posted on September 9, 2007 08:45:10 AM new
Was he a communist also? LOL
No one is 'hiding' the numbers. Asking for them to be reported properly, not INFLATE them, is NOT hiding them.
Nor is respecting the families of our fallen by not allowing the left to make a circus out of their bodies being returned.
But of course, for those USING their deaths to further their 'surrender' anti-war agenda...we'd never see eye to eye.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What a BORE:
Lunch Poems: Michael S. Harper
Lunch Poems: Michael S. Harper. 58 min - Jan 26, 2004. video ...
Hide video - 58 min
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7608565779589554047
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 9, 2007 09:10 AM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 9, 2007 09:13 AM ]
posted on September 9, 2007 09:24:52 AM new
"
No one is 'hiding' the numbers"
What a crock! I'll post this again. Apparently you did not read it or chose to ignore it.
"Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - U.S. officials who say there has been a dramatic drop in sectarian violence in Iraq since President Bush began sending more American troops into Baghdad aren't counting one of the main killers of Iraqi civilians.
Car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of additional U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
President Bush explained why in a television interview Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose.
Others, however, say that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population
posted on September 9, 2007 09:41:23 AM new
"""Nor is respecting the families of our fallen by not allowing the left to make a circus out of their bodies being returned."""
What circus? Who suggested a circus? NO one.
Seeing flag draped coffins of our war heroes returning home is NO more a "circus" than their funerals!
No, bushit just didn't want to remind people that people DIE in war...might make it seem like a bad idea....he has shown total disrespect for our fallen and wounded.
The bushit administration IS using DEAD soldiers to further THEIR agenda!
posted on September 9, 2007 10:00:30 AM new
As the left, anti-war agenda is to constantly point our the number of our fallen, to INFLATE it as much as they can, to be sure it's in print almost everyday.....they REFUSE to acknowledge, or they discount the Americans who in MUCH LARGER NUMBERS loose their lives and they hadn't even volunteer for such an important mission as our soldiers have.
============
I have already pointed out the number of deaths by automobiles EACH YEAR in America. Approx. 40,000. Shall we take away all cars and FORBID Americans from driving them because so many deaths occur IN them? Of course not.
Here is a very recent news release on how many of our young children are committing suicide EACH YEAR in America. What shall we change and run from in order to stop THESE un-necessary deaths?
In part from the Las Vegas Sun....yesterday:
September 06, 2007
American Girls' Suicide Rates Spike
By GREG BLUESTEIN
Associated Press Writer
ATLANTA (AP) - The suicide rate among preteen and young teen girls spiked dramatically in a disturbing shift that federal health officials say they can't fully explain.
For all young people between ages 10 to 24, the suicide rate rose 8 percent from 2003 to 2004 - the biggest single-year bump in 15 years - in what one official called "a dramatic and huge increase."
The report, based on the latest numbers available, was released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and suggests a troubling reversal in recent trends. Suicide rates had fallen by 28.5 percent since 1990 among young people.
The biggest increase was in the suicide rate for 10- to 14-year-old girls. There were 94 suicides in that age group in 2004, compared to 56 in 2003, a 67 percent increase. The rate is still low - fewer than one per 100,000 population.
Suicide rates among older teen girls, those aged 15-19 shot up 32 percent; rates for males in that age group rose 9 percent.
"In surveillance speak, this is a dramatic and huge increase," Dr. Ileana Arias said of the overall picture. She is director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
More research is needed to determine whether this is a trend or just a blip, said one child psychiatrist, Dr. Thomas Cummins of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. "We all need to keep our eye on this over time to see if this is a continuing trend."
Overall, there were 4,599 suicides among young people in 2004, making it the third-leading cause of death, surpassed only by car crashes and homicideArias said. Males committed suicide far more often than females, accounting for about three-quarters of suicides in this age group.
==============
So while the liberals continue to focus their attention on the deaths of our BRAVE soldiers who have CHOSEN to serve our nation to fight any and all threats against us.....they NEVER appear to want to put the issue in PERSPECTIVE. Nope....they'll brush aside the OTHER causes of death among Americans while working to make the numbers of our fallen appear to be terribly high.
When compared to other wars, when compared to other death numbers, they aren't.
Most don't wish death upon anyone. NO American celebrates the deaths of our brave soldiers....no matter what LIES mingo states. But there has never been a war where soldiers don't lose their lives and this war is no different.
Sad that they USE their deaths for their own political agenda.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 9, 2007 10:07 AM ]
posted on September 9, 2007 10:04:42 AM new
I said:
"No one is 'hiding' the numbers"
CC said:
What a crock! I'll post this again. Apparently you did not read it or chose to ignore it."
LOL Yes, I ingored it because it did NOT focus on our soldiers deaths, which are the numbers being discussed.
As a typical liberal you choose to change the focus onto something else.
I did ignore that. I'm speaking about the numbers of our soldiers deaths, as ALL were posting about....not Iraqi citizens death numbers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 9, 2007 10:10 AM ]
posted on September 9, 2007 10:07:31 AM new
Once again linduh shows total disrespect for our troops and the sacrifices they have made for HER and America.
She diminishes the deaths and mutilation of our soldiers throughout our history by saying they could've had a better chance of being killed in a car crash here. That is NOT supporting the troops....it's saying their sacrifices were meaningless. She cannot and will not appreciate what they have done. She calls the female soldiers "he-men" who should be home baking cookies when they are fighting for HER. What a PIG!
She slobbers, ""But I understand, you liberals think that if no soldier ever goes anywhere....they'll be NO accidents and thus none will EVER die. But that's just not the reality of military life.""
She KNOWS how we think? SHE speaks for us? She, the person who doesn't want anyone speaking for her?
NO one said accidents never happen. NO one.
We're talking about how many troops were killed in Iraq....
It's a FACT!
linduh wants to sweep it under the rug....maybe like that vile pig bush she thinks their sacrifices are nothing more than a "comma" in history.
The bushit administration IS MAKING DEAD soldiers to further THEIR agenda!
posted on September 9, 2007 10:36:02 AM new
"I said:
"No one is 'hiding' the numbers"
To illustrate that this is not a true statement, I posted that C & P to show that the administration is trying to hide the numbers. If they will do it to hide the number of Iraqi civilians killed, they will do it in other areas.
"As a typical liberal you choose to change the focus onto something else.
I did ignore that. I'm speaking about the numbers of our soldiers deaths, as ALL were posting about....not Iraqi citizens death numbers."
As a typical neocon, you chose to change the focus onto something else---like talking about auto accident deaths and teenage suicide. At least I stuck with Iraq to make my point.
posted on September 9, 2007 11:00:10 AM new
This is what the Op was about:
""The deaths raised to at least 3,760 members of the U.S. military who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.""
Then bear took it off track, then linduh couldn't comprehend the written word.
Linda_K
posted on September 7, 2007 02:40:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Leave it up to a Republican to be correct with his facts."
Leave it to a progressive to NOT know not all who have died were KIA.
But of course, liberals would NEVER take note of that FACT."""""
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
mingotree
posted on September 7, 2007 04:11:38 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mingotree, """First:
""The deaths raised to at least 3,760 members of the U.S. military who have
posted on September 9, 2007 11:19:20 AM new
"No, as a typical conservative I STAYED focused on the numbers this THREAD was all about...unlike YOU, CC."
?? How on earth can you say that? We are talking about statistics vis a vis the Iraq War and you are talking about teenage suicide and auto accident deaths. Unless the auto accidents occurred in Iraq or the teenagers you are talking about are soldiers in Iraq, you are not focusing on the topic.
posted on September 9, 2007 11:20:35 AM new
Who died and who continue to die all over the world. The conflict in Iraq having nothing to do with their deaths. Just like the MOST recent helicopter crash.
=============
And a side note to CC. I wanted to point out that the Iraqi civilians ARE getting tired of having their people murdered by the AQ and other Iraqi terrorists.
They have finally taken enough that they are siding with/supporting our troops in going after those committing their deaths....and those MURDERING their own people AREN'T American soldiers.
They could have chosen to side with AQ...but they didn't. That alone should speak to those who continue BLAMING America for the deaths of their citizens. They're blaming the WRONG side.
And should the surrender crowd force a pull out and their numbers grow in strength....there will be massive murders of those who opposed them. American soldiers are there HELPING them, protecting them from these SAME terrorists/murderers.
Of course, the anti-war group would rather put the blame on America and our soldiers than on those who are the ACTUAL ones committing the Iraqi civilian deaths.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 9, 2007 11:32:08 AM new
I can say it, CC, because we were talking about the number of our soldiers deaths....NOT Iraqi civilians deaths and you expected ME to change my focus to.
You were the one who make this big of a deal out of my saying the number of deaths were NOT BEING HIDDEN. And they're not. NOR can YOU prove they are. Instead you take THAT comment of mine and run off into a totally different subject....Iraqi citizens.
LOL
I compared deaths from other causes to our Iraqi soldiers deaths....not to Iraqi civilians. I showed that when put in ANY sort of perspective.....they are VERY, VERY low. And that the only reason you anti-war folks want to use their deaths to be your surrender cause - then you need to call for all the others areas of American deaths to be stopped also.
As I noted in my above post to you....I wasn't focusing on the Iraqi civilians....since they're being MURDERED by other Iraqi's an NOT American soldiers....as is what you liberals use their death numbers to argue to retreat.
And, in addition I have EVER right to ignore any nonsense and off topic copy and paste you make. MY choice. It had nothing to do with the numbers of our soldiers deaths BEING HIDDEN....as all HONEST people know.
I don't CARE if you don't believe our military and the numbers they give us. I'd believe them over ANY liberal on ANY subject, each and everyday of my life.
Because they'd protect me as a citizen while the liberal left always bashes them, wants to keep them off OUR taxpayer funded campus', calls them murders/terrorists, etc.
The liberal left, IF we had to have an armed force at all, would rather they stay at home and weave baskets. Not do what they're trained to do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 9, 2007 11:33 AM ]
posted on September 9, 2007 01:31:15 PM new
"I wasn't focusing on the Iraqi civilians....since they're being MURDERED by other Iraqi's an NOT American soldiers....as is what you liberals use their death numbers to argue to retreat."
Either that old reading comprehension problem is preventing you from understanding or you are deliberately obfuscating. The point is not that the Iraqis are not American soldiers and not that you were not focusing on Iraqi civilians, it is that the administration did not include all those Iraqi civilians who were killed by car bombs or suicide bombers in their figures so as to put a better light on the supposed success of the surge---thus giving a false impression to Americans. If they can do that, they can skew any numbers coming out of Iraq.
posted on September 9, 2007 01:40:55 PM new
Success is not measure in the way you're suggesting, CC.
It's measured on what's improving....and what still lies ahead as our challenges in Iraq.
You believe the numbers of Iraq deaths should be posted daily too? lol Then request that from THEIR government.
We're too busy trying to keep them alive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 9, 2007 01:45:58 PM new
And for anyone interested:
The Drudge Report is announcing:
"Following their testimony to Congress, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will appear exclusively on FOX News Channel on Monday at 9pm EDT for a one hour live interview with Brit Hume...
Developing..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now we can hear from our RESPECTED military leaders exactly what's going on in Iraq...and not have to listen to the liberals negative, 'admit defeat and run' crowd.
Since they're on the ground they obviously have the BEST opinions on what is needed and how things are going there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 9, 2007 02:12:26 PM new
Bush Officials Stand Up for Iraq War Policy
Sunday, September 09, 2007
WASHINGTON — President Bush's top two military and political advisers on Iraq will warn Congress on Monday that making any significant changes to the current war strategy will jeopardize the limited security and political progress made so far, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who has been less forthcoming than Gen. David Petraeus in advance of his testimony, will join Petraeus in pushing for maintaining the U.S. troop surge, seeing it as the only viable option to prevent Iraq and the region from plunging into further chaos, U.S. officials said.
Crocker and Petraeus planned to meet on Sunday to go over their remarks and responses to expected tough questioning from lawmakers — including skeptical Republicans. But they will not consult Bush or their immediate bosses before their appearances Monday and Tuesday, in order to preserve the "independence and the integrity of their testimony," said one official.
Petraeus and Crocker did have lengthy discussions with the president, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when Bush visited Iraq on Labor Day.
Crocker, a career diplomat with extensive experience in the Middle East who opposed the war when it began in 2003, is pushing for political change where progress has been elusive and the administration's options are limited under the fragile Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Yet the diplomat will say that as poorly as al-Maliki's government has performed, it would not be advisable at the moment for the U.S. to support new leadership or lobby for a different coalition of Iraq's fractious Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, the officials said.
Crocker also will discuss the challenges of corruption, reconciliation, de-Baathification and the difficulties of enacting wide-ranging legislation such as an oil law, according to officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.
Both Crocker and Petraeus will say the buildup of 30,000 troops, bringing the current U.S. total to nearly 170,000, has achieved some success and is working better than any previous effort to quell the insurgency and restore stability, according to officials familiar with their thinking.
Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and Crocker were in the Washington area on Saturday working separately on final drafts of opening testimony on Capitol Hill. Later in the week, Bush plans a national address.
The assessments by Petraeus and Crocker are intended to be considered equally. But officials expect Congress to focus on military matters, particularly possible troop withdrawals. Unless there are changes, the increase comes to a natural end starting in the spring and continuing through the end of next summer.
At the same time, officials close to Crocker pointed out that any revisions to the military strategy will have a profound affect on the political side.
"Clearly, the political, economic and diplomatic elements are directly related to what happens with security and our involvement in it," one official said.
The officials disputed suggestions that either Petraeus or Crocker would recommend anything more than a symbolic reduction in troop levels and then only in the spring.
Petraeus offered some insights into his testimony on Friday. In a letter to troops serving in Iraq, he cited "uneven" but quantifiable progress in the security situation and acknowledged that the political side "has not worked out as we had hoped."
"We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field," he wrote. It was perhaps the clearest indication he favors carrying on with the troop increase.
Officials said Crocker is focused on trying to do the best he can with the tools available to him now before completing his tour in Baghdad and retiring. More is at stake for Petraeus because he is believed to have higher ambitions, including possibly elected office.
In their testimony, the two will lay out for Congress the situation on the ground, discuss the merits of possible revisions to Bush's strategy, including troop drawdowns and a reduction in support for embattled al-Maliki and conclude that such changes are unwise, officials told the AP.
The testimony will set the stage for an announcement by Bush on how he will proceed in the face of widespread public unhappiness with the war and criticism from congressional Democrats, especially senators seeking the party's 2008 presidential nomination.
Petraeus and Crocker previewed their thoughts to Bush during his stop in Anbar province last Monday. It is one of several regions where the administration has claimed success with the additional troops, with decisions by local leaders to join with U.S. forces against insurgents, the officials said.
To that end, the presidential advisers will press lawmakers to recognize achievements at the local level and argue that such results will force Iraq's national leaders into action.
But that development is not covered by any of the 18 military and political benchmarks Congress set out for judging the effectiveness when it approved the new policy that was announced by Bush in January and reached its full strength in July.
In their testimony, Petraeus and Crocker are expected to repeat the assertions made in the White House's July report that progress is being made, official said. A new updated report is due Sept. 15.
They also are expected to make the oft-stated case that an independent report by congressional auditors, who found only three of 18 benchmarks fully met, set unfair standards for judging success, the officials said.
=====================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 9, 2007 02:44:47 PM new
"Success is not measure in the way you're suggesting, CC.
It's measured on what's improving....and what still lies ahead as our challenges in Iraq.
You believe the numbers of Iraq deaths should be posted daily too? lol Then request that from THEIR government."
This is part of the C & P I posted earlier:
"not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the Baghdad security plan is protecting the civilian population."
If you do post the number of Iraqi deaths,which we apparently are,you need to include deaths from car bombs and suicide bombs or why bother.
posted on September 9, 2007 05:10:57 PM new
Maybe you should demand some liberals who oppose the war go over there, risking their own lives, and get the 'numbers' you seek, CC. They could follow our troops around in the worst of the fighting, getting you the numbers you require.
Our soldiers put their lives on the line to SAVE people....not be bean counters to appease the left.
We believe what our military commanders tell us...whether the situation is improving or not. Anti-military people aren't going to believe anything any one tells them....as has already happened by some of them against the report....that hasn't even come out yet. LOL LOL No need to wait until they even hear the report to start BASHING it and telling their followers how bad it is and of course adding that it's ALL President Bush's fault.
Not one mention of all the liberals/dems who also decided we needed to invade.....not one mention of the FACT that by continuing to fund the wars they ARE supporting their continuation.
They fool no one....they just THINK they do. Those watching their poll numbers KNOW their supporters are PISSED they've broken their promise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 9, 2007 06:29:26 PM new
linduh, """....since they're being MURDERED by other Iraqi's an NOT American soldiers...."""
That statement shows your total brainwashing and stupidity. American soldiers HAVE murdered innocent Iraqi citizens. That is a FACT.
linduh, """"Because they'd protect me as a citizen while the liberal left always bashes them, wants to keep them off OUR taxpayer funded campus', calls them murders/terrorists, etc.
The liberal left, IF we had to have an armed force at all, would rather they stay at home and weave baskets. Not do what they're trained to do. """"
Well, YOU LINDUH BASHED THEM when you called female soldiers "he-men " who should be home baking cookies! Is that different than basket weaving ???
Now please continue ranting and raving incoherently about car accidents and teen girls' suicide as if that had anything to do with the war....you are beyond help and hope....it is sad that our troops, even the female ones, are fighting for the likes of a yellow-bellied coward like YOU....that IS a waste of life.
posted on September 9, 2007 07:23:33 PM new
"Our soldiers put their lives on the line to SAVE people....not be bean counters to appease the left."
Linda: Are you really this dense or are you deliberately not getting it? The fact that car bomb and suicide bomb fatalities are not included in the number of Iraqi casualties the administrtion gives us is representative of how they continually manipulate information to their advantage. Whether or not you think Iraqi fatalities are pertinent, the administration gives these numbers out regularly.
"I wasn't focusing on the Iraqi civilians....since they're being MURDERED by other Iraqi's an NOT American soldiers"
Yes, and the number of Iraqi fatalities via car bombs and suicide bombers is indicative of how out of control Iraq is, despite what the president says. That is why they are not included in the numbers released by the gov't.
If you check out the article I originally posted about this, you will see that Bush readily admitted that they did not include these fatalities. "President Bush explained why in a television interview Tuesday. "If the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory," he told TV interviewer Charlie Rose"--whatever that answer means.
posted on September 9, 2007 09:03:20 PM new
"The U.S. military does not compile its own count of civilian deaths, as Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jim Cassella explained to AP: "Our efforts focus on destroying the enemy's capabilities, so we never target civilians and have no reason to try to count such unintended deaths."
===
There are at times numbers our military gives out...but then at times they're revised. Like one bombing of a hotel in Iraq. At first our military told the AP that something like 30 people had been killed. Later it was revised down to less than 10.
===============
But here is a link where the problem of properly and accurately stating civilian death totals is discussed.
posted on September 10, 2007 10:34:33 AM new
Linda, Michael S. Harper was not a communist. He is an award winning American poet. The poem that I mentioned was included in a book about poetry by Helen Vendler, a world renowned Poetry critic and educator associated with Harvard University. The fact that you don't appreciate Harper's sensitive words and with such careless disregard suggest that he is a communist is not surprising to me.
Are YOU a Bunghole?