Esteemed for choosing a rate of 5.5 which is half of the EU, much less than the US and less than all countries in the Middle East pre 2003? It’s smoke and mirrors that has you believing because you must want to believe it even if you say you don’t want to. Only way to believe it is if you want to. There is so much refutation out there from over 20 scholars and very esteemed people.

Merie wrote, “We were supposed to be winning hearts and minds in Iraq.”

We won’t win the hearts and minds of Islamofascists. They must be defeated. But there are 12 provinces in Iraq which are much less in conflict. They understand what is at stake. The proud purple fingers represent their desire. A humanitarian crisis (by redeployment of our troops) would be the OPPOSITE of winning hearts and minds. They would never forgive us for a bloodbath due to “redeployment”.

Merie wrote, “We need to get out. ”

I understand you have “good intentions”. Good intentions do not make good results. Good policy or solutions do. It is believed by many including myself that “getting out” will lead to a bloodbath and a humanitarian crisis. That would be the opposite result of your good intentions. It’s like the philosophy of teaching a man to fish rather than giving him fish. Both are born of love. But one has better results. Teaching a man to fish will bring him to self sufficiency which will enable him to give his knowledge of knowing how to fish to others also. Those who are not able-bodies will have more knowledgable people out there with the ability to give fish.

Merie wrote incorrectly, “You don’t bring Democracy at the butt of a gun.”

I hate to keep going back to WW2 but it’s the PRIME example of your statement being incorrect. Just my opinion. Japan and Germany were brought to democracy through warfare. They were militarily defeated and then occupied for 7 and 10 years while a government was installed. You continue to make statements not supported by fact, which is ok but I would suspect you’d learn after discussion instead of insisting on the same set of premises.

Merie wrote, “I know you will never believe this, but we had Saddam blocked from doing anything.”

I guess you didn’t hear about Oil for Food. France and Germany and Russia getting payola for helping Iraq and Iraq was using money for weapons and not just food. Of course those countries were against the war. That would erase their payola. They didn’t have pristine motives did they. Of course this news didn’t neatly fit into the drive-by legacy media’s agenda so it got reported but very lightly and with whitewash.

Merie wrote, “Like I said look up the information on what the Generals testified to in the Senate if you want to know. You are truly confused if you believe the Generals have been listened to.”

You are the one making the inaccurate accusation. I am not confused. I know that the generals have asked for things and received them. They asked for 40,000 more troops during Iraqi elections and got them. Retired generals are irrelevant and are part of the mud/confusion that enable you to make the inaccurate accusation that you are making. I know it’s easy to be judgmental and mud/confusion ads to the ability to be judgmental. But due diligence and not being lazy requires you to stop making inaccurate accusations if you learn that they are inaccurate. Your thoughts are fueled by pieces from journalists due to retired generals and politicians. Some want more troops, some want less “targets” (their word) on the ground. It’s easy to be monday morning quarterback/president but Bush has left it to the military to decide, change tactics, figure out they way to win. The key is that we are not leaving until the job is done or a Democrat controlled White House or Congress makes us leave before the job is done (causing what many believe would be a humanitarian crisis).

Baklava, I don’t want to believe that the death toll in Iraq has been even .0001 as high as stated in the Lancet or Iraq Body Count. Lancet has been esteemed for it’s estimates in other countries using the same methods. Either way, we still lose. We were supposed to be winning hearts and minds in Iraq. Instead they are dying at our hands and during what has deteriorated into a civil war. We need to get out. We don’t even know who the enemy is.

You don’t bring Democracy at the butt of a gun.I know you will never believe this, but we had Saddam blocked from doing anything. I have given you several links which, yes, you have twisted. Now it’s time for you to tell me where you get your info. Like I said look up the information on what the Generals testified to in the Senate if you want to know. You are truly confused if you believe the Generals have been listened to.

LINK

Why do you want to believe the 655,000 number as opposed to the Iraq Body Count number that used to be disputed? People have said that the real numbers are at least 30% lower than the Iraq Body Count numbers and then boom… we get a number that is 1200% higher…

We were attacked on 9/11. NOw we are in a Global War on Terror. The enemy is in 40+ countries and you just need to do better at helping us succeed in the GWOT instead of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

I don’t twist. I state facts and base my opinions on facts.

Just for grins, please tell us who said what at the Senate last month. Thanks…

Baklava, Once again we were attacked in WWII. The enemy is emboldend by us attacking a country who never did anything to us. Your right wing talking points is the propaganda. Did you hear the Generals who testified under oath in the Senate last month? Look it up yourself and twist it to your heart’s desire.

Additionally, in order to achieve the 655,000 number, Lancet had to take on a death rate of 5.5 Pre invasion (with Saddam in power and sanctions going on and starvation going on). 5.5 is lower than the Eurpean Union (by 50%), the Unites States, and all of the countries in the Middle East. It is LAUGHABLE. Many have debunked it and it only takes common sense. You would have to defend the 5.5 figure. The high number of 13.5 post Saddam is not even that high. There are European countries that are well over 10 and if you do a methodology in that fashion you are prone to be categorized as propagandists (right before an election this Lancet study came out).

Iraq Body Count was previously thought to be giving inflated numbers yet they have tore it to shreds. See their many pages of refutation.

Merie asked, “How is that acceptable?”

How is it acceptable to disseminate propoganda that isn’t true and embolden the enemy?

Merie stated, “We have lost nearly 3,000 US service men and women.”

Should we have stopped WW2 after 3 weeks? Every service man/woman lost is a tragedy. But it is not a reason to end our quest for security. The small island of Iwo Jima we lost 25,000 Marines. Playing the trump card as if you care more for our men and women is not persuasive because I am not for not finishing the job and causing a humanitarian crisis. I care about lives to and I don’t want our service men to have died in vain. Imagine those lives lost and Iraq in the hands of brutal Islamofascists again. What would it have been for? The 25,000 Marines… they helped establish an airbase that according to experts saved 25,000 future lives because of supplies, bombing raids from that base and shortening WW2. A war is successful if the objective is acheieved – it is not unsuccessful due to lives lost. Lost lives are a tragedy and I know you wish as well as I that utopia existed and wars did not exist but it does nothing for the discussion to act like the war should not go on because of a number. Who is right versus who is wrong. What will be the consequences of pulling out. Many say a humanitarian crisis. You can’t ignore this speculation.

Your link proved my point about the generals on the ground. The media has clearly tried to get quotes from RETIRED generals and then make confused liberals feel that Donald Rumsfeld or Bush isn’t listening to the generals. But everyone who is confused… please be clear…. Bush has said repeatedly to the generals in the theater that he will give them what they want. The generals have asked for more troops and levels of troops have fluctuated by 40,000 in this last year.

Playing armchair quarterback/president doesn’t advance the debate it only makes your argument look weak. Honestly.

You are a far left wingnut. Even Liberals have debunked and decried that “study”. It is false propaganda. You are a fool repeating a fools ravings.

“You and your moonbat bretheren….
Someone who is that completely ignorant of reality
Merie, please tell us you don’t have children and will not have children. Well, given her propensity to parrot the traditional far leftist drivel, I’d say children, never, but probably proud to have had or planning to have several abortions”.

One thing I can agree with you on is: We comprehend differently.

Recent study taken in Iraq, said 655,000 (men, women, and children) Iraqis have died since we have been there. How is that acceptable? We have lost nearly 3,000 US service men and women. If that’s okay with you, either sign up or send someone you love there today! I disagree with killing except in self defense, i.e. WWII

Also, they don’t do what the Generals want either.

LINK

Your first link didn’t work but I’ve seen the report. It’s conclusions aren’t what you wrote (my judgement). Maybe we comprehend differently but I’d like to know what paragraph brought you to your conclusion.

This is a Global War on Terror. It was NEVER a war against Afghanistan. It’s comprehending things differently here also because this has been said repeatedly about 100 times by this administrations. Additionally, there are over 100 different fronts on this war on terror. Seems liberals are opposed to many of them. SWIFT, Terrorist surveillance, beefed up borders, G’tmo detainees being held, on and on. It’s easy to play monday morning quarterback/president but I agree that this war has to be global. 9/11 for many gave us the realization that we can’t sit back and wait to be attacked. We need to be forward thinking. Disagreement with the 3+ year old decision to go to war (one front) in Iraq should be over. We are there. Now what do we do moving forward? Cause a humanitarian crisis by pulling out early? That would be the worst option. So… We are at war with who brought the war to us. Radical Islamofascists. Al Qaeda is in many countries. Al Qaeda is one group of Islamofascists. There are others… So, it is similar to WW2. The point with my raising WW2 is because you said you are against killing. So, sometimes you are for it? To place yourself as better than others with that kind of statement shows that that isn’t the issue when and if you were for winning the war in WW2.

THe same link you provided also included:

The report found that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

And as Tony Blair said in the article, ““I can apologize for the information that turned out to be wrong,” Blair said. “But I can’t, sincerely at least, apologize for removing Saddam.””

Why won’t people like Tony or George apologize for removing Saddam? Because they feel that they are doing the world and the Iraqi people good. To continue on after 3+ years about the Iraq war decision is funny to me because there were many in COngress (many Democrats also) who voted for this action. I understand that many have changed their mind. But that does not make the argument for creating a humanitarian crisis by cutting and running or “redeploying”. Germany and Japan took 10 and 7 years to rebuild and insert a new government. We are on the 3rd year with Iraq. And liberals in this country seem to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy by making the “insurgents” feel that they are this close “” to making us pull out and give them the bloodbath they want. If they simply wanted us not to occupy the country they would simply stop fighting for a month or two and they would see us leave as we’ve stated as much. Their goals are not just to make us not occupy. Their goals are forming an Islamic Caliphate and their goals are clear. They are rising to defeat us in Iraq as THEY THEMSELVES (the Islamofascists) have said. This is not fantasy by Bush it is what they have said.

Your last link has this from Kay, “that his team found dozens of WMD-related program activities”

Intelligence isn’t perfect Merie. It is far from perfect. However, U.S., British, French, German and Russian intelligence agencies ALL thought that Iraq had WMD’s and Kerry, Madeliene Albright, Clinton, Gore, and Hillary all said so themselves and pre 2001 when Bush came into power. Some liberals have said that these liberals were convinced because of Bush’s lies but that is far from true because the liberals statements were as far back as 1998 and repeatedly. The WORLD (except for some), including each of the 5 country’s intelligence agencies above that I listed thought that Iraq had WMD’s.

Now 3+ years after an invasion it doesn’t make you look persuasive Merie that you harp on this. Because it’s not forward thinking. As if you Merie knew that Bush, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Albright were all lying and the 5 major intelligence agencies had bunk intelligence. No. You didn’t know. Monday morning quarterbacking is fun but it doesn’t get us anywhere.

I say we need to finish the job. Liberals have been tar and feathering the phrase “stay the course” as if that meant our military isn’t changing tactics or acting dumb and doing nothing differently based on experience and things learned. That in itself is a slap in the face to our military.

Why does this Kerry quote matter? Because liberals seem to think that the generals who are on the ground don’t know how to request the proper amount of troops, change tactics, respond accordingly to the situation on the ground, etc. Some critics want more troops, some want less. Kerry wants more and less.

Additionally, Kerry has accused the troops generally about criminal acts more than once. Not just a singled out few but general criticism. He has referred to our troops as terrorizing Iraqi’s. His words are clear. He tries to then paint that on Bush as if it’s persuasive…. I’m done.

Entire Intelligence Report: (See page 2)
LINK

We were attacked in World War II by the same folks we went to war against. That one apparently could not be avoided. Osama Bin L was in Alphganistan. But the president said, “I dont’t spend much time on him.” He also disbanded the office that was looking for him. It was Bin Laden’s Al Queda that attacked us.

Search for weapons called off 1-12-05

LINK

“Despite intensive searches, no banned Iraqi weapons were found after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.” They did find degraded sarin and mustard gas dating back to pre-Gulf War. Nothing made since 1991.
LINK

Can you get back to answering the question though:
Can you tell us which paragraph in the report you are looking at? Or is it something that the drive-by legacy media wrote as a leak but wasn’t substantiated by the declassification fo the report?

I’m also interested in the answer to this question:
Did you hate killing in WW2?

One more. Can you cite for us which report said Iraq had “no” weapons (as you stated)? There were weapons. The debate is about the word used “stockpiles”. People want to know where the stockpiles were and are reluctant to use the word with some of their findings due to weapons degradation and smaller amounts.