From my blog
More than 1000 U.S. men and women have died in Iraq as of yesterday, September 7th, Rumsfeld announced.
He also took an unusual step:
"Rumsfeld took the unusual step yesterday of saying that U.S. and coalition forces 'probably' had killed between 1,500 and 2,500 former regime elements, criminals and terrorists last month."
Two for one - not the usual count we're used to.
I wish Bush could justify these deaths beyond "they were defending freedom". A plan for Iraq would be nice.
Article comments
1 - The Dude
Over 1,000 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq, 1,500 to 2,500 terrorists died ...
How many innocent men, women and children were killed? Wonder if ol' Rummy have the stat for that one. I'm sure people would like to know.
2 - jack e. jett
How many innocent men, women and children were killed?
that is the quetion that we may never know. that is really frightening to me.
jack
3 - Tom
How many innocent men, women and children were killed?
that is the quetion that we may never know. that is really frightening to me.
By my count there were about 3,000 innocents of our citizens killed on Sept. 11th.
Though there may have been no direct link between Iraq and Al Queda, we have been free of domestic attacks since the global war on terrorism. We are fighting terrorists who want me and you dead there, and not here.
We are taking the fight to them. Russia has now even vowed to take the fight to the terrorists, wherever they live.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84VLCLO0.html
If you can't see the connection to the greater war on terror, then I feel sorry for you because you can't understand the nature of the evil doers that want to kill us. Not because of our political leanings, but because we represent the great Satan.
Until you can put your petty hatred for George Bush behind you, we can not win the war on terror.
4 - Shark
Tom: "...Though there may have been no direct link between Iraq and Al Queda..."
END OF STORY.
Find another excuse.
5 - Tom
Shark,
Did you even read the rest of my post. I guess not.
We are fighting terrorists who want me and you dead there, and not here.
If you want, I can put it into a "Dick and Jane" reading level for you.
We are taking the fight to them. Russia has now even vowed to take the fight to the terrorists, wherever they live.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84VLCLO0.html
I just find it pathetic that your quest for your party's power is more important than the ultimate safety of this country.
As recently as 2002 your man John Kerry said that we should take Saddam out, unilaterally if necessary because of his ability and desire to link up with terrorists in the future.
Will it take 3,000,000 dead to make you realize that they want us dead and we have to stop them wherever they are?
I guess you won't care until one of your loved ones gets vaporized by a nuke.
And then, you won't care unless your guy is in power.
Pathetic.
6 - Hal Pawluk
The connection, Tom, between the unilateralist U.S. invasion of Iraq and terrorists is that it created many new terrorists and millions of sympathizers around the world while removing very few.
It is a huge signpost of leadership failure.
7 - jack e. jett
yes tom..you are right. i thank bush for protecting me from those children in iraq (those little evil doers). now tell me again what they had to do with the killing of OUR 3000 innocents??
one thing i know for sure is that my hatred for bush is not petty. however, i am impressed that you think that my hatred has the power to control the war on terror. maybe if i made love to both cheney and bush, that would stop all terrorism. i am up for it.
jack e. jett
8 - Tom
If you guys are incapable of reading what I wrote in two of my comments, then I am not going to explain it again.
I'm sorry anything over a 4th grade reading level is too hard for you to comprehend. Instilling a free democratic state in the middle east will foster freedom, and increase stability.
People like you guys said that trying to rebuild Germany after world war 2 was futile, and would not increase stability in western Europe. They said this in the New York times in 1946.
And Shark,
As recently as 2002 John Kerry was calling for the disarmarment and the removal of Hussein, without United Nation's help if needed.
If you think going at it without France, Russia, and Germany is going unilaterally, read this:
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/28139.htm
9 - jack e. jett
I'm sorry anything over a 4th grade reading level is too hard for you to comprehend
____
tom,
this is true. depending on the material, i can sometimes read at a 6th grade level. however, i am not the president, so it doesn't really matter that much.
i know that i love you tom and you won't find that in any book.
jack
10 - Hal Pawluk
Tom, even the neocons are recognizing this isn't going to happen:
Aren't you reading your emails?
11 - Mark Saleski
tom, it's not that your words are not understood. it's that not everyone agrees.
this is the bigest problem i have with the current discourse on our foreign policy.
people from both sides act and speak as though their own words, which are opinions, have more intrinsic merit.
so, for example, when the statement is made that we are safer because of our actions in iraq: there is not 100% agreement on this.
12 - Tom
Good point Mark.
But when I say something, it is ignored and they just harp on the same subject I answered earlier.
13 - Mark Saleski
yep, i think it's one of the symptoms of what i was just talking about. the tendency of people to talk right by each other.
14 - SFC SKI
YOu are right about that, Mark, all political discourse is at a point where I skip almost all political articles on BC and stick to the arts and ephemera side of the this site. Until someone brings a new perspective to this debate and many others, there is little sense in commenting, or getting in heated arguments rehashing the same points. Worst of all, bith sides will just have to wait a bit longer to see how it pans out to prove or disprove their argument.