Secret Gov't Documents Will be Declassified 12/31

mozzwald writes "This New Year's Eve, at midnight on the dot, hundreds of millions of pages of U.S. government secrets will be revealed. Or at least they'll no longer be official secrets — it may actually take months or more for the National Archives and Records Administration to make those pages available for public consumption."

Comments

in other words

[macadamia_harold]

it may actually take months or more for the National Archives and Records Administration to make those pages available for public consumption.

in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)

Re:in other words

[Anonymous Coward]

in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)

That's not censorship! They're just making us a favor by highlighting all the good stuff.

Re:in other words

[WgT2]

Don't worry. Perhaps they'll release the blacked-out material as Word docs.

You'll be able to read everything then!

Re:in other words

[Charcharodon]

,i.in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)

Yes but the real reason for the slow up is not the actual marking out things with a black marker, but the bidding process to provide the government with the correct mil-spec markers.

Re:in other words

[amliebsch]

Maybe, but the real challenge will be to read them before Sandy Berger stuffs them in his pants and "misplaces" them.

Too many exeptions.

[packeteer]

The least of acceptable exceptions is too long. If a document involves multiple agencies it wont be free. This will do nothing to calm down conspiracy theories, but it will be interesting for historians.

Re:Can't wait...

[Threni]

> Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and
> counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11.

I don't know what you expect to find. There's nothing unique about the US intervention in Iraq - it's for exactly the same reasons as all the other meddling in other countries affairs going back through most of the 20th century. No cover ups or conspiracy theories are required - it's been taking place quite openly. You might want to start with `manufacturing consent` or `hegemony or survival` by Noam Chomsky for what's been going on, and how the a free media like that in the US handles it.

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?

Finally

[Psychotria]

The secret invasion by aliens will be revealed. I, for one, welcome our new overlords. I've been watching them for years on Lost in Space, Star Trek, V, Battlestar Gallactica and The Smurfs. I am looking forward to the secret being revealed and my release from the asylum.

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds? Try hundreds of thousands.

Re:Can't wait...

[oggiejnr]

You would be suprised about the anount of documentation. If people lower down in the food chain want to cover themselves the first thing they do is put it in writing. Take the Suez Crisis for example. There is clearly documentation to show that the British used sexed up intelligence to manufacture a war against Egypt to reclaim Suez. If documentation exists to show this then I wouldn't be at all suprised if the same is true of Iraq

Re:Can't wait...

[Malc]

"More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11."

Why exactly did you draw that comparison? They're two unrelated events. Why not say: more American lives have been lost in Iraq than in Pearl Harbor? Even if 10,000 lives had been lost on 9/11, there would still be no justification for attacking Iraq based on it, and thus no bench mark to compare against.

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the point is no one will care.

We don't need to open secret archives to know the Iraq war was a bunch of bullshit but no one really cares.

Call it cynicism, but...

[paganizer]

I'll be pretty shocked if anything actually of use turns up. I'll definitely try to take a look myself; I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them.
Hearing him talking about how much fun it was being in a foxhole 1.5 miles from ground zero, and digging out the rad badges and other stuff he kept as a souveneir, then seeing that there is no record to be found ANYWHERE that his unit was anywhere near where the tests were done has always fascinated me with the subject; hopefully someone will slip up and release a unit list for the Guinea Pig troops.

Re:Call it cynicism, but...

[TodMinuit]

I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them.

What kind of super powers does he have?

Re:Call it cynicism, but...

[vertinox]

What kind of super powers does he have?

Apparently to have the ability to still have children after 13 nuclear tests.

Re:Can't wait...

[Iron (III) Chloride]

It's true that automobile deaths are extremely prevalent, but they are usually more the result of 1) poor training or 2) excessive alcohol consumption or 3) road rage. It's something that cannot be easily dealt with because it concerns the whole of society. People will always get angry, people will always get drunk, and people will always get mad. It's part of human nature that probably is very hard, if not impossible, to change. It's unlike racism, where you have one clearly defined ethnic group targeting another. Oh, and accidents may also happen due to carelessness, which cannot be avoided.

On the other hand, the war is a single product of a single administration and the entire US public's attitudes (apathy, ignorance?) towards a single issue. It's much more preventable; it's much more treatable. Thus, naturally we'll be more easily angered about a more preventable bad decision by the administration and its incompetence and arrogance. Perspective is much less the issue here as opposed to the ability to succeed.

-FeCl3

It's nice to see they've solved the problem

[MarkusQ]

I was recently pleased to discover that our leaders have hit upon an ideal solution for the perennial problem of that pesky public eventually getting their hands on documents like this. It's so simple, I don't know why they didn't think of it sooner.

Don't produce the information that will make you look bad in the first place.

For instance:

• After a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism.
• A rule change at the U.S. Geological Survey restricts agency scientists from publishing or discussing research without that information first being screened by higher-ups at the agency. Special screening will be given to "findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.
• The Treasury Department stopped producing reports showing how the benefits of tax cuts were distributed by income class.
• After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.

Of course, the old trick of covering up / reclassifying things is still in use as well:

• The FBI attempted to retroactively classify public information regarding the case of bureau whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, including a series of letters between the Justice Department and several senators.
• President Bush issued an executive order limiting the public's access to presidential records. The order undermined the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which required the release of those records after 12 years. Bush's order prevented the release of "68,000 pages of confidential communications between President Ronald Reagan and his advisers," some of whom had positions in the Bush Administration.
• The Federal Communications Commission blocked access to a once-public database of network outages affecting telecommunications service providers. The FCC removed public copies and exempted the information from Freedom of Information Act requests, saying it would "jeopardize national security efforts."
• The Federal Communications Commission ordered destroyed all copies of an unreleased 2004 draft report concluding that media consolidation hurt local TV news coverage, which runs counter to the administration's pro-consolidation stance.
• ...and so on.

Still, I think the new approach is much more elegant and will probably save the taxpayers a lot in the long run.

--MarkusQ P.S. Sources and many more examples here.

Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem

[pedroloco]

I don't follow that logic. Wouldn't a saboteur simply set up a televsion or radio and watch/listen to a station to determine if it goes off the air?

Re:Can't wait...

[Charcharodon]

There was plenty of justification for attacking Iraq.

The president said "Hey let's attack Iraq" and Congress said "America!...Fuck Yea!" and then Congress said to Americans "Hey let's attack Iraq" and they said "America!...Fuck Yea!" and that's all there is to it.

There are no bench-marks or justfications for war just details and more importantly the willingness to goto war.

An unnecessary secret is a failure

[Bromskloss]

I'm not very much for the state having secrets to its people -- the state is created by the people because they needed one, after all. If there still is a great need to keep a secret (just a small need doesn't cut it for me), then so be it, I guess. BUT, any fact kept secret without reson to do so i an abomination! There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed (not the other way around).

I'm not talking specifically about the USA here -- I'm not an american -- but the same thing applies to any state.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure

[sbben]

There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed And there are such measures! And you are looking at them. It is required that US documents be declassified after a certain period of time. That's the point of an article like this.

What I think you meant is why are secrets ever kept in the first place. Well, for very good reason. You can't have military plans circulating weeks before an attack can you. Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything. This is the very same reason why the US doesn't use a popular vote to elect its president. The electoral college was put into place to keep too much power being placed on the layman.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure

[xappax]

Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything.

The ability to keep secrets from the public is a form of power. This power can be used sparingly and responsibly - like your example of keeping battle plans secret before the battle. I don't think anyone would claim that absolute transparency should be expected - I don't want the nuclear launch procedures and authentication information to be public information!

Like most forms power, the ability to keep secrets can also be exploited and abused for the benefit of those in power. The ability to keep documents detailing your wrongdoings out of the public eye empowers you to commit even greater and more brazen wrongdoings without fear of reprisal - nobody will know until it's too late.

I'm of the opinion that government officials tend to abuse and exploit the power granted to them most of the time, and we should therefore be working to strip them of all power that's not absolutely necessary for the functioning of society. While a limited power of secrecy is understandable, the degree of power that officials have over information today is far, far beyond what is beneficial to society.

The trouble is that although the government infrastructure which keeps things secret no longer serves the interest of the public, it does serve the interest of the vast majority of our government officials. I suspect that it will take a vast, radical change to the structure and philosophy of our government before we can expect officials to voluntarily relinquish the power which insulates them all from the repercussions of their actions.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure

[cdrguru]

During the second world war, just before the Normandy Invasion, Allied reporters were briefed in FULL by Eisinowher (the then commanding C-in-C). He told them exactly when and where the invastion would happen, but told them it is their responsibility to keep it secret. The reporters cried "dirty pool", but kept their mouths shut UNTIL the invasion had taken place. No One, i mean NO ONE sold the secrets to the Enemy. FFW to 3 years ago, and the families of the troops were offiically NOT told about their spouses deployment to Iraq. They were just told (even though it was WELL known) that they are going to fight abroad.

Ha ha ha. Very good joke. OK, can anyone think of a single "journalist" that wouldn't spill the beans if they had an "exclusive" or "scoop" like the Normandy invasion? Do you think CNN has the ethics to kill a story based on "it isn't in the country's best interest?"

What about the current reporting based on a phony Iraqi policeman about executions in Iraq outside a mosque? It was reported by the US press to make the US Army look bad - and when the "evidence" turns out to be faked and the "source" doesn't exist, does anyone report that fact? No, they have moved on.

In the 1940's the press had some idea of "responsibility". In the Gulf war (Desert Storm) the press had to be managed closely because otherwise they would be reporting plans to the enemy. There is no "responsibility". There are no "ethics". They are out to make a buck and selling out the US or making the US look bad sells advertising space.

We've put ourselves into this situation. The secrets are there because the "public" cannot be told. What percentage of the "public" today is Muslim and would always come down on the side of Muslims vs. the US? No, we let people into the US that place the interests of foreign organizations ahead of those of the US. We have one now as a congressman who is going to try to take the oath of office on a Quran.

UFOs!!!!!!!

[curtisk]

Wow. The 25 most used search terms in the last month at the CIA's FOIA document request.

UFOs are at the top!

Considering the rest of that list, its very interesting how pervasive the questions around UFOs are. Sadly, sasquatch has fallen out of public favor...

Re:Can't wait...

[WindBourne]

Nothing of interest will be there. The interesting info would be in Reagan's term. But just before the info was to be release, W. did an executive order that allows a president or their heir or a current admin to redact any info that they think would damage their reputation. Hopefully the next president will have some morals and allow us none people to see exactly what what past presidents have been and done. That should include ALL of the reagan info including his irangate as well as his work in having Iran hold our hostages before the election and his dealings with Sadaam as well as OBL.

Re:Can't wait...

[TheNinjaroach]

Why exactly did you draw that comparison? They're two unrelated events.

Those two events are closely related. Nobody would have supported our "War on Terror" or the invasion of Iraq had we not been attacked on 9/11.

Re:Can't wait...

[baldass_newbie]

Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.

And yet he only speaks one language. How funny is that?

the date is wrong?

[name*censored*]

uh, if they're being declassified at exactly the start of the new year(ie, 1 second after 11:59:59 12/31), then wouldn't that mean that they're ACTUALLY being declassified on the 1/1? The new day actually begins at 00:00:00...

Also with this september 11/conspiracy theory/craziness spin that this thread has taken... If they were clever enough to blow up (their own) building and cover it up, surely they would be clever enough to 1) Do a good job of covering it up (recycled argument from moon landing conspiracy) 2) Pick something that wasn't so difficult to orchestrate (rigging an inner city building with explosives with no credible witnesses willing to testify) eg, a chemical attack (like the 95 subway thing), a car/truck-bomb (terrorists seem to like those), or attacks on foreign US embassies. 3) Pick something that more strongly supports attacking Iraq - they had to do an AWFUL lot of fancy footwork to get from "an afghani terrorist blowing up a US building" to "attack a regime which had little to do with 9/11 (although still guilty of terrible atrocities)" 4) Forget trying to attack anything.. the government spin engine is an incredibly powerful one, it would be just as easy to justify a war with no 9/11 than having to orchestrate a 9/11 attack AND THEN justify a war with it.

It's a little ignorant to say what SHOULD happen and compare it to what DID happen, considering there are thousands of variables involved that we'll never accurately know (how much fuel the plane had, its exact speed, its exact mass, the exact condition of the building, its weight load, its natural fault lines, the fault lines created by the impact of the plane, other environmental elements etc etc etc). Plus, if the conspirators didn't expect it to fall over (enough to put use secondary explosives, which would be a big giveaway) just from a plane crash, then why would they think that we wouldn't figure it out? There are enough demolition experts out there that it would be a glaring omission to ignore the fact that the experts would notice that a plane couldn't do that on it's own. It's much like how you cannot see the stars in the background of the moonwalk, it's too obvious for such a big conspiracy to miss, the "moon's reflection makes too much contrast" argument is so weak that it must be true. It's much more sensible to disregard the conspiracy given that it's unnecessary and far too difficult a conspiracy to organise.

Re:Can't wait...

[Guuge]

It makes perfect sense to compare two deadly events by counting deaths. For example, the Asian tsunami was far deadlier than hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make hurricane Katrina justified, but it does give one some perspective.

In this case, it's clear that Bush is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden. The comparison suggests that we reevaluate our priorities.

Re:Can't wait...

[fuzzix]

Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.

Oh, well that completely excludes him from being able to comment on the semantics and euphemisms used by the mass media to mask the truth.

How is that "will" to be understood?

[Opportunist]

Is it a will as in "they will do it", or one as in "they should, but will come up with a reason not to do it"?

I've seen my share of US politics lately, so I'm compelled to ask.

Re:Can't wait...

[dbcad7]

So religious nutjobs want to come here and kill me, and the best solution is for us to send people over there to kill them first... I see.

I served in the Army. I was ready to defend my country. I am thankful, that I was not in the military when this all went down, because it's a mistake and wrong. To perpetuate it is even more wrong.

If a cop was given information that a van was stolen, sure he has a right to stop it and arrest the people in it. When it is determined that it ISN'T stolen, then you say oop's sorry, you don't seize the van and keep the passengers in jail. Yes the passengers and the driver are going to be pissed, but to keep fucking with them is not going to fix the mistake. The continuing problem with this whole thing is that people REFUSE to believe that we can make a mistake... and be wrong ?, just never happen. It's like a driver going down a road reufusing to admit he's lost.

But everyone should have expected this. When Bush debated Kerry and was asked "What mistakes have you made ?" He couldn't think of a thing. Did he not understand the question ? or the concept of being wrong ?

Re:Can't wait...

[slughead]

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?

How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?

He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'. The Iraq/Iran war was so horrendous it was almost like WWI was in Europe, only with more effective weaponry including but not limited to--yep, you guessed it--chemical weapons. Iran had some soldiers whose job it was to walk, unarmed and unequipped, over land mines to clear them out for armed personnel.

I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.

Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.

If you only care about American lives, nobody disagrees that more would have been spared if the US had stayed out (in the short term, at least).

I was against the invasion, but that's because I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own, unless it's of extreme strategic significance (obviously if Iraq had WMD to give to terrorists to kill us with, this would qualify).

Moreover, I doubt Americans have the attention span nor the understanding of geopolitics to support this 'police action' as is needed to prevent a civil war, and I think we WILL bail out either after the 2008 or 2010 elections (in the US). Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, your tin-foil hat's on crooked.

Media Apathy

[MrSteveSD]

Actually I am always amazed at the amount of incredibly damaging stuff that gets released in the US. For example, things like Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ), which although never carried out, was a plan to stage terrorist attacks on US assets and blame it on Cuba as an excuse for war.

Then there are minutes of meetings that provide evidence of war crimes by certain individuals. For example, minutes were released of Henry Kissinger saying "Anything that flies on anything that moves" , which were his bombing orders for Cambodia. If they had evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over within days.

Fortunately these damning revelations are largely ignored by the US media. If they were not, perhaps they would stop releasing them in the first place.

Re:Can't wait...

[A beautiful mind]

He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'.

What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!

I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own

Your own what? Race? A more important human?

Re:Can't wait...

[elrous0]

Tell me more of this "automobile" you speak of.

It sounds like a dastardly good killer. But does it offer the value and performance I've come to expect with my laser sharks?

-Eric

Re:Can't wait...

[q-the-impaler]

Conrete is VERY dusty. Take a small chunk of conrete and throw it on the ground. Examine the dust that fell off. Now imagine a Beowulf cluster of these, and there's your frickin cloud.

I only slightly jest. The concept is the same. Potential energy is a lot stronger than you think. I've been next to an avalanche and I could see how a landslide as such can make you think there was an explosion. The sound is spectacular. Probably a similar idea, only there was no slide, just buckling girders wrapped in concrete falling straight down 1300 ft.

Re:Who Shot JFK

[Klaus_1250]

AFAIK you'll need to wait at least another 10 years. (didn't bookmark the story about it, sorry) But, do you really think they will ever release the truth about the JFK assassination? Or that the how and why is properly documented? I would be surprised. My only question is if LBJ knew about it.

Re:Can't wait...

[slughead]

What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!

Sources:
182,000 gassed in the late 80's by Saddam.

57,617 MAX Iraqi deaths in this war.

Your own what? Race? A more important human?

My beliefs were not the point of my post, I was just revealing my 'bias'. I will now further elaborate on my beliefs:

I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing. Meddling in the affairs of others is likely the most avoidable cause of terrorist attacks on this country and a poor public image in the eyes of other nations. All we have to do is nothing, and nobody can blame us for anything. Obviously, we don't have the cash to be doing this stuff anyway (look at our deficit), and we NEVER get paid. IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).

If the US had stayed out of WWI, there may have never been a WWII. If the US hadn't helped the Sudan kick Bin Laden out, he may not have been in Afghanistan. How big do we have to F'up, and how much money (which we don't have) do we have to waste before we stop with this foolishness?

Re:What do they have to do with each other?

[c_forq]

Has everyone forgotten our invasion of Afghanistan? Seriously, after 9/11 the push was to Afghanistan and NO ONE protested. Before the Iraq war millions protested, with some cities having the largest protests in their entire history Iraq's debacle with the UN inspectors set off the start to invading Iraq, and than Saddam kept bluffing and refusing to say he didn't have chemical weapons or to allow UN inspections to resume. I swear people are trying to rewrite current history to make Iraq immediately after 9/11 and completely caused by 9/11. Maybe that works better for the conspiracy theories, but it doesn't really fit the reality I lived through.

Re:Can't wait...

[bberens]

I think that's called lightning.

Re:Can't wait...

[theskipper]

But, per President Bush himself, one event (9/11) was directly responsible for the second (attacking Iraq).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20 030319-1.html

Seems black and white, no?

Expected response to information request

[haggie]

"In order to protect our children and prevent terrorist attacks, the information you requested has been classified. In addition, if you aren't doing anything illegal, you don't need this information anyway. You aren't doing anything illegal, are you?"

elvis

[rucs_hack]

At last, we shall discover which aliens took elvis :-)

I can see what will happen though

govt: Here you go, everything we know about aliens, i.e, they haven't been here.

Conspiracists: Ah yes, but you'd say that wouldn't you...

govt: No really, it's true, look, it's got official stamps and everything.

Conspiracists: Well that may be so, but if we believe you, our million dollar book and convention industry will go down the pan [koff], ah no, we mean that you'll have succeeded in hiding the truth.

govt: ok, let us explain this again [sounds of guns being loaded]..

um.....

[ClioCJS]

A lot of us "conspiracy theorists" think that that's exactly what they did. Hire those terrorists. Bin Laden has been paid by the C.I.A. in the past, and the C.I.A. has not proven itself to be a trustworthy agency.

http://del.icio.us/ClintJCL/911 http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/?s=911

Re:Can't wait...

[A beautiful mind]

The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand, which is backed by the statistical community. The iraqi body count page only operates from news reports, it is bound to be only the fraction of the real number.

So, I stand by my original post.

Also, it have to be noted that the 182k figure that you're quoting came up in the Saddam trial, which is not impartial by any standards and I wouldn't rely on it. The internationally accepted version of history attributes much less casualties to Saddam, around 55k.

I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing.

Actually you do owe some things to the world: the USA needs to obey the international/universal human rights agreements.

IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).

The world police expression is an extremely stupid phrase. It implies that you're doing a service, while in reality all you do is look out for your own interests aggressively - hence the world's police expression. I don't see why the world should be grateful and even supportive of the USA given the events of the last century of cowboy politics and waging wars of self interest.

Re:Can't wait...

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

I really don't see that happening. Of course, it's easy to make these kind of predictions on the Internet because no one is going to follow you up on it but I will break the rule and mark you as a friend. If this prediction of yours is to ever come true, I will acknowledge your mystical powers

Re:Can't wait...

[Hatta]

"More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11."

Why exactly did you draw that comparison?

Look at it this way:

By his orders Bin Laden sent 2,700 Americans to their deaths.

By his orders George W. Bush sent 3,000 Americans to their deaths.

Who is America's enemy?

Re:Can't wait...

[geekoid]

Not to mention the force of the air being shoved down as the building collapsed.
Substantially more force the a cat 5.

Peopelalso neglect to relize that the weight is designed onlt to be in specific points, want ot shifter a certien number of degree beyond it's design, it will fall STRAIGHT down.

I have seen computer simmulations of many different types of building collapses, there all pretty much the same visually.

But the most telling way that there is nothing wrong with the way it fell is all the simulations done by engineers in other countries, some of which would love to point out any discrepencies in the collapse.

This is also the number one laymans way of proving the moon landing was not a hoax: Russia would have ratted us out in a heart beat if the radio transmission were off.
Don't underestimate the desire of other countries to call us out.

Re:Can't wait...

[Malfourmed]

57,617 MAX Iraqi deaths in this war.

The Iraq Body Count website only tallies deaths on an incident-by-incident basis that are reported in reputable media. A minimum of two independent agencies need to publish a report before they are willing to add it to the count.

There are many deaths that are never reported for a variety of reasons (eg lack of journalistic coverage in many areas), let alone twice. As such, even the "max" number on the website can be considered to be a "minimum" actual number.

Re:What do they have to do with each other?

[Rone]

Seriously, after 9/11 the push was to Afghanistan and NO ONE protested.

What version of CNN were you watching?

IIRC, most of the pundits at the time were doom-and-glooming the US' plans to take Bin Laden from Afghanistan by force. Although they tried to hide it through sheer quantity of verbiage, the underlying message seemed to be, "How can the lowly US POSSIBLY succeed where the mighty Soviets failed for so many years?"

In fact, the pre-Afghanistan protests were what enabled GW to get a free pass (initially) on Iraq from his marginally-committed supporters (e.g. me). Their reaction to seeing the moaning and wailing over Afghanistan soured them so completely to anti-war arguments (i.e. "What war won't these idiots protest against?") that they stopped listening to EVERY anti-Iraq argument, even those that might have been backed up by pragmatism and solid reasoning. That in turn contributed (if not caused) Kerry to lose his bid for the presidency in 2004. If he'd said, "Many wars are just, but THIS one (Iraq) is not", then he probably would have gotten enough votes to flip the balance in his favor. Instead, he let the election get turned into yet another referendum on Vietnam and war in general, and was defeated for it.

Bah. Bush went into both Afghanistan and Iraq without a good understanding of the distinct cultural pressures involved in each country. He got lucky in Afghanistan (taking out the Taliban "regulars" enabled the masses to establish a sort-of-democratic government), but had his ass handed to him in Iraq, where the masses appear to be more interested in killing each other (Shi'a) or continuing their own private apartheid (Sunni) than establishing an even remotely democratic government.

Re:Can't wait...

[cold fjord]

The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand....

I wouldn't be so sure that study is reliable.

655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties

The Iraq Body Count project take on it.

Some additional discussion.

Re:Can't wait...

[FrostedChaos]

Ok. I know that this issue has been discussed to death, and it's hard for people to think rationally about it. But bear with me for a moment.

Sadam killed everyone in Iraq...everyone that stood against him. Terrorists, Muslims, Christians, football (soccer) players, left handed people, right handed people, . So what exactly is your point?

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader who kept a lid on the power of the religious radicals in the country. He fought a war against the Islamic fundamentalist government of Iran. During this time, he received funding and military backing from the U.S. government.

Whatever other terrible things he did, Saddam was NOT a terrorist or Islamic fundamentalist. That's the point.

Bush never said Iraq was behind 9-11, he said that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction like 50 million times and said places like Iraq were part of the Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea).

According to president Bush himself, 9/11 was the justification for attacking Iraq. (Thanks to theskipper for finding this.)

Bush lumped together many unrelated countries in his "axis of evil." The Big Lie of the Bush administration is the idea that the war in Iraq somehow advances the cause of national security. Do you remember Bush repeating this lie over and over throughout the last 7 years?

It's become obvious even to the average voter just how silly it is to keep pissing away resources in Iraq. I think the people who opposed Iraq from the beginning deserve at least an "I told you so." Too bad we can't get that trillion dollars back, though.

If you want to know why Bush really brought us into Iraq, read up on "The Project for a New American Century." This is the stuff that makes some people hysterial-- the "neoconservative" ideology. Generally speaking, neocons favor U.S. military hegemony, free trade, and the establishment of western-style republics throughout the world.

Ironically, the US is the country with the most to lose in any war, because we have the most money and the most political power. By overextending ourselves, we have actually weakened our position across the board. Try as they might, China, Afghanistan, or Iraq could never have done the United States a more grievous hurt than G.W. Bush has in the last decade.