Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Snow Suggests Some Iraqi Deaths Are More Worthy Of Counting Than Others

If we are to believe White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, not all Iraqi deaths should be counted, including ones that have a direct genesis from the U.S.-led Iraq War -- those caused by insurgents, foreign fighters, or sectarian violence.

Here's a snippet from yesterday's press briefing:

Q So what is the latest working number?

SNOW: I don't know. But maybe what you ...

Q Can you find that out for us?

SNOW: Yes, but what -- the purpose is ...

Q Perspective.

SNOW: And how will you put that in perspective?

Q It's perspective.

SNOW: And how will you put that in perspective.

Q We keep track of how many American personnel are killed and wounded ...

SNOW: ... (I)f you're going to assess the situation, find out -- it's also important to try to match up the sources of the violence, the people who are doing the killing, and the commitment of the government for going after them, whether they be militias or insurgent groups.

***

So let me get this straight. Before the Iraq War began:

-- There was no tie between Al Qaeda terrorists and Iraq, and no Al Qaeda-backed terrorism occurring in Iraq.

-- There was no Iraqi insurgency fighting us, and there were no "foreign fighters" helping fuel that insurgency.

-- There was no sectarian violence (read: "civil war") between Shiites and Sunnis.

So why shouldn't an official tally of Iraqis killed since the war began include those who have died at the hands of insurgents, foreign fighters, or sectarian violence? How can those deaths not be considered directly related to the Iraq War?

It's not like someone is trying to suggest that such a tally should include the thousands of Iraqis who are believed to have died from shortages of medicine, vital equipment and qualified doctors, or the children who have died because the child mortality rate has worsened since the war began.

Not counting Iraqi deaths caused by insurgents, foreign fighters, or those engaged in Civil War is a form of denial. It prevents Americans from considering a number that is almost incomprehensible and subsitutes one that can be spun by the White Hosue as more palatable if the U.S. wants to win the "war on terror."

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The MSM putting things in perspective? Which perspective would that be? Their own.

8:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that a coherent response, or did you just pull that out of a fortune cookie from "Little House Of Liberals Suck?"

moron

9:53 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Leave it to a bone-headed conservative (anonymous #1) to construe a demand for accurate Iraqi body count numbers to in some way reflect a "liberal" MSM.

Did it take you more than one second of thought to come up with that flash of brilliance (sarcasm)?

An Iraqi child or family member killed in war is just as important to a relative in Iraq as would be your loved ones to you in the U.S.

All they expect, as would yourself in the same situation, is an accurate assessment of what caused their loved ones death, and not instead have shoved down their throats obfuscation and denial, which in the end comes across as telling them their lives have no value, and come secondary to U.S. interests.

It's no wonder the U.S. "occupiers" have failed to win hearts and minds in Iraq, which is an absolute precursor to ever winning the conflict there.

But never expect a bone-headed conservative to understand the psychological aspects to winning a war. Such little brains can hardly fathom anything beyond kill, kill and then kill some more.

12:17 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Would this white house have the number of enemy we have killed to show what our success is in fighting this war. In the early part of the war we got a count of how many enemy were killed or captured and we still get news flashes of how many insurgents were killed in various battles. Keeping count of enemy killed though not an accurate measure of winning is something that has been a part of all wars. Unfortunately, the # of lifes lost in any war for both sides is a measure of the fierceness of the war and a measure of who is winning and who is losing based upon the human cost of the war. In the past A side that lost the most humans via being killed or captured lost the war.

Tony Snow also said during the brief something about the equity of the Iraqey loses from our invasion and the currrent "civil war" compared to how many were lost during Saddam's reign of terror. He said the Iraqey loses caused by our invasion were nothing compared to the 500,000 to a million humans killed by Saddam over 30 years( 16,667- 33,334 per year). There has been one estimate of 600,000 Iraqeys killed due to our invasion in just 3.75 years (160,000 per year). The estimate today is 1000 per week which would be 52,000 per year.

What we did by our invasion was to unleash 2000 years of bitter hatred between Sunni and Shia that may spill over into the entire middle east region. In fact, this invasion may cause a major conflict between many religions: christians against christians, muslim against muslim, each and every religion against each other.

And all of this mayhem over the religion of OIL!

12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How's the lib medias ratings doing these days? Does that twat, (no, not the schmuck on this site) on CBS, (Communist Broadcasting System) have any ratings.

1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fox News' ratings have actually had the most severe drop over the past year.

CNN Headline News has had the biggest uptick. Keith Olbermann's show has had the best uptick among a single show.

Not that the facts matter, right anonymous? It's so much easier just to lash out with unsubstaniated hyperbole. So safe within your bubble that way, right?

you're still a moron, anonymous, and you're making no effort.

2:24 PM  
Anonymous BOSSHOG said...

It must suck to high heaven being employed as a whore for an incompetent buffoon. snow spends his days plotting and figuring how to make shit smell good. I hope we can credit george dubya bush for putting the republican party in minority status for the next 50 years.

2:25 PM  
Anonymous liberal N proud said...

I wonder how they rationalize these idiosyncrasies in their little minds

2:25 PM  
Anonymous AndyA said...

Why would the total number of Iraqi dead not be important? Could it be solely because the numbers are so mind-numbingly huge that Americans would not tolerate any further ideas about staying the course/changing the course/or whatever the slogan is today?

Has George Bush succeeded in killing more Iraqis in the past few years than Saddam did during his entire period in power?

I think the number of dead Iraqis should be reported along with the number of dead Americans (non-military) and the number of American troops killed.

2:25 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

you're such a vile jerk, anonymous. no brains.

but things are going well in iraq. 30% to 50% unemployment. no electricity in baghdad. attacks on Us and iraqi forces continue to rise. that's perspective.

3:17 PM  
Blogger Tom C said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He didn't say you shouldn't count them. He said then when counting them, you should take note of who killed them. Seriously, it's like lefties can't complain about lying righties without lying themselves.

4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Millions of Americans died in the formation of our civil rights.
You expect Iraq to be different?

No terrorism connections in Iraq?
One-sided reports are just as invalid for both sides...but there sure seemed to develop foreign terrorism cells quite quickly don't you think?

We toppled a totalitarian regime that shouldve been destroyed in the first Gulf War.
There were political insurgencies in North Iraq prior to us...Saddam gassed villages in response.

Meanwhile,
The average American uses .1 barrels of oil a day
...if he walks everywhere he goes and uses solar power that number falls to .05 barrels per day.

25% of that oil comes from the unstable Gulf region. Your own lifestyle dictates the necessity of this effort to stabalize the middle-east...and let's not pretend the region was stable before us...because that is simply ignorant. We can let Iraq fall into a TRUE civil war any time you like, but be prepared for a dramatic lifestyle change if that's the case. I'm not talking about cars...I'm talking about shampoo, plastic, medicine, carpet, clothing, food, CD's...should I keep going?

You're right, death tolls straight up scare the average person because they don't realize how many people have died in the past to provide them what they have today. We all take life for granted. We just blew up the entire nation's infrastructure because Saddam's regime denied hundred's of UN resolutions...and corrupted the oil for food programs in Russia and Europe to get his way. We tore the nation apart and when the going get's tough, we pick up and leave?

Things were better under the British than they were in the free United States for the first several years...is that good reason to say the war was a bad idea? This is a long road, and unfortunately we are attached to oil too deeply to survive without it. Our medical practices that have extended our lifetimes so long would not exist without it...and Iraq represents some 15% of the global oil reserves. If we weren't going to war now, people would die later over oil demands...poor people who couldn't afford medical procedures because oil was scarce or expensive...and none of it would get on CNN.

Terrorism, oil, or even toppling a dictator...there are a lot of reasons to be there (none of which were mentioned by our lead monkey)

But if you're going to take a stand and talk about perspective...maybe you should take your own words to heart first.

Vote McCain - we went in underpowered and this war got micromanaged by politicians in Washington. Let the military do it right and give them the support from home they deserve. But hey...I'm Air Force so maybe I'm just crazy, right?

8:45 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Well we can agree that the president is the lead monkey.
We can agree that the Iraq War was really fought for oil and the monkey's other stated reasons were BS.
But I disagree with the premise that to create a deadly quagmire in Iraq and to demonstrably even further destabilize the Mideast than it was before were the best, smartest or only ways to satisfy our Mideast oil lust.

9:05 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares