Questions Republicans just can't answer

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total Nov-06 65
Oct-06 1539
Sep-06 3539
Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1010
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Details
Note: Deaths based on news reports . This is not a definitive count.

Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days 11-2006 3 0 0 3 1.5 2
10-2006 105 2 2 109 3.52 31
9-2006 71 3 2 76 2.53 30
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.13 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
12-2005 68 0 0 68 2.19 31
11-2005 84 1 1 86 2.87 30
10-2005 96 2 1 99 3.19 31
9-2005 49 3 0 52 1.73 30
8-2005 85 0 0 85 2.74 31
7-2005 54 3 1 58 1.87 31
6-2005 78 1 4 83 2.77 30
5-2005 80 2 6 88 2.84 31
4-2005 52 0 0 52 1.73 30
3-2005 35 1 3 39 1.26 31
2-2005 58 0 2 60 2.14 28
1-2005 107 10 10 127 4.1 31
12-2004 72 1 3 76 2.45 31
11-2004 137 4 0 141 4.7 30
10-2004 63 2 2 67 2.16 31
9-2004 80 3 4 87 2.9 30
8-2004 66 4 5 75 2.42 31
7-2004 54 1 3 58 1.87 31

Re: Questions Republicans just can't answer


To clarify my statement, it depends on who you ask as to whether we are winning or losing. We haven't won the war in finality, but neither have we lost it. We got rid of Saddam Hussein, so we have accomplished that. We've won that aspect of it. His regime is no longer a threat to us in terms of WMD, either directly or indirectly via him passing weapons to terrorists to use against us. The Iraqis have held elections and a duly elected government is operating there. That is a success over what they did have. We've also killed or captured a number of key Al Qaeda and other terrorist operatives in Iraq.

In terms of eliminating car bombs, suicide bombers, and the like, we have not yet succeeded, but we are working on it. I am not happy with the apparent lack of progress in this area, but we haven't lost the war in this regard unless we give up and leave.

How was Saddam a threat to us? He had no WMDs, or are you still arguing that point? How was Saddam supposed to use his invisible WMDs on the US without any missiles to delivery it to the US?

We did not know for certain at the time of our first heading over that Saddam did not have any WMDs or methods for delivery of the same. There were receptacles for certain weapons there; which, on its own shows clear intent. Or do you think those receptacles were just to catch rainwater?

I can see it now, if people had not gone over to protect YOU and millions of other gratitudeless wimps; you'd be crying now about how your life was constantly in jeopardy due to lack of government involvement in looking out for its citizens. Then you'd use that to attack George and crew...gotta love you whackadoodles...no matter what is done, you'll find a way to twist into a seeming mess.



('sides which, Saddam was threating us with his menacing grin...he needed to be stopped)

To replow the obvious, the CIA said WMD was a slam dunk, Congress gave war approval, which they do not wish to take responsibility for now (does this remind us of the woman that sued McDonalds for giving her hot coffee?), a Congressional investigation found no manipulation of intelligence data by Bush, and so here we are today. We still don't know if any WMDs were shipped to Syria or somewhere else. We do know Saddam Hussein cannot continue to develop them with any and every opportunity he would have had and would still have if he wasn't sitting in jail, and we also know he could not deliver possible nuclear devices as well as possible chemical and biological devices to terrorist organizations. Cicerone, there are lots of ways to deliver weapons besides missiles, but he also was actively developing and seeking missile technology to deliver his weapons, and even if they would not reach our shores, they would definitely be a huge threat in his region of influence, just as Iran is today.

Sturgis wrote: We did not know for certain at the time of our first heading over that Saddam did not have any WMDs or methods for delivery of the same. There were receptacles for certain weapons there; which, on its own shows clear intent. Or do you think those receptacles were just to catch rainwater?

The main REASON most people thought Saddam had WMDs was simply based on the lies issued by this administration. Nobody thought any president of this country and his henchmen would lie about such an important issue. Americans tend to believe the administration no matter which party it represents. BIG MISTAKE; Bush lied.

Even Senator Feinstien said publiicly after more information came out that the admnistration lied to congress. There have been enough information that came out, including the forged papers about yellow cake from Niger, that confirms Bush lied.

You don't start a war based on "receptacles" unless you're Bush.

Sturgis, I would also recommend to you that you go back and investigate all the time Bush said "congress had the same intel" as the administration. After you investigate this, please come back and tell us what you find.

okie, Here's your "slam dunk."
George Tenet's 'Slam-Dunk' Into the History Books

By Mark Leibovich
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 4, 2004; Page C01


George Tenet got slam-dunked yesterday.

Officially, the CIA director resigned for personal reasons. CIA officials say he wasn't pushed. President Bush says he's sorry to see Tenet go. "He's done a superb job on behalf of the American people," Bush said. Tenet's seven-year tenure was eventful and embattled.



Yet his legacy may distill into a taunting shorthand: slam-dunk.

As in, it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or so Tenet said, with the kind of unambiguous self-assurance that Bush so admires. These will go down as Tenet's famous last words, even though he uttered them more than a year ago.

"George, how confident are you?" the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward's book "Plan of Attack."

"Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk," Tenet said.

A war ensued, a presidency was redefined and a non-basketball player became forever affixed to the term "slam-dunk."

Every so often, a political figure utters a word or phrase that rises to the level of an epitaph. Al Haig said, "I am in charge"; Bill Clinton said, "It depends what your definition of 'is' is"; and Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook." Howard Dean screamed his famous last word ("eeeyaow"), and Dan Quayle merely looked stunned as Lloyd Bentsen impaled him with "You're no Jack Kennedy."

George H.W. Bush will forever be saying "Read my lips," while Bob Dole will always be glaring at him, telling him to "stop lying about my record."

Now comes Tenet, whose phrase captures the ethos of not just one person but of an entire administration. In basketball, slam-dunks score points, please the home crowd and taunt the opposition -- in the same way that supporters of the administration appreciate Bush for his decisiveness while critics deride it as arrogance.

Sometimes slam-dunks clang off the back of the rim and sail to half-court. The would-be slam-dunker is mocked and embarrassed. Only, in basketball, this is a temporary state. In politics -- and particularly in wartime -- Tenet's clang reverberates far longer.

One of the downsides of being a figure of responsibility and consequence -- unlike, say, a TV pundit -- is that people actually keep track of what you say. They might even hold it against you if you're wrong.

"Slam-dunk is the only thing Tenet has ever said, as far as I know," says Steven Schier, a professor of political science at Carleton College in Minnesota. This, of course, is not fair, in the same way that it's not fair that Bill Buckner's long and distinguished baseball career inevitably comes down to his error that lost the sixth game of the 1986 World Series.

But certain errors take on lives of their own, especially when rendered in sound-bite form. "Nobody's corporate memory is big enough to hold all the complexities of one person," says former congresswoman Pat Schroeder. "You're looking for a hook into someone, something to grab onto."

Tenet hooked himself. He is a victim of his own pithiness. If he had been long-winded and equivocal, Washington would have forgotten his words, if not his guidance. If he had spoken, say, in Kerryese: Mr. President, I am fairly certain that there is a strong case, a solid case, a convincing case, that Saddam Hussein could well possess, according to what we know now, weapons of mass destruction . . .

Instead, Tenet's "slam-dunk" offers an object lesson in famous last word-play: It combines pop culture jargon and monumental stakes.

"Tenet's statement is so clear, direct, assertive and just completely wrong," says Ralph Whitehead, a political analyst who teaches journalism at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. There's a populist satisfaction at work, says Whitehead. "It's reassuring to know that even the big boys can be so totally, demonstrably off base."

Clare Boothe Luce once said that history gives leaders a single line, such as "Lincoln freed the slaves," or "Churchill faced down Hitler." Ideally, the line is flattering, but that is determined by events. If, for instance, weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, Tenet's "slam-dunk" line could have just as easily been his triumphant slogan. It would have been writ large and proud on the banner of his career: His "Mission Accomplished," in other words.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Tenet lied. It's now obvious to even the most sceptic amongst us.

John Youmans: "It's a Slam Dunk" Debunked

June 16, 2005

Former CIA Director George Tenet's promise of a "slam dunk" in providing the intelligence required to justify the war with Iraq was not only a pack of intentional lies and misrepresentations, it was also taken out of context.

So what did Tenet really mean when he told President Bush, "It's a slam dunk?" We were misled to believe that Tenet was saying he could produce accurate, reliable, hard intelligence and that it would be a "slam dunk" to present and prove it.

The part we didn't hear, and it is important to understand, is what Bush said to Tenet prior to that statement. Tenet had already briefed Bush on the intelligence he had. It was weak, unreliable and frequently only substantiated by one source. The president was "unimpressed" by the presentation and pressed Tenet saying his information would not "convince Joe Public" and then asked, "This is the best we've got?"

It was then that Tenet replied, "It's a slam dunk." It was then that Tenet promised Bush he would bend the intelligence and provide what was needed to convince Joe Public. He was telling Bush not to worry, he would take care of it. And he did.

The hard intelligence was molded, manipulated and fabricated to fit Bush's preconceived war plan. Tenet, for his part, opted to become a political advocate for Bush's propaganda rather than a protector of the intelligence community.

It seems okie took the bait and ate it whole. No questions asked after all the info came out about this issue.

What is the plan for winning the war on terror?

The Bush administration's plan appears to be:

The American military is attempting to train enough Iraqi troops to by themselves defend Iraq against the deliberate killers of non-combatants Iraqis;

The American government is assuming that successfully training the Iraqi troops as described is sufficient to prevent Islaamic Fundamentalists from re-establishing their sanctuary and growing in Iraq;

Upon the Iraq government requesting it, the American government will remove its troops from Iraq.

Why should the average American fear terrorism more than other causes of death?

Terrorism, if not adequately exterminated, will probably kill far more American non-combatants than any of the other causes of the death of American non-combatants.

In what way can Islaamic Fundamentalism conquer America?

By frightening enough Americans into believing Islaamic Fundamentalism can be appeased by giving it whatever it demands.

How would an Islaamic army cross the Atlantic ocean and attack us?

By means of the existing intercontinental public transportation services, by means of the purchase of required tools and materials from Home Depot et al, by means of the assembly of those purchases into weapons of mass murder, and by means of the use of those weapons against American non-combatants.

How would they force Americans to convert to Islaam?

By frightening enough Americans into believing Islaamic Fundamentalism can be appeased by giving it whatever it demands.

How would Islaamic terrorists hold America once it has been conquered?

By recruiting those Americans who convert to Islaamic Fundamentalism to collaborate with the Islaamic terrorist leadership in exchange for greater power and status than other Americans.

What is being done to defend our borders and ports?

Worldwide communications spying is what is being done, but our borders and ports are indefensible unless they are completely closed.

What is being done to defend our chemical and nuclear facilities?

Worldwide communications spying is what is being done, but our chemical and nuclear facilities are indefensible unless they are completely closed.

ican, "Appears to be" and the reality are quite different. If you are honest enough, you must admit that the Iraqi military and police are being infratrated by sectarian groups that are killing their own people.

The so-called "goal" seems to increase the problems, not solve them.

I strongly disagree with the conclusion that ports and nuclear facilities are indefensible unless completely closed. Ridiculous notion.

Cycloptichorn

No more ridiculous than "their" other arguments. We just need to build a Berlin-like fence around the US to protect us from illegal immigration. Jeeesh!

You have another option to discuss? I'd love to hear it.

Though I doubt you do, you enjoy just criticisizing others ideas instead of adding your own ideas to the discussion.

Over 90 percent of my posts reflects personal opinion. You're not reading enough, or have difficulty with comprehension.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I ased for your ideas.

What would you suggest we do about illegal immigration coming over the Mexican border?

You obviously don't think a wall will work, what is your idea?

McG, I've answered this q so many times, it just shows you are not reading my opinion.

You wrote: What would you suggest we do about illegal immigration coming over the Mexican border?

Enforce the laws congress made into law.

That is my opinion and "idea." When our government fails to enforce their own laws, there's not much I can do as one citizen.

In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating for the first time, in theory at least, penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. IRCA, as proposed in Congress, was projected to give amnesty to about 1,000,000 undocumented workers. In practice, amnesty for about 3,000,000 immigrants already in the United States was granted. Most were from Mexico. Legal Mexican immigrant family numbers were 2,198,000 in 1980, 4,289,000 in 1990 (includes IRCA) and 7,841,000 in 2000. Adding in another 12,000,000 illegals of which about 80% are thought to be Mexicans would bring the Mexican family total to over 16,000,000 -- about 16% of the Mexican population.

Then your answer is that companies that hire illegal immigrants should be punished and that will stop the illegal immigration from Mexico.

Does that sum it up for you?