Last week, the defense Department released the obituaries of 24 military personnel killed in and around Iraq.
Through last Friday, 9/8, total U.S. deaths have amounted to 2,662 in and around Iraq, and 273, in and around Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 38
In all wars there are people like David, who will tell us that freedom is not worth fighting for.
Greg has yet to explain how Iraq or Afghanistan threatened our freedom, or to acknowledge that our government is systematically revoking our freedom regardless of how many people we lose and kill in those countries.
Bret, how do you define 'innocents' and what makes a person 'good' in your mind?
Afghanistan offered support and sanctuary to Al Qaeda during their planning and intiation of the deaths of 3,030 Americans at on 9/11.
Sorry you forgot about that Sandy.
Iraq offered support and sanctuary to Abu Nidal, Abu Abbass and several other groups who killed Americans and Europeans. In addition Iraq sponsored terrorism conferences that were attended by Al Qaeda as well as the IRA, ETA and the whole alphabet soup of Arab terrorist groups.
Sorry, you forgot about that too Sandy.
As for loosing "our freedoms", even if Bush got everything he asked for we would still have more freedoms than Canada, England, Germany, Holland, and certainly more civil protections than someplace like France.
You would not want to be accused of involvement in a terrorist group in France.
I am quoting CONSERVATIVE Kevin Phillips. Hardly a leftist critic.
Your apologies are accepted in advance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Iraq offered support and sanctuary to Abu Nidal, Abu Abbass and several other groups who killed Americans and Europeans. In addition Iraq sponsored terrorism conferences that were attended by Al Qaeda as well as the IRA, ETA and the whole alphabet soup of Arab terrorist groups.
Just last week the Senate Intelligence Committee refuted these myths.
So you had terrorists in Iraq..........is that really news? Iraq sponsored terrorism.........what's new in that?
Did Kevin Phillips enlighten us all somehow?
Not sure what I would apologize to you for -
My comments were directed at the 3000 dead from the World Trade center that Greg had mentioned in one of his responses. Since it's 9/11 today, I just thought it was really all about them today. Those were the 'innocents' I referred to.
Saddam Hussein had no ties with al Qaeda or slain operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the Iraq War, a US Senate report said Friday, contradicting repeated claims by President George W. Bush.
Opposition Democrats immediately accused the administration of deceiving Americans to speed the path to war, igniting a new political row in the already vitriolic run-up to November's congressional election.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaeda to provide material or operational support," said the report.
The assessment, by the Senate Intelligence Select Committee, also dismissed administration claims that Saddam had links with al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Zarqawi, killed in a US raid on June 7 after unleashing a string of attacks.
"Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted unsuccessfully to locate and capture Zarqawi, and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi," the report said citing CIA intelligence.
Saddam also repeatedly rebuffed requests for meetings from al Qaeda operatives, the report said. Before and after the 2003 invasion Bush administration leaders used purported ties between Iraq and terrorist groups,
including al Qaeda, as part of their justification for the war.
On June 14, 2004, for example, Vice-President Dick Cheney said: "Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing
one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century . . . he had long-established ties with the al Qaeda."
A day later, Bush was asked at the White House to name the best evidence for a link between Saddam Hussein
and al Qaeda.
AFP
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=49947
Tony, you always get everything completely wrong.
The Senate Committee rehashed old assertations regarding Al Qaeda for partisan politcal purposes.
It is kind of hard to dismiss the case of Abu Nidal and Abu Abbass unless you find a way of doing away with the bodies.
Saddam distrusted Abu Nidal and Abu Abbass too, then he didn't, then he did, then he didn't then he did.
He invited both into Baghdad, then some say he had Abu Nidal killed after treating him as a guest for two years.
You know, you just cannot trust a good ol' boy like Saddam.
No matter how much money he siphons your way from Food For Oil Funds....you just can't trust him.
The Iraq war is for dominating Iraq and controlling the flow of the oil money.
Exxon's president stole $400 million Dollars in one year!!!. It's all about a deception scheme to steal everybody blind.
Very ironic words coming from someone who openly admitted in mpr.org's forum that he was a draft dodger during the Vietnam war.
~~ The Senate Committee rehashed old assertations regarding Al Qaeda for partisan political purposes. ~~
Interesting comment considering how it is headed by conservative Republican Pat Roberts (Kansas) and that the majority of its membership is also Republican.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
~~ It's all about a deception scheme to steal everybody blind. ~~
Precisely what conservative Kevin Phillips wrote in his American Theocracy.
Mr. Bush did not have the clarity of hindsight that we have now. We ALL thought Saddam was a bad guy and wanted to do horrible things to the U.S. – and we were right. Everyone (except Cynthia McKinney, of course) in Congress wanted action in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Considering the War climate back then, had Mr. Bush done nothing, he would have already been Impeached. Mr. Bush acted on the information he had at the time. That's all we can ask of our elected officials.
If "Blood for Oil" was the real reason we invaded Iraq, wouldn't it make sense for us to have kept the Iraqi National Oil Company? We gave it back to the Iraqi Interior Ministry when Paul Bremer was still there. They own it, they control it. There was no gain for us there!
And Fred, if Exxon's President STOLE $400 million, he'd be in jail with Bernie Ebbers of MCI and Dennis Koslowski of Tyco. I believe what you're angry about is that Lee Raymond, Exxon Chairman and Chief Executive, got a Golden Parachute retirement package worth about $370 million.
Hey, Mr. Raymond made my 401k a ton of money, and we're sorry to see him go. And since I don't get involved in these ridiculous 'Class Warfare' issues, I say "good job" to Mr. Raymond for negotiating the best deal possible for himself.
Tell me you wouldn't do the exact same thing if you had the chance…………
Yet ANOTHER Conspiracy Theory?
Do you even go to work any more? LOL
As for Iraqi oil:
The U.S. has complete control of the UN-authorized Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) which contains all of the former government's assets as well as past and future revenues from Iraq's oil exports, including leftover funds from the UN Oil for Food Program. Iraq's oil industry has not been privatized. CPA Order # 39 (Privatization) specifically exempted oil, at least temporarily, because of the potential backlash. U.S. rules do allow for the privatization of many of the ancillary businesses that support the oil sector, however, including marketing, distribution and the provision of inputs. Although Halliburton's original contract was to help put out oil fires after the war and repair the infrastructure, Congressman Henry Waxman's office discovered that the company's contract also includes oil production and distribution. See Waxman's letter (5/01) and the response from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Although the Iraqi oil industry is still owned by the people of Iraq, the U.S. controls the country and therefore controls the oil industry. It is determining how oil revenues are spent, the level of production, and who it is being sold to. (Oil is being sold to Chevron, as well as French, Russian and British companies.) Although the Army Corps of engineers repeatedly stated in the early stages of the reconstruction of Iraq's oil sector that the no-bid contract given out to Halliburton, worth up to $7 billion, was a short-term "bridge" contract that would only last until a new contract could be competitively bid, the Corps has indefinitely postponed opening up the work to other bidders. In effect, as Waxman put it in a letter (12/18/03) letter to Admiral Nash of the Program Management Office, "Halliburton has a monopoly on all oil work." for more details, see Congressman Waxman's correspondence with the Corps of Engineers and others.
Meanwhile, through Executive Order 13303, the Bush administration has indemnified U.S. oil companies from any liabilities for environmental and human rights violations that relate to Iraqi oil.
Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. New exploration could raise Iraq's proven reserves to as high as 300 billion barrels of easily extracted, high-grade crude. U.S. and British firms have been keen to get back into Iraq ever since the country nationalized its oil in 1972. Companies from France, Russia, China, Japan and elsewhere have had major contracts going back years. But under a new government imposed by Washington, the US-UK companies are poised to profit the most. Iraq's massive oil resources are potentially worth hundreds of billions, even trillions of dollars in profits in the coming decades.
http://www.corporatepolicy.org/topics/IraqOIL.htm
Conspiracy theories...you mean like 'extraordinary renditions' and 'torture at Abu Ghraib'?
"If 'Blood for Oil' was the real reason we invaded Iraq, wouldn't it make sense for us to have kept the Iraqi National Oil Company? We gave it back to the Iraqi Interior Ministry when Paul Bremer was still there. They own it, they control it. There was no gain for us there!"
No gain, Bret, except for the unbridled profiteering going on in Iraq......
no gain, except for the $3/gallon cost of gas.........
no gain, except for those who collect the hundreds of billions of dollars that our government is shovelling out the door....
no gain, except for the tens of millions of dollars collected by our noble politicians from those who have benefited from the war related expenditures....
no gain, except for the opportunity the war has offered to further the neo-con agenda....
Fred was spot on.....do you really think that all this money flying around is going to benefit you, Bret?......it's not.....you're not in the equation....none of us are, unless we're in the top 1%....why do you support a party that in no way represents you?......
Thanks for your non-answer. It shows that you obviously have no substantive answer and is an admission that I am correct.
Have a nice day!
Incorrect, the Iraqi government controls the country and the oil industry.
The "control" has an emotional impact especially for people who have a difficult time controlling their own emotions.
The issue isn't whether or not you feel "lied to". You clearly do. The issue is - did you feel lied to back then, when Mr. Bush was making his appeal to Congress to go into Iraq? The answer, of course, was a resounding NO. Otherwise, we would have all spoken up and said something. But today, we have the luxury of hindsight that we didn't have in those heated days.
Sure, we're a customer of the Iraqi National Oil Company, but that's a far cry from the "Blood for Oil" theory. Is it really news that we're buying oil on the spot market from Iraq? Nope!
If we were buying oil from Iraq at say, $1 per barrel, I'd say your theory has merit..............and I might even march in the streets in protest with you. But since the Iraqis are hungry for rebuilding capital, they charge everyone the same price - including Exxon, Chevron, BP, etc.
In other words, your "Blood for Oil" theory doesn't work with the current facts of the marketplace. It's over, so think of something else............please! I'm so tired of debunking this Myth.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
But that sure was a funny icon you put in your last thread.
I'm curious now. You spoke out against the war in Afghanistan, or Iraq?
What information did you have that no one else had? Who is the Senator you took your information to?
I understand more now. Clinton and Schumer are not true representatives of their constituencies, just like Durbin and Obama are not representatives of their constituencies here in Illinois.
These folks, all four of them, are looking to a much bigger stage. They've forgotten who elected them.
Interesting that 3 are pure Left Wing and the other is a future Presidential nominee..............but all 4 are Democrats.
Maybe a shift away from such people is the real path to political happiness. Where is a good Conservative Democrat when you need them? Unfortunately for us, JFk is dead, so is Truman, and Sam Nunn is retired.
Ha, ha!
As for your war on Iraq --- by now you have read that Anbar province has been lost by Bush's occupational forces. Logic and common sense tells you that no war can be won unless you have majority support from a nation's populace. And it is only too clear that the majority of Iraq's people condemn Bush and his war.
The longer this criminal war goes on, the more Iraqis who are on the fence about Bush's war will swing to the side of those who are fighting Bush's imperialism. Whether you like it or not, this is inevitable.
My nephew is stationed in Al Qa'im, on the Syrian border. I just talked to him online over the weekend. He says its as quiet as a ghost town. He patrols along the Syrian border and they haven't seen action in weeks.
Luckky, there are 28,000 US troops in Al-Anbar province alone. That would be news if it had been lost.............and all I've seen is a few disturbances in Ramadi and Hit, on the news. Do you have information that no one else has?
You're starting to sound like Baghdad Bob. Next, are you going to tell me that the Americans are committing suicide by the thousands, on the gates of Baghdad? LOL
Well, you're the lucky one, because here in Illinois, our elected officials are impossible to contact. No rapport, no e-mails, no anything.
If you're Jewish, you're treated just as badly as everyone else, no matter how much money you have.
The Daley machine runs Chicago, and does it poorly. Lots and lots of corruption. It's like the Roaring 20's here, and the Feds are all over the place making arrests on a daily basis for bribery and extortion.
Not the place to go if you're a Conservative.
Evidently, you do not read the pro-war Washington Post or watch BBC news.
Here's one article on the subject but there are dozens all over the Internet(s):
Anbar --- A Hopleless Cause
During the Vietnam war soldiers gave rosy reports about the war just as they were instructed to tell. While I wish your nephew the best, there is no sense in making denials.
Dear Mr. Rey:
Thank you for writing to share with me your concerns regarding the soaring prices of gasoline. According to the United States Energy Infor mation Administration, New Yorkers will face record gas prices this summer. These higher prices mean that statewide, New Yorkers will spend $335 million more this summer than they did last summer to fill their cars.
High gasoline prices hurt New York 's people and its economy. During the gasoline price spikes in 2005, families were forced to skip their summer vacations, businesses had to factor in unexpectedly high transportation costs, and airline margins were reduced. Yet despite the clear pressure these prices place on consumers, oil companies continue to enjoy record profits.
Last fall, I joined with my colleagues to introduce S. 1735, the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act . This legislation would enable the President to declare an energy emergency and trigger federal gouging protections to ensure that consumers do not fall victim to unscrupulous profiteers. I have sent letters to both President Bush and Department of Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman urging them to support this legislation and help to reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil.
While this legislation will help address the short-term problems of rising gas prices, I am also committed to working with my colleagues to develop a strategic long-term energy policy that reduces our dependence on oil. In my view, the best way to realize change in our energy markets is to create incentives for oil companies to invest their profits in America 's energy future. That is why I have proposed the establishment of a Strategic Energy Fund. To create the fund, a temporary fee would be attached to a portion of the profits of oil companies that do not invest their profits in increasing refinery capacity, renewable energy, and other energy infrastructure investments needed to secure America 's energy future.
In addition, I am a cosponsor of S. 2025, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act which would require the President to develop a plan to save 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2016. To help meet this goal, the bill would increase consumer tax incentives for purchasing hybrids and other high-efficiency vehicles, provide auto manufacturers incentives to retool their plants to make more efficient cars, and set higher targets for production of biofuels.
I have also introduced legislation to create a major energy research and development initiative by creating a new, more flexible research and development arm of the Department of Energy. This was a key recommendation of a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in October 2005. The bill would fund cutting-edge research and development projects focused on reducing our oil consumption, increasing energy efficiency, and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global warming.
New Yorkers should not be asked to pay more and more at the pump while their government sits idly by. Please be assured that I will continue to urge the Administration to take action and provide relief from the burden of rising gas prices. Please check my website at http://clinton.senate.gov for updates on this and other important issues being discussed before the United States Senate.
Sincerely,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Wow, an actual letter from a Senator..............I can only hope to be so lucky. I've received short e-mails from a staffer or two, but none from anyone any higher. Vi Daley is my local Alderman, and she does a pretty good job on the really local issues. However, if you try to go any further up the food chain in Chicago, you meet massive resistance.
With the possible exceptions of San Francisco and Seattle, this may be the most liberal city in America..............and that's the problem. In addition, most of the politicians here are Democrats, and have been in office for more than 10 years..........and that leads to entrenched bureaucracy. Even extortion and racketeering convictions don't stop these folks, they just keep on doing what they've been doing. When you get elected here, it's as close to a lifetime appointment as you can imagine - better tenure than if you were on the Supreme Court of the United States.........LOL.
Who is "rense.com"?
They certainly gave a one-sided analysis, didn't they?
From what I've heard, there has been trouble in Ramadi and Fallujah since day one. These are cities that were mainly Sunni, allied tightly with Saddam, and have lost a lot of power and influence since his "departure".
Al-Anbar is a large province with miles and miles of desert between cities. Low yield targets as far as the eye can see. Seems like a great place for an insurgency.
I hear that many have been called from Camp Warhorse, Camp Jefferson, and others to the area. I wonder if a new offensive is being planned?