iraqbodycount.net (1 Viewer)

[WKL815]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

Civilians reported killed by the military intervention in Iraq

Min 14548
Max 16714

Excerpts from press release link above:

...Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media...

...The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants...

...We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording...

This is important information to have when you hear the "100,000 Iraqi civilians killed; mostly women & children" guestimation.

 

[Pacridge]

War is Hell

Somebody once said "War is Hell." This is why. You can't take geography without taking causalities. Sure if you have the superior technology you're goning to have less causalities then the other guy. But people die in wars. In urban warfare civilians die and they die in numbers. Does it really matter if it's 100,000 or 10,000 to the families of the causalities? Several months ago there was a lot of talk about "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraq people. I don't hear that so much any more. This is important folks, IMHO. I don't care what you think of the Iraq war (made no bones about it, thought it was dumb with a capital D) but now we got young men and women on ground there. Supporting them ougth to be priorty one, again IMHO (Hum, more tax cuts or body armor for our troops, no brainer for me, but what do I know?) We need to get back to the winning of the hearts and minds and until we do we're going to be bailing water on the Titanic. Sure you get enough people and enough buckets it can be done- but you're always going to be bailing water- forever.

Can you imagine what would happen if some other nation invaded us? Started killing our women and children in Tulsa, Des Moines or Omaha. Do you think for one second we'd stop fighting them- ever? We'd fight them to the last man's last breath and you know it. Or until they were gone. I doubt we'd care if it were 100,000 or 10,000 or even one family. Well what makes you think they're going too? I mean even if they agreed with our arrival, once we killed their grandma, don't you think they might be a little pissed?

 

[Pacridge]

A little quick research

I went and search through several sites that list Iraqi civilian death tolls and they all, with the exception of the one you cited, have the number above the 100,000 mark. One site spoke concering the site you noted:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

"One major project, www.iraqbodycount.net, estimates up to 16,300 deaths in Iraq due to coalition forces. But this collects data on deaths reported in the press only. “We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," says Scott Lipscomb, at Northwestern University, Illinois, US, who works on the project. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," he told The New York Times."

But I again assert, what would it really matter what the numbers were if it were your family? And if it were happening here in the States there's no way any of us would lay down our arms and welcome the troops that killed our grandma or our neighbors grandma. That in a nutshell is what we're asking of them. It's a hard sell to say the least.

 

[Schweddy]

Intersesting....

The new Iraqi government is in charge now... they are calling the shots. How is it you still conclude we are the 'bad' guys?

Can you imagine what would happen if some other nation invaded us? Started killing our women and children in Tulsa, Des Moines or Omaha. Do you think for one second we'd stop fighting them- ever?

Not, I can't imagine it happening because it would not. We are a super power and no one is stupid enough to do it.

Pac, you fail to realize the VERY FEW that are actually fighting us/new Iraq government. It is the insurgents - the ones who are trying to take over the government and want no part of democracy because of thier fanatical lunacy. They are killing women and children to do it. (can you say suicide bombs?)

 

[Pacridge]

Intersesting....

The new Iraqi government is in charge now... they are calling the shots. How is it you still conclude we are the 'bad' guys?

Not, I can't imagine it happening because it would not. We are a super power and no one is stupid enough to do it.

Pac, you fail to realize the VERY FEW that are actually fighting us/new Iraq government. It is the insurgents - the ones who are trying to take over the government and want no part of democracy because of thier fanatical lunacy. They are killing women and children to do it. (can you say suicide bombs?)

Very few? And you're getting your numbers where? And the Iraqi's are leading now are they? Interesting take. I just saw a news report, on Fox of all places, where one of our commanders told me that 3,000 Iraqi troops were leading 15,000 of our troops into Falluja. So if as you say, very few are fighting us, why is it taking 18,000 troops to put them down? In one town. And do you honestly believe 3,000 of their troops are leading 15,000 of our troops?

As for your "We are a super power and no one is stupid enough to do it" comment; two things. First I'm in no way saying I think this is going to happen. I'm just asking how do you think we'd feel if the tables were turned? Second it wasn't all that long ago that there were two super powers hanging around. A lot of people in the former Soviet Union would have been happy to tell you the same type of thing in 1970. Who really knows what's going to happen when the oil runs out? By all accounts it's going to sooner or later. What effect is that going to have on the world's economy? Never say never.

 

[Schweddy]

Very few? And you're getting your numbers where?

This is only in Fallujah, but this trend is spreading.

Source: Washington Post

Date Nov 12

Before springing Marines, Army soldiers and Iraqi forces on enemy-held Fallujah, the command in Baghdad thought there were at least 2,000 insurgents, and perhaps as many as 5,000.
But the coalition forces have failed to find large clusters and now think that there might have been less than 1,000, military sources said yesterday.
The senior defense official said some generals now think there might have been 600 or fewer.

So if as you say, very few are fighting us, why is it taking 18,000 troops to put them down? In one town. And do you honestly believe 3,000 of their troops are leading 15,000 of our troops?

Ever heard of taking enough ammunition to fight the enemy? If we had LESS, would you be screaming there are not enough there? I could see the argument now: We don't have enough people to defend ourselves - they are killing our men and women!

I'm just asking how do you think we'd feel if the tables were turned?

There are 2 sides to this coin. You state your position on the idea that ALL of Iraq cannot stand us being there. That simply is not the case.

1. The normal Iraq people, which are greatful as hell that we are there taking down the bad guys.
2. The bad guys (insugents)

It really would depend on which side I was on before I could really answer than question.

 

[Pacridge]

Very few? And you're getting your numbers where?

This is only in Fallujah, but this trend is spreading.


So if as you say, very few are fighting us, why is it taking 18,000 troops to put them down? In one town. And do you honestly believe 3,000 of their troops are leading 15,000 of our troops?

Ever heard of taking enough ammunition to fight the enemy? If we had LESS, would you be screaming there are not enough there? I could see the argument now: We don't have enough people to defend ourselves - they are killing our men and women!

I'm just asking how do you think we'd feel if the tables were turned?

There are 2 sides to this coin. You state your position on the idea that ALL of Iraq cannot stand us being there. That simply is not the case.

1. The normal Iraq people, which are greatful as hell that we are there taking down the bad guys.
2. The bad guys (insugents)

It really would depend on which side I was on before I could really answer than question.

Look before we went into Falluja we told them we we're coming right? Which is why the article you sight, in part, says :

"People are disappointed," said one source, adding that commanders had hoped to kill far more insurgents and take a big bite of their ability to launch anti-coalition bombings and attacks across the country."

So how do you really know how many left before we got there. The article you sight talks about military leaders "hoping many insurgents would not want to risk capture and therefore would stay in the city for a last stand."

But less to do with numbers and more to my point. I felt we needed to do more in the way of winning hearts and minds. Though it's sounds from your post we have won most of the hearts and minds already, right? I hope you're right. But it wasn't too long ago that the USSR was chasing Afghan rebels all over the region. Then a few years before that we chased the VC all over the jungle and niether of those things worked out to well.

As for what I would or would not be screaming based on our troop numbers. I don't think that a fair assesment. I've said along, we're there now let's do this thing, let's do this thing right.

 

[Pacridge]

The normal Iraq people, which are greatful as hell that we are there taking down the bad guys.

I'm still looking for a recent poll, the latest one I can find is from May 2004. The only signifant incident I can think of to shift the attitudes of the Iraqi people since this time is the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, which I doubt helped us out any over there. I could be forgetting something? I just really don't know (honestly not trying to be funny, just drawing a blank) Anyway the May poll show's the Iraqi's disapprove of us at 82%. So maybe the average Iraqi is, as you put it, "are grateful as hell that we are taking out the bad guys" but then at the same time somehow they don't like us much either. I'm not sure how that's possible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html

 

[bryanf]

An estimated 350,000 civilian casualties were reported in France during World War II. Does that mean that we should not have removed Hitler from power and liberated France? Does it mean that most of the French didn't want us to help? I don't think so. The World was a safer place without Hitler in power, just as we are safer without Saddam in power.

 

[Pacridge]

An estimated 350,000 civilian casualties were reported in France during World War II. Does that mean that we should not have removed Hitler from power and liberated France? Does it mean that most of the French didn't want us to help? I don't think so. The World was a safer place without Hitler in power, just as we are safer without Saddam in power.

The basic problem with your logic is that in France we had an overhelming amount of support from it's citizens. In Iraq this is not even close to the case. There we're disliked by some 82% of it's citizens. In France we we're welcomed as heroes. In Iraq they're shooting at us and cuting off heads, not quite the same situation.

 

[WKL815]

Pac, how do you, or do you, differentiate between the normal Iraqi and the radical Islamist?

Did you know there is documentation out there about the Iraqis showing their gratitude to Americans?

People can disapprove of our forces being in their presence because they think we've done all we can for them and it's time to leave. But these people haven't shown us yet that they'll step up to the plate and work to keep themselves from tyranny again. So we stay even though they'd rather we leave.

Also, I don't care if not one other single country in the entire world didn't think we did the right thing. The "right thing" is not determined by public opinion. Again, I'd like to express my relief here that our President, his administration, 60 million+Americans and the leaders of 30 other world nations understand this.

And Boo-Freakin-Hoo that France, Russia and China were blinded to the right cause because their current associations in Iraq were lining their pockets. I don't even care if they had other non-materialist reasons for not supporting the liberation of Iraq.

The right course of action is not determined by popular opinion.

 

[Pacridge]

Pac, how do you, or do you, differentiate between the normal Iraqi and the radical Islamist?

Did you know there is documentation out there about the Iraqis showing their gratitude to Americans?

People can disapprove of our forces being in their presence because they think we've done all we can for them and it's time to leave. But these people haven't shown us yet that they'll step up to the plate and work to keep themselves from tyranny again. So we stay even though they'd rather we leave.

Also, I don't care if not one other single country in the entire world didn't think we did the right thing. The "right thing" is not determined by public opinion. Again, I'd like to express my relief here that our President, his administration, 60 million+Americans and the leaders of 30 other world nations understand this.

And Boo-Freakin-Hoo that France, Russia and China were blinded to the right cause because their current associations in Iraq were lining their pockets. I don't even care if they had other non-materialist reasons for not supporting the liberation of Iraq.

The right course of action is not determined by popular opinion.

Where do you get this 60 million plus number?

By reading your post I almost get the feeling your saying public opinion doesn't matter and my point is more valid because 60 million people agree with me. Not sure I follow that logic.

I have no doubt there are Iraqi people who support our efforts. My concern has always been how to get that word out in the nation of Iraq. I'm concerned that we have troops on the ground in that country and the overall public opinion (there) is neg. That we are not winning the war of words so to speak. I believe this is making it harder for our troops to accomplish their mission. While there is a number of people who do support our efforts the polls I've seen basically say the general Iraqi sees us merely as invaders and saddly just there to get their oil. As long as that's the general feeling I think our troops are in greater danager than they need be, that's my concern.

 

[bryanf]

Where do you get this 60 million plus number?

I believe that it's a reference to the people who voted for President Bush.

I have to agree with wkl815 that the right course of action can't be determined by public opinion. There are a lot of Iraqis who support our activities, then there are those who don't support us, but to leave because they're not as excited about our presence as they were when we were pulling down the Saddam statue is not justifiable.

See, our actions have to be determined by what's best for us, what's best for the reqion, and what's best for the Iraqi people. Removing Saddam, and remaining in Iraq until there is some stability (which may be a while) is in the best interests of everybody.

It gives us, and the Middle East, some additional protection from terrorism by removing a financier of terror, if not an accomplice, and it keeps the Iraqi people relatively safe until they can provide their own protection.

 

[Pacridge]

I believe that it's a reference to the people who voted for President Bush.

I have to agree with wkl815 that the right course of action can't be determined by public opinion. There are a lot of Iraqis who support our activities, then there are those who don't support us, but to leave because they're not as excited about our presence as they were when we were pulling down the Saddam statue is not justifiable.

See, our actions have to be determined by what's best for us, what's best for the reqion, and what's best for the Iraqi people. Removing Saddam, and remaining in Iraq until there is some stability (which may be a while) is in the best interests of everybody.

It gives us, and the Middle East, some additional protection from terrorism by removing a financier of terror, if not an accomplice, and it keeps the Iraqi people relatively safe until they can provide their own protection.

But that number is 59 million plus. And polls show that a certain percentage of those who did vote for Bush were opposed to the war but voted for "moral" reasons. So that can't be the 60 million plus.

 

[bryanf]

But that number is 59 million plus. And polls show that a certain percentage of those who did vote for Bush were opposed to the war but voted for "moral" reasons. So that can't be the 60 million plus.

According to reporting by CNN, there were 60,608,582 votes for President Bush.

While it is true that not all of those voters supported the war in Iraq, they did typically understand that President Bush is a strong leader who has a vision, and a standard.

 

[Pacridge]

According to reporting by CNN, there were 60,608,582 votes for President Bush.

While it is true that not all of those voters supported the war in Iraq, they did typically understand that President Bush is a strong leader who has a vision, and a standard.

Huh? That number is increasing. The recounts the Dems are demanding must be working well for them. Thay should keep demanding more recounts and not start working on anything productive. It keeps them from messing anything else up.

I replied to a Vague post on here just two weeeks ago and went and looked at the number, cited it and posted the link to it, and it was at 59 million and change. Still the studies I saw, unless they too have changed, showed that of the people who did vote Bush some 6-9 percentage didn't approve of the war. Strong leader, okay if you say so. Vision, maybe. Agree with the war? those people responded that they didn't approve of the war. Voted for "Moral" reasons. Thats still leaves the number of people who support this war under 60 million. But I think your both right in that popularity doesn't make right. If that were true then the Nazi's would most certainly have been correct in their campaigns. I was just having trouble following the logic that it doesn't matter how many agree with us and we're right because 60 million people think we're right.

On a side note I've gone and looked at some more recent polls, done since the election, and the number of people who support the War has actually been going up. You guys maybe right, maybe there really are over 60 millions who agree with this plan.

 

[heyjoeo]

Wow, I missed a lot. Bryanf, that comment about Hitler...nothing to say except that you keep trying to pull conclusions from the history you know even though it doesn't relate AT ALL.

Also, the numbers of who voted for Bush. Hey there are so many voting discrepancies. In some Floridian (me!) counties there are more recorded votes than registered voters! www.rawstory.com Sure they have a liberal swing, but they actually report these things. Blue Lemur is a good news source also.

I do agree however, that in any war, there will be a crap load of civilian casualties. It's just going to happen. We hestitate we die. Gotta shoot. I think the problem in the Iraqi war isn't that we are "losing" the battles necessarily but more that we aren't fighting it how we should. This isn't a Normandy. Massive troops assaults don't work. Hell just look at the Revolutionary war. One of the big reasons of why we won was our guerilla tactics. We didn't stand a chance in those lines. I think we need to do more special ops and less massive troop movements. All they are going to do is keep picking off our military until we leave, much like the British. It's bad tactics! Good Commander-in-Chief my ass.

"Moral" values. I don't think it's moral to lie to the American public about WMDs and Al Qaeda ties. Homophobic people voted for Bush though. Damn Karl Rove to hell. Damn him to the deepest level of hell. Bigots...

 

[bryanf]

Wow, I missed a lot. Bryanf, that comment about Hitler...nothing to say except that you keep trying to pull conclusions from the history you know even though it doesn't relate AT ALL.

I've heard the two connected many times in the media, though usually in reference to the fact that we waited for Hitler to become a problem before we dealt with him, something that we didn't do to a great extent with Saddam. "Those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it," was something that I've heard said. Bringing Hitler into this debate topic is not original to me, though I can't say that I can see the disconnect that you imply.

I think the problem in the Iraqi war isn't that we are "losing" the battles necessarily but more that we aren't fighting it how we should... Good Commander-in-Chief my ass.

I've got many military friends who are strong supporters of President Bush. They say he's doing a great job (as opposed to some of their opinions of the previous administration), and some of them are going over to Iraq (or have already been there). My guts are to listen to the opinions of the people that I know who are actually serving under his command in regards to how good of a Commander-in-Chief he is.

"Moral" values. I don't think it's moral to lie to the American public about WMDs and Al Qaeda ties. Homophobic people voted for Bush though...

Almost everyone in Washington that had access to the same intel that the President had, agreed with him that Saddam was a threat. I can get quotes from both of the Clintons, Kerry, Edwards, and others that voiced concerns about Saddam's hunt for, and possession of, WMDS. You would have a hard time convincing me that President Bush fabricated this to push his foreign policy agenda. If that were the case, I guarantee that the Dems would have called him on it right then and there, and you wouldn't have heard from them saying the same things.

btw, does being "homophobic" prevent someone from exercising their right to vote? Homophobic means someone who is afraid of homosexuals. I don't think that the majority of people who oppose homosexuality are afraid of them, they just have moral standards, that they think are absolutes (or pretty darn near it). Maybe they're right, maybe not (I had a post regarding this), but they vote on those beliefs.

 

[heyjoeo]

Who's responsible for making the decisions? Exactly. Stop trying to blame congress. The president can take the troops anywhere without Congresses consent for I think 90 days or something. It was the choice OF HIS ADMINISTRATION to act on that intelligence. I HATE people that claim "oh well he wasn't the only one with the intel." Give me a break. Who used war? Bush. Congress gave him WAR AS A LAST RESORT.

Kim Jong Il is as much as a threat to the U.S., probably more than Saddam Hussien. Why don't we just invade him? Oh, and Iran, why not Saudi Arabia? Let's just attack everybody because they have the "possibility" to have nuclear weapons. That's ridiculous. Our country is so hypocritical. We have the most nuclear and chemical weaponary in the entire world, yet we bitch when one foreign country TRIES to get SOME. Give me a break. Wake up buddy.

 

[bryanf]

Who's responsible for making the decisions? Exactly. Stop trying to blame congress. The president can take the troops anywhere without Congresses consent for I think 90 days or something. It was the choice OF HIS ADMINISTRATION to act on that intelligence. I HATE people that claim "oh well he wasn't the only one with the intel." Give me a break. Who used war? Bush. Congress gave him WAR AS A LAST RESORT.

Though it's far from the Christmas spirit, it's nice to know I'm hated by someone. :rock

I didn't blame Congress, or give them credit (depending on which way you look at the war), I just said that it doesn't make sense to continue insisting that President Bush used the intel to deceive the country. Everybody who saw the evidence said there was a threat.

It seems that President Bush gets blamed for being arrogant, or dishonest, when he makes decisions without congressional approval, yet he also gets accused of arrogance, or dishonesty, when he has congressional approval. Can't you people on the left cut him just a little slack, for crying out loud?

And it doesn't matter how long he can send troops somewhere without congressional approval, he didn't have to, they did authorize the use of force. When would the war have been justified, in your humble opinion? What would be the smoking gun that you would need? Hopefully not Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or New York, in ashes following a nuclear strike.

Kim Jong Il is as much as a threat to the U.S., probably more than Saddam Hussien. Why don't we just invade him? Oh, and Iran, why not Saudi Arabia? Let's just attack everybody because they have the "possibility" to have nuclear weapons. That's ridiculous. Our country is so hypocritical. We have the most nuclear and chemical weaponary in the entire world, yet we bitch when one foreign country TRIES to get SOME. Give me a break. Wake up buddy.

Well, I'm sure there are plans being formulated to deal with North Korea, Iran, and possibly Saudi Arabia. Conventional war is not an immediate option with Korea because they already have nuclear weapons, we are watching the situation in Iran, and we are getting at least nominal cooperation from the Saudis.

The difference is that America has no intent to USE nuclear or chemical weapons, unless it is absolutely necessary. There are regimes, however, that have expressed or implied intent to use WMDs if they obtain them.

 

[Hoot]

>I didn't blame Congress, or give them credit (depending on which way you look at the war), I just said that it doesn't make sense to continue insisting that President Bush used the intel to deceive the country. Everybody who saw the evidence said there was a threat. < bryanf

The Bush administration picked and chose only the intelligence they wanted to use to justify the war with Iraq.

They ignored intel from our own NIE( National Intelligence Estimate)and the IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency) that stated...there's nothing here...Saddam's no threat to his neighbors, and certainly no threat to the United States.

The IAEA asked for 4 more measly months to finish their inspections, just to be sure, but Bush said...no...get out...I need to start the bombing.

Any President that has conflicting evidence of WMD should take pause before bringing our nation to war.

This is the first time in the history of our nation that we have attacked and invaded a country that did not attack us!

Anyone who thinks Congress has access to the exact same intelligence that crosses that desk in the Oval Office is living in a dream world. What is it? 435 members of the House of Reps and 100 senators? Do you repubs actually believe we would have any security in this nation if all 535 members of Congress had access to the same intelligence the White House sees?

After 9/11, the Bush administration continually used the following words in as many sentences as possible to create the impression of a link...words such as....Terrorism, WMD, Iraq, 9/11, Taliban, Al Queada, Saddam, Osama.

To this day, there are people among us who still believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

This is a deliberate distortion on the part of the Bush administration to garner support for a war that was in the planning stages long before 9/11.

May 1, 2003, Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner and said....

"We have removed an ally of AlQueda."

This was an outright lie to the American people.

Hoot

 

[heyjoeo]

You totally didn't understand what I said. If you read the document Congress approved for the Iraqi war it states war as a last resort giving the president the right to decide if it was necessary. I was his choice. Period. And Please, do not sputter Republican propaganda "We don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a nuclear strike." That's ridiculous. Every single one of the cabinet members used that line in a speech. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Why do you think Saddam was able to keep power? FEAR. What is the republican party doing? The exact same thing. Makes you wonder who the real dictator here is?

 

[CSA_TX]

I HATE people that claim "oh well he wasn't the only one with the intel." Give me a break. Who used war? Bush. Congress gave him WAR AS A LAST RESORT.

I am hated also. :monkey Hope you have room in the club Bryanf

 

[Pacridge]

>I didn't blame Congress, or give them credit (depending on which way you look at the war), I just said that it doesn't make sense to continue insisting that President Bush used the intel to deceive the country. Everybody who saw the evidence said there was a threat. < bryanf

The Bush administration picked and chose only the intelligence they wanted to use to justify the war with Iraq.

They ignored intel from our own NIE( National Intelligence Estimate)and the IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency) that stated...there's nothing here...Saddam's no threat to his neighbors, and certainly no threat to the United States.

The IAEA asked for 4 more measly months to finish their inspections, just to be sure, but Bush said...no...get out...I need to start the bombing.

Any President that has conflicting evidence of WMD should take pause before bringing our nation to war.

This is the first time in the history of our nation that we have attacked and invaded a country that did not attack us!

Anyone who thinks Congress has access to the exact same intelligence that crosses that desk in the Oval Office is living in a dream world. What is it? 435 members of the House of Reps and 100 senators? Do you repubs actually believe we would have any security in this nation if all 535 members of Congress had access to the same intelligence the White House sees?

After 9/11, the Bush administration continually used the following words in as many sentences as possible to create the impression of a link...words such as....Terrorism, WMD, Iraq, 9/11, Taliban, Al Queada, Saddam, Osama.

To this day, there are people among us who still believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11.

This is a deliberate distortion on the part of the Bush administration to garner support for a war that was in the planning stages long before 9/11.

May 1, 2003, Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner and said....

"We have removed an ally of AlQueda."

This was an outright lie to the American people.

Hoot

Exactly. And what has the Bush Administration done to correct this situation. They give medals to the people that supplied the misinformation and systematically removed the people that tried tell them they were making and mistakes. This really doesn't gives me any hope that they're truly trying to correct their mistakes. It seems that the one thing this administration has repeatly shown us is it's unwillingness to learn from their mistakes. Hell, for the most part they won't even admit there were any mistakes.

As for the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Bush's people said after that flap all came up that the banner was directed at the sailors of the Linclon and it was their mission that was "accomplished." Sure that make sense. That's why he got up there and gave a speech stating, basically, the mission was accomplished and "major combat operations have ended." But I'm sure there's blinded partisan's out there that will believe that spin.