Cynthia McKinney says Bush's War-Dead count is actually more than

[patrice]

6,000. The conventional count (around 1600 now?) appears to be a lie. MicKinney says there are those who die enroute to the German hospitals where they were to be treated.

?

[BattyDem]

1. I hope she has proof, otherwise ...

they're going to nail her as a nutty, conspiracy theorist again. :-(

[burythehatchet]

3. and she'll be fuckin right

again. And when the DLC'ers go after her again, I will personally kick their asses.

[BattyDem]

5. I'm not saying she's not right ...

I just hope she's covered her ass this time because I don't want to see her trashed again for speaking the truth. She's a brave woman and deserves our respect and gratitude. :-)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Quite a few people are willing to listen now to what she has to say....

...because a lot more people have questions about the events of 911.

[BattyDem]

14. Good! I'd hate to see her brought down again ...

she doesn't deserve it.

[Karenina]

44. ANYBODY FROM HER DISTRICT ON BOARD???

Please, PLEASE forward the information in this thread to her!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3688105

<snip from OP>

"So there's no truth to the rumor that if you die outside of Iraq, the DOD automatically ignores you. Yes, occasionally it does ... especially if the death happens months after the soldier gets back from Iraq (Lynn's husband knows of 5 men that this applies to). And I am told that occasionally Special Forces deaths may be hush-hush. But as a rule, no. It's just a wild rumor.

And it's the same with this 7,000 business. If our list were missing thousands of names, can you imagine the e-mails we would get from enraged grannies, aunts, best friends, etc. for daring to leave their loved one OFF??? I shudder to think of it. I get called to task for every little goof-up I make as it is. I recently mistakenly entered a soldier's service branch as "U.S. Army National Guard" because that's what a news article said. Oh my ... the chaplain for the man's unit had an e-mail in to me within the HOUR complaining that it was U.S. ARMY RESERVES, dammit! And then there are the parents who write to say that the DOD published the wrong hometown, and would I please put the correct one in my database. We have thousands upon thousands of eyes out there watching that list. We aren't missing thousands of names.

The last thing to consider is this: the Bush administration isn't GOOD ENOUGH to hide that many deaths. They haven't managed to hide Halliburton's over-runs. They haven't managed to hide the troop equipment shortages. And they haven't managed to hide their own ineptness in the whole occupation. Somehow the truth has a way of seeping out between the cracks.

And me and Michael and Lynn and Evan watch those cracks like hawks."

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[LynnTheDem]

79. Pat spoke to Cynthia last month; they know each other.

Cynthia agreed to stop speaking about "hidden dead"; the "6000" is from an older article of Cynthia's.

[Just Me]

138. Apparently, she has received information which further backs the position.

She has recently spoke about the hidden numbers of the dead.

Is it possible that your information is wrong?

[LynnTheDem]

144. Nope, I can prove she's wrong. She's saying troops who die in Germany

aren't counted. I can prove that's not true.

I can prove troops who die back in the US are counted.

She is 100% absolutely wrong when she says they aren't counted.

Go to the ICCC and set the filters to list all US dead who died in Germany. And you'll get a list of every soldier's name and rank and age and unit who died from Iraq wounds in Germany.

You can also sort by specific hospital, not just by country.

The "hidden dead" is simply not possible. A handful missed, certainly. 4000 dead Americans??? Not one family member or friend speaks out? Not one of the hundreds of people who would have to be involved in such a cover-up speaks out?

bahhhhh.

[Karenina]

150. Du, Munchkins

Chomping dem nummers, restored my faith that there are Amis out there seriously on the case. Thank you so much for your dedication. I, too, believed there must be thosands of "uncounted" mainly because of reports in the German press about Landstuhl. Suffice to say the medical staff there is FREAKED, got their own version of PTSD going and currently off-loading ramps are being built to hide the traffic.

Where we may be getting punked on the numbers is with the extent of the INJURIES. Is anyone tracking that as closely? MANY who would have died in earlier conflicts are being kept alive. If a kid gets kept alive IN THE U.S. then dies of wounds say, 6 months later, does the death go down the memory hole?

[Just Me]

160. Lynn, I respect you a LOT,...

,...but, maybe, just maybe, the DoD is covering up the truth.

Maybe, just maybe,...the numbers are manipulated. How much are the numbers being manipulated, neither you or I can say for certain because these MO-FOs are such friggin' liars and they HIDE reality.

Don't get so frustrated when we are ALL just doing our best to overcome a tyranny that does everything in its power to place obstacles before facts.

:hug:

[LynnTheDem]

167. But I have nothing to do with DOD. Or Centcom. I spend 8 hours a day

every day, on average, searching for ONE NAME; a soldier who's died and not recorded.

My newsfeeds cover 20,000+ articles every 15 minutes that mention "Iraq".

I search blogs, news articles from around the world, soldiers' blogs and diaries, military families websites and blogs and diaries.

I get frustrated because I AM LOOKING EVERY DAY for any soldiers who've died & are not recorded; HOURS every day; SEVEN DAYS a week. And I really doubt anyone else on this board does so. It IS FRUSTATING to have your work just blown off and the same ol same ol easily proven as bullshit bullshit constantly spoken of as if it were fact, the way some on here do!/b]

The ICCC only lists dead soldiers when Centcom & DoD release official notices but WE SEARCH for deaths. We do not sit back and wait for DOD releases.

I wouldn't have to spend hours every day searching, if all we did was sit back & wait for DOD releases.

It's NOT ABOUT the DOD; it's also about the fellow soldiers, the soldiers' families, and friends and neighbors and the hundreds if not thousands of people who would have to be involved in any such cover-up as hiding 4000 US soldiers' deaths.

And I do get very angry when people insist on something that in 2 years there is NOT ONE NAME of proof of, and just casually disregard the freaking COUNTLESS number of hours the bunch at ICCC, including myself, have spent day & night searching & searching & searching.

These same people see how bullshit it was of bush to do it to Hussein; "just because we haven't found any", and "prove you have none"...then do it themselves!

It's NOT about DOD or Centcom.

But hey, doesn't matter. People will believe whatever they want. My 40-60+ hours a week searching is dedicated only to the soldiers, not to anyone else.

PS I think you rock. :)

[Just Me]

189. I greatly appreciate your investment. Please don't interpret skeptism as

disrespect for your dedicated work. The skepticism is directed at the tyrants who NEVER EVER report the truth.

When I suggest that the numbers of fallen soldiers are more likely than not "manipulated", that suggestion has absolutely NOTHING to do with you or your passion to TRY AND TRACK THE TRUTH.

Let's try to avoid holding ourselves out as presenting "truth" when we are all facing such tyrannical obstacles to reality.

You are clearly investing the better part of yourself to exact facts. Remember that, there are those who are also trying their best to present facts.

:hug: We are all doing the absolute best that we can. Let's embrace that dedication.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

162. Lynn, we've bumped heads on this before. IMHO, the NeoCons are....

...definitely manipulating the numbers even though it all seems to add up with what's being reported by the Army and public sources.

I do NOT trust the NeoCons to tell us the truth on any subject.

There are just too many ways that the NeoCons can bury the numbers in a system that consists of almost 2 million servicemembers and a thousands of different military commands.

I'm going to be very interested in finding out what McKinney has been told to make her go public.

[LynnTheDem]

174. I DON'T CARE what the neocons do! I don't have anything to do with the

neocons!

I search, all by me lonesome, world-wide media, blogs, websites, diaries etc for ONE NAME; a soldier who has died & isn't recorded.

That's what I do, 8+ hours EVERY DAY of the week.

There would need to be thousands of people in on any such cover-up, and the US Military doesn't have to release ONE SINGLE NAME if they don't want to...so why would they bother covering up what they don't have to release in the first place?

I'm pretty darn sure I know who McKinney got her incorrect info from; what remains to be seen is if she'll correct her incorrect remarks. I hope so.

But people will believe what they want to believe, facts be damned.

[comsymp]

19. Yup, Begala's probably looking for a trashcan

to hide in, as we speak

[FreedomAngel82]

119. McKinney is one of the best

I'm glad she's there.

[LynnTheDem]

75. Cynthia told Pat at the ICCC who had told her this "6000" bullshit, and it

is bullshit.

Cynthia agreed with Pat last month that spreading BS is not a good thing to do, and she no longer talks about any "hidden dead" and said she wouldn't until and unless she had credible proof.

Cynthia was wrong; troops who die on the way to or in hospitals are counted & that's easily proven.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

164. No, I don't think Cynthia is wrong. The numbers you're being given...

...add up because that's what they're supposed to do.

Those people are not amateurs when it comes to manipulating numbers of any kind.

[LynnTheDem]

177. Then they must really have serious shit on the thousands in on the coverup

That not one person out of the 1000s that would have to be involved in any such cover-up has gone public with one single name.

By the way, the Pentagon doesn't have to release ANY names if they don't want to. Isn't it strange that they don't just decide to release NO names whatsoever, instead of blackmailing or whatever it is they're doing to those thousands to keep them quiet.

And as I've posted so many countless times before, nobody gives me numbers. I go looking for dead soldiers. I don't sit & wait for DoD or Centcom to give them to me.

But nothing I say will convince you or anyone else. So I'll continue on with my 8+ hours a day of searching and try not to let myself get bloody annoyed at my hours being denigrated to recording numbers given to me.

:hug:

[Lars39]

191. What about nationals from other countries?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

7. She was right the last time, and the proof is there for anyone to see.

[LynnTheDem]

82. Really? What proof? Got one name?

We at ICCC would love to see any such "proof". :)

[Carni]

149. This is the first time I have seen this clarified

I personally haven't repeated any of the "hidden dead" stuff I have heard to anyone but my husband because I could not get confirmation.

I agree it would be very difficult for the US Government to hide 4000 deaths.

Thanks for the info -- I will continue to keep my wazoo shut about this unless at some point there is clear proof that it's for real!

[LynnTheDem]

157. I spend 8+ hours a day looking.

If it's for real, I will find ONE NAME. At least.

And I'm far from the only one looking. Ask my US military hubby how much I detest the US military (and the US military detests the Pentagon); if they're covering up ONE SINGLE DEATH, I am determined to find out.

[Carni]

188. I certainly don't question your explanation

I was basically wondering myself if there was any truth to the rumor.

Again thanks for the info.

[paula777]

151. She is probably going off of this article (attached)

http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/246435.shtml

9000 Dead GIs In Iraq?
author: Brian Harring
Jun 05, 2005 19:31

US Military Report: Bush’s Achilles’ Heel


The Bush Butcher’s Bill: Officially, 84 US Military Deaths in Iraq from 2 through 28 May, 2005 – Official Total of 1,747 US Dead to date (and rising)


U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing, underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000.


Note: There is excellent reason to believe that the Department of Defense is deliberately not reporting a significant number of the dead in Iraq. We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially. The educated rumor is that the actual death toll is in excess of 7,000. Given the officially acknowledged number of over 15,000 seriously wounded, this elevated death toll is far more realistic than the current 1,400+ now being officially published. When our research is complete, and watertight, we will publish the results along with the sources. In addition to the evident falsification of the death rolls, at least 5,500 American military personnel have deserted, most in Ireland but more have escaped to Canada and other European countries, none of whom are inclined to cooperate with vengeful American authorities. (See TBR News of 18 February for full coverage on the mass desertions) This means that of the 158,000 U.S. military shipped to Iraq, 26,000 either deserted, were killed or seriously wounded. The DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 dead, over 16,000 seriously wounded and a large number of suicides, forced hospitalization for ongoing drug usage and sales, murder of Iraqi civilians and fellow soldiers , rapes, courts martial and so on – Brian Harring

[LynnTheDem]

180. That article is one big pile of BS. And they refer to TBR. Good grief.

The ICRC does not say "the numbers are just under 100,000." Nor does the UN.

TBR is worse shite than NewsMarx and NewWordDaily.

Total BS.

[rocktivity]

2. I thought this was a political urban legend.

Has she been set up?

:scared:
rocknation

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. No to both. Why else would the NeoCons want to bring the caskets....

...back at night and forbid reporters from photographing the caskets? Very few of the funerals are being photographed either.

We have never had that happen in any previous war...it was always considered the right thing to do to honor the fallen dead as they arrived in-country. It was always considered the right thing to do to honor the fallen servicemember at graveside, and photographs were never discouraged.

Why did the NeoCons change those policies?

Think about it.

[CatWoman]

20. good point

and for the record, if she's wrong, I STILL FUCKING SUPPORT HER!!!

[bunny planet]

21. Vietnam War they announced the death toll everynight on the news.

It really brought the war home to people in a very sobering way. Of course, they will never allow us to have that information now.

There might be some unrest.

[dflprincess]

184. They cooked the battle casualty books the same way during Vietnam

If someone died as a result of "friendly fire" they weren't counted, if they died after being taken from the battle field, they didn't count as a battle casualty. Read "Friendly Fire" by C.D. Bryan (I think that's the author's name). An Iowa couple began to put the skewered numbers together after their son was killed and they began paying attention to the number of Iowans reported killed in the local papers and realized it didn't match with the official counts.

I can remember the Minneapolis paper had a count and the front page every week of American, ARVN and North Vietnamese casualties. It was always something like 200 Americans, 1,000 ARVN, and a gazillion North Vietnamese - like that was suppose to mean we were winning the war. One time Mad magazine had a picture of jungle scene - with no humans alive or dead in it - and asked the question "How many dead North Vietnamese are in this picture?" The answer was "According to the Pentagon, 10,000".

The big difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam reporters were actually on the front lines and showed us the body bags being removed and the caskets coming home. We had a media who told us it was a mess (ala Walter Cronkite) and we had to get out.

[Frederik]

104. Isn't it obvious that

they want to hide the violence of the war from the TV-watching public. That doesn't mean they are hiding deaths. What they are hiding, though, is the number of disabled and braindead, which is much higher than in previous wars, because modern field medicine can save people who would have died in Vietnam. That's why the body count isn't higher than it is.

[SmokingJacket]

120. That's an intriguing hint, but not evidence.

Give a name of someone not on the lists; that's evidence.

Controlling pics of the war dead is a way of controlling the war story in the media. They KNOW no one will write a story without a vivid picture -- hence, it doesn't get covered.

I'm ready to believe this story, if someone would provide the names of people not counted.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

170. Where there is smoke there is usually fire.

[SmokingJacket]

196. Sometimes there is just a smoke bomb. nt

[sabra]

4. link?

[splat@14]

6. I've heard this too. Does anyone know the truth about it?

Don't they count those that die from wounds even when they are back in the USA? I read in the paper this morning that a family got their son added to the casualty count after he committed suicide after his return from Iraq.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3217745

would seem to me that anyone dying of wounds or injuries incurred over there would be considered a casualty of that war regardless of the place of death.

[burythehatchet]

9. DOD only counts battlefield deaths as KIA

if a soldier dies when off the battlefield he doesn't count.

[Frederik]

71. Yes but

the 1680 +/- figure is the total body count - not just the KIA. KIA is 1300 something.

[LynnTheDem]

85. Bullshit.

And that's easily proven as BULLSHIT.

WHY do people keep posting BULLSHIT!!!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

131. Nice.

Real nice.

[burythehatchet]

137. Wasn't really going for "nice"

simply expressing my thoughts about your response to my post :)

[LynnTheDem]

139. Weren't going for DU rules, either.

And you were still spouting bullshit and I can still prove it.

And because I do try to abide by DU rules, I won't tell you to do what you told me to do. :)

[alcibiades_mystery]

143. It's amazing how hostile they get when they're called on that LIE

It's easily disproved, and yet they repeat it and repeat it, and if anyone calls bullshit on the outright lie or falsehood of it, they huff and puff and bluster and cuss, but they never respond with a counterargument.

[LynnTheDem]

145. I had noticed that.

Although that is the first time a Duer has posted "STFU" to me. He could have just posted demanding the proof, but then several posters don't seem at all interested in any such proof.

:shrug:

[burythehatchet]

183. I'm the first? I'm honored

When someone, anyone, responds to a post with expletives and NOTHING ELSE, I'm thinking that person doesn't deserve an ounce of respect. Now hit me a size 19 font so I can hear your reply.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

169. Lynn, sometimes you go too far....

...when you imply, or flat-out state, that other DU posters are lying when they disagree with the comments you post.

We don't have any proof that the electronic voting machines have been manipulated, but a growing number of us are convinced that is the case.

We don't have any direct proof that Herr Busch had advance knowledge of the events of 911, but a growing number of people are convinced that he did.

There is too much happening in Iraq for me to be able to accept that we have only lost 1700 dead to date. The level of violence has increased so much over the past year that US troops are not venturing out of their strongpoints unless they have some major objective to accomplish. And when they launch major attacks, they are taking large amounts of casualties.

You can say whatever you want to say about your website and how you arrive at the numbers, but IMHO, I think it's time you toned down the personally abusive tone of your rhetoric. IMHO, the more comments you make along those lines, the less credible you're going to appear.

[LynnTheDem]

181. Did you read his post??? I did; quote:

"DOD only counts battlefield deaths as KIA

if a soldier dies when off the battlefield he doesn't count."

That is BULLSHIT. Pure & simple. And you know it is.

And thanks for your advice, but no, actually, I won't "tone down"; when anyone posts bullshit that is in fact bullshit, I will post that it's bullshit. :)

[SmokingJacket]

121. Not true: Read the lists.

There are many mentions of soldiers "dying of injuries received in an attack" of a week or so before. LOOK at the lists.

Here's a casualty confirmation from the DOD casualty confirmation lists at Icasualties.org -- I found it easily:

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.


Cpl. Tyler J. Dickens, 20, of Columbus, Ga., died April 12 at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, of injuries sustained April 6 in Al Mahmudiyah, Iraq, when his guard tower caught fire. Dickens was assigned to the Army’s 2nd Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Fort Irwin, Calif.


The incident is under investigation.


For further information related to this release, contact Army Public Affairs at [phone].

Why do people keep repeating this rumor in spite of evidence to the contrary? It's not like 1,600 is NOT ENOUGH!

[rainbow4321]

27. One family got a soldier's stateside suicide to count as war casualty

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8AJOGOO3.html


U.S. soldier who killed himself after he was evacuated from Kuwait and hospitalized with post-traumatic stress disorder two years ago has been added to the Defense Department's list of war casualties, the department said Wednesday.

Army Master Sgt. James C. Coons, 35, of Conroe, north of Houston, was found dead July 4, 2003, in his room at an outpatient facility at Walter Reed Medical Center, where he was receiving psychiatric treatment, the Washington Post reported last week. Coons had hanged himself.

At the time of Coons' death, Defense Department policy prevented counting him as a war casualty because he committed suicide outside of a combat zone. But his family asked that he be considered a war casualty, and a military casualty board ruled in December that he be counted as such.


Jack Herschfield, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Michael T. McCaul, confirmed Wednesday that the congressman is helping the Coons family in their efforts to change the date of James Coons' death. While he was found dead on Independence Day, an independent coroner who reviewed his autopsy at The Post's request said results indicated Coons died before the holiday.

[patrice]

8. It makes sense that there would be deaths that did not occur as a direct

result of being combat. You know they have different classes of dead. It would be interesting to see how the DOD does this particular kind of accounting. Where would one get a look at these particular database tables?

[burythehatchet]

10. Has anyone read Bamford's book?

sounds great. Talking about Pat Tillman now

[RBHam]

12. Go Cynthia go!

At least some Democrats aren't afraid to speak the truth.

[tallahasseedem]

13. Oh no she didnt!

Holy crap! The cream is rising to the top. We will remember who had the spines come 2006 and 2008!

[theboss]

38. She had better have names

I find it simply impossible that you can hide 4,000 dead people without the families wondering, "Hey! Didn't I used to have a son?!?!?!"

[leesa]

47. The families KNOW their kids are dead, they just aren't included in the

dead count during battle. They are tallied separately and the only number WE hear is the number killed on the battlefield. I don't think you're getting the problem.

[theboss]

59. Name someone who died and is not on the list

This should be very easy.

As I pointed out before, the list appears all the time. It's been in the Times. It's been on Nightline. Hell, it's been in Doonebury.

If I had a friend or son or brother or cousin who died...and he was not on one of these lists...I would know and I would be in Senator Rockefeller's office within a day, having an interesting conversation with him.

So...name me one person who was killed by injuries in Iraq and is not on the official list.

[LuPeRcALiO]

62. There is no such list.

The DoD does not currently provide a tally of Iraq casualties.

see http://icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx

[theboss]

76. There are plenty of unofficial lists

If Garry Trudeau and Michael Moore have it, everyone can get it.

Give me a name on that list of someone who died.

Just one.

Hell, I'll take a first name at this point.

[LynnTheDem]

90. She doesn't and you can't. ICCC spoke with Cynthia about this last mth

Cynthia was told this "6000 hidden dead" bullshit by someone.

That someone was incorrect.

[Pobeka]

15. It's probably about right. I did an analysis over a year ago.

The DOD publishes the mortality rate for the armed forces.

That is the key piece of data, because while they officially don't count a casualty as a KIA unless the soldier dies in the field, the mortality rate covers everything.

What you can do is compare the wartime mortality rate versus the peacetime mortality rate, and you can see the actual number of dead (which is presumably due to the wartime activities) is several times the number we'd expect to see dying during peacetime.

If anyone is interested, I'll see if I can find that post I made to DU on this topic...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. I'd like to see it, thanks!

[Pobeka]

23. Here you go.

Looks like you were in on that thread too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=975792#976286

[EFerrari]

16. Sorry, I'm confused. When and where did she say that?

Oh, she's on CPan right now. Did she just say it?


Beth

[burythehatchet]

25. she used her time well.

talked a lot about war profiteering. If she was a little better orator she would be really dangerous.

[EFerrari]

26. She's young yet :) So, did she just now give that number?

Because then I can read the transcript when it's posted.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Cynthia McKinney is what a politician should be in a democracy.

There are so very few, if any, with her entegrity.

[stoplightcat]

65. Cythia McKinney is a politician, for sure

I just couldn't resist posting about Cynthia McKinney. I think some of us on the left glorify some of these politicians because they agree with what we have to say.

Cynthia McKinney says many things that I completely agree with, but Ms. McKinney isn't some sort of saint.

She is what a politician is in society, one who loves power. Very few people on our side annoy me, but she does, for sure. I've had friends live in her district (we're in Atlanta), who are not only on the left, but African-American. Many don't like her, contrary to the the myth. Our friends would always tell us that Cynthia McKinney was all about Cynthia McKinney.

All I know is that any politician who had a road in the district that she represents named after her while she was still serving is absurd. Go check it out, it's somewhere in Decatur, I don't believe all to far away from Emory University. My wife and I were simply at a loss for words when we first saw it about a year ago. I believe it's Cynthia McKinney Road, Blvd., I can't remember quite the type of road it's called. The road is directly named after her, I do know that much. It was done before she left Congress the first time around.

Like I said, I agree with so many of the issues that she cares about, but the messenger leaves much to be desired. I know that our side likes to rally to her because she's been attacked so much by the righties, but that doesn't mean that she isn't self-serving, or egocentric, just because those righty asses attack her for other reasons.

[ohio_liberal]

113. Oh man

All I know is that any politician who had a road in the district that she represents named after her while she was still serving is absurd.

Click the link below to see how many things are named after Robert Byrd in WV (scroll to bottom of the page)

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:UB3ExCUdVssJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd+robert+byrd+building&hl=en&client=firefox-a

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. Maybe she is an egomaniac, but she's speaking out.

Unlike the other egomaniacs that make up the ranks of politicians and watch the polls for deciding what to say. Not to mention consulting with their beloved lobbyist funders.

[stoplightcat]

132. She's a Lock, So she can..

Well, Cynthia doesn't really have to pay attention to polls, so she can say what she wants, whether it's factual or just false ranting. Her district is a lock, and as long as she keeps running, she'll be re-elected time after time.

The problem with people like Cynthia McKinney is that she says many outlandish things that are completely inaccurate (whether it was just a bad source or just making things up), thereby she hurts our side and our credibility.

It's easy to talk the left issues when you have no election contest to ever worry about, but if you have the direct avenue to take up our causes, it would help if she had a fact checker.

[Frederik]

153. Accusing her of making things up

is not very nice. It is obvious that she had a bad source here, but I agree that she ought to be more discerning. But I also think she brings up many things that are true, and that others shy away from.

[patrice]

24. Cynthia: Who are we? What are we becoming? Why is this?

Good "framing" questions!!

[Kota]

28. If this is true, it needs to come out. People are sick of this war

and now to learn that they lied to get it and continue in their lies.This should be the nail in the 6000 coffins they lied about.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. So, included in the "conventional" list are only SOME of those who die

in or en route to Germany, but not all? We know that within the 1700 on the conventional list there are DOZENS, if not over a hundred, who have died of wounds outside Iraq.

So only SOME? Is that the claim?

And further, the claim is that there are 4,300 additional dead? More than 6000 minus the 1700 we know about, right? Let's do the math, shall we?

4,300 KIA X 20 family/friend/teacher/comrade/coworker each = 86,000 people connected to these KIAs.

Of those 86,000,

NOT ONE is aware of icasualties.org, or the dozens of news sites purporting to list all the KIAs, OR, if aware
NOT ONE has looked up the name of their loved one and found it missing, OR, if they've looked it up
NOT ONE has contacted those sites (and especially icasulaties.org) to report this defect in the list.

Let's also remember that Nightline has TWICE presented what it purported to be a complete list of the dead for a determined period, so we can transfer those same numbers to NIGHTLINE itself, thus:

NOT ONE was aware that Nightline was running a list of names, OR, if aware
NOT ONE watched Nightline to see their dead relative/friend/comrade/coworkers/student, etc. named OR, if they watched
NOT ONE contacted Nightline about the defect in their list, OR, if you choose to believe that Nightline would then cover that up,
NOT ONE otherwise publicized the defect in the various ways we have of publicizing something.

NOT ONE. ZERO. OUT OF 86,000 (and that is a VEEEEERY conservative estimate of the number of people who would otherwise have known 4,300 different people!) Never before in the history of human events has a cover-up managed to include so many people who have no interest in perpetuating it, and - in fact - have a strong emotional interest in EXPOSING IT! It's a miracle cover-up, a magic cover-up...just like the magical thinking that would allow anyone to believe it.

Is that reasonable? No. It is, in fact, completely unreasonable. It is absolutely absurd. But that's what we'd have to believe to believe that there are 4,300 KIAs being hidden by the US government. So, who believes that?

[converted_democrat]

30. First, I trust nothing this administration says, secondly media sucks,

and there are lots of things "we" know that haven't been reported correctly. I'm not saying I believe her, I just trust her more than I do Bush& Co.

[alcibiades_mystery]

33. That's the beauty of this argument

You don't have to believe anything the Bush administration or the media says in order to find the idea of 4,300 hidden KIAs implausible. All you have to believe is that ONE person in 86,000 would have noticed something strange. That's not hard to believe at all. In fact, it's hard to believe the opposite: that NO PERSON of 86,000 has noticed the discrepancy and tried to publicize it. That's right: NOT ONE (and 86,000 is a conservative estimate!).

[converted_democrat]

34. I read this awhile back and saved it and it made since to me.

Here's something I didn't know, and I'll bet you didn't, either:

Information about the number of US casualties in Iraq is available on a web site of the Pentagon or known as the "War Hub" at www.pentagon.gov. This information covers only those who are officially US citizens enlisted with different military services.

Hired security contractors, or mercenaries, and recruits who are not citizens who enlisted to obtain a "green card," are not counted or mentioned. A large number of the green card recruits are from Mexico and Central America. There are no organizations to look after their rights or help them once they're in Iraq. Most of them are buried in Iraq when killed.

A videotape produced and distributed by the "Majles Shora Al-Mojahideen in Fallujah," one of the most important military wings of the Iraqi resistance, showed a burial site discovered outside the Iraqi city of Samara with tens of bodies in US military body bags. The dead were dressed in US uniforms. It is estimated that as many as 40% of the US troops serving in Iraq are green card recruits.
_________________________________________________

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Again, thoroughly implausible

I've heard this supposed counterargument, and looked into it, and it is simply implausible (and incredibly unethical). But we should go through it step by step.

This information covers only those who are officially US citizens enlisted with different military services.

Nonsense, and certainly not something you can say without direct support of a source. We'll need 1) a direct link to this site, and 2) a source or some other presentation of evidence. I went searching for more information, only to find that your entire post is taken (without attribution) from this page - you should at least give Mr. Jubran credit for his own writing! And, of course, Mr. Jubran doesn't support his assertion with any clear evidence either. I'll wait on direct evidence before moving further on that point.

However, we do have other evidence which show a misreading by Mr. Jubran. This from the San Francisco Chronicle, based on an interview with Ferdinand Suarez de Solar, the father and anti-war activist who lost his son, Jesus Suarez, in Iraq:

While there is no way to confirm the truth of that assertion, Latinos comprise more than a third of the 41,000 foreign citizens in the U.S. fighting force, according to the Defense Department, with the largest number -- 8,539 -- from California. Immigrant troops are most visible in the Army and Marines, the services with the highest casualty rates in Iraq, but barely present in the Navy and Air Force, Pentagon records show.

From March 19, 2003, when the Iraq war began, through April 9, 2005, of the more than 1,500 U.S. service members who had died in Iraq, 171 were Latinos, said Bryan Driver, public affairs officer for the Marines' Casualty Assistance Branch in Quantico, Va. The largest number -- 103 -- were in the Army, followed by 69 in the Marines, 3 in the Air Force and 2 in the Navy.

Neither the Pentagon nor the immigration division of the Homeland Security Department counts green card military personnel by country of origin. But anti-war groups such as San Diego-based Aztec Warrior, which Suarez founded after the death of his son, estimate that almost half the Latino troops killed in Iraq were noncitizens, with Mexicans comprising the majority of that group.

Let's compare your plagiarized source's numbers with de Solar's organization's number - keeping in mind that Solar 1) lost his son, and 2) is a public anti-war activist. Your guy says "40% of the US troops serving in Iraq are green card recruits." This site says 41,000 foreign citizens are in the "fighting force" - which I take to mean in the US military tout court (i.e., not just in Iraq). Even supposing it does mean just Iraq, it comes nowhere near the 40% conjured up by your dubious source. But in fact, it doesn't mean "just Iraq," according to the director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, thus:

Meanwhile Eduardo Aguirre Jr., director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the first to hold that position, told the servicemembers who had just become citizens, “I can indeed say that the future is bright.”

He said that people are often surprised when he tells them there are more than 45,000 non-U.S. citizens in the armed forces.

But the more important information is bolded. It's not that the Pentagon doesn't list those in the military who are killed (Jubar includes "contractors" and "mercenaries" to obfuscate the issue, since the DoD would have no business listing non-military death anyway!): in fact, 58 non-citizens have been awarded U.S. citizenship posthumously. Rather, it's that the DoD doesn't list their country of origin - which is a completely different thing. Suarez himself was apparently a "green card" Marine, and he is listed and publicized. So there goes that theory.

More interesting, though, is what we'd have to believe to believe that 4,300 non-U.S. citizens were killed in Iraq, and hidden there. We'd have to believe 1) that there non-U.S. citizen contacts have less access to information than U.S. citizens, 2) that the DoD knows which of these can be safely hidden without their families and contacts coming forward, 3) that not even the U.S. citizen comrades in their units would come forward, even if they've developed the tight bonds required for combat operations(!). The first claim is completely ridiculous, and borders on racism (there is plenty racism in the idea that thousands of Mexican and Central Americans could be signed up, killed, and buried in Iraq with nary a word from their families and friends...in fact, it is a racist theory on its face). The second is completely implausible, and would require a level of control of information and contingencies unwarranted by even common sense. The third is completely laughable, if you have any knowledge of how the military operates.

In short, your theory is just bullshit, and not believable.

[LuPeRcALiO]

49. these numbers just don't add up.

For example: "Latinos comprise more than a third of the 41,000 foreign citizens in the U.S. fighting force, according to the Defense Department." Let's take that as a rough index of their total numbers in the force.

But of the casualties, "through April 9, 2005, of the more than 1,500 U.S. service members who had died in Iraq, 171 were Latino."

So Latinos comprise over 33% of the force, but only 10% of the 1,700 official casualties?

What about the other 23%?

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. You expect exact correlation?

LOL.

Besides, you're misreading the numbers. The 1/3 is of the 41,000 foreign citizens, not 1/3 of the entire armed forces! Ay yay yay...

[LuPeRcALiO]

55. I expect *a* correlation, yes.

And I'm sure the total proportions are much closer to a preponderance of Latinos.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. No comment on your complete misread of the numbers though

OK...

[LuPeRcALiO]

58. nobody said you had to comment.

And I'm not misreading the numbers.

[followthemoney]

41. I heard a discussion of this on NPR well over a year ago...

It was admitted as true but defended as being no different from the common practice in other wars. How would you know if a person was counted unless there is a name and unique number associated with each death and the list is available for relatives to inspect. Following their inspection there would need to be another list compiled of those not listed on the official list.

[Misskittycat]

31. I heard somewhere that if the soldier doesn't die immediately then

he or she is not included in the "KIA" count. That is, if the soldier is wounded, and dies one day later, that is not listed as "KIA."

I'm not sure where I heard or read this, but I seem to recall I at the time I believed it was from a reliable source.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. The ~1700 are only the military deaths.

We don't know how many civilian mercenaries have died.

I have trouble imagining that they cn get away with not listing all the military deaths. People would see that their loved ones aren't on the list, and would complain. If you've heard of Cindy Sheehan--if she was able to get her message through--you'd also have heard of a bunch of bereaved parents reporting that their kids have disapeared or something.

[KlatooBNikto]

35. Cynthia McKinney is a true American patriot who was vilified by the

Neocons after the 9/11 incident.They went after her in the midterm elections.She lost and came back stronger than ever,having been vindicated on every point she made. She and Senator Byrd seem to be the only patriots with courage left in our sordid political scene.

[mopaul]

36. if she is suggesting that the govt. lies to us, then I say BURN HER

AT THE FRIKKIN' STAKE

[Supersedeas]

37. the major media outlets have tar and feather at the ready

[Just Me]

39. If true, this would be yet another conspiracy to cover-up the truth.

If there is a God, please, please allow the Dems to take back the legislative branch in 2006 and may the criminal proceedings against Bushco and the neoCONs begin.

[indepat]

40. Dying other than instantly on the spot really doesn't count as dying

they would have us believe.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LuPeRcALiO]

48. thanks

I'd love to believe that only 1,700 Americans have died in Iraq, but I find it hard to believe that the number isn't ten times that amount, or much higher.

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. Why do you believe that?

n/t

[LuPeRcALiO]

57. Because these numbers are based on inidividual announcements from the DoD.

There is no "official list," and there is no way of knowing exactly who has been killed, injured, or lost in Iraq, apart from what the DoD chooses to announce.

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. Ridiculous

The claim is that there are 4,300 additional dead? More than 6000 minus the 1700 we know about, right? Let's do the math, shall we?

4,300 KIA X 20 family/friend/teacher/comrade/coworker each = 86,000 people connected to these KIAs.

Of those 86,000,

NOT ONE is aware of icasualties.org, or the dozens of news sites purporting to list all the KIAs (what you are laughably calling "unofficial lists"), OR, if aware
NOT ONE has looked up the name of their loved one and found it missing, OR, if they've looked it up
NOT ONE has contacted those sites (and especially icasulaties.org) to report this defect in the list.

Let's also remember that Nightline has TWICE presented what it purported to be a complete list of the dead for a determined period, so we can transfer those same numbers to NIGHTLINE itself, thus:

NOT ONE was aware that Nightline was running a list of names, OR, if aware
NOT ONE watched Nightline to see their dead relative/friend/comrade/coworkers/student, etc. named OR, if they watched
NOT ONE contacted Nightline about the defect in their list, OR, if you choose to believe that Nightline would then cover that up,
NOT ONE otherwise publicized the defect in the various ways we have of publicizing something.

NOT ONE. ZERO. OUT OF 86,000 (and that is a VEEEEERY conservative estimate of the number of people who would otherwise have known 4,300 different people!) Never before in the history of human events has a cover-up managed to include so many people who have no interest in perpetuating it, and - in fact - have a strong emotional interest in EXPOSING IT! It's a miracle cover-up, a magic cover-up...just like the magical thinking that would allow anyone to believe it.

Is that reasonable? No. It is, in fact, completely unreasonable. It is absolutely absurd. But that's what we'd have to believe to believe that there are 4,300 KIAs being hidden by the US government. So, who believes that?

[theboss]

126. Doonesbury printed the entire list too

And I believe Michael Moore has continually updated it.

[LynnTheDem]

182. That was my list Gary Trudeau used.

The closest claim to fame in any way shape or form I'll ever get, lol!

Wish it were something nice, instead of deaths for bullshit. :(

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Are you claiming that none of the 1700 died en route to hospital or in

hospital?

The following troops, counted within the 1687, died in Bethesda Naval Hospital after being wounded in Iraq:

Randy D. Collins, died 5/24/05

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2005/nr20050527-3362.html

Nicholas S. Nolte, died 11/24/04

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041129-1681.html

Benjamin C. Edinger, died 11/23/04

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041127-1662.html

Michael Downey, died 11/9/04

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20041122-1623.html (this link also includes other Marines who died in Landstuhl)

Jason L. Dunham, died 4/22/04

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040426-0665.html

----------------

I could list dozens more, all included in the 1687, who died of woundsa in hospitals in Germany and the US.

Do you wish to retract your claim that those who die off the field of battle are not counted in the 1700?

[LuPeRcALiO]

52. those are the ones announced on the web.

What about the ones that aren't?

[theboss]

61. Give me a name...one name

As I keep repeating, this should not be very hard. Surely, if 4300 families lost a son or daughter, one of them must be a little curious as to when and where it happened.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Dead on

They can't do it.

[LuPeRcALiO]

70. Show me the official government list

and I'll show you 1,700 names that aren't on it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. www.icasualties.org

matches the official announcements point for point

start naming.

[LuPeRcALiO]

89. That's not an official list.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx

[alcibiades_mystery]

114. It's based on the official list

Or do you suppose that the Pentagon has numbers different than their public announcements?

[LuPeRcALiO]

192. There IS no official list.

That's the whole point. There's no official list to be either right or wrong.

[theboss]

78. You are playing games

The government announces each death. Whether there is some official death list is irrelevant. There are plenty of "unofficial" lists, all with the same totals.

Show me one name of a dead soldier not on the list that Garry Trudeau had last week.

[LuPeRcALiO]

97. There's no official list of casualites.

You might ask yourself why there isn't.

[theboss]

101. Because they announce each death individually

A kid from my old high school died (though that may have actually been Afghanistan). The Pentagon announced it.

I imagine somewhere in the Pentagon his name went on a casualty report. Whether that report is public or not is another story. But it's on every "unofficial" list.

[LuPeRcALiO]

193. They announce casualties, yes.

But do they announce all casualties? And for that matter, why would they?

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. That's the point

There is absolutely ZERO proof that any aren't announced. Beg questions much?

Moreover, Tinoire made a simple claim: those who die in hospital are counted differently (i.e., not included in the 1700). That's false. Full stop.

And to believe that they wweren't announced, you'd have to believe in the participation of tens of thousands of ordinary people who have a driving interest in seeing their loved ones sacrifices recognized.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theboss]

125. Name someone not on the list

Why can't anyone do this? How hard is it to find a grieving parent?

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. Oh dear...huffing and puffing?

It's no surprise that you dislike my manner. You made a spurious claim and I destroyed it with specific evidence. I can see how you would take that as "hostile."

As for your additional accusations here, you don't know shit about me. I was protesting the threatened bombing of Iraq by the Clinton Administration in 1998, on the basis that there were no weapons, and that the sanctions regime was a despotic and murderous policy. I have been against this disastrous war since the well BEFORE its beginning, and I've had my ass on the street behind that. Where would you get any other idea? So, you're wrong again, and the fact the you would project that on to me speaks poorly for your judgment.

The simple fact is that you made a claim, and it was proved wrong. You can hide behind your "eyewitnesses" all you want, but it's plain as day for all to see.

[Tinoire]

140. Time will have to tell

[alcibiades_mystery]

142. The response of someone

who has no reasonable argument today.

[DemonFighterLives]

67. Glad you are here to help make sense of it all

I don't know how they are doing it, but I do think that Dubco is covering up deaths. I suspect, the green card folks and mercenaries and people who basically don't have family and friends. I don't know how many this numbers and it may never come to the big total that Cynthia McKinney is mentioning. I do give her a pass though because she probably has more information than I do.

The death investigations are always a sham. We wouldn't need to bring them home under the cover of darkness if everything was on the up and up. I wonder about the mass graves as well. Dubby seems the kind that could just chuck some relatively unknown person in a hole and not think twice about it.

[theboss]

83. "People without family and friends?"

So, we are 17th Century England now and emptying out the debtor prisons for the King's Navy?

First of all, are there really 4300 people in the world without family and friends? Secondly, how does the Pentagon know who they are?

"Sir, Johnson died in Fallujah last night."

"Did he have family and friends?"

"No, he is like the hooker in the Senator's bed in Godfather II."

"Very well. He will not be reported. Bury him in the desert."

It's too ludicrous to imagine.

[DemonFighterLives]

100. Ludicrous to you

I don't think I included all 4300 in the unknowns column. Mostly just stating what we don't know including you. You can believe the administrations word all you want, I choose not to.
:hide:

[theboss]

108. We do know

Ask Lynne. She has the list.

[Frederik]

109. You don't have to believe the adminstration

The military is not the Bush administration. Common sense should tell you that they can't hide 4000 dead soldiers, sailors and marines.

[Frederik]

88. Mercenaries aren't counted

among US military deaths, od course. Other than that, I don't hink there's a cover-up, except of the number of disabled and brain-dead, which is much higher than in previous wars because more people survive grave wounds on the battlefield with modern field medicine.

[DemonFighterLives]

106. Maybe not

but I wouldn't put it past them. Look at how they claimed Saddam had killed millions and there were mass graves in millions. What is that down to now? Several thousand?
Ask Rummy, there are known, knowns, unknown, ...... uh won't get fooled again.

[Frederik]

110. The military is not the same as the Bush admin.

It wouldn't be possible to hide the deaths of 4000 soldiers, sailors and marines anyway.

[DemonFighterLives]

158. Frederik, I think the military is very much tied to the Admin

And the total may not be 4,000 over. I'm only trying to say here that I expect discrepancies.
Checkout their vote counting methods and Enron accounting methods. "They" do not seem to count like most normql people.
Let's say for instance, they are a few hundred off. I have no proof of course, but can see how this gang could use them with their propaganda.

No, I don't have a name. And we don't have a full list either in my opinion.

[onenote]

155. even "green card folks" have buddies

Service personnel tend to bond pretty closely, given that they depend on each other for their lives. You think 4000 plus military personnel have died but not been reported and not one person who served alongside that person hasn't noticed? Not. Possible.

onenote

[DemonFighterLives]

166. I realize that, but I can still put scenarios together where things

could be distorted.

Do I have to bite off the whole 4 thousand just to claim there may be some discrepancies?

I'm having a heck of time typing here. I pulled by little finger and it wants to act like a little stiffy. I keep hitting q's for a's and keep capital locking the darn place. aaqqarh! :argh:

Anyway, couldn't unknowm members be in a special force an when they go only the brass has to be quiet.
The other thing is that units, and parents and interested parties are never on the same page. A family will get their warning of the death of their child and assume that the death is one of those on the lists. They are not coordinating information like they probably should. Times this all by 2,000 and you are already over the official count.

I thank all that ICC has done and they are great. Still the potential exists that the numbers could be off.

:shrug:

:tinfoilhat:

[Frederik]

80. That's just not correct

KIA is at 1300 something. The 1680 or thereabouts is supposed to be all deaths - KIA, accident, friendly fire, wounded that die in Germany.

The Voice of the White House is perhaps the least reliable source I can think of.

But it's true that the number of wounded and disabled is very high, and there's no reliable statistic on exactly how many they are. Perhaps 15,000.

[theboss]

87. They are definitely underplaying the wounded

That's pretty obvious.

But the idea that 4300 families are without sons or daughters and no one told them is madness.

[Frederik]

93. It's an urban myth

I wonder if Cynthia really said that? I sure hope not.

[Tinoire]

161. I wouldn't say that no one told them

I would say instead that someone made damn sure they have no official list they can check and make a stink about to the government and media if their family member isn't on it.

[Ms. Clio]

130. I've heard 15,000, too

Which is a little more than 10% of the total force deployed in Iraq, if my math is correct? I wonder how those numbers compare to previous wars, and what percentage were so severely disabled (brain-damaged, multiple amputations)?

[Frederik]

152. I don't know about the rate of injuries

compared to previous wars, but the thing is, with modern field medicine a lot of people are saved that would have died in Vietnam. These people, though they survive, are often severly disabled for the rest of their lives. And I just read that serious brain damages are unusually common in this war as well. These soldiers, sailors and marines are the hidden casualties of Iraq, and that's what we should be talking about, rather than the phantom dead that don't exist.

[Ms. Clio]

156. Yes, I've read that, too--the mortality rate would be much higher

except for body armor and modern medicine, but the survivors are often horribly maimed and permanently disabled. It just seems stunning to me that there might already be as many as 15,000 wounded, out of a force of 140,000, and I think if more Americans knew that, they would be shocked, too.

[hack89]

172. Many wounded never leave Iraq and are back with their units with in days..

There are also quite a few multiple purple heart winners. Not every wound is a serious one.

[LynnTheDem]

95. Sorry Tinoire but you are absolutely incorrect.

US troops who die in hospitals from wounds sustained in Iraq are counted.

That's a fact.

And that's an easily proven fact; go to the ICCC and you can filter lists for the troops who died in German hospitals and US hospitals etc. They are listed, they are counted.

Those who die in training accients, vehicle accidents, etc are counted.

Again that easily proven; go to ICCC and you can read causes of deaths by category.

[Tinoire]

133. Lynn, we're going to disagree on this one

Lynn, we're going to disagree on this one. ICCC gets their information from trying to add up news releases from Centcom and whatever they can find in local & military papers. Their hands are tied as they do the best they can with the information they can get from the Pentagon and the media- two sources I don't trust a single bit.

You can trust the honesty of the Pentagon- I refuse to.

I firmly believe the numbers of deaths are being just as downplayed
as the numbers of injured and ill soldiers. Why on earth would I trust criminals who can't even be bothered to publish an official list? An official list is a common courtesy to the American public but they dare not because of the hue and cry that would be raised when names are found missing. Right now they can hide behind the inaccuracy of unofficial lists. The guys at Iraq Coalition Casualty Count pointed out the problems they're facing trying to come up with an accurate count of US deaths: http://icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx

And then like I said, we have dribs and drabs like the following one... So who am I going to trust? Not the Pentagon, not CNN, and not a complicit media- that's for sure...

I've heard too many differing stories about this and then there are what a friend of mine calls the dribs and drabs that should set off alarm bells, such as this this one from Feb 2004:


Pentagon: Eight deaths weren't reported
Also, soldier reported killed in Iraq actually died in Afghanistan

From Mike Mount
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, February 6, 2004 Posted: 10:05 PM EST (0305 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eight U.S. troops were not counted in the overall casualty numbers for operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to Pentagon officials, who cited an audit by the Department of Defense.

Pentagon officials said the names were discovered in the audit conducted after Defense Department officials found that casualty numbers appeared to be wrong.

There was no immediate answer by the services -- which have the authority to release names of the dead -- as to why the names were not originally reported.

All of the names released Friday by the Pentagon were listed as being killed by nonhostile injuries.

One name, separate from the eight, was changed from being killed during the Iraq operation to being killed during the Afghanistan operation.

The increase raises the total number of dead in the Afghanistan operation from 108 to 112.

The overall number of dead during the Iraq operation rises from 529 to 532.

(snip)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/06/sprj.irq.pentagon.dead/

===

Press Routinely Undercounts U.S. Casualties in Iraq

By E&P Staff

Published: November 25, 2004 7:00 PM ET

NEW YORK As the toll of Americans killed and wounded in Iraq in November approaches record levels for one month in this war, is the press only telling part of the story?

The Pentagon's latest official count, provided on Wednesday, listed 1,230 American military killed in Iraq and another 9,300 U.S. troops wounded in action. How seriously? More than 5,000 of the wounded were too badly injured to return to duty. More than 850 troops were reported to have been wounded in action in Falluja so far.

But this only scratches the surface of the total toll.

Earlier this week, CBS’s "60 Minutes" revealed that it had received a letter from the Pentagon declaring: "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq."

(snip)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000727180

===


Enron-like accounting of blood and bone:

15,000 or more US casualties not counted

Nov. 21, 2004

(snip)

How many injured and ill soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines - like Chris Schneider - are left off the Pentagon’s casualty count?

Would you believe 15,000? 60 Minutes asked the Department of Defense to grant us an interview. They declined. Instead, they sent a letter, which contains a figure not included in published casualty reports: "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq." Yet none of these are included in the media-reported casualty count, leaving the true human cost of the war something of a mystery.

(snip)\

"It's difficult to estimate what the total number is," says John Pike, director of a research group called GlobalSecurity.org which publishes an informed estimate that goes well beyond what the Pentagon has released.

"You have to say that the total number of casualties due to wounds, injury, disease would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of over 20, maybe 30,000," says Pike.

His calculation, striking as it is, is based on the military's own definition of casualty – anyone "lost to the organization," in this case, for medical reasons. And Pike believes it’s no accident that the military reports a number far lower than his estimate.

60 Minutes asked the assistant secretary of Defense for Health Affairs about that claim - that casualties are being underreported, for political reasons. And we got a flat denial. In a letter, he told us, "We in the Department of Defense categorically reject the notion that we are underreporting casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom."

(snip)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml

==



And then there's CNN news chief Eason Jordan who was forced to resign shortly after Mazen Dana's death allegedly for not towing the official Pentagon line about how many journalists had been killed over there.

Remember Mazen Dana?

Early in the Iraq invasion, Mazen Dana, an award-winning cameraman of Palestinian descent, was shot by a soldier on a tank as he filmed near Baghdad on 17 August 2003. A US military spokesman said that the inquiry had found troops respected their rules of engagement in the incident, but that Washington would not publish the full report.

His brother, Nazmi, said he was deliberately murdered for discovering mass graves of U.S. troops killed in Iraqi resistance attacks. "Mazen told me by phone few days before his death that he discovered a mass grave dug by U.S. troops to conceal the bodies of their fellow comrades killed in Iraqi resistance attacks," Nazmi told IslamOnline.net in exclusive statements.


"He also told me that he found U.S. troops covered in plastic bags in remote desert areas and he filmed them for a TV program. We are pretty sure that the American forces had killed Mazen knowingly to prevent him from airing his finding."5

In February 2004, Joe Vialls reported that, "According to a well-placed Pentagon source, the White House and corporate media are reporting less than half the actual American military deaths in Iraq. As of 3 February 2004, the 'official' media total stood at 528, while the real total at midnight on the same day was 1,188.

(snip)

In April 2004 this report appeared on Sky News and then swiftly disappeared:
Arrogantly assuming their actions would not be noticed by the Republic Guard, a few thousand U.S. Marines with battle tanks and other armor approached the 300,000 residents of Fallujah from the east and the west, drawn from existing Marine bases in Ar Ramadi and Baghdad. This was an inexcusably stupid tactical error, because as soon as the U.S. Marines closed on Fallujah and started shelling the unarmed women and children within, Republican Guard Special Forces units carried out lightning strikes on the weakened Marine bases in Ar Ramadi and Western Baghdad, destroying fuel dumps and killing 130 Americans in less than 12 hours.

In December 2003, Captain Eric Holmes May published Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cavalry, describing the strange reporting and lack of reporting about the fall of Baghdad. US troops were being attacked and all the media could talk about was Private Jessica Lynch and, soon after, the photo-op mock demonstration of Iraqis "pulling down" Saddam's statue. The misdirection worked like a charm few asked any questions. Many troops were killed by the Iraqi Republican Guard but Americans were not told.

www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=& Board=iraq_war&Number=293106000

There's more information here: www.warcrimes.org.uk/captain/murder_inc/casualties.html and in other places but I can't spend much time on this right now

[LynnTheDem]

136. 1. No we don't get our numbers just from DOD and Centcom. 2. I can PROVE

troops who die in hospitals, be they in Germany or back in the USA, are counted; I can PROVE troops dead from accidents are counted.

3. We don't trust the Pentagon; that's why we have the ICCC.

4. Common sense etc but I'm not getting into this anymore.

People will believe whatever they want.

So we'll agree to disagree!

I hope someone will post if anyone ever comes up with ONE NAME not recorded.

[Tinoire]

159. Out of 20,000 troops medevaced to Germany for injuries only 23 died?

I would have to be very naive to believe that and yet those are the figures straight from the ICCC's database according to a letter written by Patricia D. Kneisler on Wednesday, May 18, 2005.

If you go to our homepage, you'll notice a place up top that says "Fatality Details". Click on that. That'll take you to our fully searchable database.

When you get there, scroll down to the bottom of that page to where the Filters are. I'm finding that many people simply don't realize these handy, dandy little tools are there. Go over to the right to where it says "Country of Death" ... and select, say, "Germany" from the drop down list. Then hit the "Apply Filter" button over to the left.

Voila ... a list of 23 guys will appear ... all of whom died in Germany from wounds or illnesses incurred in Iraq ... all of whom have formal releases from the DOD and who are on the DOD's death list.

Patricia D. Kneisler

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/13126/2340
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:zgGUUD4Jnb0J:daulton.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/19/13126/2340+%22Patricia+D.+Kneisler%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en%20target=nw (while Kos is down for maintenance)

23 out of 20,000. Common sense alone should be sending up huge red flags on that one.

How can you maintain the list is near accurate when its numbers basically come from the military and the media? What else do you use besides CENTCOM, MNF-Iraq, newsfeeds & DOD websites to get your information?

ICCC is 4 people "4 of us searching the news media and the military sites, each and every day mind you, for deaths". 4 people. Kudos for dedication and hard work; kudos for pulling it together but the be all and end all of a casualty list, it is not.

What does the ICCC do? Check with Funeral homes? Check the names on the caskets the adminstration is hiding from the public? Unearth the names of all the SF guys and insist the government report them? Check with the non-US families of soldiers killed trying to expedite US citizenship? Comb the barrios and projects of Detriot and the deserts of Southern Arizona with a laptop asking families with no internet to come vouch for the accuracy of the Pentagon's announcements? Roam the battlefields of Iraq counting the US dead? Tour the hospitals in Germany checking names? They can't do those things. They're just 4 people and no offense to their good work but I'm by no means going to trust those numbers as final.


===

Where the Death Numbers Come From?

There is no magic to coming up with the number of coalition dead from our war on Iraq . Our sources are not secret. In fact, our primary source is the U.S. government. Any private individual or news organization who wishes to keep track of war dead gets their information from this same source.

Whenever a death occurs, CENTCOM (the United States Central Command in Tampa , FL ) issues a brief news release that gives the bare facts about the incident: when it happened, how it happened, and the soldier’s regiment, if known. The only information not provided at this point is the soldier’s name. These releases are published regularly on the Internet at:

http://www.centcom.mil/

After the soldier’s relatives are notified of the death, the U.S. Department of Defense then issues its own news release that gives the soldier’s name, age, unit and hometown. Again, these can be found on the Internet here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/

The trouble with this system of notification, however, is that the government provides no tally of those releases. Occasionally, the Department of Defense will release a total number of deaths to date. But it certainly doesn’t go out of its way to divulge those numbers. If you want to know the number of deaths at any given point, you have two choices: count up the news releases yourself … or find a non-governmental entity that is tracking the numbers and posting them somewhere.

This has not always been the case. We are told that during the Korean and Vietnam wars, the names and numbers of dead AND injured were readily available from the government. No longer.

(snip)

That is why this web site was developed … to provide information that has been scrupulously culled from government sources and cross-checked against other existing lists to ensure the most accurate and complete accounting of deaths that we can possibly assemble.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx

Sources:
(1) Department of Defense press releases http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/
(2) CENTCOM press releases http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/casualties.asp?searchType=1&searchDays=5&searchTopic=

http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

[LynnTheDem]

163. I know where ICCC gets #s from; I work with ICCC. I spend 8+ hours/day

searching for soldiers killed who haven't any DOD/Centcom release.

Believe whatever you will, Tinoire.

I do something about it; I spend hours every day of every week searching for any unrecorded soldiers' deaths.

Have a nice day! :)

[Tinoire]

168. 23 out of 20,000? Skip back to that part...

because I'm not buying it Lynn.

Out of the 20,000 medevaced out of Iraq, 23 died in Germany and 31 died in the US. Is that what you're betting all your marbles on?


That's a MIGHTY IMPRESSIVE and unbelievable recovery rate that's higher than the rate in US civilian hospitals where they're not treating serious battle wounds.

[LynnTheDem]

173. Well first off, you could look into what the 20,000 were hospitalized for.

MOST were nothing whatsoever to do with battlewounds and weren't life-threatening injuries to begin with.

Pregnancies
Heart attacks
Heatstroke
Broken bones...a broekn foot gets you medically evacuated.

You are more than welcome to spend 8+ hours a day searching; or any hours a day you'd be able to give to searching for unrecorded deaths. We can always use more eyes.

If you come across a name of a soldier who's died and is not recorded, I do hope you'll let me know. Seriously, not sarcastically. Looking for that one name or any such names is what I've spent thousands of hours doing the past 2+ years.

As you yourself posted, we must agree to disagree on this.

[Tinoire]

185. No quarrel but we disagree

No quarrel with you and I'm sure you know that beyond the shadow of a doubt. At least I hope so!

I think you're understimating the numbers of serious injuries treated in Landstuhl. By the Army's own admission, out of those 20,000+ injuries, 21% were for serious head/neck wounds alone.

That's over 4000. How many were for torso wounds? And of the non-combat classified wounds, they freely admitted that if a truck rolled over you on the battle-field, they don't classify that as a battle wound.

Amusingly enough, at the same time the Pentagon was claiming that there were was a total of only 4000 wounded soldiers, Landstuhl officials were telling reports that they had already treatev over 11,000. I don't trust those criminals. Any number they give, well, I have no problem believing they halved it.

With fighting as fierce as it is in Iraq, we're indeed one kick-ass army if the combined damage of those fierce insurgents we have to pursue all the way in Syria + friend fire accidents is as low as ~1700.


Combat Research: 1 in 5 Suffer Head and Neck Wounds
Finding points to need for more specialty surgeons in Iraq, Afghanistan

By E.J. Mundell
HealthDay Reporter


FRIDAY, Sept. 24 (HealthDayNews) -- A significant percentage of U.S. soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering potentially lethal wounds to the head and neck, areas not covered by today's improved body armor.

A unique report on combat injuries found that, in a 14-month period, one of every five soldiers injured in battle and airlifted to an American military hospital in Germany suffered from this type of injury.

The finding, presented this week by a U.S. military surgeon at a conference in New York City, led the research team to urge that more head-and-neck specialists be deployed closer to the front, advice that the U.S. Air Force has just begun following.

(snip)

Working with two information specialists and Dr. John Casler, chief of head and neck surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, Xydakis used a computerized patient tracking system to categorize the nature of injuries to more than 11,000 wounded soldiers who were admitted to Landstuhl between Jan. 1, 2003, and March 19, 2004.

Xydakis' team of researchers report that 16 percent of all the 11,287 soldiers airlifted from Iraq or Afghanistan and cared for at Landstuhl in that 14-month period were treated for injuries to the face, neck and throat below the helmet line. But when the researchers focused on troops classified as having suffered "battle injuries," the number of patients with at least one type of head and neck trauma rose to 21 percent.

(snip)

www.arthritisissues.com/ms/news/521347/main.html

[LynnTheDem]

186. I've already agreed to disagree.

And I do disagree with you on this. I know soldiers wouldn't stand for any such cover-up. And yeah, there would have to be a lot of soldiers in on the cover-up.

And by the way, the doctors themselves talk about why there is such a very high survival rate.

But nothing I say will convince you, and nothing you say will convince me, and I have an all-nighter to do tonight searching tens of thousands of news articles and blogs and websites and diaries, and I'd best be getting on with it.

:hug:

[tx_dem41]

102. Do you always use RIGHT-WING HATE GROUPS as your newsources?

TBR is big into Holocaust Revisionism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Review

But...there's more!

"The Barnes Review is an anti-Semitic web site whose primary propaganda goal is disparagement of Jews and denial that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred. The home page of the Barnes Review has included articles with titles such as "The Myth of the Six Million" and "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," which states, "When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him."

The Barnes Review is named after Harry Elmer Barnes, once a well-known and respected World War I historian and revisionist whose obsession with conspiracy theories led him to virulent anti-Jewish bigotry and support for Nazi policies during World War II and to a later belief that the Holocaust was a hoax. It was founded by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme right-wing Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), another organization engaged in Holocaust denial. Carto founded the Barnes Review after he was forced out of the IHR in 1993 in an apparent dispute over funding and ideology."

The Barnes Review is an anti-Semitic web site whose primary propaganda goal is disparagement of Jews and denial that the Nazi Holocaust ever occurred. The home page of the Barnes Review has included articles with titles such as "The Myth of the Six Million" and "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," which states, "When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him."

The Barnes Review is named after Harry Elmer Barnes, once a well-known and respected World War I historian and revisionist whose obsession with conspiracy theories led him to virulent anti-Jewish bigotry and support for Nazi policies during World War II and to a later belief that the Holocaust was a hoax. It was founded by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme right-wing Liberty Lobby and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), another organization engaged in Holocaust denial. Carto founded the Barnes Review after he was forced out of the IHR in 1993 in an apparent dispute over funding and ideology."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barnes_Report




Here's what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about the founder of the Barnes Review...guess what? He's a White Supremacist


"Several key white supremacists signed on, including former Klan leader Don Black, who runs the neo-Nazi Web site stormfront.org; Willis Carto, publisher of The Barnes Review; Sam Dickson of the ccc; Ed Fields, publisher of the white-supremacist newspaper The Truth at Last; and National Alliance leaders David Pringle and Kevin Strom."

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=477

Nice crowd you source there.

[theboss]

112. Name one soldier not counted

Why can't anyone do this?

Hell, Pat Tillman's family went apeshit because the cause of death was fudged. Do think family's don't notice that they no longer have kids?

[TeeYiYi]

146. Hi Tinoire. I noticed . . .

:hi: . . . about a month ago that George Stephanopoulos was under-reporting the number of dead soldiers. Since then, there have been weeks where I knew that 30 or more soldiers had died that week and yet George only mentioned a handful. He used to say the total number dead. Now he just gives the number that the Pentagon has released — two very different numbers indeed. :(

Here's the original post from GD:

TeeYiYi
Sun May-08-05 11:19 AM
Stephanopoulos is underplaying the number of dead soldiers . . .

I noticed this last week and watched to see if he'd do it again this week. He used to say, "xx number of soldiers died this week in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government has released xx number of their names." The released number was always considerably lower than the actual number of dead soldiers.

Now he says, "The government released the names of xx number of soldiers that died in Iraq this week". This is paraphrasing of course but it's very close.

The reason I noticed this last week was because I knew that a very large number of soldiers had died that week and yet he only mentioned 6 or 7 of them.

Same thing this week although the list was longer this time. It still wasn't accurate and I think it's disingenuous and misleading. I wonder who at ABC came up with the grand idea to minimize the number of dead soldiers in this manner.

Pathetic.

TYY

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3618771

[Tinoire]

165. I noticed that too

It's very upsetting to see how complicit people like Stephanapholous are being. And no Dems are challenging their charade!

:hi:

[Zynx]

45. THIS IS A MYTH. WILL PEOPLE STOP REPEATING IT?

Dead in Germany *are* counted. See icasualties.org. This is so easy to debunk it isn't even funny.

And really, very few wounded die nowadays who aren't killed virtually outright due to the field trauma centers the military has, so her math is ridiculious anyway. It would require over half of the seriously wounded people dying.

That's absurd.

[ArkDem]

46. J'accuse!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sacrilege!!!!!

[Just Me]

54. I trust McKinney to be truthful and to have information in hand,...

,...to back up her assertion. She has NEVER let me down before.

[theboss]

60. Give me one name...one bloody name

I want one name of so soldier wounded in Iraq, who died in Germany, and wasn't counted.

I think Cynthia McKinney is one of those people who belives everything she hears from the last person she talked to.

[EFerrari]

66. Time to call her office, I think, and find out what she meant

exactly and what her sources are. I'll give it a try today.

[LuPeRcALiO]

68. google "invisible Iraq casualties"

if you're really interested.

[theboss]

74. So, you don't have a name?

Why is this so hard to do?

[carpetbagger]

195. Your search - "invisible iraq casualties" - did not match any documents

Well, you can count me out on this one.

[LynnTheDem]

73. Just me, we've spoken to Cynthia about this bullshit. She was told that

bullshit by someone whom she thought credible. She was mistaken.

Pat at ICCC showed Cynthia that in fact those who die outside Iraq from wounds sustained in Iraq are in fact counted.

Cynthia said she realized the error of spreading this BS and would no longer do so.

Pat spoke to Cynthia last month; I've not seen Cynthia speak about "hidden deaths" since Pat put her onto the facts.

[EFerrari]

115. Lynn, did you hear her speak yesterday? I missed it but

it was my impression that she did repeat it. Am I wrong? I asked but never got a direct answer.

[LynnTheDem]

134. Now it's "some people say" that she's saying, and that's unfortunate.

Yes she said it yesterday, but as a "I've been told" thing. I emailed Pat about it.

It doesn't look good for anyone to be saying what she's saying, because a 2 minute search proves she's incorrect and that hurts credibility on everything.

Troops wounded in Iraq regardless where they die ARE COUNTED. Easily proven fact. Troops who die from accidents in Iraq ARE COUNTED. Easily proven fact.

And saying there's thousands of dead soldiers that are being covered up by their families and friends and fellow soldiers and all the hundreds of others who would have to be involved is REALLY not gaining anyone credibility.

[EFerrari]

147. thanks, Lynn. n/t

[LynnTheDem]

69. Cynthia no longer says this. In older articles she has said it. It's BS

Yes, troops who die enroute or in hospitals are counted.

Yes, the person who told Cynthia the "6000" is not credible.

[LuPeRcALiO]

86. Lynn, that doesn't mean it isn't true

The number still don't add up. And even if the DoD is telling some kind of mangled crossed-finger truth, it's still leaving out the thousands of American and American-sponsored contractors, mercinaries, and non-combatants who have been slaughtered not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers (on both sides) and civilians.

[LynnTheDem]

91. She was told bullshit by someone spouting bullshit and she passed on

that bullshit.

She knows that now.

Which is why she no longer passes on that bullshit.

[theboss]

96. Why would contractors be reported by the DOD?

They aren't soldiers.

And besides those numbers are readily available elsewhere.

No one is doubting that the total number of deaths for this fiasco is probably in the tens of thousands.

But that's not the Pentagon's job to report.

[Frederik]

98. Of course mercenaries, contractors and civilians

aren't counted among the military deaths. Of course the Pentagon wants to downplay the violence of the war and hide away the coffins and the thousands of soldiers coming home disabled and braindead. But the actual number of US military deaths is not covered up.

[theboss]

94. Cynthia McKinney believing nonsense?

The hell you say.

I still stand by my statement that if I got her attention before she gave a floor speech, she would spout whatever bullshit I told her about anything.

"There are credible reports of a Chinese army using the Fleet Center in Boston for training."

"It may be true that fish have developed opposable thumbs and are plotting a takeover in Lake Erie."

[wiggs]

72. I don't see the problem in letting Bushco defend against the accusation

McKinney is a big girl. If she is willing to question the veracity of the administration at the risk of being shown wrong later, I say great. We need more people standing up and expressing suspicion rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to these crooks.

So McClellan will be willing to stand up and say that "only 1700" have been killed? I don't think so. There won't be a lot of press on this...too much attention on a touchy subject.

Good for her.

And I would applaud her further if she would state that over 100,000 Iraqis have died...that's an important story too. They won't touch that one either.

[theboss]

105. Read the "Boy Who Cried Wolf"

We could make Bush defend beliefs that half the population is pod people.

I don't think that does our cause any good.

Why don't we accuse Bush of doing things that are true?

Wow....crazy!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

81. She may be right...

I have repeated this story several times here on DU. My sister's stepson was working at the German airbase where the US dead are brought to -- he was one of those who was unloading the "tubes". The first Thanksgiving after the invasion he was home on leave and told the family not to believe what they were hearing about the death tallies -- that the body count was "significantly" (his word) higher that was what was being reported in the media. At that time he also told another story about unusual air flights of fuel into Iraq that later turned out to be true.

The kid is an honest, hard-worker -- I have no reason not to believe what to told the family.

[theboss]

84. Just a name

My kingdom for the name of one unreported death.

[LuPeRcALiO]

92. If you're really interested

Why don't you do some research? Find out who's serving and start contacting their families. Then tell us what you learn.

[theboss]

99. It's not my job

You are the one making the argument. I say, there are no unreported deaths. You say there are.

Why do I have to quit my job and go door to door to prove something I already believe?

[LuPeRcALiO]

103. Then believe what you want.

It's not my job to convince you of anything either.

[theboss]

107. Who have no proof

Zippy...Nada...None...

If you had a name, we could argue.

Heck, even McKinney apparently no longer believes this nonsense.

[LuPeRcALiO]

111. I wouldn't call a non-existent DoD casualty list "proof."

It's a belief, and you're right, you can believe whatever you want.

[paula777]

118. Is this proof? (really I'm asking, is this proof or fake?) see attached

http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/246435.shtml
9000 Dead GIs In Iraq?
author: Brian Harring
Jun 05, 2005 19:31

US Military Report: Bush’s Achilles’ Heel


The Bush Butcher’s Bill: Officially, 84 US Military Deaths in Iraq from 2 through 28 May, 2005 – Official Total of 1,747 US Dead to date (and rising)


U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted. They total about 6,210 as of 1 January, 2005. The ongoing, underreporting of the dead in Iraq, is not accurate. The DoD is deliberately reducing the figures. A review of many foreign news sites show that actual deaths are far higher than the newly reduced ones. Iraqi civilian casualties are never reported but International Red Cross, Red Crescent and UN figures indicate that as of 1 January 2005, the numbers are just under 100,000.

[LynnTheDem]

141. Yes they have been counted. Go to ICCC, look at the list of troops died

in hospitals in Germany (or USA or Kuwait etc.)

YES they are counted.

You can go to the ICCC and ask for a list of all US troops who died in Germany...or list by German hospital, or by troops who died back in the US from Iraq wounds, or specific US hospitals, etc.

[LuPeRcALiO]

171. Lynn, no one disputes that ICCC accurately reports casualties.

And for that it deserves great praise.

But there's no way of proving that it accurately reports all casualties, other than using "common sense" and "logic," both of which prove to me the opposite of what they prove to you.

[LynnTheDem]

176. Then you should be able to find me ONE NAME out of these "4000"

Just the name of ONE family member or ONE fellow soldier or ONE ANYONE who can name one dead & unrecorded soldier.

I can't. And I spend 40+ hours a week looking for that one name. Maybe you'll have better luck.

As for common sense, to hide ONE BODY would take at least 50 people in the know. You're telling me that 4000 US soldiers are being hidden, and God only knows where the corpses are stacked, and of the thousands of civilians and military in on the cover-up NOT ONE goes public?

I don't think so.


You are free to belive otherwise. Maybe someday you'd be willing to give up a few weeks to take over my searching for me? I'd love a holiday.

[LuPeRcALiO]

178. You're doing a great job!

But have you ever wondered whether the Pentagon isn't doing the same thing? If they are, how likely is it that you would find a report on the internet that they missed?

They invented the internet!

(with help from Tennessee of course)

[LynnTheDem]

179. The Pentagon is a wee bit otherwise occupied, they don't control the net,

they don't CARE how many soldiers are dead, and if they did care enough about keeping the numbers secret they'd stop releasing any & all death notices.

There's just too many people that would have to be involved in such a cover-up, and the scandal would not be worth it.

That and they're too damned incompetent to be able to keep 4000 dead bodies covered up.

To date, over 2 years, we've found 3 soldiers killed that didn't get official notices within 2 days. One was this week, and I posted on DU about it. Pat chased Centcom, and out popped the death notice. They do f*ck up, 3 times so far. That's why we search for deaths, we don't sit and wait for DOD or Centcom.

To hide 4000+ dead Americans would make bushCartel geniuses. And geniuses they certainly ain't. ;)

[Fleshdancer]

123. Oh dear Goddess I hope she's wrong.

More than 6,000??? The thought brings me to tears.

[theboss]

124. She's wrong

God, I wish this wasn't posted every week.

[bpilgrim]

135. me, too

but going by the recent behavior of these thugs this, unfortunately, is certainly possible.

ANOTHER investigation that needs to happen.

peace

[dogday]

128. Read Below From The Link Posted They Stated......

We have received copies of manifests from the MATS that show far more bodies shipped into Dover AFP than are reported officially.


If you have the MATS Manifests, then produce them for all to see.....

[Carni]

148. I have heard that same thing but have never gotten confirmation on it

I have heard that the "death count" only includes those soldiers who actually die IN Iraq while engaged in combat--I don't know where I heard this but I believe it was on Cspan during an interview someone made the claim (I was half asleep and I didn't catch any of the details)

[onenote]

154. here we go again and again and again

As is amply demonstrated in various posts in this thread, American service personnel wounded in Iraq who die in hospitals, or on the way to hospitals, whether in Germany or even in Bethesda MD, are reported as Iraq war fatalities and included in the widely publicized total count (now approaching 1700).

The American people were deceived by the Bush administration's lies to get us into this war. Our case against the administration depends on our remaining more credible than the them. Bullshit tinfoil crap about hidden war dead will harm the antiwar cause.

onenote

[Carni]

187. AS WAS DEMONSTRATED IN MY REPLY TO ONE WHO CLARIFIED

CONCISELY AND POLITELY IN THIS THREAD EARLIER

When presented the facts POLITELY -- I see that the contention of *secret dead* is most definitely false, but let me tell you...

When a person makes a simple statement as I did in this string, to the effect of something like "I have heard of this but have never seen it proven" that doesn't give people like YOU license to get pissy and start lecturing about credibility.

Where in the fuck do YOU get off lecturing ME about the spreading of conspiracy?

I made a simple statement about hearing of something like this and I am a conspiracy nut?

Would it have killed you to correct my comment with facts in a polite manner? No-- it wouldn't have.

[LuPeRcALiO]

175. If the bottom line is a list in Doonesbury

I think it's fair to say that the jury is out on the real numbers.

[Pryderi]

190. CBS News From Nov. 21, 2004 "Iraq: The Uncounted"

How many injured and ill soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines - like Chris Schneider - are left off the Pentagon’s casualty count?

Would you believe 15,000? 60 Minutes asked the Department of Defense to grant us an interview. They declined. Instead, they sent a letter, which contains a figure not included in published casualty reports: "More than 15,000 troops with so-called 'non-battle' injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq."

Many of those evacuated are brought to Landstuhl in Germany. Most cases are not life-threatening. In fact, some are not serious at all. But only 20 percent return to their units in Iraq. Among the 80 percent who don’t return are GIs who suffered crushing bone fractures; scores of spinal injuries; heart problems by the hundreds; and a slew of psychiatric cases. None of these are included in the casualty count, leaving the true human cost of the war something of a mystery.

"It's difficult to estimate what the total number is," says John Pike, director of a research group called GlobalSecurity.org.

As a military analyst, Pike has spoken out against both Republican and Democratic administrations. He’s weighed all the available casualty data and has made an informed estimate that goes well beyond what the Pentagon has released.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/19/60minutes/main656756.shtml

"You have to say that the total number of casualties due to wounds, injury, disease would have to be somewhere in the ballpark of over 20, maybe 30,000," says Pike.

His calculation, striking as it is, is based on the military's own definition of casualty – anyone "lost to the organization," in this case, for medical reasons. And Pike believes it’s no accident that the military reports a number far lower than his estimate.

"The Pentagon, I think, is afraid that they're going to lose public support for this war, the way they lost public support for Vietnam back in the 1960s," says Pike. "And minimizing the apparent cost of the war, I think, is one way that they're hoping to sustain public support here at home."

60 Minutes asked the assistant secretary of Defense for Health Affairs about that claim - that casualties are being underreported, for political reasons. And we got a flat denial. In a letter, he told us, "We in the Department of Defense categorically reject the notion that we are underreporting casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom."

[Liberal_Dog]

194. I Have Never Believed...

the "official" casualty figures. Everything else about this war has been a lie, so why would we think that the casualty counts are true?