home

Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq Invasion

On March 18, 2003, 100,000 gathered in New York to oppose the invasion of Iraq. Yesterday, only a few thousand gathered at Times Square to protest the third anniversary of the war. Only a few hundred turned out in Boston. London police expected a turnout of 100,000 but only 15,000 showed up.

What happened? The latest Newsweek poll shows a whopping 65% of Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq. One in four Americans think he should be impeached.

Are we beaten down, anesthetized, convinced it is hopeless to protest our Government, one which increasingly has more in common with an autocracy or an oligarchy than a democracy?

We have a President who believes he can trump the Constitution and Congress at will and we aren't doing anything about it. Democrats in Congress won't even stand up for Sen. Russ Feingold's censure motion. Congressional elections are six months away and while Newsweek says 50% of Americans think the Democrats would do a better job, we're not hearing much fire and brimstone. What gives?

Here's a gloomy portrait of Iraq on this third anniversary of war.

The bottom line includes a staggering death toll among troops and civilians, Pentagon spending at $6 billion a month and damage to U.S. credibility.

....Sectarian violence verges on civil war. More than 130,000 troops remain in Iraq. And the toll on Iraq and the United States is far beyond anything the administration prepared Americans for in the lead-up to the March 19, 2003, invasion.

Then there's the human toll:

According to Pentagon figures (as of March 15), 2,310 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since the launch of the invasion. Of those, 1,808 were killed in combat and 502 died from accidents, illnesses or other causes.

Another 17,124 American troops have been wounded. Of those, 9,212 were returned to duty within 72 hours. The rest had more serious wounds, including about 400 who have lost an arm, leg, hand or foot.

The figures do not include American civilians killed or wounded in Iraq while working for the U.S. government, private businesses and non-governmental aid organizations.....Bush recently estimated the Iraqi dead at somewhere near 30,000.

And the fiscal cost:

Americans have spent $250 billion on military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, a war that is currently costing the Pentagon roughly $6 billion a month, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

This spending does not include so-called fixed costs that are part of Pentagon spending -- such as pay for the troops -- but accounts for only the direct war costs, such as bonus pay for combat operations, as well as fuel, munitions and other war-related expenses.

The war's true price tag, however, will include expenses not included in this reckoning, particularly the long-term costs of providing lifetime health care to soldiers wounded in the war or suffering from mental health issues related to the conflict, recurring expenses certain to range in the billions of dollars per year. Nor do these costs include the interest on the additional debt incurred to finance the war.

Consider the cost to our image, and to our ability to deal with Iran and Korea.

"After the war in Iraq, the image of the United States plummeted in most countries and has only recovered in a few," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, a non-partisan opinion monitoring group in Washington.

Bush led the country to war on the claim that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons and was working to reconstitute earlier efforts to build a nuclear weapon. No stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found, nor has evidence of a viable nuclear weapons program surfaced. Bush has said the intelligence he received in the lead-up to the war was faulty.

..."The intelligence debacle on Iraq has cost us dearly in our efforts to deal effectively with Iran and North Korea," said Joseph Cirincione, director for non-proliferation with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington research and advocacy group. "People simply don't believe us."

Update: In February, 2003, the month before the U.S. invaded Iraq, 6 million people around the world turned out to protest war in Iraq.

< Libby Pleading Lists Likely Trial Witnesses | Dick Cheney Says He'll Serve Out His Term >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Mar 18, 2006 at 11:43:09 PM EST
    Most people are afraid of change. The religious clerics of both Islam and Christianity fight for "God". I'll take my chances and go down fighting for life. Martyrs die for a deity. I'll fight for the people, thank you, because the next war will have no winners or losers. "Struggle until victory forever." Dr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara De La Serna, who fought and died, not for God, but for common people, like us. See you all in the streets.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wes on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 04:00:35 AM EST
    I was with 200,000-300,000 people that protested the war last Sept in DC. I took an overnight bus from Michigan with 14 others from our small town in Hillsdale. This protest got almost no media coverage. What coverage it got greatly reduced the actual numbers. NPR gave equal play to the pro-war supporters who numbered about 20. This March we protested in our own home town along with about 50 other people. We also went to a protest in Coldwater on Friday that had 60 or so. These are small rural towns in a predominately Republican district. Our local protest made headlines in The Daily News (our local paper), not a hard feat as not much happens here. Hopefully this has been replicated across America. I don't understand the small numbers in the bigger cities. Our whole county has 47,000 people; probably 9,000 live in the city of Hillsdale. We should have had 10,000 in protest even in our county. This war has almost no support here.

    Maybe the groups organizing the protests are even less popular than the war they're protesting.

    The L.A. and S.F. demos both got over 20,000 people, which was more than we expected. We'd also been organizing for them for four months (I'm in the ANSWER Coalition) which may explain why they were successful. One high point. Congresswoman Maxine Waters,"The president is a liar." More on my blog, including podcasts. Interestingly, there was considerably more mainstream media present than we've had in the past. At one point onstage were photogs from AP, Reuters, the LA Times, and someone else. Antiwar sentiment has gone mainstream.

    The answer is fairly obvious. Opposition to the war is a mile wide but only an inch deep. There's no draft, so students aren't involved (and won't become involved) in protest. You see that65% and see a mass movement forming; what's really there is a fairly widepread unease. That unease isn't going to rise up, because most people aren't directly impacted. The army (and the guard) aren't having trouble recruiting either, so that unease isn't having any impact on military operations. The lastc poll that mattered was in 2004, and that one was fairly decisive in terms of the President's policies. The next one is in 2006, and then again in 2008. The left is obsessed with polls, and seems to think that one more low result will force the President's hand. What you don't get is that none of that matters. Unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't see polls as the end all, be all of his time in office.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 07:56:25 AM EST
    War Is Hurting Army Recruitment CBS News, March 8, 2005

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by joejoejoe on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 08:17:16 AM EST
    I don't know that street protests have any effect. If a tactic is not productive it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to repeat it endlessly. Media outlets don't place any emphasis on even giant protests and the protests themselves don't have clear networking or action mechanisms. In a less-than-responsive government you need to develop tactics that get attention. In 2006, street protests don't fit the bill.

    Edger: The story you linked stated that recruitment of blacks is down. That's interesting, but it doesn't tell the whole story. From the Washington Post:
    The Army Guard said Friday that it signed up more than 26,000 soldiers in the first five months of fiscal 2006, exceeding its target by 7 percent in its best performance in 13 years. At this pace, Guard leaders say they are confident they will reach their goal of boosting manpower from the current 336,000 to the congressionally authorized level of 350,000 by the end of the year. "Will we make 350,000? The answer is: Absolutely," said Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau.
    Overall, recruitment is up, as is re-enlistment. Nice try at the selective story, but it's clear that's the best spin you have. The actual facts:
    • Recruitment is up
    • Re-enlistment is up
    • Desertion is way down
    It's almost as if the active duty military is seeing things differently than the rest of us, or something. Go figure. You simply are not going to see protests on the scale that happened during Vietnam (or, the even larger ones that happened during the US Civil War). Heck, if you want some interesting parallels, go read Grant's Memoirs. He noted that during most of the war, as the papers printed treason (his words, not mine), and opposition made recruitment difficult, most people in the north lived their lives as if there was no war on. The reality is, most people - including many on this forum - look to two templates for US wars: WWII and Vietnam. WWII was the exception. In US history, most wars have been unpopular, and generated protest. This war is not unusual that way. Other than Vietnam, when the anti-war elites had full control of the media message, the nation has managed to fight to win regardless. What frustrates opponents now is that it's not 1968 anymore - the media message is no longer under singular message control.

    I wonder about the lower than expected turnout in London. With all the increased publicity of police and governmental surveillance, as well as graphic reminders (the subway murder last summer, the obvious and biased use of video surveillance), I can only think that at least some people are somehow cowed from expressing their beliefs in a public manner.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 08:40:18 AM EST
    JR, you're FOS. Reenlistment is only continuing becaus of the following converstaion related to me by my nephew's best friend in the Army. "Time to re enlist. You have 1 year left. If you re up, we'll assign you to the Channel Islands in WA state. If you want out, you spend your remaining year in Iraq. Then maybe you won't get a stop loss" Guess what happened? He re-upped. Guess where he is? Starts with an F, and ends in alloojah.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 08:41:29 AM EST
    Are we beaten down, anesthetized, convinced it is hopeless to protest our Government, one which increasingly has more in common with an autocracy or an oligarchy than a democracy? I don't think so. Not at all. Without a strong and coherent opposition in the house and senate, which may change in November, other methods have to be found, and do exist at a grassroots level. Methods that can and are being used in their daily lives by millions of people. I see it everywhere. Almost everyone I talk to, at work, on the street, in coffee shops, in passing conversations with strangers, in the shops and in the grocery stores, pretty much everywhere, opposes the war and sees immediately through the lies and BS that oozes from the WH and the media. People generally just shake their heads and laugh, or get outright vitriolic when asked what they think of bush and his war. Rarely, if ever, outside of here by the trools, do I ever hear anyone express support for the war or for bush. Bob Morris, you're right: Antiwar sentiment has gone mainstream. February 13, 2006 How You - Yes, You - Can End the War
    Simple acts and a little courage have worked wonders in the world. Nonviolent people's movements won democratic reforms in Russia, booted the British out of India, resisted the Nazi occupation in Denmark, drove a dictator out of El Salvador and another out of the Philippines, ended Jim Crow, crushed Soviet power in Poland, toppled military regimes in Argentina and Chile, ended Apartheid, and brought democracy to the Ukraine. George W. is no match for a force this powerful. ... There is a multitude of ways in which each of us can alter our daily habits to help make this happen. While there may be a value to picking one or two angles of attack and focusing our collective energies there (and while I will recommend some priorities), it is also worthwhile to pursue the many avenues of resistance to the war machine in which every little bit of pressure will help. Different tactics appeal to different individuals and groups, and it is a multifarious movement that will restore the rule of law to the United States and the world.


    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 08:42:10 AM EST
    Just like you JR. Frauds.

    liberalminded- The "groups" as you put it, organizing the protest march in our area was local high school kids, the local chapter of the Coalition for Peace and Justice, several local church groups. I don't think any of these groups are as unpopular as the war. I suppose that was a reference to ANSWER who did organize the Sept protest along with CodePink, CampCasey and several other groups. They did a decent job. I might not agree with everything ANSWER and other stand for but at least I know who the real enemy is. Reponses like yours is why the right is so powerful. Do you think the neocons like every wacky christian idiot? They don't attack their own.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 09:15:56 AM EST
    it's not 1968 anymore - the media message is no longer under singular message control No, of course not: Drum beats of War: How the US Media is Colluding with Bush to Promote War Number Three

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    Welcome to the modern day "Communist States of AmeriKa", where all government acts are to benefit corporations, completely restrict the rights of the people, bringing about bankruptcy of the country so all entitlements can be canceled, a return soon to debtor prisons, mass incarcerations of American in the concentration camps Halliburton is buidling in the deserts, and summary execution for anyone speaking ill of Fearful Leader. Oh, no, THAT couldn't happen with Republicans in charge, right? N-o-o-o-o-o-o-o.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 09:30:02 AM EST
    Jeralyn Merritt Cheryl Seal Riverbend Farmgirl Squeaky Elizabeth Holtzman Lora It's always the women that make the most sense. But we knew that already. ;-)

    I just ran into my neighbors outside. They are a young liberal couple and have participated in just about every anti-war protest for the last several years. I asked them if they were going to the protest downtown today. Answer: "Naw, what's the use? The last protest we had, the local media gave us a couple of column inches the next day on page 5 of the local newspaper and the people downtown hardly paid any attention to us. We got heckled a lot by loud and obnoxious wingnuts. (This is a military friendly town) Most of the media coverage focused on the police response to a few anarchist types that decided that pushing over trash cans was a cool way to protest. So nope, we're just gonna chill today." I wonder how many others are just getting burned out with taking it to the streets?

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    Professionalcynic, We're only tired of defeatist attitudes. I'm sorry if people are tired. Would they like a nice pillow and blankie to take a nap?

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    My next door neighbor Shahram is Iranian. He's awfully tired and burned out most of the time from editing MWCNews but never asks for a pillow or a blankie.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 10:30:00 AM EST
    Rumsfeld officially invoked Goodwin's Law today to justify his crimes. Edger, My comment was directed at a defeatis trying to bring us down, not your hard working neighbor.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    I know, Che! My comment was directed at defeatists too. Not at you... ;-)

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    Rumsfeld officially invoked Goodwin's Law: Leaving Iraq now would be like handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said... The Donald is a bit confused. The Nazis are already there. If it walks like a duck, etc. Poor guy... I guess he's tired and burned out. Maybe we could send him a pillow and a blankie.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by chemoelectric on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 11:40:53 AM EST
    Start drafting people and it will be like the 1960s all over again. Presumably this is why the Bushists are using 'backdoor drafts' so much.

    Why is the number of anti-Iraq War protesters down this year? It might be that the wide-spread anti-war sentiment we're now seeing has lessened the sense of "urgency" that spurs many people to action. When a belief becomes mainstream the feeling that one must act often dissipates.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 12:16:59 PM EST
    farmgirl - I don't think the groups are disliked. It is more like people recognize them for what they are and who they are. So they are ignored. et al - What a country. No matter how hard the Left tries, no matter how biased the polls are, no matter how little good is broadcast by the MSM, the American public recognizes the truth. Aint cablenews and the Internet grand?

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    "The public" knows the truth. LOL. The resounding sound of denial.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    What a country. No matter how hard the Left tries, no matter how biased the polls are, no matter how little good is broadcast by the MSM, the American public recognizes the truth.
    Finally yes, and the truth is bush is now a known liar, just like some commenters. Just because you have radical ideas, completely out of the mainstream and in opposition to facts and law, does not mean you can lie over and over and get away with it. (See 'bush, et al')

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    "I might be a liar and an incompetent, miserable failure, but I'm no idiot! You know, I once got a 'C' in Cheerleading at Yale. That proves that I'm not an airhead, right? Why I can still recite all 21 letters of the alphabet from memory. Here goes: a, b, c, v, n. Ah, a, b, c, x and z. See, I told I could do it,"


    Posted by Che's Lounge March 19, 2006 11:15 AM Professionalcynic, We're only tired of defeatist attitudes. I'm sorry if people are tired. Would they like a nice pillow and blankie to take a nap? Che, I was merely making an observation that they felt that the media does not focus on the message, but on the antics of the messenger, which I tend to believe is true. When I see coverage of protests in the MSM, they seem to focus on the looney extremists in the crowd and their antics, and the message is secondary to the protesters themselves. Perhaps that is why so many people are staying away now. Not everyone who is against the war wants to be associated with anarchists, socialists, and other fringe elements. No?

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#33)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    I was merely making an observation that they felt that the media does not focus on the message, No S**t Perhaps that is why so many people are staying away now. Not everyone who is against the war wants to be associated with anarchists, socialists, and other fringe elements. No? If people are more afraid of guilt by association than murder by numbers then they need a visit to Salon.com. "OOOH, honey lets go home. There's a socialist over there!" I think I'm going to be sick.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#34)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    The only true fringe elements in this society are in the WH and the Pentagon.

    Well, pro. I don't go as a rule. And if it's anything like it was 35 years-ago, most of those loony extremists are undercover cops lookin' to incite a riot so the goons can move in anyhow. I don't need the aggravation and there are other ways to get the point across.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 04:30:57 PM EST
    Maybe the groups organizing the protests are even less popular than the war they're protesting. Only if NAMBLA is dong the organizing. It's hard to imagine any group less popular than the war in iraq.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    I don't think the groups are disliked. It is more like people recognize them for what they are and who they are. Patriots. So they are ignored. Of course. The media and Washington have been taken over by anti-American forces led by George W. Bush. What do you suppose they have against patriotic Americans who object to incompetence and corruption? Wait.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 05:13:04 PM EST
    Impeachment? Hell, no. Impalement
    I don't know about you guys, but I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, right- wing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting, bullhorn shouting, infrastructure destroying, hysterical, history defying, finger- pointing, puppy stomping, roommate appointing, pretzel choking, collateral damaging, aspersion casting, wedding party bombing, clear cutting, torturing, jobs outsourcing, torture outsourcing, "so- called" compassionate-conservative, women's rights eradicating, ... buttwipe, lizardstick, cowardly, lackey imperialistic tool slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could just spit. Impeachment, hell no. Impalement.


    Thanks Edgar for putting me in such good company. The defeatism is just what these thugs want. The struggle against these amoral powercrazed thieves is not going to be quick and easy. Look at other groups struggling against these forces in the world. Look at history, apartied, womens sufferage, civil rights. Participating in protests is certainly on its own not going to change things but it is a way to end your isolation and connect with others who feel as frustrated as you do. It does send a message to the world that not everyone in the US condones this insanity. It makes a public statement that we are not afraid to speak the truth to power. I took my kids to march for peace. I think it does them a world of good to see that it isn't just mom that is opposed to this criminal administration. Why do you think Bush stages speeches with his handpicked group of followers? He understands the importance of appearing in a large crowd of supporters.

    Posted by charliedontsurf1 March 19, 2006 05:18 PM Well, pro. I don't go as a rule. And if it's anything like it was 35 years-ago, most of those loony extremists are undercover cops lookin' to incite a riot so the goons can move in anyhow. I don't need the aggravation and there are other ways to get the point across. Yep, I agree. I was with Vietnam Veterans Against The War back in '72, and we were sure that some of the most vocal and inciteful people in the group were actually FBI agents or Miami police. While I think that most anti-war protesters are peaceful, there is that fringe, whether they are troublemakers or planted cops, that can turn things ugly very quickly. I'm just saying that perhaps that is one possible reason why albeit very few people now support this war or the management of it, the numbers of anti-war protesters that go to rallys and demonstrations is declining. I also agree that there are other ways to get our point across.

    you can't win a war you can't fight a war and if you can't fight it like world war two get out and start fighting here, were we all know the rules.

    end the war, "kill bin laden", and move on with his head on a pole.

    Reponses like yours is why the right is so powerful. Do you think the neocons like every wacky christian idiot? They don't attack their own. Vent and fume as you wish but the truth is the groups are anything but a bunch of "high school" students. At the demos, you see their following in the various cities and it doesn't go beyond that. The real antiwar movement is completely outside and beyond the activities of these groups. It exists in everyday opinion on how the war is going and what the chances are of victory. Most people couldn't tell you the difference between the Coalition for Peace and Justice and ANSWER. These groups don't own the issue, indeed their impact is minimal.

    I have to believe that there is hope that this madness will end. I agree with Steven:
    It might be that the wide-spread anti-war sentiment we're now seeing has lessened the sense of "urgency" that spurs many people to action. When a belief becomes mainstream the feeling that one must act often dissipates.
    I live in Bush country outside of Joplin, Missouri, and there was a anti-war protest in Joplin tonight. This would have been inconceivable three years ago. People are realizing that Iraq was a mistake that it is getting worst. We need to push our congressmen. They are to only ones that can do something. I think Murtha has a good plan. Write your congressmen encouraging them to support the Murtha plan. Before you say anything Jim, the bill that the Republicans put forth that got two votes was not the Murtha plan.

    2006 the real Iraqi body count. 1,540 Iraqi civilians killed by Moslems. 12 Iraqi civilians killed by Americans. Moslems have carried out more than 4,518 deadly terrorist attacks since 9/11. More people are killed each year by Moslems than in the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 10:34:23 PM EST
    Farmgirl: Thanks Edgar for putting me in such good company. No no... Thank you. I just noted it. You put yourself in that high and good company with your opposition to the war and especially with: I took my kids to march for peace. I think it does them a world of good to see that it isn't just mom that is opposed to this criminal administration. DebbieHamil very much stands with and is a leader in that company as well, I think. IMO, teaching others, one at a time, will over time spread reason faster than anything else, and women seem much better at teaching than men. I've often thought the world would be a far better place if women took the reins of power. Us men have too long been making an utter mess of things...

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Sun Mar 19, 2006 at 10:56:12 PM EST
    Bar says:
    2006 the real Iraqi body count. 1,540 Iraqi civilians killed by Moslems. 12 Iraqi civilians killed by Americans.
    Bar, what planet have you been on for the past 3 years?

    Bush has said that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths attributable to the war is about 30,000. One more "statistic" to add to his lies. No big deal though. After all, they're not really "real" people are they? Just "collateral damage", people put through George's "industrial sized people shredder" and as Brigadier Gen. Mark Kimmitt has suggested to Iraqis, we can just "change the channel" if reality is inconvenient:

    The Real Iraq Body Count

    In 2004, the highly respected British medical journal "Lancet" reported the results of an epidemiological study...of post-invasion mortality in Iraq...the researchers estimated that the total number of deaths that can be attributed to the invasion and occupation may have been as high as 194,000, with a conservative estimate set at about 100,000.

    2005 was far more violent in many areas of Iraq than 2004...it can be safely assumed that the number of civilian occupation deaths in the nearly 15 months since the study has increased by at least another 50,000 (and this is conservative) given the trend identified in the study. This means that the total body count is now at least 150,000, but could be as high as nearly 250,000. That's up to ONE-QUARTER OF A MILLION LIVES.

    The Lancet Sudy (PDF)

    anti-war protest in Joplin tonight That is a very good sign! Perhaps the best protest news since Cindy in Crawford.

    Yep, I agree. I was with Vietnam Veterans Against The War back in '72, and we were sure that some of the most vocal and inciteful people in the group were actually FBI agents or Miami police....
    I'm glad you mentioned the '72 rnc convention, pro. Now I'm not sayin' it was definitely him, mind you, but can you think of a better candidate than our shrub to get voted "awol fortunate son most likely to sucker-punch and kick wheelchair-bound Ron Kovics and others while they were down?" Me either.

    I too, am totally disgusted by the Bush Administration. I think a majority of the country is. However, we have become a "me-first" country, and nobody wants to get involved unless they are directly affected. Until it is once again considered acceptable to look beyond oneself, we are destined for further decline.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 06:55:15 AM EST
    sailor writes:
    Finally yes, and the truth is bush is now a known liar, just like some commenters.
    Perhaps you can back up your claim?

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 06:57:43 AM EST
    The real issue is that this "war" is now a peace keeping mission and the invasion part is 3years past. Dems lost the argument to go in. Then they lost the 2004 election which was basically a referendum on the war. Now the question isn't really should we leave but when. Of course we'll eventually leave but we shouldn't until Iraq can sustain itself. What's interesting is most americans think Iraqi's are better off. They also think we're more safe without Saddam. But they're just as equally pesimistic (dems more so) about the future. Fox Poll The opinion on this war changes based on events. Purple fingers and opinion turns, blow up the temple and it turns back. Back and forth. But the question of invasion is over and so are the protests. .

    Edger Earth. Those stats are only for 2006, as was indicated. Saddam killed almost 2,000,000 people, but they are not really people right? They are only "real people" when we kill them! Will Iraq be better off when we leave? Iraq is based on Islamic law, which is in direct conflict with the UN declaration of Human Rights. Under Islamic law One man's testimony is equal to that of two women. (Qur'an 2:282) Wife beating "OK" (Qur'an 4:34) Proving Rape requires four male eyewitnesses. (Qur'an 24:13) Death for anyone who leaves the "religion of peace"

    During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." MMMMM? Bush's little no warrant NSA program started in 2002. On March 14, 2006, Bush said that Iran had supplied IED components to Iraqi groups. MMMMMM? Later that afternoon, the top U.S. military officer said on Tuesday the United States does not have proof that Iran's government is responsible for Iranians smuggling weapons and military personnel into Iraq. Everyone thought that Iraq had WMD's. Speaking on the RESOLUTION, Bush said: Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. When things went bad, Bush screamed - they voted for the war!!!! The resolution spoke of the WMD's not - spreading God's gift of freedom in Iraq. So, which reason for going to war is true? This also makes the war illegal, because the reason changed and congress did not vote on spreading democracy. "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," Bush said as he used a Veterans Day address here to lash out at critics. MMM? I thought he was the one that keeps changing the reason the war began. In June 2004, when Bush was asked whether he stood by his promise to fire whoever was found to have leaked Plame's name - he answered "Yes". MMMMM? He did not We will be greeted a liberators. Oil profits will pay for the war. Mission Accomplished ..... I could go on and on. Gosh Jim, this is too easy. It would harder to back up claims that Bush and his minions are NOT liars!!!!!

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#55)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 08:57:11 AM EST
    Perhaps you can back up your claim? [That Mr. Bus is a liar.] Weapons of mass destruction. Seen any? Unless you want to invoke the incompetence defense, always a good one, how did I know he was lying about the WMD before the invasion, if he didn't? But go ahead, tell me that he didn't know he was lying because even with the vast resources available to him, he couldn't figure out what I knew from reading the papers. How about the time when he said, "We FOUND the weapons of mass destruction!" Was he telling the truth, or are you just going with incompetence again?

    Bar, Iraq system was not based on Islamic law before the invasion. Saddam was secular. Iraq's system will probably be based on Islamic law now. We do not know how many people Saddam killed. We are not even sure that Saddam gassed his own people. The gassing happened in the 80's when Iraq and Iran were fighting each other. The Reagan administration blamed Iran for the gassing.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 09:08:10 AM EST
    Repack - If you believe that John shot Joe because Pete has told you, and if you tell Bob... that isn't lying. Lying is stating something you know is not true. Now, since you know the correct definition, and since you continue to claim Bush is a liar......????

    No wmd. No link to 9/11. Lied about WH involvement in Plame Affair. Lied about Katrina knowledge. How's that for openers?

    Jim, don't you think you should make sure Pete was telling the truth before you kill John or tell the world what John did? I gave you plenty of examples in the above post of Bush and his minions lying. Definition of LIE
    1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
    Bush is lying right now on MSNBC. How do I know? He is talking, and he is saying things we can't confirm. Read my above post.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#61)
    by Sailor on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 10:08:08 AM EST
    "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)
    That was a lie.
    "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." (03.25.04)
    Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." which mentioned bin Laden's desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that "will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests." An nuaseum, ad infinitum.

    Beaten down sums it up for me. Overwhelmed works, too.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#63)
    by Mike on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    I don't know about this protest, but I can tell you about the Washington protest against Bush and the war last October. NO ONE CARED. The media ignored it, which was expected. But what wasn't expected was the total negativity throughout the blog heavy hitters. Most ignored it. Some *cough* Kos/Americablog *cough* absolutely slammed it. I for one traveled across country for that protest. It was huge ... and met with a big ho-hum. This time, I didn't even travel 40 miles north to the S.F. rally. That's one perspective.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    Sailor writes:
    "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . It has developed weapons of mass death" President Bush (10.02.02)
    Sailor, he was clearly stating what was believed by our intelligence agencies, as well as the agencies of all the major powers. And you know that. That was not a lie, but a statement based on believed information. Now you know the definition of a lie requires that the speaker know that he is making a false statement. Since you know that, and since you keep calling Bush a liar based on such statements, aren't you close to the line? BTW - If you like I will again provide the very similar comments of Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton, Graham, etc., all in the same time frame. Right or wrong, everyone believed Iraq had them. You write:
    Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." which mentioned bin Laden's desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes.
    The problem is that the above information provides no time line, no expected targets, nothing. In fact, it is like saying, "Sin is bad." It is just an overhead statement that we can all (now) agree with. Just as Bush's statement was an overhead declaration that had he known... In fact, he didn't. You'll have to do better than that. BTW - Here is what he did do.
    (Rice)At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    Link So, in fact, all of the proper agencies were warned, including the FAA. debbie writes:
    Jim, don't you think you should make sure
    No debbie, I don't. Managers of organizations, particularly of large organizations must work with the information they are given. I have pointed this out to you in the past. GIGO applies. As for your others .... Did it ever occur to you that he was talking about domestic to domestic calls? Did it ever occur to you that the President might have more info about smuggling IEDs than an Army commander? And what is your complaint about the resolution comment? It wasn't and they did. Seems simple to me. BTW - I note you quote the Reagan administration about gassing..... Did you independently verify that information???????? charlie writes:
    Lied about Katrina knowledge
    Aren't you aware that the AP retracted that story the next day? charlie, please keep up.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    The Daily News had a good picture of a Vietnam Vet being handcuffed by the NYPD. "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free....(as long as you keep quiet)"

    PPJ... Aren't you aware that the AP retracted that story the next day? charlie, please keep up. LOL...charlie keep up? I really respect your repeated attempts to inform people of what the definition of lying actually is, but give it up buddy. They will all continue to spout the "Bush lied" mantra from now on...what else do they got? Also your repeated attempts to get them all to realize that all their (lib) heros came to the same WMD conclusion... And then there's always the 9/11 warnings that Bush ignored... never mind all the terrorist stuff that went on while Billy was getting head in the white house....it's all Bush's fault... after all, "he lied"... LMAO Is 'selective memory' something they teach you in lib school ya think? You gotta love TL for the entertainment value if nothing else.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    You dont kill 50,000 men, women and children on a hunch mein neanderthalic friend. Unless your completely effing sociopathic.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    "Bush's" fault. Actually, its the fault of anyone who's carried water for this consciencless, clueless, moron. LMMFAO YDS.

    charlie writes: Lied about Katrina knowledge Aren't you aware that the AP retracted that story the next day? charlie, please keep up. Really? How they gonna retract what's right on tape. The old man denied sayin' Voodoo Economics, too, even though that was on tape. Must run in the family. I'm gonna lap ya again now. Don't ask, I lost count at 550 somethin'. "I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free....(as long as you keep quiet)" Also known as Plan B. "No, you can't use Born in the USA. NFW!! Christ, did you morons even listen to the words!"

    Jim, you can spin all you want, but Bush and his minions deceived us. Read the definition of the word lie in the above post. Read what Powell's aide said.
    In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find. "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball"
    Bush and his minions knew they were lying. They can keep saying the Clinton and the rest of the world thought Saddam had weapons too, but Clinton did not decide to invade IRAQ. That was all Bush. He is in charge of the planning and implementation of the war also. You know he is suppose to be the commander in chief. The world had Saddam under control. What about the reason for the invasion changing from WMD's to spreading God's gift of freedom?

    I note you quote the Reagan administration about gassing..... Did you independently verify that information????????
    Yes, and I remember his administration saying that. During the Iran-Iraq War, we supported Iraq. The gassing took place during this war.

    Yeah, 3/17/88 to be precise. Rummy and shooter and the rest of that slime thought it was a perfectly fine way to celebrate St Patty's Day.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 06:17:24 PM EST
    debbie - Now. You actually went to Iraq/Iran? Visited the battlefields? Interviewed surivors? I don't think so. BTW - I don't care what one of Powell's ex-minions, seeking favor with the Left side of the world, says or claims four or five years later. If he felt that way in '02 or '03 he was obligated to leave. He didn't. You are a typical member of the Left, who with 20-20 hindsight and focused through Bush hating glassess completely forgets that everyone was in agreement. Iraq had WMD's. charlie - No. You can't slip sideways. The AP fessed up. You just weren't paying attention.

    You are a typical member of the Left, who with 20-20 hindsight and focused through Bush hating glassess completely forgets that everyone was in agreement. Iraq had WMD's.
    And you are a typical member of the shrub shillin' right who can't come to grips with the fact that they didn't invade Iraq, shrub did. And there were no wmd waiting to be found. And three years later there still aren't.
    charlie - No. You can't slip sideways. The AP fessed up. You just weren't paying attention.
    I don't have to, jim. I can go toe to toe any time you want, slugger. Ya couldn't break an egg with either hand and ya got a glass jaw and soft breadbasket. Metaphorically speaking. This is what your hero had to say on the 8/28/05 conference call: "I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm," Mr. Bush said, "but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm to help you deal with the loss of property. And we pray for no loss of life, of course." Then, of course, there's the other lies I mentioned you neglected to address. What, ya thought ya were off the hook on those? Not a chance. But beyond that, just what is it that you're trying to claim here, Jim, with all your ridiculous criticisms of the way these poll questions are phrased, sample sizes and yada, yada, yada? Spit it out. Are you trying to claim that the majority of the Country is solidly behind the Iraq War and in Shrub's corner? Cough it up. Is that your contention? Yes or No?

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#75)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:05:39 PM EST
    Repack - If you believe that John shot Joe because Pete has told you, and if you tell Bob... that isn't lying. Lying is stating something you know is not true. I don't know why you would feel comforted by saying he is too dumb to know that even though a lot of us knew he wasn't telling the truth, HE didn't know. As I said, you would invoke the incompetence defense. Yippee. In order to defend his veracity, you have to cite his stupidity.

    As I said, you would invoke the incompetence defense. Yippee. In order to defend his veracity, you have to cite his stupidity.
    Well, that does give you a virtually unlimited supply of ammo to work with.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Mon Mar 20, 2006 at 07:14:55 PM EST
    a virtually unlimited supply of ammo An endless belt full of blank rounds, yeah...

    Duds. Blanks. Dry holes. Ya startin' to see a pattern developin' here, edge?

    Jim, use your brain. Think for a change. I was alive during the 80's and remember what the Reagan Administration said about the incident. It did make the news. Clinton did not invade Iraq. Your man Bush is a failure and you aren't man enough or sane enough to admit it.
    I don't care what one of Powell's ex-minions, seeking favor with the Left side of the world, says or claims four or five years later. If he felt that way in '02 or '03 he was obligated to leave. He didn't.
    That is the problem, Jim. Your heart belongs to Bush and no facts are going to bring you off your knees.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:08:20 AM EST
    a pattern developin' here Heh. With his record so far he couldn't hit his lawyer with a shotgun if he was sober and the ambulance chaser was breathing down the back of his neck. (Apologies to all othe lawyers, btw) Cheney and bush would be disgusted with his performance so far: "look at him groveling down on his knees there. sucker. with supporters like that the left is the least of our worries"

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:18:05 AM EST
    CLEVELAND, OH (IWR News Satire) - On the third year anniversary of the Iraq war, President Bush blamed his Iraq war woes and standing in the polls on reality. Below are key excerpts from Mr. Bush's address. "The American people need to stop paying attention to all this ridiculous focus on reality and put their faith back into my hair brained schemes. Sure, it may look now like we are in the middle of a some sort of civil war quagmire, but as Dick Cheney has pointed out to me many times in the past, sooner or later, the law of averages has to kick in and at least one of my policies has to be successful by chance alone! It's a statistical fact! It's like the lottery. If you don't buy a ticket, you can't win. Who cares if the odds are a zillion to one, somebody has to win, right? Why can't it be me this time? True, the real odds of me ever being right about anything at all would take longer to happen than the life of the universe, but hey, I'm feeling lucky! So anyway, I'm asking the American people to trust us a few more years and let us spend a trillion dollars and kill thousands more civilians and US troops on this ridiculous, improbable, colonial experiment in the Middle East," said Bush with that dumb smirk on his face.

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 05:34:03 AM EST
    New WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, But Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq Half of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on US Forces, Including 9 Out of 10 Sunnis

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 06:36:53 AM EST
    I think it's great we have a president who's always looking directly into the sun!

    Re: Anti-War Protests on Third Anniversary of Iraq (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 25, 2006 at 05:48:02 AM EST
    Friday March 24, 2006 Delta Force founder: Bush may have started World War III
    A founding member of the elite counter-terrorist unit, Delta Force, suggested that President Bush's invasion of Iraq may have started World War III, according to an interview set for Saturday's Los Angeles Daily News, RAW STORY has learned. Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq? A: Utter debacle... We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies. Q: What do you make of the torture debate?... A: ... The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it.