don't want or respect someone changing their minds about Iraq? If they weren't on board from the beginning then they have no right to question the deaths now? I want everyone who was for this crapoloosa to change their minds and see the light myself.
More than Saddam.
Left&Left @ 9:
Would someone please tell me what “victory” is? I guess I don't unerstand it.
Frybread @ 44:
It's opening day at the ball park.
http://tinyurl.com/2jt7mg
bill @ 49:
50 Million in the bank. A house in the Hamptons and a Swiss retreat.
I want the world to unite in independent international organizations of unity and charge the United States with genocide. This madness has to stop.
L.A. Confidential @ 51:
Thanks. I guess I haven't achieved a victory yet and i I never will.
Recalibrate your morality here:
1) We hate them beause they killed three thousand people.
2) They hate us, not because we killed hundreds of thousands of people in their sovereign scapegoated nation, but because they envy us (as the neocons say).
The only thing sadder than this stupid, stupid idea is that red-state Americans are so ignorant that they can't muster the critical skill to question it. And liberals are too stupid to topple the GOP, no matter how many conservative scandals are giftwrapped and handed to them.
bill @ 49:
I keep asking what Victory and Finishing the Job mean and so far - I haven't had an answer. It's like asking how gays marrying would affect mine - no answer there either!!
bill @ 49:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1582408149.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
"Untold Iraqis dead. We rarely hear that number."
--David Letterman
"Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the
VietnameseAye-rackis, because inside everygookcamel-jockey there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over."-- Pogue General, Full Metal Jacket
The average brainwashed American -- even so-called good intentioned liberals like Hillary Clinton -- has been indoctrinated to believe in "National Greatness" and thinks about racism in a very narrow and restrictive way -- usually in terms of blacks and slavery (and maybe Jews, 'cos Hitler and the KKK hated them, and most Americans are familiar with both).
The classic American bleeding heart -- and this includes a certain Democratic presidential candidate, whose spouse once served as President and presided over a Secretary of State who told 60 Minutes that 1.5 million dead Iraqi civilians was worth sanctions against Saddam -- repeatedly mentions American deaths and casualties, and yet regularly and conveniently IGNORES the carnage the Pentagon (and HER VOTE TO AUTHORIZE WAR) inflicts upon millions of innocent brown-skinned civilians who pray to Mecca every day. This, my friends, is the RACIST IDEOLOGY of war-mongers like John McCain and Hillary Clinton. They have no clue that THEY are the evildoers who started the war, and whose pure evil banality has led directly to the deaths and exile and refugee status of MILLIONS.
The mind-set of Madeleine Albright, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and John McCain etc., tells the world that one dead American G.I. is worth the scalps of two-hundred-and-fifty-plus "liberated" Iraqis.
Thank you David Letterman for reminding us there are a few decent Americans in The New Rome who still have their souls.
RickinSF @ 8:
I absolutely agree. The question over the next months will be what percent of the deep thinkers will use their vote to vote for the "nice old man/war hero" versus "the Black guy--no way! the woman--not in this century!" If the Dems don't get their act together soon, we'll all be saying "How the hell did McCain GET IN when he's a Bushie?" ie. worst Presidency continued.
There was no war declaration from Congress. There was an Authorization To Use Military Force. That's not the same thing. It's laying the legal groundwork for raids and strikes should they prove necessary in self-defense. It also came with two caveats, that boosh had to provide some legal argument for it to Congress as well as provide evidence. He never did either. He only repeated his initial claims as his "legal argument."
Since then almost everyone, including Obama, have been authrorizing military allocations to Iraq.
Rusty America Shackleford @ 40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qup9lOPQfg
When we add the 1.5 million dead Iraqis from the '90s -- innocent deaths that Madeleine thought were worth it -- and tack on the numbers of deaths from Bush's War -- probably close to the same number -- plus the exiles and refugees -- an even bigger number -- and then compute the mortality rate over the next couple decades from our dumping tons of airborne depleted uranium in our "shock & awe" campaigns -- face it kids, it looks like a policy of Holocaust that we are waging and commiting. War crimes. When are we going to start calling it exactly what it is? Mass homicide.
kudos to letterman for facing a republican dead in the eye and reminding him of the deaths. This needs to be done with EVERY republican until november elections. (Despite the fact that most will simply say "so?" with a shrug). It needs to be screamed out and drilled into the heads of the voters!
Good thing not all republicans are hillbillies what with all the road-kill and such.
Hannah Hussein @ 3:
This is why I will never support Bill Clinton again. I could care less about his silly hanky panky and his stupid "impeachment". He would have rightly been impeached for this atrocity he'll suffer eternal fire for.
He is my senator, and I couldnt stand watching it. But before I changed channels I did see him make a damning statement. He said - not quoting - that the economy had strong fundamentals but was entering a rough patch. Those are mutually exclusive. You cant have both. Strong fundamentals means you have no problems. The question perhaps you need to consider is either -
1) He doesnt think national debt is fundamental
or
2) He plans to pay down national debt in some way not involving jobs that no longer exist due to expatriation
or
3) He doesnt mind trade imbalances increasing due to the expatriation of jobs
or
4) He thinks creating domestic financial swindles and hiding the evidence overseas in foreign markets makes sense
or
5) Paying down debt using Sovereign wealth funds is great as that will ultimately lead to more war - which is meat to his potato
or
6) Perhaps he has no god damn clue what he is talking about.
ysbaddaden @ 59:
Blah, blah. It laid the legal groundwork for WAR, and did so in a way that forfeited all duty and responsibility of the Congress to even legally declare war, as mandated by the Constitution, and abrogated all of it to the President, thereby "Authorizing" Dear Leader "To Use Military Force." The language cannot be any clearer.
This nation's leadership sickens me. How we could still have such warmongers in office simply leaves me speechless. I REFUSE to fight for this nation under the current circumstances. I would rather take my chances and move away from this military complex.
Our next general to "win" Iraq for us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFnKWT6NcyM
Harry @ 64:
Those were UN sanctions.
billy bob tweed @ 66:
You're talking like boosh now, that the language gives him unlimited powers in our "defense."
If he's admitting to hundreds of thousands, you know the truth must be more like millions.
And he can't wait to murder millions more in Iran.
Anyone who votes for this ghoul should be tried for crimes against humanity, just as the Nazis were after WWII.
billy bob tweed @ 66:
Cant be done.
Elements of the constitution CANNOT be 'forfeited'. That process is called amendment. Read the constitution regarding how that is done.
Declarations of war say - we declare war - they (all of them lawyers) tried to tell the truth while moving their lips, which isnt possible for lawyers.
Declarations of war empower the president as the commander in chief. Authorization to use military force is a (failed IMO) attempt to direct the actions of the president.
They are all wrong - including you. Sorry.
ysbaddaden @ 69:
It was enforced by US military's no fly zone with Clinton as commander in chief. Everybody knows the UN is just a sock puppet of the United States anyway. It's time to dismantle that useless world body.
ysbaddaden @ 69:
From Wikipedia ...
The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued in 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.
... it was implemented in the UN - but it was Bill's Idea. And Bill enforced it.
74 anon
That was in the aftermath of Saddam's attempt to have pappa boosh assasinated.
There were already embargoes in place immediately after Iraq I.
They would have been less severe, but everything that went to Iraq for relief was seized by Saddam for his own use.
This led to the oil for relief scandal that came later, which also enriched Saddam, at the expense of his people.
Every death, every injury, every shattered life is born from the lies of the Bush Administration.
I thought the idea was to be liberators -- not terminators.
Complete disaster.
cervantes @ 15:
Please..
The Iraq Body Count is not an estimate. They COUNT civilian deaths due to violence. Since IBC only can count killings through news reports and official sources there's a large unkown hidden number killed, which they of course aknowledge.
So the IBC-number is the absolute minimum number civilians killed in the Iraq-war. It should never be used as a total estimate of civlians killed. The lowest estimate is about 250.000 IIRC.
The point of the project is to count as many of the otherwise completly forgotten innocents killed in this disaster. Its a noble purpose which they should be proud of. That some idiots use their data as misinformation is not their fault
billy bob tweed @ 66:
ysbadden, by your definition...the President can arbitrarily "use Military Force"...which you define as "not war"...to attack his own populations, without the Congress and basically "invade" the States with National Troops.
Liberal AND Proud @ 79:
RickinSF @ 8:
You mean the way he does in this post?
The Iraq body count website is a laughable attempt at pro-war propaganda. It only registers those deaths reported by the mainstream media. As though they could report on all the deaths caused by lack of electricity in the summer heat waves, sewage spilling into the river/drinking supply, loss of any real medical care and collateral damage.
There is a cholera epidemic in baghdad and that is the least that we hear about. It is obvious that there have been over 1.2 million deaths of Iraqi civilians within iraq alone, and most likely another 350,000-500,000 dead refugees who would not have otherwise perished had we not invaded.
ysbaddaden @ 75:
Bill enforced - saddam stole - and children died. He knew this was going on. Albright new and said it was ok.
If on ONE day just ONE of the children that he knew were dying was named Chelsea -- he would have stopped the program before the sun went down.
locking the door on the firehouse when you know there is an arsonist in the area makes you just as guilty.
Bill Clinton should be tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.
RW @ 67:
Ditto.
jack foster @ 6:
well its for sure we cant stand to have someone whos a batshit crazy war monger as our next president , two of them in a rows to many! lets all get behind a real american!!!!!!! kucinich 08!!!!!
the only guy who makes sense was jesse ventura on larry k. last night. it was especially entertaining when he was laughing at those 4 idiots they had on in the second half of the show, and i was laughing right along with him.
tyree @ 85:
I agree.
But remember where you (and I) are. We have already had consecutive batshit crazy warmongers - Bush and Bush - and to my eye, most (not all) didnt mind that much. What they mind is losing - not fighting a war. This country likes war I think.
jai @ 82:
IBC is an attempt to count as many innocent killings as possible. To at least give these people deaths the bare minimum human dignity of at least being recorded somewhere. Because the US administration sure dont count them.
IBC is NOT an estimated total and should never be used as such. There are plenty of those around if you want to know the total number. But its usefull to see trends and causes for the violence. For instance number of civilians killed by US forces almost doubled from 2006 to 2007. Most of these died in US airstrikes, like so many innocent civilians did in Basra and Bagdhad this past week.
♣Bangkok Bob♠ @ 26:
I have to say I am very surprised that he admitted there were hundreds of thousands in Iraqi civilian deaths. You won't hear the WarPigs say that. As far as the 'official' military count...I have always been suspect of that. The currentmis-Administration lied about the very reason's for invading Iraq in the first place and continue to lie about the reasons for the on-going occupation, I'm sure they are also lying about the actual number of military casualties also. I'm sure it's much more than 4,000.
As others have noted upthread, it's 4-5 million displaced Iraqis internally or in nearby countries. The Surge proponents rarely talk about that. And isn't it funny how McCain goes on about 3 million dollar study being "waste" but never mentions the 2-3 billion it costs per week to stay in Iraq, nor the recent GAO study of waste at the Pentagon?
anon @ 87:
you are right!
Did Dave follow up by asking McAsshole why we should stay in Iraq for another 100 years?
If you think the war is good or needed what difference would it make how many Iraqui's (or Americans) died?
The point is to win and victory is THROUGH a pile of Iraqi bodies, no?
redcat @ 86:
Me too! Jesse mad a lot of good points last night -- he cuts right through all of the typical bullshit we hear on the teevee. Very refreshing.
Republicans are nature's way of controlling the human population.
However many are dead, wounded, misplaced, broken hearted at losing loved ones....they are all so glad they now have this new found democracy and freedom we brought them. When they aren't picking up body parts and putting out fires, they would be dancing in the streets.
Such a sad, sad testament to this criminal nation. Hitler was a little more obvious in his greed, but these boys and girls are just a bit more "stealthy" in their techniques. The lies are the same. The "nationalism" is the same. We have the same Nazi population that would follow this criminal government right off a cliff.
Shame on us.
Loosely Twisted @ 80:
ex parte Milligan
On September 15, 1863
What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"
Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
However, Article I sex. 8 of the US Constitution on the Legislative powers of Congress
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The last bastions of integrity in journalism are comedians - Letterman, Stewart, Colbert, Maher - that's beyond pathetic. How come real journalists never ask these questions? All I can guess is that those ribs must be super tasty.
The Military Industrial Complex learned its lesson about war casualty statistics back in the Vietnam era. Back then, body counts were carefully documented and were used as a measurement of American success in the war. Which was total nonsense strategically, and was taken up very effectively by the antiwar movement.
So it's no wonder the generals and the administration are so vague about Iraqi casualties. They know, though.
98 ysbaddaden Says:
"The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it:
I think you proved my point. "when circumstances warrant it"...like "domestic terrorism"?
Let's hope McCain never does his imitation of Carl Sagen.
Liberal AND Proud @ 101:
No, it's in ex parte Milligan, only when the civil courts and authorities cannot operate due to the disturbance.
Congress authorized Lincoln's imposition of martial law.
And additionally martial law would be unenforcable without Congress exercising it's power in Art I. Sec 8.
ysbaddaden @ 103:
Or the Administration could bring back John Yoo and render it all moot. ;)
Korematsu v the United States
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER, concurring (with Justice Hugo Black)
The provisions of the Constitution which confer on the Congress and the President powers to enable this country to wage war are as much part of the Constitution as provisions looking to a nation at peace. And we have had recent occasion to quote approvingly the statement of former Chief Justice Hughes that the war power of the Government is "the power to wage war successfully." Therefore, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. That action is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in times of peace would be lawless. To talk about a military order that expresses an allowable judgment of war needs by those entrusted with the duty of conducting war as "an unconstitutional order" is to suffuse a part of the Constitution with an atmosphere of unconstitutionality. The respective spheres of action of military authorities and of judges are of course very different. But within their sphere, military authorities are no more outside the bounds of obedience to the Constitution than are judges within theirs. "The war power of the United States, like its other powers . . . is subject to applicable constitutional limitations". To recognize that military orders are "reasonably expedient military precautions" in time of war and yet to deny them constitutional legitimacy makes of the Constitution an instrument for dialectic subleties not reasonably to be attributed to the hard-headed Framers, of whom a majority had had actual participation in war....
However, it should be noted that the California authorities thought they acted Constitutionally based on the precedent case of Hirabayashi v the United States.
(Me) Additionally, one must remember that the presidency is commander and chief of the military not civilians.
I aways want to say Ex Parte Gilligan, where presumably instead of a hanging you get whomped on the head with a captain's hat.
Wasn't there one Supreme Court case that found FDR's seizure of an industry constitutional, but not Truman of another? The former was during WWII and the latter during the Korean Police action.
For Pete's sake SilentPatriot!!!
The number of soldiers who have died as a result of the Iraq occupation is NOT 4,000!!!!
It is over 15,000!!
The government only includes in their statistics soldiers who have died IN Iraq IN battle. Those soldiers who have been mortally injured and shipped out to say US bases in Germany, and then later die as a result of those wounds, ARE NOT COUNTED in the statistics.
That god damn 4,000 number is the fucking government's number, it's not the REAL number. Of course we can count on the MSM to parrot the government figure, because the MSM is a government arm.
It's OVER 15,000, because that's the latest I know of (2005). The number is even bigger now.
STOP SAYING 4,000 !!!
Drew @ 108:
Yet ANOTHER scandal. Boooooooshed again!
4 million refugees - 2 million displaced internally; 2 million refugees
In a country of 25 million. That's like 50 MILLION Americans getting displaced, 25 million to foreign countries.
As for number dead, imagine 10 million US dead because of an occupying force.
We have no freaking idea what has been done in our name because it is so hard for us to fathom as Commander Cuckoo Bananas orders us to go shopping and the Court Stenographer Media obsess on how Black Men Can't Bowl.
Drew @ 108:
You are incorrect, the 4000 number includes soldiers that have died in hospitals in Germany and the US. Here is a list of those soldiers.
If you have some other information, especially a link to some actual source of data for this 15,000 number, please post it. Otherwise please stop spreading misinformation.
Tough questions? How about these:
Senator McCain, who makes money from the Iraq war?
Follow up: Senator, of the companies making money from the Iraq war, which of them have contributed to your campaign, and which of them have lobbyists on your campaign staff?
Keep in mind this country only had 25 million people to start with before the Iraq war.
The Iraq Body Count is not laughable nor is it propaganda. It is not an estimate of total deaths by any means. It is a minimum number of CONFIRMED deaths to the violence Bush/Cheney/PNAC unleashed on the country. The numbers come from other sources like hospitals and newspapers. Nobody knows how many go unreported. Obviously the numbers are much, much higher and IBC does not pretend otherwise.
It shames the so called "real" journalists that we need comedians to ask the important questions because few others in a position to do so seem willing. I do not agree with or trust McCain at all, but it's interesting how forthright he seemed in acknowledging the reality of the horrible scale of Iraqi casualties. It is as if all you have to do is bother to ask!
Shame on Bush, Cheney and McCain and all those who approved going into Iraq
You all have blood on your hands and are nothing short of Killers.
100s of thousands of Iraqis dead.
A tough and frustrating time.
RickinSF @ 8:
It's pretty apparent you don't know anything about anything , then ..........
Drew @ 108:
4,000
WHINNEY
How Could He Say We Should Be Prepared For 100 Years Of This War
This is a very sensitive issue for me. I view any death a very unnecessary aspect of a war that did not have to be. For what we went to war for, hundreds of thousands Iraqis have to die. This is a genocide not a war. Most of the deaths probably came as a result of "collateral damage," an "oops I am sorry" result of our so-called smart weapons that hit their targets and everything around it.
I wrote a comment on C&L a week ago noting about an form of collective denial in America. John McCain is depending on this denial for continuing this war. One sad aspect of our denial is if the American soldier death toll were in the hundreds of thousands, we would not stand for. The denial I speak of here is we seem to disconnect our sense of outrage when these deaths are not American. Our we willing to let killings in these numbers continue? A humanitarian would concur a death is a death, especially under these circumstances. We must not except, support or continue to kill in this way. It is wrong.
Maybe McCain's need for war is rooted in his capture in the Vietnam . Maybe he still wants to win a war with good old powerful American technology. Anybody who in the position to stop this kind of killing should do just that: Stop the killing and end this war.
Joseph
McCain admits “hundreds of thousands” Iraqi deaths
At least they don't have to worry about being killed.
bill @ 49:
Victory....
cannot be defined in Iraq, not according to Republican ideals. They're (badly) trying to solve political problems with military means. Victory in Iraq, to me, would have been after we (illegally) toppled Saddam, to have (also illegally) tried to fix our own clusterfuck by creating Saddam-lite.
The way it is now...
Victory will be Saigon, round two.
nffcnnr @ 12:
I was getting ready to say ... on top of the fact that he's one of the funniest guys around, Letterman has matured to become one of the best political interviewers as well. Whenever he has political types from either party on his show, he tries to get as many serious answers out of them as he does laughs. Another area in which Dave has Jay beat, ratings be damned.
sammy @ 114:
John McCain was forthright about the death toll, and he is forthright about wanting to increase it. He deserves no pad on the back for stating up front the low ball figure of Iraqi dead, not to say you were implying we should. If McCain can come to the conclusion we must win this war, he must be looking at the deaths as an necessary aspect to victory in Iraq. This kind of mentality can lead to increasing the genocide in Iraq. What and how can you win anything under these circumstances? McCain is crazy.
Joseph
Vinny Corpuscle @ 4:
My thoughts exactly.
motorfingaz @ 125:
Who wants to see steam coming out of the old fucking fart's ears along with all the hair and ear-wax build-up ?
About 1.3 million Iraqi dead because of the evil we unleashed upon them. 1.3 million and counting.
"But that's OK...they're just a bunch of brown people living in a desert out in some foreign land."
Kind of makes the whole thing about Saddam gassing the Kurds and operating rape rooms irrelevant at this point yeah? I'd like to see a comparison of Iraqi deaths at the hands of Saddam's security forces vs. Iraqi deaths due to war after we overthrew him. As bad as he was, he was better than this dysfunctional group of corrupt morons in power now.
The Iraq Body Count numbers do not represent the number of dead Iraqis. They represent reports of dead Iraqis and so comparing those numbers to the numbers found in the Lancet study and other scientific studies is like comparing apples and oranges if apples were numbers and oranges piles of kittens. It's usually a 'mistake' made by conservatives. Let's stop it.
ysbaddaden @ 107:
actually youll find korea was a WAR police action my ass, congress declared korea to have been a war! and i never ever saw any god damned police in korea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is rather grotesque. Americans are so smug, they care so much
about the blood of 4,000 Americans dead but don't give a shit
about probably over 1,000,000 Iraqi dead and who knows
how many injured.
Most fill in commentators on Air America keep harping that
they would not shed one drop of American blood for Iraq
however, the US is shedding a lot of blood (American
and Iraqi) for Iraqi oil.
I think Cindy Sheehan has been the only progressive or
mainstream speaker who has spoke about the costs of
Iraqi dead and injured. Most leftist and progressives
couldn't care less. Did the great and experienced Sec
Of Defense say that American soldiers dead and Iraqi
dead are "just a number".
Please Crooks and Liars, I love you, but don't represent IBC numbers as if they report a possibly accurate number of Iraqi deaths. Please visit www.medialens.org and search IBC for much excellent coverage. Here is an edit from a recent piece on British Media reporting on IBC:
In reality, IBC record violent deaths of civilians as reported by the media. They also include records from morgues and hospitals.
The Independent answered the question, ‘Who won the war?’:
“Not the 90,000 Iraqi civilians or the 4,200 US and UK troops killed since 2003.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-who-won-the-war...)
The 4,200 figure is accurate; the 90,000 figure is an appalling journalistic failure. The Independent should understand by now what the IBC figures represent - even IBC does not suggest that they represent a total for civilian casualties.
The BBC told the public (March 22):
“The campaign group, Iraq Body Count, says the civilian death toll since March 2003 is between 82,000 and 89,000, although it warns many deaths may have gone unreported.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi /world/middle_east/7309292.stm)
As far as I can see, the Lancet report uses the same procedures as are used in other deadly situations, and has had no serious critique from the scientific community - just the unscientific community.
Perhaps Chomsky said it best:
"If you are not offending people who ought to be offended, you're doing something wrong."
Bush has quoted numbers close to IBC numbers. That should tell you all you need to know.
that's a lot of dead people. mass murder is what it is.
John “the republican” mccain: hi dave
dave: how many dead in iraq
john “the republican” mccain: obviously in the 100,000s
dave: still justified to be there
john “the republican” mccain: could be… for 100 years
dave: are you proud to be a republican
john “the republican” mccain: you know you look like a guy on the corner
dave: how many dead in iraq
[Hey. Big Dick. Quit posting in ALL CAPS-Sitemonitor]
Letterman has more guts than Obama.
I tend to agree with Peter Bowers (#133) and was checking out the casualty statistics at IBC last night.
IBC post around 90,000 deaths in Iraq and go to great lengths to question and discredit the much higher number reported by Lancet. One big argument offered by IBC against Lancet is that the number of death certificates issued by the Iraqi Ministry of Health represents only a fraction of the deaths reported by Lancet. They make several arguments to refute Lancets claims none of which I find entirely convincing - 90,000 seems too low to me - and so too for John McCain (gaffe excepted).
It is one of my great frustrations with this war, Bush and co., the election cycle and the media's focus - and perhaps the US population's willful ignorance - that the issue of casualties in Iraq seems only ever briefly mentioned and then forgotten about. The deaths of innocents is far more important than health care, sub-prime mortgages, gay Republicans, Jeremiah Wright, Geraldine Ferraro, Bill O-Reilly, Glenn Beck and dare I say, at least in the short term, the US Constitution and Global Warming.
Now some of these are very important issues that face the US and the World, but what is going on here? If there are 600,000 plus Iraqis dead and millions more displaced, what value could you possibly put on that? 1 trillion? 2 trillion? 3 trillion? And what a mess! An illegal war preemptively launched based on false premises and the continuation of that conflict indefinitely based on some of those same false premises. You elected the same bloody leader twice! Or let him steal elections! And the millions and billions leached out of Iraq by US corporations. And the torture. And more, and more...
This administration must be impeached as it should have been years ago. How can the US eventually take responsibility for the past five years and retain any semblance of accountability if proper legal action is not taken by Congress and the people to rectify the great injustices unleashed upon Iraq by the Bush Administration.
In the future, responsibility for what has been happening may be seen by some as being inevitably that of the American people. Please take your country back. It's government has been subverted. Start the Neo-Nuremberg Trials now.
The Iraq Body Count website is so low because they only count the deaths that were reported in the media. With a media that rarely leaves the green zone, it's not surprising that this number is undervalued.
McCain just admitted to murdering hundreds of thousands. Nobody cares. Thanks to a media that has dehumanized people from the Middle-East for decades.
IMPEACH the Whole Bush NEOCON Cabal for WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and TREASON!
tyree @ 131:
Sounds like you needed to spend more time off-base, drinking, whoring, fighting and carousing.
Login or Register to post comments.