READER COMMENTS ON
"WHITE HOUSE MADE NO CASUALTY ESTIMATES FOR 'SURGE' PLAN ACCORDING TO RICE ADMISSION!"
(33 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 4:29 pm PT...
Rice isn't in the Defense Dept, so why the would the Secretary of State have casualty estimates? Boxer once again displayed her general idiocy by asking the wrong person such a question. If Gates or Petraeus didn't have answers, then you and Boxer would have your gotcha.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 1/12/2007 @ 4:32 pm PT...
Brad - you write so well and once again cut through the sensationalist bs and pull out the important meaning. Thank you once again for all your efforts as an informative journalist/activist in these very troubled times. Your integrity speaks volumes.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
Grizzly Bear Dancer
said on 1/12/2007 @ 5:02 pm PT...
Comment #1: Even if Boxer said it to make Rice think FOR 1 MINUTE about the sitting duck deathS of our American military in the bushit administration pre-emptive oil war of lies, it is a good question. To make her actually think about the blood on her hands. Blood that will never effect her actions until she goes before a world court for lying about 911 and fabricating intelligence in a war that has killed and maimed thousands of Iraqi civilians. Bush does not want to leave without taking their oil and building some US army bases because this was the plan. An Iraqi terrorist or insurgent can be defined as someone fighting against American military occupation of their country in a completely unjust war.
LYING MURDERERS WILL ANSWER.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 5:40 pm PT...
yes, why on earth would an administration official tasked with testifying to Congress about the operations in Iraq have any factual information about the operations in Iraq?
i'm no expert, of course, but it seems to me that Basic War Planning 101 would require estimating resources needed, and estimating the replacement rates for those resources, for planning purposes and such. they are certainly able to estimate what they need for the private contractors who have now taken over providing for the logistical needs of the military --- work the military used to do.
granted, it doesn't appear that much planning went into the Iraq war, but putting that aside for a moment ... it is disingenuous for Sec. Rice to claim that it would be "impossible" to estimate those numbers, and to imply that such an estimate doesn't even exist.
if such an estimate doesn't exist, then planning for the Iraq War really IS non-existent. one would assume that the best military in the world would have prepared such estimates, because our career military officers really are the very best in the world.
she could have just said, 'i don't have that information at this time", or somesuch other method of passing the buck.
the nasty little truth that Rice is trying to duck, that BushCo can't afford to let out, is that any estimate of American losses would further undermine what little support BushCo has left for this war. it is the same thought process that leads them to hide reminders of the cost of war in human life, by banning photos of the coffins of our fallen soldiers.
stark numbers of potential American deaths would put the conflict into a whole new perspective for most people --- especially those with immediate family memebers at risk, which was Boxer's point --- and Rice knows they can't afford to let that information get out. it's too cold, too calculating.
the American People are apparently not supposed to weigh the actual cost of Bush's War, or the cost to our own future of providing freedom and protection to a country that we dismantled, to people who didn't want our help, didn't ask for our help, and can't wait for us to leave and take our "help" with us.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 5:56 pm PT...
If you don't make an estimate, you can't be wrong, right?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 6:05 pm PT...
Condi is probably the most shameless liar in the lying administration. She's lying again, of course.
Anyone who thinks the military doesn't have people working on casualty estimates as part of planning and that the Secretary of State is out of the loop is a bit loopy. It's not just undoubtedly a routine item on the agenda of top-level meetings, but something taken into consideration in ongoing "selling" of the plan and subsequent execution. Believe me, any marketing professional would require such estimates, and this administration subsists on marketing.
But, really, whatever you may say about the military, it isn't so unprofessional as to neglect casualty estimates. Here's a few years old article with a little info.
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 6:35 pm PT...
We found a 2005 article where Barbara Boxer attacked Condie Rice --- seems she doesn't like to see another woman in power. This comment of hers was suble but if you seem the video, Secretary Rice reacts to the barb.
we at http://www.what-a-world.com think these kind of "persona;" attacks actually work against inclusion... bringing in good people into government. we applaud rice and boxer for their dedication of service but this kind of personal BS is not called for. Boxer - shame on you.
PS: what a world has doubts about the Iraq war - so we are not being partisan - we just think this personal stuff in government is not called for.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 6:39 pm PT...
Operational planners must be able to identify workable courses of action, allocate an appropriate amount of combat resources, and tailor adequate logistics support packages for any scenario. Their challenge is to produce reasonably accurate forecasts in order to provide an appropriate amount of resources at the right place and time. Casualty estimation is critical to planning the logistics component because inaccurate casualty estimates can cause clogged lines of communication, making transportation, personnel replacements, and medical treatment unavailable when needed.
Boy, that Condi sure is dumb. I don't think that any of us, uh, have a number.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 7:26 pm PT...
People Magazine: Nancy Pelosi shattered Congress's glass ceiling by becoming the first female Speaker of the House. Do you think there's anything a woman would do differently with the Presidency?
Mrs. Bush: I agree. But it isn't easy to live here. Dr. (Condoleezza) Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate, is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job.
No one seemed to mind this comment...?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 7:30 pm PT...
Phil # 7, you must be kidding. where is the "personal attack"? since Boxer referred to herself in the same sentence, i guess you're defending Boxer, too, against her own personal attack against herself?
Boxer stated a simple fact --- NEITHER of them have IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS serving in Iraq, be it son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister.
since neither one of them has immediate family members in harm's way, the "cost" of the war isn't really being borne personally by either Rice or Boxer.
i'm sure you don't need me to explain this to you, but just in case: the COST OF WAR is very, very high for those who are serving, have served, or are about to serve on the war front, and their families.
to be extra super crystal clear: IMHO it is an insult to the families who bear this sacrifice every day, and to those whose lives are actually at risk, daily, in the military, to equate the cost they bear, every day, and the sacrifices they make --- every day --- on behalf of this country, with the "burden" borne by either Rice or Boxer.
for those of us who have had ACTUAL immediate family members over there, the distinction was very, very, very clear, and very, very easy to comprehend.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 9:15 pm PT...
Well said Des. Those who don't have children are not sacrificing as much. That's all she was saying IMO. It was not a personal attack. If we say bush and his goonies haven't fought in the war so they shouldn't be sending others to get their oil, is that a personal attack? I don't think so.
I loved how Boxer didn't let Kinda Sleezy get away with her spin. If a man was saying something similar no one would think it was a personal BS as you say, "usually sensible", Phil, or were you quoting from articles.?
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 9:22 pm PT...
To Phil #7: Would you repeat that and use names such as Bill Clinton, Max Cleland, Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, the late Paul Wellstone --- shall I go on?
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 9:23 pm PT...
The 10% solution. Currently, approximately 200,000 soldiers fight for 'democracy' in Iraq [roughly US troops + foriegn troops + paid mercenaries (i.e. Blackwater)]. So, the President's solution is to add 10% more (20,000 troops). Even assuming these extra troops perform 100% efficient, things will merely get 10% better in Iraq. Will 10% be worth the continuing carnage of American soldiers? Don't look to the Democrats for help. They will sit idly by as they did when the gov't suspended habeas corpus, opened mail, banned the novel "America Deceived" from Amazon, stole private lands, conducted illegal wire-taps and continues wars in the Middle East based on a false-flag event known as 9/11. If the Democrats cannot stop the current 10% increase in this war, then they will never stop 100% of this war.
Only remaining link (until the gov't pulls the novel off Google Books):
America Deceived (book)
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 10:14 pm PT...
STOP THE BLOG! Comment #1 nailed it: THESE GUYS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING! We were wrong!
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 10:19 pm PT...
STOP THE BLOG! Comment #7 is right! We're attacking the wrong people! We've been attacking a president and administration who said "fuck you" to us and the soldiers and the recent elections, and just does whatever they want.
When I saw Bush speak on TV, it seemed like he was president of "some other country"...not the United States.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 10:21 pm PT...
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
... phil said on 1/12/2007 @ 6:35 pm PT...
"We found a 2005 article where Barbara Boxer attacked Condie Rice --- seems she doesn't like to see another woman in power"
Who's "WE"? You and Rush Limbaugh?
In 2000, Bush on the campaign trail, said he was against nation building. Do you want to go THERE?
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 10:25 pm PT...
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 1/12/2007 @ 11:29 pm PT...
Actually, under Bush's new plan, the troops WILL DEFINITELY be in much more danger. They plan to take them out of large encampments and move them to small police stations around the cities.
No wonder they don't want to make any estimates. As usual, they will be focusing on how to hide the casualties somehow. Maybe they can rename death.
As soon as these sociopaths demonstrate they give a damn about the soldiers or anybody else in this or any other country, Boxer can stop trying to understand why they would be so flippant about the possible decimation of our troops.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 3:14 am PT...
Please circulate this to the powers that be or make this a title blog so that people in power can get this strategy moving. As you know Bush has commited more troops... 20,000 is 15% increase and not enough to do anything significant. Think back to our history, we allowed former slaves to enlist in our wars and gain freedom and citizenship. We have a huge"problem" of illegal immigrants. Why can't we turn this problem into a soultion and go to the MID-East and do what we came to do. By rounding up all illegal immigrants and giving them a choice -either enlist in the army and go to Iraq or be deported with your familiy. If you decide to enlist in the Army we will give your family and you instant citizenship-all rights. This would kill two birds or three with one stone. We would get very tough on immigration, we would get the necessary troops and our illegal immigrants will become legal and as told in history will become heroes and intergate into society like our former slaves now have. We will have entire platoons in Iraq of spanich speaking guards. In my estimates if we currently have 130,000 troops we would have 10 time that amount if we gave illegals this option. This would be a great bridge to our currnet social problems since illegals mainly use our infrastructure for free, why not fight for their families right to this great nation. After they do, they are free to all rights the same as You and me. It is common knowlede we need to win the middle east to control oil and natural gas thus control the world. If Iran switches completely to the Euro the dollar will fall and we don't control the Oil... China , Japan, and Russia will take over as powers becasue as we all know- oil moves the wheels of progress so whoever controls oil moves the world. With so much of our electricity made from natural gas and Iran with so much ---why can't we just say what is realy going on. If America wants to maintain it's status we need to control the Middle East--Iraq--Iran-Syria and Saudi Arabia. We can't control and police a the middle East with 130,000 troops. If there are in fact 20 million illegal aliens in the US, we could easily get 1 in 20 which is 1 million new troops and send them to the middle east to establish policing colonies thus allowing all illegals to have a chance to see their dreams of their families having a better life as US citizens while helping the US maintain it's strength in the world. America was made great by people fighting for it. It should be mandatory for citizenship that you fight for our country in some form. We might consider offering this to the world, any male that has a family that they would like to have a better life in the US can serve 4-6 years in the US army in Iraq and his family can have full citizenship rights. If we offered this plan world wide we would get the troops that we need to police the world. Otherwise-don't come to the US. Making army enlistment mandatory for immigrants would solve quite a few problems we currently face. We would have a flood of quality man power that is needed in the Middle East and we would have a new breed of heroes the ones that started this great country of the USA-the immigrants.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 3:32 am PT...
This would kill two birds or three with one stone.
This woud kill a lot of birds. Period.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 3:54 am PT...
Urban, I respectfully suggest that you should have your head examined. WE are the problem in the Middle East, and putting in more soldiers will only exacerbate the situation. We should get out, completely, apologize profusely and sincerely and abjectly, and then do everything we can to help our victims put their country and their lives back together. It's time for a Department of Peace, for a renewed Peace Corps, for a new official spirit of generosity and true compassion. NO MORE WAR, period.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 4:40 am PT...
OT anybody know anything about this info :.
"4. Mr Paulson, Vice President Richard Cheney and President George W. Bush still demand that the US Secret Service does not permit the ‘November 17th Data Burst details’ to be released to AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., for verification of where the $4.5 trillion private Wanta Settlement funds were diverted by Secretary Paulson. If the transaction had been bona fide there would of course be no problem with the release of these data [see our earlier relevant postings]. It was not bona fide.
5. The process of officially condoned and perpetrated ransacking and theft continues apace, notwithstanding the reality that the disgraced US Treasury Secretary Paulson is very much aware that, with effect from 15th or 16th January, major European Central Banks may begin to drive the US dollar into the ground.
10 January: Associates inform AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. that President George W. Bush is in the process of re-writing Regulations/Statute amendments affecting the Federal bankruptcy (foreclosure and seizure) process."
AMAZING IF TRUE
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 5:36 am PT...
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 6:44 am PT...
Urban: I thought they were already doing that.
But, you say "We would have a flood of quality man power that is needed in the Middle East...."
...and WE say...
"Why are we there?"
We should be using all this $$$ for free college for our kids, and health care. We don't NEED these wars. We don't NEED more soldiers there, we NEED to stop wasting tax money on war profiteering.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
A Concerned Citizen
said on 1/13/2007 @ 6:51 am PT...
#3 GBD said, "An Iraqi terrorist or insurgent can be defined as someone fighting against American military occupation of their country in a completely unjust war."
Well said. It's so plain to see. Yet Bush forces more innocent people to kill more innocent people. How long before they come kicking in OUR doors?
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 7:37 am PT...
An ex-Cia agent puts it this way:
If adopted, the “surge” strategy will be even worse than that. It will be something we will spend a generation living down.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 8:12 am PT...
To all those that respond that we don't need to be in Iraq or for that matter in Iran have no idea what is at stake here. The only solution is have NOW is many more troops on a full time basis. There is little italy, china town and all sorts of gettos in America however we have none in other countries and definitely need some. The call up of troops does not require them to be killing machines but peace keeping police. If you think I am crazy here, please examine the facts not my head. Very soon unless we switch to some sort of cold fusion energy-- Russia and the Middle East will hold the valve. They can turn on or off at will. Right now Russia has stopped the flow of gas to Europe. This will only continue... So we either change fuel sources which will take at least 10 years or protect our investments... it is simple economics.
Our only choice is to invade Iran if they refuse to accept dollars in Oil transfers, other wise our once mighty dollar will tumble. It is like if all the farmers only accpeted pesos-Americans would starve. Until we secure and make some other sort of energy viable and do not depend on gas to move the planet. (which makes it increasingly hotter!!!-see Al Gores Inconvient truth.) The only sane thing to do is send in one million + troops. 20,000 troops is like bringing a tic tac to an all you can eat buffet. For example when a crowd of people have a riot do we send in 10 officers and yell calm down? No in our own country we send in a massive force of men to over power those behaving badly. If we do this in our own country and treat our own people that don't follow orders so severly, why not follow this same code of conduct externally in the entire Middle East. Are we afraid of those throwing rocks. We have all seen them throw rocks and eventually when enough forces over power the "disturbances" they are easily contained and the group power is defeated. PEOPLE on the groud is the key --not Nuclear bombs... We need to contain the problems like riot police do..This is about CONTROL not killing... So dear readers we do need more people to join in policing the world so that it will continue to run smoothly. Otherwise the world will turn into NEW ORLEANS durning katrina where in a time of crisis the police ran away like cowards-- we even see videos of police looting Wallmart along with the rest? Do we want the world out of control like Katrina? No, we need more police in times of crisis-good police that will stand their ground for the common good this common good is to get the Middle East and Oil in control. The world as a whole is in some sort of turmoil and is at a pinnacle point. We either add more troops or suffer the results or daily life becomes Katrina like. It is time we wake up and realize that to make lemonade we must squeeze lemons.
I would suggest going even as far as to give the victims of the so called war on drugs a chance to clean up their record. For example there are millions of Americans with criminal records and in jail for having small amounts of marajuana or other drugs. Once these people have a record life for them is changed for ever and much harder. What did these people really do, on a moral scale? not much. What does it help to have these small time drug offenders in jail or on welfare because they can't get a job because of their record? Why not have the judges offer all low level offenders the choice to do jail time or serve and help fight for their country. If they choose to enlist they will be a free man and have no criminal record and be a asset to the world instead of helping destroy it. This will give our growing population of 1 in 34 people in jail on probation or parole a real second chance and a way to prove to society thier worth again, instead of wasting away in jail and coming out with no chancesbecause of criminal records. This would allow another 1 million troops so if we as a people of the United States give our help first to the Imigrants and give them a way and then help rehabilitate low level offenders. We the people would help our own and in turn help the world. I'm not saying send in murderers and rapists so stop your thinking right now, I mean those who we would use our tax dollars to send to boot camp anyways(the do hav esome pretend boot camp programs in jail-why not make it for real and give people who make a mistake or two a real chance--You know be real christians-. Offenders could have the option to go to real boot camp and clean their record and have a new start at life after being a great service to our country. Life is all about second chances and what better way that to help your country. Please try and look at this a a POSITIVE solution and not look at it so black and white--war is bad / peace is good. Realistically life is a constant struggle against good and evil. Just like air and water -conflict has existed since the dawn of man when Adam with eve argued over the apple. We will not stop these disagreements, or hate or evil --- especially by running away. Fear will also not do it. The power inside of man though can change the world, and the more man power we have to secure a SAFER society through stability and policing then we as humans have an obligation to send in more troops to contain this problem and bring CONTROL and BALANCE to the world.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 8:32 am PT...
#7 Urban; "The power inside of man though can change the world." Yes, its' called compassion, treating others as we wish to be treated.
"The only sane thing to do is send in one million + troops." Yeah why not, go in kill all the Iraqis' and then you can have all the oil for yourself. Just likes the Generals map.
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
You sound like you're a spokesperson for bush...is this Cheney or Rove's new script for the paid trolls now?
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 8:59 am PT...
#18 --- Larry --- They have renamed death. "Collateral damage", for example. Even "losses", which most of us accept, hides the hard truth.
But what would we expect when average soldiers are considered "bodies" before they are even dead!
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 9:04 am PT...
Urban --- You have one thing right. Your argument certainly is "simple" economics.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 11:22 am PT...
Urban, dood! "All politics are local!" - Tip O'Neil. Get used to it! Please watch, one more time at least (hopefully), Yellow Submarine, King of Hearts, and Morgan. Please...
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 2:25 pm PT...
Urban, i think i understand what you are proposing as it regards to troop levles, but with all due respect the situation is so much more complicated than that. for the sake of argument let's say it would be a successful short term plan to get a semblance of "control" over the "situation" in Iraq. but what happens after that?
the concept of a huge influx of troops, drawn from the illegal immigrant population in exchange for citizenship, makes sense on the surface, but to paraphrase Ali --- why would poor folk want to go overseas to kill other poor folk?
citizenship for the introductory special low price of "kill or be killed"?
(...at least until the U.S. government decides we've taken in "enough" of "those" people doing our dirty work and we change the rules again, because that is what the U.S. government historically does)
addressing your other point --- to truly stop all of this madness we must NOT ONLY eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil, but we must eliminate our dependence on oil and coal --- all fossil fuels --- COMPLETELY.
only a constantly renewable SOURCE of energy (not supplies, not suppliers, not REsource, not just "sustainable" but self-perpetuating) can permanently save us from this handbasket.
there would still be the problem of how to prevent the wholesale destruction of the middle east from a humanitarian standpoint, as they tear each other apart over their entrenched hatreds, and prevent it from spreading into a religious war that overtakes the world... but elimination of the petroleum-based economy would eliminate our most profound weakness from the equation.
and possibly save the global ecosystem's equilibrium, if it's not too late already.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 1/13/2007 @ 3:04 pm PT...
"This is about CONTROL not killing... So dear readers we do need more people to join in policing the world so that it will continue to run smoothly."
as a member of "the world" I can say "f@#k off" ,we don't want your "CONTROL" ,your country is SO corrupt that "the people " accept election fraud ,pre-emptive wars started on proven lies etc.
5% of the world has no right to dictate to the other 95%
arrogance is part of the problem ,US arrogance ,try leading by example for a change.