US Casualties In Perspective

The loss of a every American serviceman is a tragedy for that person's family, friends and the nation. But it is time we put the loss of life of the various armed services in some perspective. During the height of the cold war 1980-1983 the US military services suffered more than 2300 deaths per year! That is to say we were loosing soldiers at a rate 3 times faster at "peace time" than we are today fighting a 2 front war.


The horizontal pink line denotes the 1540 average number of deaths over the 25 year period. The safest year for US service personnel turns out to be 2000 with only 758 deaths. That was the year the terrorist bombed the USS Cole and Mohammed Atta plotted the 9-11 attacks. Safety was only an illusion.

It is a tribute to the American armed services that we have liberated 2 nations and 50 million people from murderous despots while loosing fewer lives in 3 years than we did in a single day when this war was brought to our shores.

I've copied this editorial in its entirety because the NYP requires sign-up to view the article:

TWO-FACED WAR LIES


The New York Post

THE EDITORS


DEMOCRATS are on the attack over the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. They're now claiming that Saddam Hussein was not a serious threat to America — and that President Bush intentionally misled the nation in making his case for war.



Yet, before the invasion, many of these critics warned of the dangers Saddam posed. Many backed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which set regime-change in Iraq as official U.S. policy. And they called for forceful action to stem the threat, even voting to authorize Bush to topple Saddam by force.



Below are comparisons of what the critics said before the invasion, and after. — THE EDITORS



Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ranking Member,
Intelligence Committee

Before: "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction . . .

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America now . . . He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." (Oct. 10, 2002)

After: Investigators should compare all intelligence agency statements with what President Bush said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to see "whether intelligence analysis was manipulated, shaped or exaggerated . . . We owe the American people a full and honest accountability of the intelligence that was used to make the case." (Nov. 4, 2005)

"You know, it was not the Congress that sent 135,000 or 150,000 troops to Iraq." (Nov. 13, 2005)



Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.)
Minority Leader

Before: "Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who presents a serious threat to international peace and security. Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-reaching human-rights abuses, been a state sponsor of terrorism and had has long sought to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction." (Oct. 2, 2002)

After: "The administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq, and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions." (Nov. 1, 2005)



Bill Clinton
Former President

Before: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors . . . If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." (Dec. 17, 1998)

After: The Iraq war "was a big mistake. The American government made several errors . . . one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country." (Nov. 15, 2005)



Howard Dean
Chairman, Democratic
National Committee

Before: "There's no question Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." (Sept. 29, 2002)

After: "Iraq was not a threat to us. As frightful and dreadful as Saddam Hussein is, or was, it was not OK for the United States to attack a country that was not a threat to us . . . We've taken our eye off the ball because of the president's obsession with Iraq." (May 22, 2003)



Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
House Minority Leader

Before: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process . . . As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations." (Dec. 16, 1998)

"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons." (Oct. 10, 2002)

After: "This war has been a grotesque mistake that has diminished our reputation in the world and has not made America safer." (Sept. 25, 2004)

"Speaking specifically to Iraq, we have a situation where — without adequate evidence — we put our young people in harm's way." (May 20, 2004)



Sen. Joe Biden (Del.)
Ranking Member,
Foreign Relations Committee

Before: "It is clear that he has a residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons . . . We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability . . . I think he has anthrax . . . He does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction." (Aug. 4, 2002)

After: "The vice president, I believe, flat lied. The president didn't lie, he misled . . . Eighty percent of the intelligence community said no, 20 percent said yes . . . [The president] led you to believe and everyone else to believe that the entire [intelligence] community agreed on that. He led you to believe . . . and the American people to believe there was a consensus. There was no consensus." (Nov. 16, 2005)



Sen. Ted Kennedy (Mass.)

Before: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction . . . There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." (Sept. 27, 2002)

After: "War in Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity. It was a product they [members of the Bush administration] were methodically rolling out. There was no imminent threat, no immediate national security imperative and no compelling reason for war." (Jan. 14, 2004)



Sen. John Kerry (Mass.)

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." (Oct. 9, 2002)

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat, because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." (Jan. 23, 2003)

"If you don't believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." (Jan. 31, 2003)

After: "It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time." (Sept. 6, 2004)

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. It is deeply troubling that the Republicans in Washington are so afraid to share the truth with the American people. Clearly it will require an independent, outside investigation to get to the bottom of this." (Nov. 1, 2005)



Al Gore
Former Vice President

Before: "If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons . . . Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf, and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction." (Dec. 16, 1998)

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country . . . Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." (Sept. 23, 2002)

After: "Too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way . . . On the nuclear issue, of course, it turned out that those documents were actually forged by somebody. As for the cheering Iraqi crowds we anticipated, unfortunately, that didn't pan out either, so now our troops are in an ugly and dangerous situation . . . In other words, when you put it all together, it was just one mistaken impression after another. Lots of them." (Aug. 7, 2003)



Sen. Robert Byrd (W. Va.)

Before: "We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." (Oct. 3, 2002)

After: "Before they [U.S. troops] could realize their dreams, they were called into battle by their commander in chief, a battle that we now know was predicated on faulty intelligence and wildly exaggerated claims of looming danger." (April 7, 2004 )

Wilson/Plame Political Donations

While discussing the Plame/Wilson/Libby controversy over the weekend I was reminded that Wilson was in fact a Republican. Well maybe, but none of my Republican friends have been slinging cash to Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton lately.

Federal records indicate Joe Wilson has made $7750 in political donations since 1999. Of that $4250 went to Democrats including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore. Republicans, including George Bush received $2500. Strangely enough Wilson donated $1000 each to Al Gore and George Bush over a 60 day period in 1999. Another thousand dollars is classified as "special interest" went to Hillary Clinton's political action committee HillPac the just 2 weeks before he arrived in Niger.

Valerie Plame on the other hand much less conflicted limiting her donations to Al Gore and the left wing group America Coming Together.

The Plame Game

This post resulted from a discsussion my neo-lib step father and I had this weekend.

This is the most complete article on the Wilson/Plame case I have run across. The facts here are fairly easy to validate via other sources.

This Washington Post Article is also good.

And the actual bi-partisan Senate Intelligence report:

The section on Niger specifies that:

• Wilson's wife suggested him for the job, a claim he denied, instead inferring the Vice President's office sent him. He also denied in his book his wife had anything to do with the trip
• Wilson reported the Prime Minister of Niger was approached in 1999 for expanding relations with Iraq, a move the PM interpreted as an opening to buy yellowcake uranium (Niger's only export of value).
• The CIA deemed the Wilson's inconsequential because it added no new information (except for the 1999 overture which actually bolstered the claim) and therefore was not passed on to the Vice Presidents office.
• Indicates that at the time of the January 2003 State of the Union the CIA had no issue with the now famous 16 words ". . . the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• The report indicates that the CIA based its support on documents out of Italian intelligence which later were determined to be forgeries.

Where the forged documents originated is its own little controversy here and most recently here.

To this day the British stand by their report saying they had another source and did not rely on the forged documents.

The report itself is dry but a great insight into the way these things come together. A speech writer does not merely put something like that in. If you read the report you see that the CIA itself vets these types of references very carefully which was a surprise to me.

Able Danger, 9-11, Data Mining and You

We knew in 1999 that Mohammad Atta was dangerous and in the United States. The mishandling of this information should horrify all Americans.

Next time civil libertarians scream that such data mining activities are an infringement on your civil rights, remember we've already sacrificed 3000 of our countrymen to this mindset. We knew they where here, we ignored them, and we paid the price.

Tell Us Something we Don't Know

Don't expect this Non partisan American Center for Voting Rights report to show up anywhere in the mainstream media. It documents what most of us already know. Democrats are more likely to play dirty on election day. In Washington state they perfected the Gore strategy for election theft.

Air America Scandal

What would happen if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity had received "inappropriate" funding from an inner city youth program? Of course when the money ends up in the hands of Al Franken's buddies at Air America barely a coverage ripple is made. Except for the bloggosphere I've have not heard a single word about this outrageous use of charitable contributions.

WorldNetDaily: Air America & the race hustlers

If you have grown weary of the Pulitzer winners which where universally negative in their images of the rebuilding of Iraq, here are some courtesy of the AP: