This data is an accounting of civilian deaths in Iraq to date.
See Iraqbodycount.net for statistical methodologies

Wait a Minute
The GOP is all busy blaming a Clinton appointee for evilly leading them astray on Iraq with bad intelligence. "Go ahead, invade!" the evil Tenet demanded a peace-loving, demure and militarily reluctant President Bush. When faced with the compelling evidence that Saddam was just about to destroy Des Moines, Bush had no choice? Right? Think of the children, for God's sake!!!

Let's not forget it was the Bush doctrine, so hideously articulated throughout 2002 and 2003, that stated we can't afford to wait for certainty. We had to strike at the first whif of danger- couldn't even wait for a full whiff. We couldn't verify, corroborate or determine the veracity of anything. If Bush thought it might could be, he had to act- a sort of institutionalized foreign policy through impulse. Of course, middle eastern experts were immediately puzzled with Bush's flawed assessment on Iraq as a target, as soon as they heard the rumblings in 2002. It's quite clear that with or without the CIA, Iraq was toast.

The fiasco is a utter repudiation of the entire materially immoral pre-emptive Bush doctrine. When you attack on predictions of future problems, you run the enormous risk (as was certainly the case in Iraq) of invading for non-existent reasons. As horrific as Iraq is, the one bright spot is it has revealed the Bush foreign policy as the morally corrupt and self-defeating sham that it is. Too bad millions of Iraqis have had to pay such a bitter price for Bush's, and America's re-education.

Lambaste the CIA all you want. The ultimate decision to go to war is Bush's and he had stated his doctrine as one that deliberately circumvented certainty. Despite what the GOP wants you to believe, the buck actually does stop at Bush's desk, golf cart or pickup truck.

The Constitution is Rescued!
Thank God for the cooler heads in the GOP. (Did I just say that without sarcasm?) To take the most sacred document in the history of human rights and pervert it into an instrument of institutionalized hatred takes cunning, evil and a complete lack of compassion. The so-called Christian Right was dealt a blow in its drive to illegalize social ideas that conflicted with their own.

Of course, the neanderthals sought to salvage some victory by proclaiming that it had ensured that America had a roll-call for who favored corrupting the sacred institution of marriage (hetero failure rate 50%+). The reality is it was a roll-call for those who would use the Constitution as a political bludgeon.

Only if Terrorists Would Appear to Affect the Outcome of the Election
Sorry folks, I didn't sufficiently belabor this issue in last week's sotc. The enormity of Bush's plan to merely investigate the possibility of perhaps considering moving the 2004 election if terrorists (a term Bush applies capriciously, to even, say, Democrats) strike in the US (say, via the Florida election process), is really terrifying.

Earlier this summer, DeForest B. Soaries, a Bush appointee to head the federal Election Assistance Commission, asked to "establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections" in case terrorists strike in the United States, whatever the hell that means.

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and ex-secretary of state of New Jersey. Yes, political implications indeed. And what could be more important than political implications for the GOP's stranglehold on American power? Certainly not the democratic process.

Then Tom Ridge joins in with a little bit of smack on terror threats around November's judgment day for Bush, "We are basically laying out before the general public the kind of information that we've received.... And it's not us – these are not conjectures or mythical statements we are making. These are pieces of information that we could trace comfortably to sources that we deem to be credible." Deem to be credible? Credible like the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims of the CIA? Credible like the nuclear weaponry claims of Chalabi? Credible like the Nigerian yellow-cake hoax? Credible like Saddam's unmanned missiles for dispersing bio-toxins in America? As credible as these other items that your administration used to sell a war?

These are all questions that the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel might look into. According to Newsweek, Ridge's Homeland Security department has asked Ashcroft's legal council, famous for the 1 August 2002 torture memo, to study the legal issues relevant to postponement. Wow, that's a relief! We've got the same legal minds figuring out how we could legitimize a complete abrogation of human rights now figuring out how the GOP could legitimize postponing an election.

Finally, Brian Rochrkasse, spokesman for Homeland Security, said the agency will "determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election." That is coming from the same folks who have deemed the Patriot act necessary to secure America.

So, Bush defines a terrorist as anyone who doesn't support his war on terror and he wants the power to disrupt the electoral process if terrorists do something to affect the outcome of the election? Terrifying.

Just as a side note: Dude, way to completely bolster bin Laden's sense of importance, by derailing the most precious process of American democracy. Once again, Bush hypes Al Qaeda's formidable influence on America.

Batting .750
Leaks out of the Congressional terror committee findings indicate that analysis of post-9/11 connections revealed that more than half the hijackers had spent significant time in Iran in the year leading up to the hijackings. Passports were not stamped so as to quell suspicion upon their ultimate entry into the US. Further, Iran has been implicated in the Cole bombing, as ties between Iran and the September 11th tragedy are becoming starker and starker over time.

Of course, GWB claimed the ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq were overwhelming, hence sending our nation to war with the Solomon Islands at our side. Please, everyone, let's give the poor guy a break. After all that beer and cocaine, can we really fault a guy just 'cause he got Iraq confused with Iran? I mean, they're both practically spelled the same way, the dress alike, share a border, and have we ever seen both of them at the same place at the same time? I mean, do we, the public, really know for sure they are different countries? Or couldn't they be dual identities for the same single country?

With the Bush doctrine of preemption, is it wise to wait around while we determine if they're actually the same or different countries? Can we afford to sort through the subtle nuances of Junior High School geography lessons, while Iraqn is busy helping terrorists plot against us?

You decide, but remember, can you afford to be wrong when Iraqn attacks?

Sick of this Crap Staff (yes, the links really work!):

Editor:
Publisher:
Layout:
Research:
Interns: , ,
Admin:
Contributors: