In an interview with Al Arabiya television, President Bush said, “When I campaigned for office, I never really thought about the decision to put men and women in harm’s way. I never thought that that would happen.” “But the war in Iraq is necessary,” he added. A reporter asked if “emotional moments” with relatives and friends of soldiers killed in Iraq would make him “reconsider or rethink” the war. “Not really,” Bush responded.
“ ‘Not really,’ Bush responded.”
Not really–the story of that fool’s life. G.W. Bush—not really!
October 5th, 2007 at 7:29 pmYeah, but he thought a lot about putting bees in a jar and shaking it, and sticking firecrackers up frog asses.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:30 pmAs usual, Bush is fighting the facts and hoping that public stupidity will not notice. He knew from the very start that he was expected to approve a war on Iraq; oil interests demanded it! Cheney knew that when he met them secretly in his office. All that Bush43 has done is provide the excuses for the American people to swallow. At least those gullible and ignorant enough not to know the difference between a Shiite and a Suni.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:31 pmI think if we just left it at “I never thought” then it wouldn’t be a lie.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:33 pmBush never really thought about the 150 people he signed death warrants for either.
He had his hand-picked lackey Al Gonzales write a one page summary and then signed off and ate baloney and laugh and laughed spitting food all over those around him.
Caligula is a charmer next to this sanctimonious tyrant.
-GSD
October 5th, 2007 at 7:34 pmWhat a subhuman, soulless piece of filth that man is.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pmTrivia question: What was the reason for the Iraq invasion in 2003? By that I mean, what reason was given for the actual commitment of troops? If you remember, Bush claimed that Hussein still could avoid war in January, but then the bulk of troops were deployed in February, and the actual invasion occurred in March, after Bush ordered the UN weapons inspectors to leave for their own safety. What triggered the invasion?
October 5th, 2007 at 7:37 pmImpeach Cheney and then GW Botch!!
This sh!t must end!!
October 5th, 2007 at 7:38 pmNow on the day Bush took office all the documents show the interest in Iraq and how weak Saddam was.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:40 pmBush should check with Cheney before he lies the next
time. Cheney made it clear he wanted Saddam removed but didn’t know how to do it. This was long
before 9/11. Americans should try reading the Commission Report with the testimony about when
the Bush Administration started talking about taking
control of Iraq. Now the lies will be believed by those
who didn’t read or watch the hearings but the world
paid attention. If nothing else remember the last
Cabinet meeting before Bush went on one of his many vacations. Connie read the title of the Memo
Bin Laden wants to attack the US with airplanes.
After that meeting it was vacation time and more thought about invading Iraq. None of the 9/11
terrorist were from Iraq. But after 9/11 Bush/Cheney
went after Saddam while letting Bin Laden go free.
Why because they knew Americans would believe what ever the President said even a lie and they were right.
#4, my thoughts exactly!
Although when he said “not really” I believe him.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:41 pmI don’t think he spends a second of his ‘thinking time’ thinking about anyone but ‘his people’ (rich, white, contributors, and co-conspirators).
Democrats have to somehow be able to comprehend that this president simply does not care what happens to those troops. If more of them return to this country disfigured and dismembered,severely burned, blinded, brain damaged, paralyzed, suffering from PTSD, then perhaps these clueless Democrats [and Republicans] will finally realize that Bush and Cheney, in contrast to the toll that Vietnam had on LBJ, will lose no sleep over the misery and suffering that they have caused to so many Americans and the million Iraqis who have been killed by this imperialistic war. What will it take for the alleged peace party to finally decide that this administration needs to be impeached for their crimes?
October 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pmBush once again confirms his narcissistic sociopathology to the world.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:43 pmWhat will it take for the alleged peace party to finally decide that this administration needs to be impeached for their crimes?
Comment by Erroll — October 5, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
A Different Speaker of the House.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pmCaligula is a charmer next to this sanctimonious tyrant.
-GSD
Comment by GSD — October 5, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
I agree; at least, Caligula had the g(b)alls to name his HORSE a “Senator”. Note: any reference to the present Democratic Senate is in(un)intended.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pmTo “reconsider” or “rethink,” one must first “consider” or “think.” I don’t believe that Shrub has the capacity nor the inclination to do either.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pmWhat triggered the invasion?
Bush’s poll numbers fell to 50%. That’s what triggered the invasion. Goerge W. Bush thought it would give him a quick boost in the polls, as the invasion of Afghanistan did.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmFor once, the Clown is saying something truthful when he responded “not really.” All Georgie wants to do is brush the shrubs at his ranch, play with Barney, and leave all of the decision making to his boss, President Cheney. The 42% of his vacationing in his first 8 months in office in his first term is proof.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmTo “reconsider†or “rethink,†one must first “consider†or “think.†I don’t believe that Shrub has the capacity nor the inclination to do either.
Comment by Red Pill — October 5, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Actually he would actually have to give a sh*t first.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:47 pmCaligula had the g(b)alls to name his HORSE a “Senatorâ€.
Well, Bush appointed an ass to head the Department of Justice. So I would say they’re equivalent.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pmBull Sh!t, many have came out and told how GW666 wanted to go to war with Iraq before the criminal was even elected.
“emotional moments†with relatives and friends of soldiers killed in Iraq would make him “reconsider or rethink†the war. “Not really,â€
And this is what you think if you are an arrangant, heartless, spoiled, sociopath. Kind of like his loving to blowup frogs with firecrackers as a kid, cruel and sick.
Buck Fush
October 5th, 2007 at 7:52 pmWhat will it take for the alleged peace party to finally decide that this administration needs to be impeached for their crimes?
What it will take, in case you don’t know, is 17 GOP Senators who will also vote to convict. Stop dumping on Pelosi, you idiots, and apply pressure on vulnerable GOP Senators. Remember, it wasn’t the dems who made Nixon walk the plank. It was the GOP members of Congress, desperate to save their sorry asses.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:53 pmThat’s what triggered the invasion. Goerge W. Bush thought it would give him a quick boost in the polls, as the invasion of Afghanistan did.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Koko: you’re understimating, in my opinion, the underlying reason of American foreign policy ie, control of world resources for the benefit of corporations. Whether that’s bad or good, it is up to you to decide but, polls aside, don’t drink the Koo-aid; it’s bad for you!
October 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pmI’m sure his answer gave great comfort to the family and friends of our dead soldiers…whom he used as toys in his “Start A Phony War” board game.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:57 pmA reporter asked if “emotional moments†with relatives and friends of soldiers killed in Iraq would make him “reconsider or rethink†the war. “Not really,†Bush responded. 7:15 pm
Bush is not capable of regret; it’s his nature as a priviledged child of wealth. Does he know what he has caused and is he sorry for the thousands of victims as a result of his policies? I don’t think he even cares!
October 5th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhat triggered the invasion?
Bush’s poll numbers fell to 50%. That’s what triggered the invasion. Goerge W. Bush thought it would give him a quick boost in the polls, as the invasion of Afghanistan did.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
#
I meant, what reason did Bush give? What reason was reported in the MSM at the time?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:15 pm#7 it was the nonexistant WMDs.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:19 pm“We know exactly where they are. Their north, south, east and west.” Donald Rumsfeld.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pmthey’re, that is.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:20 pmComment by republicans are the Fear and Smear Party — October 5, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
#
Bingo. Check out the links I gave in #25. What excuse is he using to invade Iran?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:21 pmKoko’s other (#16) comment aside, #21 hit the nail on the head.
I’ve been saying this for a long time, although I’m also very disappointed in the Democratic “leaders”. Speaker Pelosi comes across as weak (visually and substantively) and hasn’t done anything that I’ve seen lately to change that.
But again, the ones with the most blood on their hands are the Republicans who are still voting with Bush.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:22 pm#27, I still laugh my butt off when I think about that line, then almost cry when I think that the Secretary of Defense actually said it.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pmAdministration sources said the decision to strike came after a nearly four-hour meeting in the Oval Office in which CIA Director George Tenet and Pentagon officials told Bush they could lose the “target of opportunity” if they didn’t act quickly.
The target of opportunity was Hans Blix finding NO WMDs.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pmNo WMDs = No Imminent Threat to America
He’ll use the same excuse and add “nucular weapons.” The majority of Americans will believe him because they’re afraid not to followed by more death and destruction.
Before that happens hopefully a coalition of forces will band together to take him out. 49% of Americans will help.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:29 pmWhat triggered the invasion?
Comment by Chris L
Nothing triggered it. It was all carefully planned and executed from the get go. When Chaney had his infamous “energy meeting” that has to remain secret for national security reasons, they planned invading Iraq and Bush simply implemented the plan once it was in place.
They did a pretty darn good job of planning and implementing the invasion. It’s really too bad that they didn’t do any planning on what they would do after the bombs stopped falling.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pmWell, I think George did think of war in Iraq before he sent troops in for several reasons.
First he said Gore would use troops for nation building and he wouldn’t [but now is] during his campaigns. Also Jeb Bush was on board with PNAC for regime change in Iraq not to mention the first Gulf war conflict under his fathers presidency.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm“We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.” GW Bush, March 2003
October 5th, 2007 at 8:32 pmA Different Speaker of the House.
Comment by Wayne
And a different Senate Majority Leader. It’s really too bad that we have no say over who holds those posts. If we did, both Pelosi and Reid would have been kicked to the curb long ago.
I write Pelosi and Reid an e-mail every morning before I start reading blogs. I really wish more people would do that. If they heard from enough people, perhaps it may get through to them that they are letting this country down.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pmBush said he was against nation-bulding, and he meant it.
Nation-destroying, that’s his specialty.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pmIf you really can’t get up much enthusiasm for our batch of Presidential nominees, go here:
http://www.draftgore.com
Maybe if enough of us let Al Gore know how much this country needs him, he will run. I truly believe if he entered the race today, he would wipe Hillary off the map.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pmWe have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.†GW Bush, March 2003
Iraq was NOt a threat….and its own people turned out to be at least three peoples who hate one another.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:35 pm“We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.†GW Bush, March 2003
Comment by Chris L
So, what’s your point Chris?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:36 pmThat’s not what Bush’s biographer said, and I beleive every word Bush’s biographer said, because he was more dead on than Nastradamus ever was. Everything that Bush’s biographer said has come true:
Two years before 9/11, candidate Bush was already talking privately about attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,†said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.â€
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.â€
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm
October 5th, 2007 at 8:37 pmWe have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
Of all the lies George Bush has told, this one is the biggest.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:39 pm‘Bush the Destroyer’, is that how he’ll be remembered?
The balanced budget, the Middle East, the US dollar, poor families, the reputation of the US abroad, and others too numerous to mention.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:43 pmSo, what’s your point Chris?
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 5, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
#
See my links at #25. I’m just seeing history repeat itself. I served in Iraq, and still have friends there. Speaking from experience, the best thing we could do for Iraq is leave. Now Bush is pushing for war with Iran. He is using the exact same excuses. Read my links at #25, and compare them to recent news stories and White House speeches about Iran. It’s deja vu all over again.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:46 pmChris L, you gotta think like a Roman emperor. There was ambition for resources for quite some time that I know of, since 1975, caused by the gas crisis.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:49 pmSee my links at #25. I’m just seeing history repeat itself -Chris L.
It has repeated itself many more times than that, starting with the Persian empire.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:53 pmbilbobaggins: It’s really too bad that we have no say over who holds those posts. If we did, both Pelosi and Reid would have been kicked to the curb long ago.
With all due respect, mr. baggins, it’s not clear to me what you expect them to do. Why impeach if you can’t convict? It will also take 17 GOP Senators to acheive impeachment, and I don’t see that happening, sadly.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:53 pmWe can only hope that a coalition of forces (better than the one Rummy put together) will unite and invade America to take Bush out…in other words, “to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”
October 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pmBush is once again lying. Even before he took office he had expressed an interest in getting rid of Saddam. With 9-11 he took the opportunity to sell the country a war we didn’t need.
Comment by Probus — October 5, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
So did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and a whole lot of other Democrats (in 1998).
Based on their recent words, it seems that they wanted the credit for themselves, and not have someone else do it for them.
BTW, I also heard they wanted to get rid of a bunch of cruise missiles because of the Y2K bug. That’s why they bombed those unoccupied factories.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:22 pmThere was an elegant way to answer that question, but a sociopath cannot empathize or feel regret. “not really” - “no big deal, so what, who cares, tough noogies. Even President Johnson agonized over Vietnam, and not just over policy. He understood the enormity of the loss of life and knew his responsibility for it. It ate at him and destroyed him.
Not Bush though. He’ll just go right along deciderin’, whistlin’ a happy tune. It’s good to be king.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pmBTW, I also heard they wanted to get rid of a bunch of cruise missiles because of the Y2K bug. That’s why they bombed those unoccupied factories.
Comment by richg — October 5, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
hoo eee!
that’s funny…
sounds like someone’s been playing “telephone”…
jeez… what’ll they come up with next…
October 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pm.
“We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.”
Of all the lies George Bush has told, this one is the biggest.
Comment by bilbobaggins
Exactly correct. Let’s talk about those corporate meetings to divide up the spoils. Let’s talk about Erik Prince and his daddy and all of their greedy friends who have made billions off this war. Many billioins not accounted for. I am only glad I don’t have children who will be paying for this debacle.
I am more worried that the next president will be Hillary–all rah, rah, and no brains. Today I heard someone say how brilliant she is. Would that be brilliant in an “all that glitters like gold” sense? Vote for policies and not for image. Most Americans are too stupid and uninformed to know the difference. Unfortunately.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:41 pmThese are the ramblings of a true sociopath.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:42 pmClearly, he was hell bent on avenging his father’s presidential disaster so for him to make these comments is just another episode of what a pathological liar this man truly is.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:43 pmBush, you WILL burn in hell (if hell exists) for being a murderer.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:48 pmBecause impeachment is done in the House. The trial of the president takes place in the Senate. The republicans impeached Clinton over a sex scandal even though they knew they couldn’t convict him in the Senate.
Remember 1998? How after the House of Representatives approved two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton’s approval rating jumped 10 points? How public approval of Congress fell by more than 10 points?
October 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmquestioneverything: I believe that Hillary’s “success” is a result of Repuglican campaigning for her. They realize that should Hillary become Democratic Nominee Hillary, they will pull out her skeletons and make swiftboating look like child’s play. She’s got so much hidden dirt that it won’t be very difficult a task. From whitewater to Foster, they will have a heyday.
When you hear card-carrying Repukes promoting Hillary, you have to know they’re up to something. Isn’t it highly unusual that this group of pigs have been so silent about scandalizing Hillary?? Do a gut check and see if this doesn’t smell fishy.
I fear Hillary because, as a woman myself, her demure acceptance of Bill’s affair, was strictly done for “appearance purposes”. She had to be dying inside but flipped into “survivor mode” and presented a very different affect. People praised her for it but it’s the same “disconnect” we see in Bush which is why she is labeled as “Bush Lite”. A dyed-in-the-wool Republican who worked arduously for Eisenhower’s campaign in her youth, she still hasn’t totally shed her rightwing residue. She can’t be trusted.
Besides, she voted to enable this war in the first place, has really never taken full responsibility for her error in judgment in making this vote (while others clearly did like Kucinich and Feingold who had the same intel she had). Also, argument can be made that she, above all the others, should have known better and had more inside info about the entire situation after spending 8 years just prior to this as First Lady. So, in her case, the fact that she erred in judgment is almost twice as bad.
Sure, the Repukes would love for Hillary to become the Candidate because she’ll be an easy target for them to take down - which they will do handily. This is why we need someone whom they cannot swiftboat - lest they look like flaming idiots if they attempt it.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:50 pmThis sociopath continues to lie in the faces of the american people. If this isn’t considered “impeachable” then I don’t know what is!
October 5th, 2007 at 9:52 pm#55-Probus
Well said. I was about to post basically the same thing until I read your comments. Article II Section 4 does not equivocate on this matter, since it states that “The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, SHALL [my emphasis] be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It should be apparent that if the majority party in the House, the Democrats, does not go after this administration, then they are clearly shirking their responsibility of holding those in power responsible for their actions.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:53 pmPsychopaths. Impeach him and Cheney. This Country can’t survive him any longer.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:10 pmGulf 1 we lost like no one.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Yes we did.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:31 pmIn Desert Shield/Desert Storm we had 148 battlefield deaths, 145 nonbattlefield deaths
Via Yahoo:
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush defended his administration’s methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects on Friday, saying both are successful and lawful.
“When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them,” he said during a hastily called Oval Office appearance. “The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That’s our job.”
And probably get them some planes to fly them out of the country.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:34 pmTry around 75,000 between Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars.
Comment by RemoveBush
He is probably counting dead Iraqis, including those in bunkers that were buried alive.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:36 pmYou don’t have to do a lot of speculation about why we went into Iraq. Just go to the writings of PNAC and the Pentagon from the 1990’s. They said since we were the world’s lone superpower and the Middle East’s oil and natural gas were so important, we should control the region.
Not only is it down in black and white, but it is the only thing that makes sense. If it were about 9/11, bin Laden, al Qaeda, terrorism, WMD, threats, etc.—then there would be every reason to invade PAKISTAN and none to invade IRAQ.
But Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (some say largest), and it puts us in between #1 (Saudi Arabia) and #3 (Iran). The Pentagon wanted permanent bases there as part of the “lily pad” strategy.
This White House is made up of people from PNAC and the oil industry.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:38 pmRemoveBush,
Are you saying the deaths are due to vaccinations and depleted uranium?
October 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pmHe is probably counting dead Iraqis, including those in bunkers that were buried alive.
Comment by Juan C. — October 5, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
Maybe “official” count of all.
Weird thing is they don’t count the deaths by SCUDs in the “battle deaths”.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pmAlso the “wounded in action” does not count SCUD wounded and those that got wounded by mines and “friendly fire”.
They always skew the counts.
Source:
http://www1.va.gov/ rac-gwvi/ docs/ GWVIS_May2007.pdf
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
Thanks, hadn’t seen that one.
I was going by
http://www.defenselink.mil/ news/ newsarticle.aspx?id=45404
Like I said, they always skew the counts.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pmThanks for the info RemoveBush, now I’m really pissed at those MFers.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pmBut if you’re trying to say Clinton killed more soldiers than Bush, why not change your handle to “KeepBush�
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
Clinton was not Prez during GW 1 or 2. Bush sr and W were
October 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmRemoveBush is NOT a troll.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmNeither am I or Wayne.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pmDisability Claims amongst Deployed: 407,911
I am one of those 407,911 =P
October 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pmIt sounds like they are not trying to rip you off, at least I hope?
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
I don’t even goto the VA unless I have to now.
Good insurance from work.
They have a tendency to cure hangnails by taking itoff at the knee now days.
And luckily I never had any “Syndrome” symptoms. But 2 buddies died from cancer and a few do have the “Syndrome”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:10 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
From BARTLEBEE’s post # 92:
To whom were you referring, BB?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:11 pmThe real question:
Do you have a conscience??
“Not really.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmBartlebee and RemoveBush: Chill, both. What we got here, is a failure of communication.
Bartlebee said: “oh and BTW, Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn’t get 3700 Americans killed fighting their wars. Bush did.”
RemoveBush said: “It is MUCH more than that…..Try around 75,000 between Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars.”
RemoveBush’s statement could be understood to mean Clinton and Gore got 75,000 Americans killed in Gulf 1 and Gulf 2. That isn’t what RemoveBush intended to say, but I it could be misunderstood that way, which is what Bartlebee did, I think. So did I, at first.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmMany, many innocent civilians have already died as a result of Chimpy’s insane occupation of imperialistic expansion…but the 1000-2000 tons of DU we’ve sown the soil with over there is the real killer…in the fullness of time, it will make today’s death & despair look like Mardi Gras.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
I asked a simple question, BB. Are you sure you want to cop an attitude with me?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:16 pmComment by richg — October 5, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
To which I responded with…..
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Ahh…. gotcha
October 5th, 2007 at 11:17 pmI usually just skip richg’s posts, probably what confused me. heh
Can I call for sanity here?
It’s a big misunderstanding, and you’re all talking about the same exact subject -and on the same side of it to boot.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:18 pmWhat is INCORRECT from this data????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
Bartlebee already answered it.
He thought you were attributing those deaths to Bill Clinton.
That’s why he called them inaccurate.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:19 pmCheck here for information on just what DU is doing to innocent children.
(WARNING! NOT for the faint of heart.)
October 5th, 2007 at 11:21 pmC’mon, people.
Make nice.
It’s all a big misunderstanding.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:22 pmAre you guys drinking tonight or what?
Comment by BARTLEBEE
I wish. Heh.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:23 pmMan, this conversation is hard to follow.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
Again, BB, all I did was ask a simple question. I didn’t deserve the resultant abuse.
If you want to apologize, I’m listening. If not, “friends” don’t treat each other in such a manner. If that’s how you treat “friends”, you can count me out. I have enough friends.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pmBartlebee’s right: RemoveBush’s figure of 55,999 deaths among the non-deployed refers to members who never deployed to the Gulf War, not to “soldiers that die in action before they can get them into a helicopter or ambulance.” See page 19 of the VA doc RemoveBush cited. There’s nothing in that doc to support RemoveBush’s statement that “Any soldier who is shot but they get into a helicopter before he dies is not counted.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:31 pmEra = 55,999
What does ERA mean? “ERA identifies service members who did not deploy to the Gulf War.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pmBB,
I guess it was your nonsense talking to someone one hour and forty minutes after they left, making it sound like you were calling RemoveBush a troll.
Maybe I am still mad about you calling me a rightwing troll with a thick skull over and over and over again that night. You know, the night I had the audacity to question Greenspan’s progressive credentials. At the same time, it is perfectly all right for you to call for Pelosi and Reid to be tarred, feathered, impeached, and drawn and quartered.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:35 pmDid you think? “Not really”
Thousands dead and counting, “Not really,” really? Attend thousands of funerals. Stand in graveyards that are overflowing with the production of your failure to think. You probably intend to be buried in Arlington Cemetery with your breterhen soldiers —- execpt you you were not among them and they will roll in their graves . . . . all tha action in Arlington could cause an earth quake.
Idiot. you forgot to “think.” You are incapable of thought or of human compassion. You are the bain of America.
Diabold? Spin this.
Idiot.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:36 pmBB,
It’s over 3800, Einstein!!!
October 5th, 2007 at 11:37 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
I didn’t “jump on with the pack”, you jackass. I was asking for a clarification, so you could defend yourself. I was trying to help, you fsckwit.
You’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. If you were, you would have seen that I was trying to help you out. You would have corrected the “troll” issue without all this unnecessary rancor. And you would have noticed that RemoveBush’s comments weren’t attributing all those deaths to Clinton, obviating the need for this entire little pissing match of yours.
You admonished me repeatedly to “read”. Perhaps you should have followed your own advice…but then again, then you’d have nothing to be all ‘outraged’ about, would you?
(I tried to tell you it would be a bad idea to cop an attitude with me, BB…)
October 5th, 2007 at 11:38 pmRemoveBush, give it up. You are wrong. Read page 19 of the VA doc you cited.
“There’s nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold.”
October 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pm– Daniel Dennett
BB,
Have I ever told you how egotistically repulsive you can get?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:39 pmThe idiot thought this was just going to be another big game he could play. He never took it seriously.
We have an ignoramus in the White House.
How did the decider think he was going to reign? He would just make decisions based upon the little voices in his head and the rumblings in his gut. His thinking was that shallow.
He operates out of base human failings - vengeance, anger, pride, selllfishness, and ignorance - with nary a thought of self-improvement; such a thought would be too foreigh for his pea brain.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:41 pmThe 73,000 figure comes from the fact that the VA is lumping all the veterans together, whether they were deployed or not, and whether they died in combat or not. Even reserves are counted.
In short, 73000 it’s the total number of deaths for all the troops who served:
“Every three months, the DoD sends VBA an updated list identifying all current and prior military service members since the start of the Gulf War on August 2, 1990.”
It’s hard to compare that figure with the roughly 60,000 American casualties of the Vietnam war. It would be like comparing pears and apples.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pmGeez, guys. No overt trolls here, so yer fightin’ wi’t each other?
I have wondered myself for quite some time what the actual death toll from Mr Bush’s Personal Nightmare was. One t’ing I learned de hard way in dis lifetime ’bout liars, mon… once they know they can git away wi’t lyin’ to ya, ya can never believe anyt’ing they tell ya…
Didn’t the Army recently say they had run out of room at one cemetery? That right there should giva ya cause ta think, mon.
Just… shameless…
October 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pmOh lordy…
October 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pmTripMaster Monkey ,
Watch out, you got in The Great One’s way. It threw me, too, because he was talking to richg one hour and forty minutes after he left—making it look like he was calling RemoveBush a troll.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pmBut regardless of the actual figures, even if only one servicemember had died during this invasion and occupation, that would be one too many.
Can we get back on topic, please?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pmI have not researched that…
You didn’t “research” (i.e., read) a document you cited yourself as proof of 55,999 uncounted dead US GIs in the Gulf Wars, but which upon reading definitions actually refers to ordinary human mortality among ex-GIs who never served in the Gulf?
Then STFU.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pmHey Zooey,
It’s getting ugly in here.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pmum, bad weed, guys?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:47 pmI see that, Keith. I probably won’t hang around.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:48 pmWhat is it that YOU see differently????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
What I see different is that I don’t care how many died.
As I said before, even one is one too many in my opinion.
This is a war that was started on lies, distortion, fear, and misrepresentation. Even one death is one too many, don’t you think?
October 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pmWhat is it that YOU see differently???
Well, now that I’ve actually read the report — which you obviously haven’t — I can tell you that the number 35,694 includes all vets who died after their military service ended. In other words, ordinary human mortality, you fool.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pmOr even war related deaths. Most are from DEATH BY NATURAL CAUSES. They are not casualtie figures they are general mortality rates.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
I agree. I haven’t disputed and am not disputing what you say. What you have just stated is what I was trying to point out. Maybe I chose my words wrong.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:51 pm3700 or 3813, WHATEVER! (your best Valley Girl accent)
Bet the relatives of the 113 would love to see that, BB.
I was real interested in what RemoveBush was saying and was asking if it was supposed to be due to vaccinations or depleted uranium. I forgot this was supposed to be the BartleBee Show.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:52 pmConflict = 13,517
Theater = 4,330
Deployed = 17,847
This is for JUST the Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars…….
What is it that YOU see differently????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Bein’ de sharp bookiekeeper dat I am, mon, I cain’t help but notice dat
if ya add up de figures for Conflict (13,517) and Theater (4,330), the sum equals the total given for Deployed (17,847). Someone, pls confirm. We call this “doublebookin”, mon…
Sumpin’ would appear ta be offin’ here…
October 5th, 2007 at 11:52 pmBARTLEBEE sez:
I “got in your way”? You must be joking.
You squalled like a spoiled little brat, and you received the spanking you so richly deserved.
Bullsh!t.
I said:
To which you somehow felt it was appropriate to reply:
“Put down the ‘booze’ and read.” And you feel that this is not an insult?
I asked you then if you were sure you wanted to cop an attitude with me. From your subsequent diatribes, it would seem as if you do. That’s fine. As I said earlier, I have enough friends, and no pressing need to keep you on as one of them, if this is how you’re going to behave.
And again, I simply asked you a clarification from you in a non-confrontational manner. I didn’t need to “go back and read”, because, again, I wasn’t asking the question for my benefit…I was asking it for yours. Again, your failure to recognize that illustrates just how stupid you are.
I didn’t say you’d be worried about me…clearly, you’re far too dense to experience advanced states of mind like apprehension or regret.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:53 pmOff topic, but
October 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pmJudge halts Iraq war objector’s court-martial
Watada accused of refusing to be deployed to Iraq, saying war is illegal
at msnbc.com
Up yours, Army.
RUCerious sez:
Seeing as how the “topic” has somehow become BARTLEBEE’s bruised ego, I eagerly welcome any offtopic posts. ^_^
October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmIn other words, ordinary human mortality, you fool.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
But a disability rate of about 35% when we are talking about a very young and very fit population is NOT NORMAL.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmYou can ONLY die in THEATER or in COMBAT if you are active!!
Jeez, you are as dense as a dittohead! Read the definitions in the report you are citing, dope, instead of making up your own definitions.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmI can tell you that the number 35,694 includes all vets who died after their military service ended. In other words, ordinary human mortality, you fool.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
BTW, the number “35,694″ is exactly twice “17,847″. Please check the figures. This is too much to be a coincidence. Sumpin’s off here.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmBartlbee,
Ohhhh yahea! You and Rush must be buying pain pills from the same meth supplier!
Happy daze.
Last notes from Rush: “Dead people, WMD’s, truth, hipocracy . . . no worries . . . I got deferments for no good reason but f*** those fake soldiers . . . ”
“(reminder to self . . . need VA to pay for new $1,000 chair . . . my back’s a little noodley)”
We got contractors . . . chairs? call Shirley . . .
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pm#161 ~ Just seeds and dry leaves, sheeesh.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmSeeing as how the “topic†has somehow become BARTLEBEE’s bruised ego, I eagerly welcome any offtopic posts. ^_^
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 5, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
I second that emotion.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmLet it be.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:00 am
Wise advice — for everyone.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:03 amNo one’s going to check the numbers?
October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 amI still got hard feelings from the night you called me a thick-skulled right wing troll over and over and over again because I wouldn’t agree with what a great convert to progressivism Greenspan was.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 amBTW, the number “35,694″ is exactly twice “17,847″. Please check the figures.
You are correct. The numbers are
Veteran Deaths:
Deployed: 17,847
ERA: 55,999
Total: 73,846
Page 8 of VA doc cited above.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 amBARTLEBEE
MY BACK’S ALL NOODLEE . . .
October 6th, 2007 at 12:06 amWhat the hell do I have to do? . . . call Blackwater . . . tip-tap on Sen. Craig’s shoe . . . call Dolittle . . . . Rove . . . or call you?
I want a no-bid chair! Chop-chop.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:09 amyou called me a thick-skulled right wing troll over and over and over again because I wouldn’t agree with what a great convert to progressivism Greenspan was.
Comment by Keith — October 6, 2007 @ 12:04 am
And Bartlebee, you said you were “elated” that this pissed me off and that was exactly what you wanted.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:10 amRemoveBush,
Diapers and people like BartleBee are much alike. They need to be changed often and for the same reason.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:13 amThese are benefits claims processed which have nothing to do with actual body counts.
Bartlebee is 100% correct on this, as anyone who reads the report will find.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:13 amConflict = 13,517
Theater = 4,330
Deployed = 17,847
This is for JUST the Gulf 1 and Gulf 2 wars…….
What is it that YOU see differently????
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Perhaps what these figures really mean is that 13,517 have actually died in combat, and another 4,330 have died from accidents and friendly fire (still a ghastly set of numbers).
13,517 is roughly 4 times what BushCo cares to admit to, if that is what that figure represents.
I Googled ERA and military deaths and got nothing. The 59k number baffles me. Don’t get it.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:13 amBARTLEBEE sez:
BULLSH!T. Your intent in that post was clear as day, you liar. If you wanna insult me, fine. I’ve received worse, from far better than you. But at least have the integrity to stand behind your words.
Go fsck yourself. If you’re stupid enough to lump in my honest attempt to give you a chance to resolve the situation as “piling on”, you really aren’t qualified to post here. It’s truly a pity that you viewed my REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION as a “distraction”…apparently, you can’t post and chew gum at the same time. I hope to God you don’t have a driver’s license…
Wayne was trying to defuse the situation (a noble effort, which I see, has completely failed to stop you from beating your breast).
“Lazy”, was it? I had no idea it was my responsibility to clarify you ambiguous, nonsensical posts.
Jaclass.
So, you can’t defend yourself? Because that’ clearly what you’re saying here.
I gave you a clear opportunity to clarify your ambiguous and LAZY post. Apparently, that’s not good enough for you, though. The only “help” you’ll count as such is people rushing unquestioningly to your defense. How utterly childish.
OH, so now you want to “bury the hatchet”, huh?
Fsck off, jackass. There will be “no hard feelings” when you tender your apology for your unwarranted and unsolicited insults, not before.
I rarely let trolls be. And right now, BB, you’re fitting the definition perfectly.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:17 amI Googled ERA and military deaths and got nothing. The 59k number baffles me. Don’t get it.
RoS, with all due respect, instead of Googling it, why not just read the Definitions section of the report? Page 19: “ERA identifies service members who did not deploy to the Gulf War.†Jee-zus!
October 6th, 2007 at 12:19 amOk, this is ridiculous.
Bye, all.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:21 amZooey sez:
With all due respect, Zooey, I don’t think so.
All I did is ask BB for a simple clarification, and for that, he’s seen fit to include me in his ever-growing list of “enemies”.
I offered him more than one chance to back off, but he felt it would be more fun to continue insulting me.
So, if he insists on counting me amongst his enemies, I’ll behave appropriately. And I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:23 amBARTLEBEE sez:
Scintillating. I’ll take that as the admission of defeat and guilt that it obviously is.
The offer of “burying the hatchet” (with a suitably sincere apology, of course) is still on the table, though…if you’re man enough to take advantage of it, that is…
October 6th, 2007 at 12:25 amSo, if he insists on counting me amongst his enemies, I’ll behave appropriately. And I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — October 6, 2007 @ 12:23 am
I would rather not see us feeding on our own, and I include Bart in that statement. From what I can see of this argument, it could have been resolved long ago, with some cooperation and clarification, but some people would rather be right than try and help others understand.
That’s why it’s ridiculous.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:28 am60. oh and BTW, Bill Clinton and Al Gore didn’t get 3700 Americans killed fighting their wars.
Bush did.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 5, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
I thought this was one of the best comments on the blog. It’s hard to believe that it touched off World War III. I’m pretty sure that we’re really all on the same team. We need to save our energy to fight the real enemy.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:29 amBARTLEBEE sez:
“Dickmaster Monkey”, huh? You must have spent all recess coming up with that zinger…
No, JACKASS, what I did was allow you the opportunity to resolve the situation yourself. Obviously, I initially gave you far too much credit.
No, you didn’t. You admonished me to ‘put down the booze’ and read. AGAIN, immaterial, since the question I asked wasn’t for my benefit…it was for YOURS.
But you still can’t comprehend that, can you?
When you need a moron’s help, it would be far faster and easier for you to simply look into a mirror.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:31 amBush was ready to go to war with Iraq in 1994 when Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. He was just waiting for the Clintons to leave the white house. The military was going nuts when Bill Clinton didn’t follow protocal and invade Iraq after the inspectors were removed. All the Republicans were ready to invade right then just like they wanted to get Bin Laden. Thank God Bill was in office. Who knows what kind of shit would have happened if he would of pissed off Bin Laden back then.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:31 amI just went and looked at the actual Govt report these numbers come from. Even looking at it, I’m still confused, but here goes.
Veteran Deaths
Conflict = 13,517
Theater = 4,330
Deployed = 17,847
Era = 55,999
Total = 73,846
Comment by RemoveBush — October 5, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
It appears the 17K figure represents deaths from combat and other causes for DEPLOYED troops.
That’s the combination of Conflict and Theater.
The report defines Era as “running from 1990 to present”.
The report does seem to say an additional 59,999 have died since 1990, but it doesn’t say where this figure comes from, or if it did, I didn’t read far enuff. It is a truly tedious report to read.
IF that Era = 59K figure does represent other deaths, does it include heart attacks, car crashes, cancer, suicides??? I can’t figure it out.
The report does seem to say that the 17K dead are a result of being in combat or being deployed in a combat zone.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:32 amLooks like another one of them thar persnickety threads un huh un huh
October 6th, 2007 at 12:33 amBARTLEBEE sez:
My insults only started after my repeated attempts to let you resolve the situation peacefully fell on deaf ears.
Don’t squeal at me about “insults”, dolt. You have only yourself to blame.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:34 amRecall: This Post is about “bush never really thought about war.”
Just a suggestion . . . but forget about Bartlebee and focus on the topic.
This is the same shiney penny defense that the Administration has been putting out for weeks. . . . refocus attention on whether Obama wears a flag pen, whether Obama is black enough, whether it was wrong for the paper to say “Betray-us,” as the Administration continues to operate ssecret prisions that practice terorism, whether we support a strike against Iran, whether the Administration supports racism in the United States, whether cronyism is so rampant in the Administration that no a single department of government is not compromised including those overseeing food & drug, oil & gas, labor & employment, the environment, and all the rest, including your civil right not to be tazered. Get over it! Look away from the penny! Kids need health insurance, their parents need jobs . . . Raise your heads and your awareness . . . there is no such thing as a “war against terror”, it’s a shinny penny penny. Of course we need national security, we just don’t need national jehad as an excuse for destruction of the Constitution and blindness to the true problems that face this country.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:35 amWell I tried Zooey. Sarcastic? Yes. Wrong? No.
In fact, I said nothing to deserve to be attacked like that.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:34 am
But you certainly have done your part to exacerbate the problem.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:36 amZooey sez:
Based upon his singularly rude conduct this evening, I do not.
That was exactly my point. I was attempting to give him a chance to resolve this rationally before it spiraled into the sh!tstorm we have now, but it’s obvious that BB is more interested in beating his breast and howling about how he’s been “wronged” than he is about rational discussion.
In that, Zooey, we are in total agreement.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:38 amThe report does seem to say that the 17K dead are a result of being in combat or being deployed in a combat zone.
Not quite, it says that of those who were deployed in combat, 17K are dead today, from all causes, during or after their military service.
IF that Era = 59K figure does represent other deaths, does it include heart attacks, car crashes, cancer, suicides???
Yes, like the number above, it includes deaths from all causes, during and aftermilitary service.
These are VA stats, not battlefield stats.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:38 amWhat does ERA mean? “ERA identifies service members who did not deploy to the Gulf War.â€
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 5, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Sorry Koko… the posting of Era in caps “ERA” made it look like an acronym at first. I did go look at the report. “Era deaths” does indeed represent all other non-deployed deaths, does it not?
Doesn’t seem to make sense to claim these 59k were also attributable to the Gulf Wars, from the definitions I’m seeing.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:38 amHe doesn’t think about the war NOW. This idiot can’t put a sentance together and he lives with a school teacher. He thinks he understands war though ’cause this Connecticut native got him a western hat, some agitator boots and cuts brush like cattle ropin’ homeboy from Waco. This…is where our country IS.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:39 amIf we had lost 17,000 dead in the first gulf war, don’t you think we’d have heard about it by now?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:37 am
It appears to represent BOTH Gulf wars, and not just the first.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:40 amParticularly when I’m RIGHT.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:40 am
You may very well be right, but you are also being absolutely vicious. It’s not necessary.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:44 amIt appears to represent BOTH Gulf wars, and not just the first.
Well, yes; but more to the point it includes all Gulf vets who died anywhere at any time after their service, of causes unrelated to their service; not combat deaths.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:45 amOh yea, completely uncalled for.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:45 am
You only control yourself, Bart.
I don’t see RemoveBush here.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:47 amBARTLEBEE sez:
Oh yes..you “stood up for yourself” so well against “practically everyone in the room” that you swung indiscriminately on one who was trying to HELP you, and punched him in the back of the head.
And now you’re continuing to swing at the same person who originally wanted to defend you, while simultaneously caterwauling about how he refuses to lie down and take your punches, and instead sends your treacherous ass to the mat.
Yeah, you “don’t back down”, all right. Take solace in that fact while the one who would have defended you pounds you silly. At least you “didn’t back down”.
Idiot.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:47 amBartlebee is obviously talking about combat deaths only while other people were talking about other types of deaths. That apparently started an apples and oranges argument. Maybe I should stay out of it. :o)
October 6th, 2007 at 12:50 amrepublicans are the fear and smear party sez:
That would be advisable…lest BB interprets your input as a “attack” and comes at you in full grade-school mode.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:52 amThats why I wrote repeatedly that “even COMBINING BOTH WARS†you stilll don’t get 73,000 dead combat deaths.
Those are CLAIMS BENEFITS PROCESSING STATISTICS.
Nothing more.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:42 am
This is the actual definition of “veterans deaths” from the report.
Veteran Deaths
Identifies deceased veterans reported only in VBA’s Compensation and Pension Master Record (CPMR) and the Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem (BIRLS).
The VBA is concerned with HOW MANY CLAIMS BENEFITS IT PROCESSES. Not how many people died in the war.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 6, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Not quite, it says that of those who were deployed in combat, 17K are dead today, from all causes, during or after their military service.
IF that Era = 59K figure does represent other deaths, does it include heart attacks, car crashes, cancer, suicides???
Yes, like the number above, it includes deaths from all causes, during and aftermilitary service.
These are VA stats, not battlefield stats.
Comment by koko the talking gorilla — October 6, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Whoa… what a headache. Whoever claimed we had 73,000 deaths due to the Gulf Wars was wrong, I think. That website, rense.com, that was cited waaay back at the start of all this, appears to be deliberately misleading.
Sorry, but I didn’t start this.
Someone sure managed to cause a ruckus here.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:54 amEnnyhooo, we see how it easy it is for Commander Cod Piece McCokespoon, and others, to manipulate numbers.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:56 amBTW, in my post above, I juxtaposed a comment by Bartles w/ a comment by Koko. Where the line sez, “Not quite…” tht’s not meant as a rebuttal of yer comment, Bart.
i was just trying to compare waht different people had said. Having gone to the original report and looked closely at the definitions, I now think you were right all along, Bart. The number of deaths is based on claims.
Somebody misrepesented something here.
What did M Twain once say? There are 3 kinds of lies…
Lies…
Damned lies…
And STATISTICS…
October 6th, 2007 at 12:58 amwell said, Xisithrus.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:58 amWhoever claimed we had 73,000 deaths due to the Gulf Wars was wrong, I think.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — October 6, 2007 @ 12:54 am
Yep. Those are death claims filed with the VA. They comprise the deaths of the servicemembers who served during the two gulf wars. I think that is where the confusion comes from.
That website, rense.com, that was cited waaay back at the start of all this, appears to be deliberately misleading.
It seems they didn’t quite read the study, although even a cursory reading was enough to understand what the it is about.
I think there is plenty to blame the Bush administration for, without having to take some study and make it into