Semi-Daily Journal

Casualties since May 1:

American soldiers 96
British soldiers 11
---
107

American 235
British 44
---
279 Totals

Note: American forces have risen to 148,000
British forces have been cut from 10,000
to 5,000

CIA Director called a while ago. Sorry, I forgot to pass along the message. Huh?????

Lise's number are correct!

Why then does the press keep reporting 30 some American casualties in Iraq since May 1?

"Failed" isn't passive voice; it's an active voice, intransitive verb.

So, we attacked a country that was no threat to us and American soldiers are dying there each day and the cost is many billions and counting.

A country where we are wanted and where we could have helped so many at perhaps no loss of an American soldier and at such a minor monetary cost, we have no help for. Liberia?

dahl:

Because the Pentagon and the press make a distinction between directly combat-related fatalities and accident-related ones.

Although this seems to me to be quite difficult to do and overly technical. For example, the journalist Michael Kelly was killed in a "traffic accident" when the driver of the humvee he was riding in swerved into a canal - because he was trying to avoid enemy fire. Thus, I'm skeptical when hearing about "accidents".

Raven

Thank you so much. This issue bothers me quite a lot. Still, can you possibly believe that American soldiers are dying daily "accidently?"

Well, to be fair to Rice she did forget about being warned of terrorists flying planes into buildings. Evidently she's just very forgetful.
Perhaps she'd be happier in a less high-pressure job.
I'm quite looking forward to tomorrow's report.
Oh - you've caught the news about White House officials leaking that Joseph Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA operative specializing in WMD? NBC, the NYT, now Newsday. Besides all else, it's a felony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/opinion/22KRUG.html

...While we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him — it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative....

PBS News - 7/22/03

"The attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq now come at a rate averaging one every two hours. Most of the incidents are not deadly, but 38 American soldiers and marines have been killed in action since major fighting was declared over May 1."

No, no, no!

There had been 94 American soldiers killed in Iraq since May by 7/22/03. What is wrong with the press?

I for one believe Hadley did forget. I don't think he's the only one who forgot- I think Rice, probably W, and numerous other important figures did in fact forget. They all forgot because they did not want to believe and thus did not take ownership of Tenet et al's warnings. That Niger could be untrue did not fit with the story they "knew."
This is certainly not an excuse and is quite different than forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning. But forget is probably the correct word.

I am cheered that you leftist continue to attack the strawmen of "Bush's Lies," and the "Iraq Quagmire." Nobody gives a hoot guys!

I would be disturbed if you concentrated on the economy, but you won't.

"Mcgovern in 2004, errrrrrrrrr 1972"

We shouldn't ascribe to mendacity what is explained by incompetence. Maybe. Iraq must have had several embassies in African uranium-exporting countries. Iraqi officials probably went on industrial shopping trips all over Africa and the world on an ongoing basis. I have no trouble with the British "Learning" that Iraqis went shopping somewhere in Africa for uranium. It's almost certainly true.

The underlying idea, that Saddam Hussein wanted to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to carry them is well known and not in dispute. With unfettered access to billions of dollars of oil revenue Saddam would certainly have succeeded eventually. Can you imagine Qusai and Uday with nukes? Or even good gas weapons?

Somebody in the Bush administration should be soundly thrashed for embarrassing the US by publishing forged documents about Niger. It's such an amazing blunder there should be some conspiracy theories about what foreign spy made it happen.

Anyway, there are other uranium exporting countries in Africa, so perhaps the Brits "Learned" about a shopping trip to the Congo or somewhere. Sometimes when you go shopping you don't get what you originally wanted. Sometimes you do.

Such morons. Where are those damn WMDs in Iraq, morons? They are not there because we made it impossible for years for them to be there. So, never you morons mind, while American soldiers are killed you can rest easy. Morons.

I still think the SOTU flap is gotcha typical press scandal The press are upset because they bought the "Iraq has WMD" story hook line and sinker last year and blew off other sources like Scotter Ritter who said that 95 % or better had been eliminated. The press is reacting to a source that abused their trust, not to the real story.

The real story is the lack of planning that went into post war Iraq. Why our troops are still there as sitting ducks in a shooting gallery. Why the electricity still doesn't work in Iraq and why they are not showering our troops with flowers. There were people in the administration that saw this coming but they were ignored the same way the CEA is ignored when it comes to fiscal policy.

The WaPo mentions offhandedly towards the end of this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31597-2003Jul22.html?nav=hptop_tb

that one of the CIA memos, the one on Oct. 6th, was sent directly not only to Hadley, but as well to his boss, Condi Rice. And yet, she claims to have been unaware of the matter.

What was the CIA supposed to do -- send her to a pastel-painted village in Wales where she would be addressed as "number six" and not let leave until she understood the story was bogus?

Speaking of Condi being forgetful, what about that Dec. 20, 2000 meeting between her and Sandy Berger where Berger outlined his ideas for going into Afghanistan and getting rid of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. When reporters asked Dr. Rice about this meeting, she did not recall it. She certainly did not start drawing up any plans to go into Afghanistan until mid-August 2001. What ever happened to this story?

Where are the conservative voices on this thread (the radical libertarians, ultraconservatives, etc.)? Funny they seem to chime in sometimes when Brad's argument is somewhat pliable. When it is a thread like this that is virtually impossible to argue with, you never hear them saying: "well, sorry guys, I guess all that I said about how Saddam was going to blow up the eastern seaboard wasn't true. Maybe Bush isn't so great after all".

No, they don't respond at all. Just wait until another thread comes along just a bit more speculative, they'll have forgotten all about this story and go on spouting jingoisms. Great thing about those conservatives, they just don't let reality get in the way of their delusions.

At this point in the game, I don't see how anyone can believe anything Condi Rice says. How many buck-passing statements that defy common sense can a person make before they become a joke? On just about every level though, truth-telling is a dangerous thing for a Bush Administration official. Just imagine if a Treasury Secretary ever tried to tell the truth about Bush's fiscal policies... Oh wait, that actually happened and the guy is gone.

The basic rule for job security in the White House seems to be, lying and/or extreme incompetence is no vice in defense of Bush's policies.

I'm wondering how long Rice will last. I'm working with an 'ablative shielding' theory - peel off subordinates from the lower levels first. However, it looks like Rice is being implicated, with her only defense being that she's got a lousy memory when it comes to matters of national security. And even in the Bush administration, there's a limit to tolerating that (a high one, mind you, but still a limit). And it seems to me that Rice is the best person short of Cheney to take a public fall.

Well, something has to give within the national security establishment. George Tenet comes out of Sixteen-Word-Gate looking like a stand up guy, and Rice and Hadley look cheap and self serving. Regardless of who's at fault, this isn't promising for the chemistry of the inner circle.

Everyone who is calling for Condi Rice's head over this don't seem to get it.

Condi Rice is untouchable, pristine because:

1: she is a senior level Black in a Republican adminstration
2: she has PhD and went to college when she was what, 13?
3: There is NO WAY Rove will let this come *that* close to Bush

Besides, Somerby is right: the press is doing its usual and barking up the wrong tree on this one. The more it focuses on the SOTU, the longer the reprieve for the Administration over the 'outing' of Valerie Plame - which is the *real* crime here.

Suresh is right. The whole SOTU thing is really about honesty and competence, and the lack thereof, and we seem to have all accepted that as par for the course with the W administration. The Valerie Plame thing though is the potentially fatal wound that the media seems unwilling to poke at.

Well, there is at least one upside to constantly harping on the SOTU speech:

Bush has to give another one. Right at the beginning of hot-and-heavy primary season, no less.

The SOTU usually marks a bump in the President's approval and support ratings, but the Niger incident could well undermine any attempt by Rove to use next year's SOTU as the launchpad for the election cycle.

On another note, I remember a college research paper I was to write. I chose the topic and submitted my list of sources to the professor. My trip to the library turned up many sources I didn't agree with, so I left them off my list and chose only those sources that supported my thesis. The prof returned my source list with an added twenty-five of his own recommended readings -- each of which I had already reviewed and rejected. I ended up having to change my thesis since the original one was untenable given the bulk of research.

It was one of the most important lessons I learned in college.