9,000 dead and the Reality-Based Community

We like to say that we are members of the reality based community. But to say that, we have to legitimately live in the reality based community.

So to those who keep passing around that ridiculous "9,000 dead GIs" figure -- stop it!

I don't know how many times this bullshit rumor has to be shot down.

And the best debunking comes from dear dKos community member Pat K, co-founder of iCasualties.org:

For two solid years now, Michael White and I have followed the deaths in Iraq literally on a daily basis. We haunt the CENTCOM, MNF-Iraq and DOD websites ... as well as all of the major news feeds. In fact, the two of us have grown adept at finding death notices in the news media prior to the military issuing them. For about the past year and a half, Michael and I have been joined in the research by Evan D., an historian in the Washington D.C. area, and by Lynn L., another researcher whose husband is in the 4th ID. So that makes 4 of us searching the news media and the military sites, each and every day mind you, for deaths.

And after all this time, we all four of us concur. Yes, there are a few unreported deaths, which I'll explain in a minute. But not thousands. We'd have found them if there were.

Here's something that might interest you. If you go to our homepage, you'll notice a place up top that says "Fatality Details". Click on that. That'll take you to our fully searchable database.

When you get there, scroll down to the bottom of that page to where the Filters are. I'm finding that many people simply don't realize these handy, dandy little tools are there. Go over to the right to where it says "Country of Death" ... and select, say, "Germany" from the drop down list. Then hit the "Apply Filter" button over to the left.

Voila ... a list of 23 guys will appear ... all of whom died in Germany from wounds or illnesses incurred in Iraq ... all of whom have formal releases from the DOD and who are on the DOD's death list.

Now go back to the filters and hit "Remove Filter" so that you can start fresh. Go back to the "Country of Death" and select "USA", then hit "Apply Filter". There's 31 troops who died in the USA and whom the DOD has owned up to.

So there's no truth to the rumor that if you die outside of Iraq, the DOD automatically ignores you. Yes, occasionally it does ... especially if the death happens months after the soldier gets back from Iraq (Lynn's husband knows of 5 men that this applies to). And I am told that occasionally Special Forces deaths may be hush-hush. But as a rule, no. It's just a wild rumor.

And it's the same with this 7,000 business. If our list were missing thousands of names, can you imagine the e-mails we would get from enraged grannies, aunts, best friends, etc. for daring to leave their loved one OFF !!!!!??? I shudder to think of it. I get called to task for every little goof-up I make as it is. I recently mistakenly entered a soldier's service branch as "U.S. Army National Guard" because that's what a news article said. Oh my ... the chaplain for the man's unit had an e-mail in to me within the HOUR complaining that it was U.S. ARMY RESERVES, dammit! And then there are the parents who write to say that the DOD published the wrong hometown, and would I please put the correct one in my database. We have thousands upon thousands of eyes out there watching that list. We aren't missing thousands of names.

The last thing to consider is this: the Bush administration isn't GOOD ENOUGH to hide that many deaths. They haven't managed to hide Halliburton's over-runs. They haven't managed to hide the troop equipment shortages. And they haven't managed to hide their own ineptness in the whole occupation. Somehow the truth has a way of seeping out between the cracks.

And me and Michael and Lynn and Evan watch those cracks like hawks.

So please, just stop it. You do yourself and the anti-war effort no good by running with unsupported conspiracy theories that contradict the very hard reality-based work cataloging the effects of the war by our very own side.

•  bet it appears

  again tomorrow, as soon as this scrolls of the FP.  Things are going crazy here.
  

  by oysterface on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:46:41 PM PDT

  •  Well, don't recommend it

    and don't post comments in diaries that push such nonsense.  Nothing discourages a fool more than opening up their diary and seeing just one or two comments, both of them negative.

    by existenz on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:25:17 AM PDT

    •  the problem with this is

      that when you click on one to make sure it is being ignored  you'll see that people are starting a serious discussion about it. That happened today twice on this topic.

      by oysterface on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:33:30 AM PDT

    •  Self-correcting system

      I will say though that the system seems to do a good job of self-correcting.  I saw a post about this bogus conspiracy a few weeks ago, and was intrigued by that possibility.  But then I saw another post that clearly debunked it within a few minutes of the original.  

      The rule of thumb is that if it is too good to be true, it probably is.  Or in this case, if it's too evil to be true...  A similar example was something I heard on Randy Rhodes the other day.  She was talking about how the contract for the Gitmo prisons was signed in 2000, before 9/11.  Of course what was actually signed was a contract for the provision of a building to be named later, and that building ended up being a prison.  But if you don't catch that part, it ends up sounding like 9/11 was planned for.  Though if it was 2000 it would have been Clinton planning for it.
      

      by sterno on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:12:39 AM PDT

      •  but sometimes self-correction fails

        ... and sometimes a total bullshit diary hits the Recommended list.

        I was thinking we need an "anti-recommend" button, but that could be problematic, since it could be used to stifle dissent. My ideal mechanism would be a way for a trusted user to raise a factual objection to a diary; this would be intended only for cases where the diary has its facts wrong, not that it expresses an opinion the objector doesn't like. Then subsequent readers would be alerted, when they view the diary, and anyone who previously recommended the diary would be alerted that someone objected to the diary's facts. Those users would be given a choice:

        • Withdraw their recommendation.
        • Reconfirm it ("I have read the objection, and I still want to recommend the diary")

        Same with new attempts to recommend the diary ("Here's the objection, do you still want to recommend?").

        If almost no one withdraws, and almost everyone reconfirms, that could be flagged as possible abuse (bogus objection) and the objector's karma would be penalized (possibly preventing them from raising objections to diaries).

        by Joe Buck on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:41:19 AM PDT

        •  Good thought

          Rather than an anti-recommend pushing down a story, maybe just have the scores posted at the top of the story.  So, if you pull up a diary entry and it has a lot of objections, it'll be quite clear when you read it that there are some objections.  Through the normal commentary you should be able to figure out those objections should you want to know.

          by sterno on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:49:51 AM PDT

  •  Most soldier families don't have the internet

    Most of the dead soldiers' families are not reading icasualties.org. Don't be so full of yourselves to think the aunts, uncles and parents of dead soldiers are flocking to icasualties.org to see if their dead loved-one is listed there. Since most families of soldiers are from lower middle class and poor homes, we can assume that most of them don't have the internet to verify the truth. And even the internet doesn't have the full truth. I don't know if the official count is 9,000 dead, but after the WMD lies, I would not be surprised if the actual count is closer to 3,000 or 4,000 dead soldiers. I guarantee the Pentagon is low-balling the TRUE number of dead soldiers.

    by munky on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:26:54 AM PDT

    •  back this up:

      I guarantee the Pentagon is low-balling the TRUE number of dead soldiers.

      Bet you can't.

      by speranza on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:03:39 AM PDT

      •  The number is greater

        that 1700. the government does not include those who have died by accident or suicide. The government has 'buried' those figures.

        We must also factor in for the future those who will die stateside by suicide or die premature deaths due to injuries or trauma that were a result of battle.

        by talex on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:38:04 AM PDT

        •  that's realistic

          and thanks for that. But that's not what the poster I was replying to was saying. I know that a casualty count can't possibly measure the full impact of the war, but that's a long way from saying the Pentagon is hiding large numbers of KIAs.

          by speranza on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:23:09 PM PDT

      •  Unreported Casualties

        The Military does not report Combat Deaths unless they occurred in Theater. Once you are evacuated you are a different sort of statistic.

        DOD Instruction 7730.22, ("Reports of U.S. Casualties in Combat Areas," January 20, 1967, and March 20, 1973) provided that the Vietnam casualties to be reported were all those occurring within the designated combat areas and those deaths occurring anywhere as the result or aftermath of an initial casualty occurring in a combat area. The current related document, Military Personnel Casualty Matters, Policies, and Procedures" DoD Instruction 1300.18, December 18, 2000, is simply silent on this critical matter.

        It only took me about 30 minutes of googling to find the following statistics:
        OIF monthly statistics
        March 19, 2003 - June 5, 2005:
        2,532 Killed/ Died of Wounds
        25,722  Wounded in action
        Using the ( incredibly low) 10% fatality rate that would give another 2,572 probable fatalities for a total of 5104 right there.

        22,00 have been reported Medevac'd -
        Considering the reports of increased severity of wounds, brain injuries, infections it would be reasonable to assume that some of them DIED!

        This doesn't even count accidents, diseases such as malaria, hepatitis, or suicides.

        I just spoke with an Army Medic who recently returned for Iraq, and told him I had heard there had been 22, 000 Medevacs, and 7000 deaths at Landstahl. He said that sounded about right. BTW He will be going back there in a few weeks.  So He is no left wing nut.

        by georgeW on Tue Jun 21, 2005 at 01:41:30 AM PDT

    •  See...

      You can't do that. You CANNOT "guarantee" it.

      You can SUSPECT it. That's a legitimate statement, though still, lacking any evidence, rather specious. I SUSPECT the election was rigged. THere's plenty of evidence to make my suspicions worth investigating. Low-balling the number of dead, otoh... Where is the evidence?

      But suspicion about the death toll, lacking anything other than the Administration's propensity to lie about everything else, simply doesn't warrant a diary on the topic. Comments galore -- go for it. But until you have something concrete, diarying a suspicion is no better than the Fox News trick of phrasing it as a question: "Has the Administration been low-balling the American death toll and hiding bodies in caves?"

      by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:23:55 AM PDT

    •  Here's a number for you: 4651

      How did I get that?  It is a projection based on the icasualties.org figures up til 6/05.  1,723 dead, over 28 months = 61 dead per month (rounding down to a whole number).

      If we take Cheney's word for it, troops will be in Iraq through mid 2009 (amazing how he knows that date).  Projecting 61 dead/month to that date gives me a total of 4651.

      Of course, things could get worse, or better, and my 61/month uses a 6/05 figure that is still growing.  And we have yet to have a major battle, which I suspect is coming, a la Tet that may give us a truly horrendous month.

      But in the end, why argue about numbers that aren't proven?  I think it deflates the true arguments about the war.

      by dash888 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:35:02 AM PDT

      •  Mid 2009.

        Interesting. So Cheney is predicting that, regardless of which party wins the election, the next president will get American troops out of Iraq as fast as he decently can.

        In other words, he knows even a Republican president is going to have to distance himself from Bush and Cheney's Disastrous Iraq Adventure.

        But he doesn't care. By that time he'll have had his eight years' profit opportunity, and he'll retire to a bunch of directorships. Probably one of those will be with Haliburton; they owe him, bigtime.

        by Canadian Reader on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:14:06 PM PDT

        •  The entire Bush cabinet will be off

          profiteering, cashing out for their years of dedicated "service" with no apologies.

          The mid 2009 date struck me as odd and I've begun to wonder if Cheney positioned it as a marker for a new Republican president (Bush/McCain, or vice versa) to use to their advantage: i.e., "Mission Really Accomplished" and now I'm bringing the troops home, etc... or an alternate view - "Our Work Is Done" and it's Time for Us to Go...

          by dash888 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:39:51 PM PDT

    •  Isn't 1700 bad enough?

      when they published the pictures of the caskets being loaded in the C-5 that just broke my heart.  It was bad when there were 100.  I read those names, where they were from, and so many had small children.  It would take days to do that now.

      by unterhausen on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:44:28 AM PDT

    •  what utter BS

      dude, eveyone has the freakin internet by now.  poor people aren't stupid, and used computers that are internet ready are dirt cheap these days...

      by itsbenj on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:23:39 AM PDT

      •  Now who's making unsubstantiated claims?

        According to A Nation Online, as of the end of 2003 only 54.6% of Americans had access to the internet (via broadband or dialup).  Furthermore the rural areas from which the Armed Forces draw disproportionately to make up their ranks are particularly underserved when it comes to Internet access.

        Poor people aren't stupid, they just can't afford a monthly internet access fee (even something as cheap as $10-15 per week).  Trust me--I've been there more than once myself and I live above the official poverty line.  When you're bouncing every other check to pay your basic utilities, it's amazing how quickly internet access seems like an unnecessary frill.

        Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that there are more KIA's than the reported number, simply that iCasualties.org's "debunking" that they would have heard it from grieving family members if they didn't include their relatives must be taken with a grain of salt, given the fact that there are over a hundred million Americans who don't go online.  

        by oodja on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:19:22 AM PDT

        •  18 months

          Yo dawg, 18 months is 3/4 a lifetime in the tech world. The number is pushing 70% now. Considering that more than 30% of the population is over 65 or under 10, that's getting close to total saturation for civic purposes.

          Also, many surveys ask about home use (because this is what industry types want to know about for commercial decisions). Many people who don't have a home computer online get access through work, library, school, community center, etc.

          Finally, $10-15 a week? It's more like $10 a month. Not to mention the free/ultra low-cost wireless is coming to many major urban cores in the next three or four years. The internet is not an elite media.

          by Outlandish Josh on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:59:05 AM PDT

    •  Not just icasualties.org

      Many news orgainzations have the same list.  If they don't read icasualties.org, they would see another list.

      by qw3rty on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:30:39 AM PDT

•  Frankly, there is a lot

  of really self-destructive conspiracy mongering going on.

  Starting with the "Bush Cabal Planned 9-11" garbage and so on and so forth.

  Those blatantly stupid conspiracies take away time and energy and space from REAL conspiracies - things like the Downing Street Memos, the Cheney Energy Meetings, the Enron machinations, and so on.

  The reality is that the whacked out conspiracies are fundamentally lazy, and are looking for "the magic bullet" to explain away everything everywhere all at once.

  There is no such thing.

  Those whacked out conspiracies degrade the discourse, discredit the work done on serious issues, distract from the tasks at hand, and accomplish nothing.

  by RedDan on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:47:12 PM PDT

  •  And also..

    Please let's add to the "if you believe this is news you are too fucking dumb to breathe" list, that idiotic e-mail flying around about HR24, The Repeal of the 22 Amendment.

    It's not news, they put it on every year, and people need to just effing ignore it.

    Never.Going.To.Happen.

    by jibsail on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:58:35 AM PDT

  •  Conspiracies

    I generally ask people that relay this stuff to me if they want a REAL conspiracy theory:

    "What you just told me is straight out Roves chop shop in the WH basement, and is part of a conspiracy to make you look like an idiot. Talk ONLY about things you have evidence for, and we can bring the conspiracy down."

    by chughes1614 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:19:29 AM PDT

    •  PNAC

      there is evidence.

      DSM.

      There is evidence.

      Plame.

      There is evidence.

      PDB "Osama determined to strike inside US"

      There is evidence.

      Putting the pieces of evidence together in terms of real events, real people, and real motivations requires thought, further evidence, and understanding of the nature of the characters and situations involved.

      Many conspiracies are simply lazy, magical thinking.

      by RedDan on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:32:00 AM PDT

      •  Absolutely!

        I'm down with all those things. What I'm talking about is 9/11 conspiracy theories. I'd be willing to make a deal with these folks. If they would stay silent (mostly) until we get this moron impeached for what we CAN prove, they can have whats left of him. The problem is, their agenda hampers ours.

        by chughes1614 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:48:43 AM PDT

  •  hear hear

    Just yesterday I had one of these idiots hijack my diary to I was "doing a disservice to the DKOS community" by saying that Bin Laden was behind 9/11.  I stupidly began to engage the guy giving links to several progressive sources reporting on the videos where Bin Laden accepted responsibility , but then backed off after realizing it was like talking to a brick wall.

    by MarkinNC on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:01:01 AM PDT

    •  And thank you for not

      saying "here here" :)

      by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:08:50 AM PDT

      •  here here

        by DCDemocrat on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:36:50 AM PDT

        •  hee hee n/t

          by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:40:04 PM PDT

  •  The New Pearl Harbor Is Not Garbage...

    it is well researched and devastating.  If it's not true then let's investigate and see if it's true.

    by Oleary on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:03:41 AM PDT

    •  Sure

      Research all you want. Hell, I have the PNAC document on my desktop with the Pearl Harbor quote you mentioned. The problem is, I will GUARANTEE you much of this stuff is coming directly from Rove with the intent of trying to make us look as stupid as his boss. We are hanging on by a thread here. Lets prioritize just a little. Let's move on the mountain of information that is ALREADY investigated, (ch)impeach, and then we can investigate. In the meantime, feel free to keep investigating. Just don't make that work the face of the Demoratic Party. What exactly is wrong with driving ahead with the proof we ALREADY have that he lied us into war?

      by chughes1614 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:55:31 AM PDT

      •  Many conspiracies are true; not magical thinking.

        It's very difficult to talk evidence about things that are kept secret. I do believe in criminal conspiracies to commit crimes and cover them up. Official Secrets have grown exponentially since the arrival of the current administration.

        The following is an excerpt of a column I wrote nearly 3 1/2 years ago now. I have included a link to the full column below so you can link to the 'evidence.'

        "And really, if the clones of corporate media were to be honest they would have to admit that American history is on the side of the, to use Norman Mailer's word, Conspiratorialists.

        Assassination of Lincoln: Conspiracy
        Creation of the Federal Reserve: Conspiracy
        Sinking of the Maine: Conspiracy
        Sneak Attack on Pearl Harbor: Conspiracy
        Operation Paperclip: Conspiracy
        Roswell Cover-up: Conspiracy
        CIA/Mafia Alliance: Conspiracy
        Overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran: Conspiracy
        Overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala: Conspiracy
        Overthrow of Iraqi Royal Family: Conspiracy
        Attempted Assassinations of Fidel Castro: Conspiracy
        Assassination of Diem: Conspiracy
        Assassination of Trujillo: Conspiracy
        Assassination of Lumumba: Conspiracy
        Assassination of JFK: Conspiracy
        Assassination of Oswald: Conspiracy
        Assassination of MLK: Conspiracy
        Assassination of RFK: Conspiracy
        Gulf of Tonkin Incident: Conspiracy
        Operation Phoenix in Vietnam: Conspiracy
        CIA's too-numerous-to-mention Worldwide Coup d' etats: Conspiracy
        Watergate: Conspiracy
        The overthrow of Allende: Conspiracy
        MKULTRA: Conspiracy
        COINTELPRO: Conspiracy
        CIA Drug Running: Conspiracy
        October Surprise: Conspiracy
        Arming of Saddam Hussein: Conspiracy
        Iran-Contra: Conspiracy
        Persian Gulf War: Conspiracy
        The Hunting of Bill Clinton: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
        Oklahoma City Bombing: Conspiracy
        TWA 800: Conspiracy
        November Election 2000: Conspiracy
        California Energy Crisis: Conspiracy
        Destabilization of Argentina: Conspiracy
        Destabilization of Venezuela: Conspiracy

        And these are just the ones off the top of my head. The Federation of American Scientists have documented 200 American attacks on foreign nations since 1945."

        http://www.subversivetalk.com/week111.html

        Yes, there are crazy, paranoid conspiracy nuts out there. On the other hand, American policy and action have led to immoral and illegal acts of criminal conspiracy that cannot be denied.

        Is the KIA number from Iraq understated? I don't know: do the numbers include Special Forces, Troops assigned to Intelligence operations (CIA/DIA etc.) and mercenary 'private' contractors?

        Did al Qaeda plan and execute 9/11? I don't know. No actual investigation has ever been done about that question.

        The Pentagon may be telling the truth. But, Bush & Co. has a history of lie telling.

        respectfully,

        MAG

        by Michael Alton Gottlieb on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:51:48 AM PDT

        •  so general

          you need to come up with a more specific definition of 'conspiracy' for this list to mean anything at all.  the way you seem to be defining it, anything political involving more than one person is a conspiracy.  conspiracy of what?  the Oklahoma bomging was a "conspiracy" of the US govt? OK dude...you're really alleging covered-up gov't involvement with McVeigh?  Based on who's word, McVeigh's?  MKULTRA was a conspiracy in what way?  It was a bunch of drug-induced silliness.  Grow some skepticism.  Some of the events you list involve arguable situations, but most of them do not fit the definition of a 'conspiracy', unless you consider anything done in secret or with classification to be a conspiracy.  which would be an incorrect definition.

          by itsbenj on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:29:11 AM PDT

    •  What's the Pearl Habor reference?

      I saw nothing about this in the parent.

      by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:27:46 AM PDT

      •  In the PNAC document. . .

        . . . which is from pre-9/11, the warmongers mention the need for a "Pearl Harbor"-type event to rally support for their desired military adventures.

        Some people take that line of thinking to be proof of a conspiracy to create a new "Pearl Harbor", i.e. the 9/11 attacks.

        So, they think that folks like Cheney and Condi Rice sat in a back-room figuring out how to recruit Osama bin Laden and his band of jihadis to attack America. . . which does seem just the tiniest bit unlikely, to me at least.

        A more reasonable, yet still harsh allegation, is that they knew that the jihadis were cooking something up, and perhaps thinking that it would be something along the lines of the U.S.S. Cole bombing, they let it happen, by purposefully failing to put all the possible resources into foiling the plot.

        by Robespierrette on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:13:29 AM PDT

        •  Ahh, I see

          I just think it's bad form to use the term "Pearl Harbor" in relation to that, because it falls into the rightwing smears against Roosevelt that he let Pearl Habor happen.
          

          by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:42:48 PM PDT

  •  Disagree re: 911

    I agree that this casualty story is foolish. It would only take one greiving parent to observe their kid ain't on the list... and the whole game would be over.

    And THEY couldn't care how many casualties there are anyhow.

    911 however.... sorry. Anybody who beleives the "official" version needs their head seen to. It's not as if there are only one or two glaring inconsistencies. Almost EVERY aspect of the "story" has holes big enough to fly a 737 through... and some of the bits of info that might confirm or unconfirm some elements of the "story" are classified. Why?

    So. leave your attempts to establish equivalence between this minor element and 911.

    There is no comparison.

    by jpwillis on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:13:07 AM PDT

    •  arrgh!

      It's a long way from "glaring inconsistencies" to "Bush did it," wouldn't you say?

      by speranza on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:24:43 PM PDT

      •  did I say "Bush did it?"

        I don't think he is smart enough.

        It's not so much the existence of 'A" "Glaring Inconsistency" (typical British UNDERSTATEMENT is you missed that....), or even 'some' "glaring inconsistencies', but rather the the complete infestation of "GLARING INCONSISTENCIES" in almost every element of the timeline/events as they are known.

        And Yes, Speranza.... it's gonna be a long haul. and the first step will be u-turning to face the light.

        by jpwillis on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:32:34 PM PDT

  •  and they hurt the REAL left

    same with the 911 conspiracy crowd. In the end, they just undermine the credibility of REAL leftists

    by EZ writer on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:10:08 AM PDT

  •  Bush wouldn't have had to known

    There would be no reason for Cheney or the rest of the neo-cons to tell them.  The reson they can get away with it is because people say "they wouldn't do that".
    They would do that, before Kennedy was killed there was a plan to have terrorist attacks in the US, blow up bombs in malls in Miami and Washindton DC, then blame it on Cuba, to justify an attack on Cuba.  The Plan was aproved by the joint chiefs of staff, and it would have been carried out if Kennedy hadn't rejected it.  That isn't a conspiracy theory, thats is true, look it up.

    If Bush was president and someone came to him with plans for a terrorist attack on the US in order to justify a war, I think he would be all for it.

    by qw3rty on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:41:21 AM PDT

    •  i dont think so

      I dont think Bush would be all for, just because, he wouldn't have to be.
      
      
      
      I mean, the chances are, Bush could have sold his Iraq or Afghan wars anyways.  Plus, on top of that, I don't think Bush is actually spiteful or maleviolent, just simple.

      by danheskett on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:38:31 PM PDT

•  I agree completely.

  We don't even have to make up stuff to support our anti-war ideas, so why use debunked conspiracy theories? I've read this claim a lot lately, and the refutation.

  by indiemcemopants on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:47:12 PM PDT

  •  I don't trust reporters or the Pentagon on KIAs

    Don't be so quick to assume you have the correct number of KIAs. Searching the internet for news stories and relying on a "husband" soldier in Iraq for KIA numbers is lame. Reporters rarely leave their hotels in Iraq and most soldiers don't have the full numbers of KIAs. It's really lame that you think "news stories" is a decent way to find out how many soldiers have died. It would be easy for the Pentagon to conceal the true number of dead soldiers.

    by munky on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:12:09 AM PDT

    •  you know what else is lame?

      telling someone else that what they believe is "lame," and then making absolutely no sense in the rest of your comment.

      If there are a bunch of concealed KIAs out there, where are their families?

      by speranza on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:26:45 AM PDT

      •  You assume the families are reading the media

        I know people who don't read a newspaper or the internet. Most Americans are pretty lame about being informed. Hence: Quagmire. I think poor people in particular don't read newspapers or the internet. Nor can they afford the internet. So, they are not attempting to determine if their loved-one who died in Iraq has been mentioned in news stories. Many of the dead soldiers come from poor families. I can see a Pentagon official refusing to report the deaths of soldiers from poor families (since these families are more likely to ignore newspapers and the internet). The internet is basically a place for elitists. I'm an internet elitists, too. But remember most people don't spend much time on the internet. Internet denizens are a unique bunch. That includes the KOS community. We are the minority of Americans. Everybody should still be SUSPICIOUS of everything coming out of the Pentagon. I'm a bit dismayed that everybody is so trustworthy of the Pentagon's KIA numbers.

        by munky on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:44:03 AM PDT

        •  fair enough, I'm dismayed

          at the knee-jerk suspicion that passes for critical thinking here.

          It is possible to be skeptical about both sides - one can reject conspiracy theories without taking Pentagon press releases as gospel.

          You did read the lengthy excerpt from Pat K's diary, right? Any substantive criticism of that debunking, or just a bunch of "what-ifs?"

          by speranza on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:02:23 AM PDT

          •  I think it's knee-jerk to accept Pentagon numbers

            After the WMD lie and the bogus Saddam-Qaeda link, I think the "conspiracy theorists" should be given greater respect by the anti-Bush crowd. People should not dismiss their claims so quickly, imho. I agree that 9,000 soldiers probably did NOT die in Iraq (yet), but I also believe that the number of dead soldiers is most likely much higher than 1,700.  We can all agree that 1,700 is far smaller than 3,500 in the minds of Americans and the Pentagon knows this. It would be easy for the Pentagon to conceal 1,000 or 2,000 deaths, imho. Hell, they concealed the WMD lie for years, too.

            by munky on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:17:47 AM PDT

            •  faulty logic

              "they've lied to us before so they must be lying to us now" is just bad logic, especially without any other evidence. And really, aren't we giving this administration too much credit here? You really think they could hide 7000 deaths from the American people? This is a group of people who have toured for 2 months on a proposal with the end result that there's less support for it than when the tour started. These guys don't have the capability to do something like this.

              by AnnArborBlue on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:20:47 AM PDT

              •  I agree. 9000 is about 4 times more than is

                currently reported.  That's a lot of dead bodies to hide.

                Furthermore, the Pentagon did none of the lying on WMD or al-Qaeda.  That was the adminsitration's manipulation of CIA facts.

                by ecostar on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:53:27 AM PDT

                •  Manipulation!

                  The administration's manipulation reaches deeply into the Pentagon. i don't believe the 9000 number but when the arriving coffins are kept out of the public eye, I grow suspicious. The top secret arrival of our dead isn't a military decision. It's pure White House.

                  by Eddie C on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:00:40 AM PDT

              •  Faulty logic??

                So tell me, do you go on trusting/believing  someone who repeatedly has lied to you.

                If you do, let me know, I have a very nice "freedom-loving" used car to sell you.

                by shumard on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:28:32 AM PDT

            •  Listen to AnnArborBlue

              If you have EVIDENCE, and I mean hard, virtually indisputable evidence, please bring it forward. If not please find another hobby. The sad part is that all this bunkum is pumped directly out of the WH to make us look like fools. It allows these thugs to call us "tin foil hat conspiracy theorists" and discount everything we say regarding real coverups.

              Want evidence? A "former Bush Administration official" this past week came out and said the Twin Towers could have only come down in a "controlled demolition". The only two media outlets that carried the story were the Washington Moonie Times, and the Times affiliated UPI. Why exactly would only two right wing news services carry this story? Be smarter than the real conspiracy. Ignore this crap, and help us impeach this bastard for his REAL crimes, rather than hinder us by making us look foolish by associaion.

              by chughes1614 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:29:11 AM PDT

              •  this is idiot stuff

                People with no technical background have seen pictures of controlled demolitions, and they see the building falling straight down. They then assume that only controlled demolitions produce that effect. Wrong. It's a matter of conservation of momentum.

                The building has no sideways momentum. The initial plane strike could have provided some, but the collapse did not happen immediately, so when the collapse started the buildings were still. When the structural support collapsed, we have gravity pulling straight down, so that's exactly what the buildings did.

                by Joe Buck on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:49:48 AM PDT

            •  Based on what?

              If you don't believe the news or the Pentagon or any other Bush Administration source for the numbers, where is your source? If you don't have one, you might as well pull any old number out of your ass. If you don't have evidence, you have absolutely no idea what the true number is, so it's pointless to argue any point except "investigate further".

              by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:15:32 AM PDT

              •  Not that I think they could hide over 7000 deaths

                but I did catch this on Iraq Coalition Casualties site Saturday.

                Nine coalition troops killed in Iraq:-
                BAGHDAD | June 18, 2005 7:11:26 PM IST

                Nine troops from the U.S.-led multinational forces were killed Saturday in a mortar attack in the troubled city of Fallujah west of the capital.

                Coalition officials said in a statement that six soldiers also were injured in the attack in Fallujah, 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of Baghdad, but did not identify the nationalities of the casualties.

                The source was originally UPI and I Googled the headline Saturday and found it in The Washington Times. Now when you Google the headline and get the link to the UPI story, it leads to the story of a journalist being shot. This is fact.

                Did UPI just get bad info from the Pentagon and published it before getting the facts? Probably, but now it's out there serving as some kind of proof one way or the other.

                Here, and here.

                BTW these stories are the exact copy of what was originally in the Moonie Times article I originally saw (that's now missing) on Saturday.

                Proof of a cover-up? You decide

                by Pescadero Bill on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:00:02 AM PDT

                •  PS

                  Perhaps Pat K can explain how UPI can report that Coalition officials released this statement, yet it didn't show up anywhere else or in his numbers.

                  by Pescadero Bill on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:05:21 AM PDT

            •  bad comparison

              The problem with your assertion is that most people never get within spitting distance of a WMD. Dead bodies, however, belong to families, spouses, parents, children, friend, colleagues, communities and fellow-soldiers - every single death has a ripple effect amongst quite literally thousands of people. It only takes one person to notice, just once, for the lies to be blown.

              You cannot compare a real dead body, which has a physical impact in the world, to an abstract lie, based on forms of words about something that has no objective referent in the physical world or the everyday experience of people.

              Retaining skepticism is one thing. In doing so you should come to an understanding that you cannot keep people's deaths secret from those who "own" the bodies.

              by londanium on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:52:30 AM PDT

              •   The implied/explicit threat

                of withholding death benefit money could be a powerful enforcer of Omerta in families of the Iraq war dead.

                Have you seen any US govmt underwritten US military contractors personnel required life insurance policies?

                Do you know for a fact that they do not contain  clauses that penalize or disqualify the death benefit pay-outs in the event the beneficiary(s) should  publically discuss so-termed 'military classified information or  details without without vetting and written DoD approval', concerning the death of the insured?

                I don't know either way, but it is not hard to come up with viable alternate reasons why family members of unofficial US employed Iraq War dead may not be screaming about their loss.

                Confidentiality clauses are lawyers' stock and trade, and DoD like the corporate world is infested with them in most things they do.

                 

                by shumard on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:14:35 AM PDT

            •  It would be possible for NASA

              to fake the moon landings. But absent any shred of proof that they did, I'll have to go on credulously accepting their official propaganda.

              by speranza on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:30:22 PM PDT

          •  I'm dismayed

            I'm dismayed at the knee-jerk acceptance of everything the Pentagoons tell us about casualties. That passes as critical thinking around here.  It's funny how the "reality-based" community places their faith in one little internet site read by less than .1 percent of the population, a site that compiles their list from numbers given by the DoD.  
            
            As for 9/11, only a complete and utter 'tard or ostrich would fail to see that the official story does not hold water.  

            by ChuckLin on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 06:29:01 AM PDT

        •  Is that tin hat tight enough for you?

          Because I think it could stand to be a little tighter.

          by Goldfish on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:49:53 AM PDT

          •  No, no!

            Don't damage the brain further - the national IQ is low enough as it is!

            by AaronInSanDiego on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:18:15 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          "I know people who don't read a newspaper or the internet."

          I'm sure you do.  Lot's of them.  I'm sure you also know lots of people who don't read books not written by Hal Lindsay and his ilk.

          "Most Americans are pretty lame about being informed."

          Well, at last there's a statement for which you provide (inadvertent) backup.

          "The internet is basically a place for elitists. I'm an internet elitists [sic], too."

          That's the most unintentionally funny comment I've read on this site in the almost 3 years I've been posting here.

          With regards to "poor people don't use the Internet," I think a door-to-door visit to any randomly selected trailer park would disabuse you of that notion.  That, and your claim that they don't read newspapers are as ill-informed a comment as "poor people don't watch cable TV."  Presumably, poor people also don't go to libraries.

          Your own ignorance and prejudices aside, I think it's remarkably insulting to claim that the poor are too lazy and ignorant to stir themselves to discover something about their relatives who've been killed in war, which is what you're doing.  The experience of the Vietnam War, in which the families of the slain and missing have demanded a strict accounting and detailing of the deaths of their loved ones, is just one example that refutes you.

          Normally, I'd send this sort of post into Hidden Comment territory, but I think it should stay here to show just how ridiculous you and people like you are in making these ludicrous claims about thousands of Iraq war fatalities being covered up.

          "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

          by JJB on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:56:21 AM PDT

          •  Hmm

            With regards to "poor people don't use the Internet," I think a door-to-door visit to any randomly selected trailer park would disabuse you of that notion.

            Over a hundred million Americans have no internet access whatsoever.  Sorry, that's just true.  You don't need to go door to door in a trailer park to find out what 15 seconds of Googling could also tell you.

            If you're going to "debunk", please get your basic facts straight.

            by oodja on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:39:05 AM PDT

            •  And A Little Math Will Tell You

              That, assuming your numbers are correct (interesting that you provide no link) almost 200 million Americans do have Internet access.

              Did I say Internet use was ubiquitous?  No.  I simply pointed out that making a blanket statement like "the poor don't use the Internet or read newspapers and therefore can't possibly know how many soldiers have been killed in Iraq" is on its face absurd.  I work in a city (Washington DC) where there are a great many poor people, and those without their own computers have access to libraries at which they can log on and surf the Web to their heart's content.

              If you're going to debunk something someone's said, first read what they've written, then make sure you understand the point they're trying to make.

              "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

              by JJB on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:56:15 AM PDT

        •  Uhh..

          You know if I had a kid or loved one or something over in Iraq, even if I didn't read the newspaper often, I suspect I would start real quick.  These are folks that care a lot about their boys and girls over there - I would suspect that the vast majority of families are definitely reading the papers and checking the Internet to hear news of their loved ones.

          by salsa0000 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:25:52 AM PDT

          •  Has it occurred to anyone

            ...that there are some people in the military with few if any "loved ones" to raise a stink when they die and aren't reported/recorded in the official tally?  

            Might it also be possible that the aggrieved are too saddened to make such a personal crusade out of their loved one's death?    

            Again, it doesn't help to debunk assumptions with additional assumptions.          

            by oodja on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 10:43:38 AM PDT

            •  Get Off It

              "Has it occurred to anyone that there are some people in the military with few if any 'loved ones' to raise a stink when they die and aren't reported/recorded in the official tally?"

              And just how many such people (all orphans with no siblings, relations, or spouses) do you suppose there are?

              Jesus H. Christmas, do you actually think before you post?

              "Might it also be possible that the aggrieved are too saddened to make such a personal crusade out of their loved one's death?"

              Yeah, the relatives of the Vietnam MIAs hardly raised a peep about their loved ones, so deep was their grief.  There are also the cases of relatives of people who died carrying out assignments for the CIA who've spent decades harrassing Agency personnel and Congressional representatives to get some kind of acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by their loved ones.

              To turn your pompously strident syntax back on you, might it be possible that these people become so aggrieved and saddened that they make a personal crusade out of finding just how it was their loved ones died, and move heaven and earth until they get an answer that satisfies them?   That seems to be the case far more often than not.  

              "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

              by JJB on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:04:58 AM PDT

            •  Speaking Of Grief And Loss

              You might want to check out this article, linked to in the first post on the main page, before speculating on whether the relatives of the Iraq war dead are paralyzed into inaction by their grief:

              "The article (on the Downing Street Memo) has helped me understand my anger towards the President and his underhanded, dishonest and dangerous policies in Iraq.

              "I urge every American to demand that President Bush be made to answer these allegations regarding what has become known as the Downing Street Memo.. . .  I am very proud of Joey and the ultimate price he paid for our country, but if President Bush had not lied and been so determined to invade Iraq, Joey would be here with his loved ones, planning his wedding and looking forward to what a young man with such promise could have contributed to the world.

              "My question to President Bush is - how do you look yourself in the mirror every morning with a clear conscience knowing that 1,700 young Americans are dead based on a lie?"

              "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

              by JJB on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:48:59 AM PDT

      •  Ooh I know that answer!

        Elvis has them on his spaceship, and they resurrected JFK to be their leader.

        * note sarcasm *

        by indiemcemopants on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:31:47 AM PDT

    •  Do you believe

      the Flight 77 theory too? All the people on the plane were just made up right? Also, all the people who died AT the Pentagon, right? Including my ex-boss's cousin?

      by indiemcemopants on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:27:07 AM PDT

•  It is a fundamental problem that

  the blogosphere will always face, unfortunately.

  An anonymous, faceless, sourceless medium in which there is no editorial control or oversight, and which can potentially could reach millions of viewers is a perfect target for conspiracy wankers.

  It will ever remain thus.

  Perhaps a "Stories that are NOT true" page?

  by RedDan on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:49:37 PM PDT

  •  Not a bad idea

    Maybe something that can be added to the dkosopedia, for easy reference?

    by kos on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:55:32 PM PDT

    •  Not a bad idea.

      We need a "Wheat from Chaff" section of either the site or the Kosopedia.

      by RedDan on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:56:35 PM PDT

    •  I should probably do it myself

      but if someone is going to be adding something to the dkosopedia on this, could you please put in Pat K's statement?  That is the most effective argument I know in favor the icasualities number and I couldn't find it yesterday using either dkos search or google.

      by litho on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:47:07 AM PDT

  •  a full scale solution

    Actually I was one of the people who recently here commented on the 9000 story.  I posted (having seen it a few days previously), then did some research, and came back and debunked the post myself.  So I'll assume its not me that got yelped at ;)

    Anyway this got me to thinking that what the world needs now is an independent web site rating/research site.  Something that you could click from a toolbar to get people's submitted commentary/research about a site.  In this case, some people had mentioned that the site had some odd neo-nazi connections.  I find a lot of sites that leave me really curious about who is behind them, and where those trails lead.

    I think this is inevitable and necessary now that possible news sources are fracturing so quickly.  We benefit from transparency, they are hindered by it.  

    Anybody interested in this idea, can contact me for technical solutions.  This requires a lot more than putting up a wiki page.
    

    by cfelix on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:05:05 AM PDT

•  Not to mention

  that it really is hard to figure out why it matters whether 1,000 or 2,000 or 9,000 American soldiers have died.  Either they died for a cause worth dying for, or they didn't.  Or maybe there is a gray area in between.  But it certainly doesn't advance a moral position to point at numbers.

  by BooMan23 on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:49:53 PM PDT

•  9000 dead

  and Rove engineered the 9/11 hit.

  As if what they've ACTUALLY done isn't bad enough.

  It's embarrassing. For chrissakes, do some fucking research with legitimate sources, people. There are plenty of ACTUAL nefarious goings-on -- expose THEM.

  Sheesh.

  by Maryscott OConnor on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:50:01 PM PDT

  •  As if what they've ACTUALLY done isn't bad enough.

    Exactly! Like I said above, we don't even need to make stuff up. It's just a wasted effort on our part.

    by indiemcemopants on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:56:09 PM PDT

•  Abu Ghraib V Hanoi Hilton: which is worse?

  McCain should be forced to answer.
  And specify the metric by which he makes his evaluation. Qualitatively, and quantitatively.

  How many captives were tortured to death at the Hanoi Hilton versus at Abu Ghraib?

  And is McCain proud of America's ranking in the world as a Super Torture Power?

  by bz on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:54:16 PM PDT

  •  I invoke Godwin's law here.

    This is a pointless comparison.  Would it matter if Hanio was worse?  US actions in Abu Ghraib are unforgivable regardless of whether they are better or worse than previous historical events in other countries.  

    by ecostar on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:44:09 AM PDT

    •  First of all

      It's Goodwin's law.

      Second of all Goodwin's Law only applies to Nazis, and does not in away work in the context you're using it in.

      Third of all, you seem to be grossly missing the point of the person you're repling to.

      by Goldfish on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 03:41:06 PM PDT

  •  From what I've heard HH was worse

    So let the Neocons shout:  Gitmo, not as bad as the Hanoi Hilton!

    I think McCain could pretty successfully deflect that question, although I like your thinking.

    by unterhausen on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 08:50:21 AM PDT

•  Our very own "Hillary killed Vince

  Foster and hid the body in apt. she owned.  And Bill killed every Arkansan that knew too much or crossed his path while he was selling drugs out the Mena Airport."

  by Cathy on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:54:48 PM PDT

•  The Grand Conspiracy Theory

  Okay.. so are people finally willing to concede that "Bush stole the 2004 election" is a factless conspiracy theory, however it may fit the MO of the Bushies?

  by Sandals on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:59:44 PM PDT

  •  I almost forgive that one

    because it really is horrible to realize that the majority of voters in this country are so goddam wrong.

    by rafaelh on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:03:32 AM PDT

    •  Yeah..

      I think that fed the theory more than anything. People just don't want to believe that after all the perfidy and lies and incompetence of the first term, this could have happened.  

      But it's still factless.

      by Sandals on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:09:19 AM PDT

      •  It's Worth Looking Into

        I was almost sickened by how quickly the stolen election claims were brushed off by some. It had happened just four year ago. Fact of the matter is Vanity Fair did an excellent piece on countless problems with the past elections errors.

        The best thing to do with this theory is to channel the efforts into creating a transparent form of voting.

        by ArcXIX on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:36:50 AM PDT

        •  It's the numbers

          In 2000 I was offended not only because the Florida thing was such an obvious mess but because Gore actually had more votes than Bush.

          What the Ohio theories argued was that Kerry had really won the electoral vote and thus he should be president. It's just not that strong an argument to me. Even if you could prove Ohio was robbed, and that has been debunked here several times, it still doesn't change that Bush has a couple of million votes more than Kerry. That makes him the President the Americans chose, Ohio or not.

          by rafaelh on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:12:00 AM PDT

          •  nailed it

            I think you nailed it..
            
            
            
            
            Florida 2000 was offensive to me, because, it seemed fairly clear to me that the electoral system was entirely messed up, and that it was as far as anyone could reasonably say, a tie.  Gore or Bush - the margin of error is too high and the turnout too large and the vote difference too small for any person or court or expert to be able to say legitimately whether one or the other got the most votes in Florida.
            
            
            
            The legal wrangling and all that was interesting but irrelevant.  Bush won on a technicality that may or probably was facilitated by fraud on various levels and scales.   That's offensive as an American regardless of politics: I can't stand people who twist or bend or hassle the system to win on a technicality.
            
            
            
            I think most of the 2004 dissenters have such a hard time because Bush got, what, 3 or 4 million more votes than last time around?  It's such a shock to the system.  People who had previously not voted or voted for Gore voted for Bush in 2004. It's just... shocking to the core.  
            

            by danheskett on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:16:28 AM PDT

            •  It's the exit polls

              The exit polls showed Kerry won.  Thats why people believed the election was fixed.  The one thing the Bushies learned from 2000 is that if you are going to fix an election you have to do it by more than 500 votes, and they had 4 years to make sure they got it right.

              by qw3rty on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 11:14:36 AM PDT

              •  i'd like to believe it

                I'd like to believe it, but exit polls aren't enough for me.. I'd really have to see some type of smoking gun, like for example DSM type document, or a recording, or something like that lays out the conspiracy. I am of smallscale frauds - it's always been there in our elections.. but as for a massive conspiracy.. well, extraordinary claims require some type of extraordinary evidence.

                by danheskett on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:26:24 PM PDT

  •  I disagree

    Even though I routinely go off on the Fraudster crowed for being lazy (and annoying) tin-hatters, I think the evidence of fraud is substantial enough that it can't be dismissed with the rest. That said, most of the arguments I've heard that the election was stolen have been, at best, circumstantial, and at worst, tin-hattery at it's best.

    My best guess on the subject -there was fruad, but Bush would have won with out it.

    by Goldfish on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:54:28 AM PDT

    •  definately fraud

      I think one thing that is important to remember is that there was fraud in the 2004 election.  The question, to me at least, is what is the scale.   I am convinced 100% that on a precinct by precinct basis individuals or small groups of conspirators illegally manipulated the vote through all kinds of means.  I am also convinced that creating long lines for voters was a tactic used to suppress votes in some areas.

      The question becomes proving this and tying it to a larger conspiracy.  That, I think probably is not how things happened.

      by danheskett on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:21:48 AM PDT

•  The 1700 is bad enough

  but does anyone have any idea of how many other Americans have been killed in Iraq, civilian contractors and security people.

  To me the soldiers that we have lost plus all the ones that aren't being counted - Iraqi and American civilians is staggering. This is one of the most senseless wastes of human life in my lifetime.

  by mm201 on Sun Jun 19, 2005 at 11:59:52 PM PDT

  •  At least 244

    icasualties.org lists 244 contractor deaths, but there isn't any centralized reporting system, so the list is known to be incomplete.

    by silence on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:04:54 AM PDT

•  I agree

  When political news is slow I notice these theories, that in the past usually fell off the diary page, somehow end up on top in the recommended column.

  I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been noticing recently a lot of highly unsubstantiated diaries that seem to grow legs.

  The "9,000 GIs dead" claim is definitely jus one claim I've been unconvinced about (based on diarists evidence - or lack thereof).

  by GregNYC on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:01:20 AM PDT

•  Wait a minute kos!!

  The tone of your post seems to show that you're having second thoughts about destroying Bush's government. I am already planning festivities for the impeachment sentence that the Republican House and Senate are just about to pass. Don't you start going soft on us, ok!!

  by rafaelh on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:01:55 AM PDT

  •  nothing soft about kos

    as for conspiracy theories, one could entertain the notion that this idea is being passed around to bait liberals into false claims as an attempt to discredit our movement.

    i am glad to see kos give this issue the attention it needs.

    by Stampy51 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:12:58 AM PDT

  •  Impeachment?

    Did I not talk about the reality-based community?

    In what world does a Republican-run congress impeach a president of their own party?

    by kos on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:15:16 AM PDT

    •  uhh?

      you do know I was trying to be funny? Am I that bad at writing in a sarcastic tone?

      by rafaelh on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:18:46 AM PDT

      •  Either that, or I was too tired to notice

        But seriously, that's another theme running through the site (and elsewhere online) lately. People seriously dreaming of impeachment.

        Ain't going to happen. But hopefully this tarnishes the Republicans enough that we can ride it to some electoral victories.

        Sorry I mistook you for that crowd.

        by kos on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:24:30 AM PDT

        •  no problem

          I was just trying to bring up that problem. The impeachment diaries are getting tiresome.

          by rafaelh on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:02:22 AM PDT

        •  Glad to see you join the ...

          ...23% of us Kosopotamians who said in a thread poll that we think impeachment talk at the current time is delusional.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:04:03 AM PDT

          •  heh, up to 24% now n/t

            by oysterface on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:25:48 AM PDT

        •  Ain't going to happen

          In this Congress maybe. That doesn't mean it won't.

          by Goldfish on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 02:57:02 AM PDT

        •  Doesn't hurt

          to talk about impeachment, to give people a sense of how far down this administration has gone.

          by Heart of the Rockies on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:44:54 AM PDT

          •  I agree

            The more often it is reapeated by a large number of people, that Bush should be impeached, the more his "political capital" is destroyed.

            by pvallen on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 09:42:37 AM PDT

      •  I got ya

        I caught your sarcasm - that's why I gave ya a "4."

        by GregNYC on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:34:36 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, right where he says the

          Republican House and Senate shows that he's well aware of the improbability, hence the joke.

          It's OK, to be tired and miss it though.

          by Cathy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:46:38 AM PDT

          •  Thank you all

            yup, I thought the Republican part made it pretty clear.

            by rafaelh on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:02:58 AM PDT

      •  writing in a sarcastic tone

        is really hard to do since "tone" is a sonic quality which has no equivalent in a textual context.

        The mechanics of sarcasm are such that the same words could have another meaning when said with a different tone. Until someone comes up with a sarcastic typeface, tone will always be difficult to pin down...

        by eco on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:18:23 AM PDT

        •  agreed

          if there's a chance someone will mistake my sarcasm for seriousness (and I know my writing's not so good that such mistakes don't happen :-)) I end with </sarcasm>. Just my $.02.

          by brillig on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 06:52:17 AM PDT

    •  Welllll...

      it DID happen once (or almost) back in 1973...

      And I COULD wake up one day and pull golden monkeys out of my ass...

      by RedDan on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:56:36 AM PDT

      •  well....

        as long as you're not pulling "sea monkeys" outta that there "Ass."

        I think it's a lot more likely that Limbaugh will have a teary-eyed, sob-choked show where he confesses that "The Democrats were right, always have been, and now I'm one of them - in for the good fight."

        And then I'll wake up from the heroin dream and realize I've just wet myself.  Again.

        by seronimous on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 01:23:47 AM PDT

•  Plsase make the same point about WTC...

  Bush didn't do it. And we our voices, as a site, as cheapened by those that insist on the conspiracy theories on this and other things.

  by BigDog04 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:04:39 AM PDT

  •  Bush didn't do it.

    But he did look the other way. That much has been established.

    What we can't prove is whether he consciously looked the other way to let a terrorist attack happen, or whether it was just criminal negligence.

    If he had advance knowledge and let it happen for political reasons, it is still unlikely he knew in advance how big an attack it would be. Even bin Laden didn't quite expect the Towers to come down.

    And if it was negligence, it was based on the thinking that concern about terrorism was just a red herring Clinton had been waving to try to get out of the Monica media blitz. So any reports that came his way were the old Clinton hangers-on trying to save face, that was all. He didn't have to pay any attention to their exaggerated reports...

    The only way to tell the extent of his prior awareness would be to read his mind.

    But he did look the other way.

    by Canadian Reader on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 07:51:22 PM PDT

•  I had read the diary on May 18th

  and the debunking on May 19th and I haven't seen it mentioned since. Conspiracy theories don't bug me unless they get recommended and if another diary showed up I guess I just missed it. Or maybe it's being mentioned on another blog?

  The casualty count is amazingly sad but the wounded count is just as horrible. Those who die can not fully be mourned by the public because they're just tacked on to the tally on the bottom of the news channel. The wounded don't even get that sort of respect - they're mentioned but it's hard to really understand how many from 8 here or 14 there. But that number alone is horrifying. 12,855 wounded. And then the government begins to take away their benefits. I am ashamed.

  I think it's time for more front page stories on the wounded and their eroding benefits.

  by MCinTX on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:10:07 AM PDT

  •  It popped back

    up a few times in the last few days.

    by Mike S on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:14:38 AM PDT

  •  The treatment of the wounded

    is one of the worst parts of this whole travesty, and sending the troops out into the field without the proper gear and simultaneously giving large bonuses to Halliburton just makes my mind reel.

    by mm201 on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:25:15 AM PDT

•  Does this mean I

  have to stop pushing my "Wes Clark gave Reagan a blowjob" rumor? I thought I was getting traction with it.

  by Mike S on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:12:38 AM PDT

•  Since this comes up in diaries

  Maybe we could revisit the idea of being able to rate diaries, disappear them...

  I know it's not a good idea to have people working on diaries and have people arbitrarily decide the diary is boring or stupid or whatever, but there should be a way to community police these stories that come up in diaries.

  by Cathy on Mon Jun 20, 2005 at 12:18:41 AM PDT