Seymour Hersh's fact piece in the current New Yorker
lays out current behind-the-scenes thinking about getting out of Iraq. One piece of the article talks about the problems created by the President's sense that he has a divine mandate to pursue his policies...
...the President had become more detached, leaving more issues to Karl Rove and Vice-President Cheney. “They keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,” the former defense official said.
Most worrisome to some in the military are questions about reducing American troops and substituting air power for boots on the ground. Apparently the air war has been growing without much comment from the congress or media. Hersh cites a press release that the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone has dropped over 500,000 tons of ordinance. But if American troops are gone, who will provide targeting for the air strikes? The scenario of handing targeting over to the Iraqis apparently makes many military planners uncomfortable.
The 27 rationales...
There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but a graduate student in Chicago found and tracked 27 different rationales used to justify the war in Iraq.
Gathering over 1500 statements
from the Bush cabinet, US senators, and from news stories, Largio even throws in some time series graphs in appendices, so you can see which rationales were hot, and which were not from Sept 2001 to October 2002.
Press underreports casualties
I had never heard of "Editor & Publisher" before, but I came across this link, and thought the news was rather shocking.
So while 106 troops were killed since the "end of hostilities," 1927 have been wounded since the war began, 200 have been killed from all causes, and over 4,000 troops have been medically evacuated from Iraq.
The article says the stats are easily obtained from the Pentagon web site - though all I could find was press releases
which just mention casualties one by one.
Can anyone out there find a comprehensive listing on the Pentagon's page?
The article suggests that the media are at least in part to blame here (along with the administration's general reluctance to focus on bad news). Why wouldn't newspapers want to cover injuries to the troops? I, for one, would like to see this covered. What do you all think?
Robert Byrd speaks to the Senate, May 21, 2003 Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not...
...We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.
Words of wisdom from a senior US Senator.