Mr. Bush, please define "civil war"

[03CLS 0]

Quote

Quote

We're still steadily losing US soldiers, and the numbers are going UP, not down. (31 last month, 48 so far this month.) They deserve better than "business as usual."

How about wrong as usual?

05/03/03 - 06/28/04 Soverienty turned over to Iraq -718 Approx 55 per month

06/29/04 - 01/30/05 - Iraqi Elections -579 Approx 83 per month

01/31/05 - 12/14/05 - Iraq General Elections -715 Approx 60 per month

12/15/05 - 04/16/06 - Current -225 Approx 56 per month

I wonder how anyone can look at these stats and conclude the death rate is going up.


Edited to add: These are US Soldiers deaths.

-

The rate isn't going up, but the number of dead soldiers is and the number coming back crippled or handicapped is still growing.


IRAN has talk more shit and is and was more of a problem the Sadam ever was or would have been.

Oh, and Bush can't define "Civil War" because he is a fucking idiot.

[billvon 3,114]

>How about wrong as usual?

31 last month, 48 this month. Even in conservative math, 48 > 31. (And April is not over yet.) Saying "WRONG" to that is a poor approach, since anyone can get on the web and see that those numbers are correct.

Perhaps a better appproach is to say "that's just a temporary blip; overall fatalities are down from X to Y." Which is true. I hope for the sake of our soldiers it _is_ just a temporary blip. But pretending there are no problems over there, and redefining 'civil war' so you can get better sound bites, will not help that happen.

[kimemerson 7]

well, there are temporary blips, up one month down the next, down one month up the next. Then, there's the notion of kiling at all vs not killing at all. Does it matter one way or another if the numbers are floating up & down. Dead is dead and killing is how it happens. We ostensibly showed up to deal with WMD and there aren't any. So why again are we killing and beng killed? It all escapes me.