October 11, 2006

New study suggests that mortality rate has doubled in Iraq after invasion

This new study believes that 655,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion, and further estimates that 600,000 of them have died violently. This study used statistical sampling (as I understand it) and could be way off. But those around the issue (who aren't Bushies) think it is close. The study measures the mortality rate and has it well over twice pre-invasion Iraq.

As Glenn Greenwald notes, and as Stephen Colbert remarked, "facts have a well known liberal bias." This study is far from established fact, but is just another indication that our policy there has been ill conceived to say the least. It will go down as a needlesss historical tragedy, and set our relationships with the Middle East back 100 years or more. Not only did Bush sell the war on false pretenses, he and Rummy decided to ignore the Powell Doctrine and tried to fight this one on the cheap, and it should be noted, rob from Peter (Afghanistan) to pay Paul (Iraq) and then rob from the military families and national treasury to, well, not pay Paul.

It is very possible that this war was doomed from the start--that the entire idea of forcing democracy at the point of gun is ridiculous. But it is arguable that once invaded, an overwhelming force could have immediately improved the lives of Iraqi citizens and stopped the insurgency from forming, or at least becoming the force it is.

We will never know. But regardless of how you see this new mortality study, Iraq is not better off than it was. The UN estimates that torture is worse in Iraq now than under Saddam. Iraqi citizens in huge numbers want America out and distrust our motives.

I wonder if my hardcore Bush supporting friends and family will ever concede that this presidency has been a HUGE mistake? Iraq is a mess; Afghanistan headed back to Taliban rule; the president using the constitution as kleenex; civil liberties up for political points; and our own ability to take care of the American people severely weakened. Our army is in shambles and our military families the only ones asked to sacrifice for this mess.

Time to vote Democratic, if only for this election cycle. Time for some semblance of accountability.


Les Puryear said...


So...who is going to be the Democratic candidate for Prez? I just might vote for her, ummm...I mean him. :)


Streak said...

I have no idea, Les. Could be Hilary, but there are a lot of Democrats who don't like her.

Personally, I am much more concerned about the congress. I don't think that Democrats have all the answers, but installing some kind of checks and balances might lead us toward an at least functional government.

Wasp Jerky said...

There's been some speculation that Michael Bloomberg might run in '08 as an independent (assuming he didn't get the Republican nomination, which seems bloody unlikely). It's pretty damn early at this point, but here's hoping. A three party race might do this country some good.

Les Puryear said...


I agree with you about installing the checks and balances. There are misuses and abuses on both sides of the aisle.

Maybe somebody ought to read all of the emails too. :)



Tony said...

Don't discount Mark Warner. I'm from VA, and I have to admit, he did a pretty doggone good job out here. What's your take on him, Streak?

Streak said...


Both sides of the aisle aren't in power right now. One is, and until the Democrats rewrite the constitution and undo habeus corpus and 900 years of Western Civilization, perhaps we can lay off them for a bit? Treating the Democrats as just the equivalents of Rove and company plays right into the Fox "unfair and unbalanced" promotion, but does not really tell the story.

If your point is that Democrats are just as vulnerable to the temptations of power and wealth, then by all means I agree. But they aren't in power. The party of the family values crowd is in power, and they are showing their true colors in amazing ways. Speaking of that, read my latest post on Karl Rove's office referring to the religious right as "the nuts."

Apologies for the brusque reply. I am tired and annoyed today.

Streak said...

Tony, sorry. Didn't see your post until I hit send.

I am open to Warner. He strikes me as a solid guy, though I was annoyed to hear him on the anti-tax mantra. Certainly not all taxes are good, but neither are they all bad. Or at least I think that when my street lights function, water flows from the tap, and I see police, fire and ambulances do their job on a daily basis.

As I noted above, I am tired and a bit snippy. :) I will be better tomorrow.

ANewAnglican@gmail.com said...

I just turned 35. What do you think?

Tony said...


I heard last night on the news that Mark Warner has withdrawn his bid for election in 08. :(

He said the campaign was pulling him too far away from his family. Do you think he might have been pressured by Senator Clinton to withdraw? He was a very electable candidate.

Streak said...

Yeah, I heard about Warner too. I don't really know about his reasons, but he wouldn't be the first one to really suggest that the campaign was just too costly.

I also don't know about Hillary. I can't figure her out. Would she pressure a popular candidate from running? Probably.

She is one of the most interesting figures in politics. Is she the pure political animal? Certainly there are many Democrats who feel that way, and no one seems to inspire the right wing fundraisers as she does. In fact, some of my early frustration with the right came with their visceral hatred of her in '92. Since then, I can understand a certain distrust of her, but the over-the-top hatred is another thing. The right wing turned her into a symbol of evil in a way that I don't quite understand.

Long answer to a short question. I still dont' have a clue about who will run in 08. But then again, in 90, I don't think we had heard much from Bill Clinton.

ubub said...

I think we can all get behind Anglican's presidential bid. You would make a fine Commander in Chief, my friend. Happy belated b'day.