This is great, because the woman gets the point that many liberals in this country apparently do not: often fighting for freedom and what is right involves sacrifice.

The attitude of the liberals and the MSM is often that we cannot fight for anything, because fighting involves a sacrifice. To them, any losses during a war on unacceptable. Lucky for us the media didn't behave in the same way during WWII, or else we'd be speaking German right now.

Ultimately, liberals seem to have an immature attitude towards the whole issue of war and conflict. Their attitude seems to be that we will fight, but only if it involves zero losses.

But hey I thought they don't want us there....

/sarcasm

Another Thought -

liberals seem to have an immature attitude towards the whole issue of war and conflict.

Thanks for reminding me of the photo that I just posted.

I wish you all could have met Humalia in person. To see her standing there calmly, speaking with laser intensity about life under Saddam, how deeply grateful she and her people are to the Coalition and how deeply, deeply committed she and her people are to building a free and stable Iraq -- if the US stays the course there.

When she spoke about the murder of her sister -- and the Syrian money that paid for it -- hair stood up on the arms of every person in that room. Afterwards, I spoke one on one with her briefly and came away greatly impressed.

Peace is not free. Sometimes peace costs a shitload. We were at peace on September 11, 2001, and it cost us 3,000 American lives. If we'd been busily kicking the shit out of al Qaeda and regimes that supported it on that date -- and especially if we had been doing so since the bombing of the Cole, if not before -- we might have avoided paying that price. The moonbats' sign typifies a great deal of moonbat thinking: specious, and ultimately quite dangerous.

Bob Schieffer on Larry King:

Bloggers are like a watercooler.

To support this idotic notion, Schieffer comes up with anecdotal evidence of someone on the internet reporting that he had interviewed Jerry Rice instead of Condoleeza Rice.

Schieffer even acknowledged that there was no link.
Anyone with half a brain knows what to make of claims w/o links.

Schieffer doesn't seem to be entirely stupid, so I assume he is just to too old to understand how the internet works, as are so many of these establishment types.

The woman with the sign is representative of so many Americans who have no knowledge of history, and no concept of the sacrifices made to ensure the relative peace and prosperity we have for so long enjoyed. If it was up to them alone, all those blessings would be quickly frittered away. Like the spoiled child who spends his inheritance and wonders how then he will survive, these people are the product of a permissive and indulgent society. Ironically, without the protection of the warrior class they so despise, incapable of raising a hand in their own or anyone elses defense, in this predatory world they would quickly become extinct.

How ironic that she's sitting "in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial".

Lincoln could have chosen "peace". It is, as she points out, "free", and that choice would have kept Lincoln and thousands of others alive.

It would also, however, have split the Union and left slavery as an institution in North America.

Self delusion is a very powerful state.

Even after devastating events such as those which occured on 9/11/01, leftist self delusion has returned.

The question we must ask ourselves as a nation in the next few days is this: Will deluding ourselves lead us to greater security or less.

I am shocked by the closeness shown by the polling data, because for me, this question was answered in the hours and days following 9/11. Nothing has occured which can begin to diminish my determination.

Apparently, the nanny staters are willing to accept promises of security without hassles in lieu of actions which will perpetuate actual security but include costs, responsibilities, and burdens.

The world truly is turned upside down, but not in the way the limp ones believe it to be.

Apparently no one told the young post-modern princess who thinks "Peace is Free" the truth about Bambi. The beautiful green background in picture behind Bambi? That's Godzilla's foot.

Humalia Akrawy's story should be front page in newspapers across our nation. Perhaps it someday will be, but let us not forget the darkness and corruption that has prevented it so far.

My husband and I came to this conclusion:

We would rather lose our lives fighting for freedom, than lose them living in "peace."

Freedom costs. True peace costs. Any American who loves the liberties this country is blessed with should understand that, and should be willing to pay the price. Or, they should leave.

An inspiring story. For better or for worse, we owe her and her countrymen (and women) a better country now.

--|PW|--

Ultimately, liberals seem to have an immature attitude towards the whole issue of war and conflict. Their attitude seems to be that we will fight, but only if it involves zero losses.

Another Thought:
That was the nub of the Clinton administration. I might put this to you, however: Whose freedom and peace is it worth sacrificing American lives for? Other people's freedom and security? Or America's freedom and security?

Sometimes those interests coincide. Often, they don't.

--|PW|--

The estblishment wants Kerry to win at all costs. All semblance of objectivity has been left by the way side. The MSM is giving this its best and hopefully last shot.

The country, the world can not survive Carter II.

In the meantime, go and read the Kerry Spot.

Pennywit: interesting question you pose, and certainly it gets to the heart of how to fight the war on terror.

It is a basic tenet of international relations that democracies tend to not attack each other. In other words, free people tend to be peaceful people.
Ideally, all countries in the world would be free countries, for that would maximize the prospects for peace in the world.

Also, free countries generally do not breed terrorists and terrorist movements.

Therefore, there is no doubt that American security is maximized through the spread of freedom and free countries in the world.

This is the heart of what Bush argues for: the spread of freedom. Freedom successfully replaced Fascism in Germany and the Empire in Japan, and tranformed those nations into our allies. Freedom brought down the iron curtain and ended the Soviet threat.

Ultimately, we live on one planet, and we can't just ignore the freedom deficit in the rest of the world. It always comes back to haunt us. We have tried that before, but it has not worked. You just can't make a deal with the devil.

So we are left with this brave new world facing us. At least Bush has a plan for defeating terrorism; only time will tell of its wisdom. But it is a plan to fight and there is great depth of thought behind it; Kerry has none, and thinks he can somehow manage and control terrorism and reduce it to some acceptable level. I would posit that Kerry's plan is a plan for failure, just as the plan to coexist alongside the Soviet Union ( as promoted by Nixon and Carter) rather than win the Cold War (Reagan's idea), was the wrong idea. In fact, Kerry's plan will only get more dangerous with time, as technology inevitably will enable individual actors such as terrorists to have progressively more destructive weapons. So you can't just contain the devil either.

So that is pretty much the difference in this election: Kerry thinks he can either make a deal with the devil, or at least contain the devil, whereas Bush wants to defeat the devil.

I'll take Bush's plan anyday.

I have a friend who grew up in Vietnam after the fall of Saigon. The cost of peace for her meant that her father spent four years in a re-education camp. Peace under the Communists meant a harrowing boat escape through the South China Sea and another two years in refugee camps.

I wonder if the moonbats who hoist such signs have ever spoken to someone who has lived under a dictatorship and enjoyed "peace." Better to fight to defend your rights than live on your knees, but then fighting costs and bending your knee is cheap, till you tally the cost.

Sign should read:

Peace of the Grave is Free.

Every so often I see a story of the bravery of soldiers, or firemen or policemen - ordinary citizens in a crisis - that make me ask in awe, "Where do we find such people?"

It is hard to imagine that even the best of us - those of us untested by real hardship - can endure even the reflected glory of such heroism.

Thanks, Bill. A great story.

Someone should inform that misguided young woman that if the North had chosen easy peace (as opposed to the hard fought peace of victory) it would have been cheaper in both lives and dollars, but her ancestors would not have been freed nearly as early as they were and this continent would be an amalgam of small countries forever infighting ala Europe.

"Peace is not free... peace costs a shitload."

Matt, thanks for saying it better than I have heard anywhere.

AT and John, you took the words out of my mouth. Great posts.

Don't forget, freedom costs a buck oh five.

And I wrote a little bit on my new blog (shameless plug) on why it is important for our President to be a dentist. Is Kerry a dentist?

- I certainly would never ascribe to mindless lockstep adherence to any and every threat and cause... But I have to believe that some simply can't face one simple truth of life; that we have no real rights except the one's we are willing to sacrifice and fight for...

- "The fear of sacrifice will be overcome by the anger of unacceptable loss"...

- I think it was in an episode of "Band of Brothers"....One of the Vets was asked what he felt when he went into battle...He said..."We were all terrified....simply terrified....to a man.... but I kept thinking if I didn't stop that other soldier coming at me he would go on to kill my wife and children"....

- And the last scene where the little boy says to his grandfather..."Gramps.....were you a hero in the war...."...."A hero.....no child.....the men who didn't come home ....They were the heros"....

- I'm betting most of the families that lost loved ones on 9/11, Iraq, or during any war would understand and agree with those words....

One could write volumes on the price of peace, but the simpliest examples come from both fact and fiction.

1. Fact. One thinks back to the cost of peace to the citizens of Carthage when the Romans imposed a Roman Peace

The following description is taken from Appian's Libyca: "The Destruction of Carthage"

Then came new scenes of horror. The fire spread and carried everything down, and the soldiers did not wait to destroy the buildings little by little, but pulled them all down together. So the crashing grew louder, and many fell with the stones into the midst of the dead. Others were seen still living, especially old men, women and young children who had hidden in the inmost nooks of the houses, some of them wounded, some more or less burned, and uttering horrible cries.

Six days passed thus, and only the citadel was left. It was a steep rock in the middle of the town; a temple of the God of Healing crowned its summit.

The Roman soldiers were weary: nine-tenths of the inhabitants had been already killed. The people on the rock were offered their lives; they descended with bare hands and passed under the yoke. Some of them eneded their days in prison; the greater part were sold as slaves.

Carthage burned seventeen days before it was entirely consumed. Then the plough was passed over the soil to put an end in legal form to the existence of the city.

One hates to compare OBL to Cato the Elder, but I can imagine OBL talking about America as Cato did: Delenda est Carthago (“Carthage must be destroyed”).

2. Popular Fiction: LOTR The Two Towers, Eowyn : The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them. I fear neither death nor pain.

Maybe that woman should change her sign to:

U.S. out of Iraq. Re-open Saddam's rape rooms!

Too heavy for words.

It's a little odd that the guy behind her would be a slave if her wishes were true.

"Their attitude seems to be that we will fight, but only if it involves zero losses."

Hmmm, I assume it means zero losses on our side. And then that sounds an awful like bullying... picking fights only with those who can't/won't fight back. Fighting when there's some risk of loss - that takes courage. Being a bully is the ultimate in cowardice.

Swede:

"Like the spoiled child who spends his inheritance and wonders how then he will survive, these people are the product of a permissive and indulgent society."

Actually, I think it's just plain unwillingness to face up to a bully. Kids are conditioned in school not to confront violence. They're taught to "tell an adult", and the bullying just continues until something tragic happens, or somebody gets sued. Our society is just cowed into not standing up to thugs.

The latest threat video from Al Qaeda is an attempt to exploit that weakness. Violence worked for them in Spain, so just the threat of violence here may work for them. If we give in, they will only make more demands, just like a school yard bully.

BTW, notice that UBL is nowhere to be seen or heard?

Deleted because it's wildly off-topic and makes little damn sense.

Wa already know what the thing on Bush's back is, Ed. It's a cybernetic implant wired directly into Bush's spine which beams instructions to him from his Zionist masters.

Liberals believe in freedom, the freedom to be a slave. It is called the "Slave Morality" - check it out some time.

On the other side, libertarians and conservatives believe in LIBERTY, which is something along the lines of "Master Morality."

Oh, that's beautiful -- I've been censored, my post deleted due to "lack of relevance." Yeah, right. Incredible.

I thought about it during the last session of our class in History and Moral Philosophy. H. & M. P. was different from other courses in that eveybody had to take it but nobody had to pass it -- and Mr. Dubois never seemed to care whether he got through to us or not. He would just point at you with the stump of his left arm (he never bothered with names) and snap a question. Then the argument would start.

But on the last day he seemed to be trying to find out what we had learned. One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says that violence never settles anything."

"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"

The had tangled before -- since you couldn't flunk the course, it wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"

"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea -- a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedom."

-- Robert Heinlein, _Starship Troopers_

Once again, this loser is wildly off topic. He could be insane. He's surely dissonant.

Where on this site CAN I post this topic (of Bush's obvious thing on his back ind debate)?

Because I think it's bullshit.

Did you read the story above? Did you read about this woman that had her family killed and tortured by Saddam,? Or did you just look for the first comment thread that was open for you to post a wildly unrelated topic?

My God you are a loser. Go back and read the post.

You want a forum for things you want to talk about? Start your own.

Sorry for feeding the troll.

(Not a problem -Ed)

Drill Sgt:

Actually, Cato the Elder's famous line was Ceterum Censeo Carthago Esse Delendam -- I am of the opinion Carthage must be destroyed.

The line you quote Carthago Delenda Est means "Carthage is destroyed". That was Scipio Africanus' famous three word dispatch to the Senate after he conquered and destroyed the city.

Damn, looks like I got late to the pile on party. Great story Bill, amazing story of what some people are willing to sacrifice for freedom and peace while others jsut whine.
As for Ed the Troll, is that the best you could do? A story of a woman who has had to endure the horrors of Saddam's regime, and now risks the loss of her life and her family's lives, and the best counter argument you have is a bad camera angle on a rumpled suit jacket? No wonder the left is morally bankrupt.

Thanks CatoRenasci.

I don't speak Latin. That takes one to another OT area. The quality of popular (non-blogging) research tools. I took that bad quote directly from MSN Encarta. It would seem that Bill Gates can't afford a Latin scholar either :)

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562033/Punic_Wars.html#p4

IV Third Punic War
Print Preview of Section

In the 2nd century bc, however, Carthage continued to be commercially successful and, though only a minor power, a source of irritation to Rome. The Romans were further incited by the speeches of the censor Cato the Elder, who demanded Delenda est Carthago (“Carthage must be destroyed”). A minor Carthaginian breach of treaty gave the pretext for the Third Punic War (149-146 bc), in which the Romans, led by Scipio the Younger, captured the city of Carthage, razed it to the ground, and sold the surviving inhabitants into slavery.

PS: Fredrich, I always loved that book and passage

Indeed, one of my greatest concerns about the internet as a research tool is the inconsistent quality of the sources. Unless one already knows which are the reliable sources in an area (and now finds them online) or at the very least has sufficient training in a field to be able to (and to know how to) evaluate the quality of the sources, then internet research is a crapshoot. I tried very hard to impress this upon my daughters, but with limited success. In my own areas of interest - history, philosophy, economics, law, literature and music - I have tried over the past 45 years to amass a reasonable private library of high quality sources, ranging from a reproduction of the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and a copy of the 11th edition Britannica (the "Scholars' Edition") to many of the most significant works in the fields, based on what was considered top scholarship up to about 1975 (when the history profession really started tanking). I've pared back much, but still probably have about 2,500 volumes, 300 lps and 600 CDs.

I'm not much of a classical Latin scholar myself, but I originally found the full quote in (of all places) Spengler's Decline of the West, and then hunted it down in the source Spengler cited, Plutarch's Lives, to confirm it. And, of course, it is the correct Latin construction.

Anti-liberators are really "United for Genocidal Peace and Justice for Dictators".

An inspiring story, yes. But I'm sure there are plenty of similarly heart-rending stories from among the many thousands of Iraqis who have been killed in the American attack and occupation of Iraq. At least 10,000 Iraqis have been killed. A report released yesterday puts the number at over 100,000 IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED. (See http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/index.html)

Remember, there were no WMDs in Iraq when America attacked. The 9/11 attackers were mostly Saudis, not Iraqis financed by Bin Laden. Saddam was NOT in league with Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission and the Duelfer Report confirmed all this.

There is one important Al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq, however, and that is Zarqawi. Bush actually PROTECTED Zarqawi from being attacked by the US Military in 2002 and early 2003. Why? Because he wanted a full scale war. See (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ or http://slate.msn.com/id/2100549).

Will X:

"SNORE"

Can you do a little better than cutting and pasting from Democratic Underground?

"SNORE". Right. Why should anyone care about the killing of Iraqi civilians? And what's all the fuss over Abu Ghraib? They're just Iraqis, after all.

If you care about those who target and kill Iraqi civilians, I suppose this means you are against a US retreat and actually support the US helping the Iraqi govt restore law and order (i.e. you support the war)?

RE: Abu Ghraib - you mean the kind of stuff Kerry brags about?

How about you just barf up "BUTTT BUSH LIED!! YOU FASCIST NAZI RACIST WARMONGER!!!" and move along...

Will X:

Why should anyone care about the killing of Iraqi civilians? And what's all the fuss over Abu Ghraib? They're just Iraqis, after all.

You're absolutely right. We should just give it up in Iraq, put Saddam back in power, and move on. I mean, he was killing an average of 12-15 thousand of his citizens every year, not to mention the tens of thousands more who were dying as a result of sanctions each year Hussein stayed in power. Not to mention the multiple wars he started, his funding of Palestinian terrorists, and his own terrorist training camp.

Funny, the left gets worked up about Iraqi casualties (usually laying every single one at the feet of the United States), but their response to Hussein's two decade slaughter has been... well, the same as my response when someone like you drops in and posts the same gawdam points we've seen time and time again: YAWN.

Seen it, read the book, rented the movie. Get some new talking points, Will.

Will X, if you had read the report on 100K Iraqis killed, you'd have known that the "researchers" stated themselves that their methodology was flawed and inaccurate. Plus the Lancet timed the relseas "not to be political" but to hold the US candidates accountable. Huh? How is that not political.
I will definitely accept the 10-30,000 killed during the last 18 months. However it ahs also been estimated that 5,000 Iraqis died during the sanctions regime, each month! So, 6 months of the sanctions era vs. 18 months of liberation. Guess which one I'd choose.

Robert: Don't miss the point that it is the same people killing them now (i.e. Baathist/Al-Q terrorists).

Since you asked...
What I mean regarding Abu Ghraib, the looting of Bahgdad, the killing of 10,000s of Iraqi citizens, the protecting of Zarqawi, etc, is that all of these things work against Bush's desire to be seen by the Iraqis as a benevolent liberator.

This also severly hamper the ability of any government installed by Bush to be seen as legitimate in the eyes the Iraqis.

Any lack of support for Bush among Iraqis is an open invitation to the insurgents. Bush needed to win the battle for the "hearts and minds" of Iraq, but I believe, in the aggregate, he has failed miserably.

The best way to help the Iraqi people is to vote Bush out of office and try to make a fresh start with the Iraqi people.

Will X -

What I mean regarding Abu Ghraib, the looting of Bahgdad, the killing of 10,000s of Iraqi citizens, the protecting of Zarqawi, etc, is that all of these things work against Bush's desire to be seen by the Iraqis as a benevolent liberator.

Do you really know how the Iraqi people feel about Bush, or are you just parroting what you've read in the New York Times?

Here are a couple of sites to get you started:

http://www.voicesofiraq.com/

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org

How clever - I hear an Iraq fell down the stairs today. That must be the fault of Evil Bush too!

And I suppose the UN, French and Russians (and their chosen canidate Mr. Kerry) are loved and admired by the Iraqis, even though they were directly subsizing Saddam's death-camps and death-squads through oil-for-food and other contracts?

Why not say what you really think: The best way to Fuck over the Iraqis is to vote in a dude who will sound the retreat, but I hate Bush so fuck em.

But I agree that Bush failed because he drew the ire from the terrorists. We need someone in there who the terrorists love and admire! Someone that will help the terrorists through love and understanding!

Excellent, Robert. You just need to connect the dots a bit more to be on the same page as me. If you read the article carefully, you'll see that the 100,000 Iraqi civilians are above and beyond the Iraqis who would have died under Saddam. How do you think your 5000/mo figure under the sanctions was calculated, anyway? (And could you provide a link to your source for that figure?)

Thinking and analysis based on real evidence is good. Remember that American ignorance is Bush's best friend (see http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=508).

Willy Boy:
Speaking of ignorance...You still haven't addressed that it is the same people that is killing most of them (i.e. not the US).

Will X, so 5000 deaths amonth at Saddams hands are ok? Plus you have pointedly ignored the fact that the methodology is flawed, by the authors' own admission. And it was a story put out designed to influence the election -- by the Lancet's own admission/denial. This 100,000 is b.s.
Nor have you addressed Snarky's point.

Snarky, you didn't read the article I cited:

While the major causes of death before the invasion were heart attack, stroke, and chronic illness, the risk of dying from violence after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war.

Most people died from violence after the invasion, the survey said, with most of the households interviewed saying air strikes from coalition forces were to blame.

"...most of the households interviewed saying air strikes from coalition forces were to blame."

They may SAY that, but that isn't proof dummy.

And it flies in the face of other evidence and common sense.

Who is blowing shit up every day? Who is targeting civilians and officials? Who is initiating the violence and who is trying to prevent it?

Swede: "Ironically, without the protection of the warrior class they so despise..."

Agreed except on one point. America doesn't HAVE a "warrior class". A warrior class would be the Samurai of imperial Japan, or English knights. Their whole life was the combat arts.

We, on the other hand, have "citizen warriors". While every soldier/sailor/airman/marine is supposed to have basic combat skills (as inculcated in BCT), that's not all there is to them. Most have some other kind of specialty that they use in a military setting, but can directly translate to civilian work. The citizen warrior is not above, below, or apart from society, they are part of it. That, I think, is why volunteer armies of citizen warriors have proven to be the world's best.

Two points. First, the Bush administration hasn't even bothered to try to track Iraqi deaths. Why? Ignorance is Bush's best friend. (see above)

Second, I'm not a dummy. I'm just citing a paper in a respected, non-partisan scientific journal. Don't blame the messenger.

Two more points:

1) You are assuming that tracking Iraqi casualities is even feasable. I suspect it isn't, due mostly to the terrorists destroying law and order. Such is reality, but you would rather blame in on Bush (who is apprently the devil in your twisted pantheon).

2) You ARE a dummy for not seeing partisan propaganda for what it is and mouthing it as "proof."

Snarky-

I didn't declare it as "proof", but
I do believe it is a legitimate attempt to estimate the number of civilian casualties associated with the invasion of Iraq. And, yes, I do believe The Lancet is a respected, non-partisan scientific journal, not a propaganda mouthpiece.

Furthermore, you've ignored that Zarqawi is responsible for some of the recent violence, and the White House PREVENTED the US Military from attacking Zarqawi on multiple occasions in 2002 and early 2003.

1) So if Lancet told you to jump off a cliff, you would do it?

2) It is written like propanda. Look at the two sentences you posted:

"While the major causes of death before the invasion were heart attack, stroke, and chronic illness, ///// the risk of dying from violence after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war."

Why is this one sentence? Is violence now the leading cause? It is purposely unclear -- classic propaganda.

The second sentence was also confusing (probably deliberate), seems to be mear hearsay (not hard evidence) and flies in the face of other evidence and common sense.

3) I am not ignoring that Zarqawi is responsible for a lot of violence, that indeed is my point.

Is your point that we should have killed Zarqawi? If so, I agree. We should kill him now if we can and remain in Iraq until their government is ready to prevent others like him from similar violence.

Or is your point that Kerry would have killed (or will kill) Zarqawi? That is just idle speculation - and there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.

Snarky-

When determining how someone died, they did it by asking surviving members of the very same household. That does not qualify as hearsay!

The point on Zarqawi is that Bush's refusal to let the military attack him shows that Bush has poor judgement and a warped agenda. Namely, that he has been obsessed with getting Saddam at the expense of more important priorities such the war against Al Qaeda and Islamic extremist terrorism.

Your speculation that Kerry would also have prevented the US Military from attacking Zarqawi is gratuitous at best. Please cite a post 9/11 instance where Kerry was against going after an Al Qaeda leader.

1) If you had morgue counts, etc. it would be acceptable evidence. Otherwise it is just speculation based on calling people in the middle of a violent warzone (who are, with good reason, not going to be upfront).

The claim that the majority of casualites are from air raids is also suspect and contrary to other reports (and common sense).

2) Your Zarqawi assertion is a complete crock. As Bush's stated agenda with Iraq is to fight Al Queda (and other parts of the Terrorist Movement) you are just begging the question.

3) Zarqawi is in Iraq - Kerry has hinted his strategy is to retreat. We can easily assume this means leaving Zarqawi in Iraq alive and well.

4) If you agree that we should kill Zarqawi and his followers because they are violent, why are you against the War?

Snarky -

1) The methodology was not phone calls. It was face-to-face interviews in Iraqi homes with family members. Most of the interviewers were Iraqi physicians. They reported that the level of cooperation among interviewees was quite high.

2) I'm just the messenger here. Follow the links I provided, or look in 10/25 WSJ. Don't just blindly dismiss it as a crock.

3) I trust Kerry to weigh all the options carefully once he gets into office and make the best decision.

4) The best chance to get Zarqawi was apparently BEFORE the war. I'm not sure what you mean by saying I am "against the war". I believe that starting a war in March '03 was ill-advised given that the UN weapons inspectors were having good success in Iraq and most other nations were opposed to war. I believe that Bush has bungled the occupation of Iraq. However, I don't believe we should just pull out and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves. Does that make me "for the war"?

1) I didn't say "phone calls" - I said calls. As in calling on someone. And are Iraqi medical professionals trained in polling? Just asking.

2) It is even lamer that you claim to be the "messenger." You have free will. You can read and think and choose to post. You just chose not to.

3) Like he did with his voting record and anti-Vietnam activites...??

4) Zarqawi is just part of the problem, not the problem. Yeah I bet the UN and those "other nations" (i.e. France and Russia) were just having hog-wild success -- getting fat off the stolen oil money ripped off from the Iraqi people and from arms sold to Saddam's death squads. Shame on us for ruining their good time.

This just reminds me of your long promised moonbat report. Where is it? WHERE??!?!?! I NEED MY MOONBATS!

(And probably my medication too.)

1) Please. You said they were "calling people". That implies not visiting them. You didn't say they were "calling on people".

2) Yes I choose to read and think, so what? These articles report relevant events and I am passing them along for you to read. If you wish, please debunk them in a thoughtful way.

3) That's a discussion for another day.

4) What are you blathering on about? How is that a response to what I said? Anyway, wasn't the US selling arms to Iraq under Reagan? I seem to remember that Reagan protected Saddam from UN condemnation after Saddam gassed the Kurds. So get off your high horse.

For a much better refutation of the 100,000 dead, go here:
http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html

Wait: Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war started?

And Saddam had no connections to al Qaeda?

And we didn't attack Zarqawi in Iraq because Bush is dumb for not attacking Iraqi sovereign territory sooner than he attacked Iraqi sovereign territory in order to get Zarqawi who couldn't have been there because Saddam had no connection to Islamic terror?

I'm beginning to see why a lot of people like John Kerry.

Steve in houston why do they?

Steve that is so true man, tru dat tru dat

Steve in Houston -

Yes, Zarqawi was in northern Iraq. This is the region where the Kurds were living in relative autonomy, protected by US fighter planes patrolling the No-Fly Zone.

This is NOT where a friend of Saddam's would be hanging out.

Taking out Zarqawi's, camp would have been a low-risk, high-reward, closed-ended military execise. According to Gen. John M. Keane, the US Army vice chief of staff at the time, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the Zarqawi camp was "one of the best targets we ever had."

Check it out for yourself: the 10/25 issue of WSJ, on pages A3 and A8.