|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
30,000 Iraqis dead: Bush
 Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:24 pm
|
 |
|
30,000 Iraqis dead: Bush
From: By Geoff Elliott
December 14, 2005
US President George W. Bush has acknowledged for the first time that 30,000 civilians could have died since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, in another landmark speech ahead of elections in Iraq tomorrow.
"How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Mr Bush said when questioned after his speech.
Mr Bush was addressing foreign policy experts in Philadelphia, which has symbolic significance because he spoke only a few blocks from where the US declared independence from Britain in 1776.
Mr Bush said that, while with the benefit of hindsight America's democratic experiment seemed almost inevitable, "at the time, however, that success didn't seem so obvious or assured", he said, attempting to link the uneven progress in Iraq to the founding of the US.
"No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks and false starts."
But it was a lengthy question-and-answer session in which Mr Bush offered a rare candid assessment of the progress in Iraq, including his estimate on the number of civilian casualties.
Advertisement:
There was no indication of how the casualty number could be broken down in terms of deaths at the hands of the US-led forces or by the Iraqi insurgents, but the 30,000 mark equates to estimates of several organisations that have been attempting to track the civilian tragedy behind the war.
Later, Mr Bush's media aides were telling reporters it was not an official estimate. The Pentagon has refused to give any indication on civilian deaths, instead focusing only on the now more than 2100 US military deaths.
Mr Bush's speech is the third of four speeches on Iraq in the two weeks leading up to the country's national elections. Until now he has refused to take questions and his delivery has faltered. But yesterday, in a more persuasive performance, Mr Bush commanded the lectern when he surprised the audience by offering to take their questions.
When questioned over the administration's now discredited attempts to link Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda, Mr Bush said the former Iraqi dictator had posed a threat to the US, particularly in the post 9/11 world.
"And knowing what I know today, I'd make the decision again," he said. "Removing Saddam Hussein makes this world a better place and America a safer country."
Mr Bush again cautioned there would be further casualties in Iraq and continued to cast Iraq as the key battleground in a war with terrorist groups. He also flagged his concern about other countries that could be harbouring terrorist regimes.
"The long run in this war is going to require a change in governments in parts of the world," he said.
Mr Bush did not specify what countries he was referring to, but had cited elsewhere in his address his concerns about North Korea, Iran and Syria.
Mr Bush said "the call of liberty" was "echoing across the broader Middle East".
"From Damascus to Tehran, people hear it and they know it means something," he said. "It means that the days of tyranny and terror are ending and a new day of hope and freedom is dawning."
Mr Bush also admitted yesterday that the US had an image problem abroad, but he blamed Arab media.
"I recognise we got an image issue, particularly when you got television stations, Arabic television stations that are constantly just pounding America - saying America is fighting Islam, Americans can't stand Muslims, this is a war against a religion," he said.
"And we've got to, obviously, do a better job of reminding people that ours is not a nation that rejects religion; ours is a nation that accepts people of all faith and that the great strength of America is the capacity for people to worship freely.
"It's difficult. I mean, their propaganda machine is pretty darn intense."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17559684-401,00.html |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:32 pm
|
|
|
So if Lancet magazine says 100,000, and Bush says 30,000, I guess we should assume 65,000 killed. Or maybe Bush is just "bending the truth " again.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:33 pm
|
|
|
Yeah, I heard about that yesterday. And he was the one that talked about another candidates "fuzzy math". This guy is as dumb and clueless as they come. In an interview I saw of Bush on MSNBC he said that we were indeed welcomed in Iraq, it's just that in his words, "it wasn't a peaceful welcome". I guess in his warped mind you can greet someone cordially with roadside bombs? Anyway, about his dreamt up figure of Iraqi casualties, it reminds me of this gaffe by Condoleeza Rice.
Condoleezza Rice's 75% Figure...
quote:
The following is an excerpt from a transcript of an interview between Condoleezza Rice and CNN's Wolf Blitzer. Notice she says that: "We have broken up 75 percent of the al Qaeda known leadership." However, when she is asked how many exactly, a number is given. I'll let you read the rest...
RICE: Wolf, I thought he did a fine job. And he did a fine job of showing the American people why he is the leader that he is and why he is the leader to carry us through this war on terrorism.
What he did was to demonstrate that he understands this war on terrorism. The idea that somehow you kill Osama bin Laden and maybe al Qaeda wraps up and then you're done with the war on terrorism could not be further from the truth.
To be clear, we are after Osama bin Laden. He is being chased by Pakistani forces and Afghan forces and American and other forces. We have broken up 75 percent of the al Qaeda known leadership. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fully...
BLITZER: Well, when you say 75 percent, of how many leaders are we talking -- 75 percent of a quantity of what? 30, 25?
RICE: Of its known leadership.
BLITZER: But how many...
RICE: I would suspect that that's in the tens to hundreds -- tens to 100.
How is a number "tens to hundreds" able to be considered as 75%?
She was obviously lying because how can you determine a percentage like "75%" if you don't even know for sure what numbers you're basing it on?
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:38 pm
|
|
|
quote:
So if Lancet magazine says 100,000, and Bush says 30,000, I guess we should assume 65,000 killed. Or maybe Bush is just "bending the truth " again.
The Maverick clones all say that the Lancet is bogus. I'm sure that Bush's admittedly unofficial number will suffice for them though. What they want to hear is more important than facts. Lies are music to the ears of the sensibly handicapped. Thus Rush Limbaugh gets great ratings.
He of course had to give his show away for free to get started. What an honorable man whoring himself out like that. And then you've got O'reilly who takes it a step further. He actually pays radio stations to carry him instead the other way around the way it's supposed to be. Reminiscent of what we're doing in Iraq with the press really. What a bunch of desperate idiots.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:07 pm
|
|
|
I just read somewhere that there were supposedly 250,000 "early votes" in the Iraqi "election" and am beginning to wonder who voted and how many of them actually came from living voters.
I'd have to say that the death toll is much higher than the numbers given for both our troops and the Iraqi civillians.
______________________________________________
12 | 13 | 05
But We're Not Counting
Yesterday, President Bush did something highly out of character for him: He answered a question—from a citizen, no less—directly. In public. Just when we'd all gotten used to Scott McClellan constantly telling us that he can't comment, the president answered lawyer Didi Goldmark's question of how many Iraqis had been killed with, "I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."
The war has been going on for 33 months, and yesterday was the first time Bush acknowledged that coalition soldiers aren't the only people dying.
But Bush's 30,000 figure simply can't be taken at face value—especially since he didn't elaborate who, exactly, he was counting. Does he mean insurgents? Iraqi civilians who got caught in the crossfire? Iraqi troops? All of the above?
The Pentagon, of course, has long held the position that it doesn't count enemy deaths (expect when it needs to show that progress is being made. Then counting is okay.) Because of the no-count policy, it's been up to citizen groups and human rights organizations to tally Iraqi deaths, and their totals vary. Iraq Body Count estimates 27,000 to 31,000 civilian deaths (not including Iraqi soldiers). The peer-reviewed British medical journal Lancet last year published research citing 100,000 civilian deaths. The Brookings Institute's Iraq Index estimates up to 18,715 civilian deaths, not including the civilians killed in major combat operations in the first months of the war. The Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad estimated that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed, with 55 percent of those deaths women and children under age 12.
Bush's casualty remarks came at the end of a speech hailing Iraq's upcoming elections and the country's emerging democracy. "The year 2005 will be recorded as a turning point in the history of Iraq, the history of the Middle East and the history of freedom," he said. "No nation in history has made the transition to democracy without facing challenges, setbacks and false starts."
Setbacks? Is that what we're calling civilian deaths these days?
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051213/but_were_not_counting.php |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu May 24, 2012 7:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
