| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Harry Reid: "1,000,000 Iraqis Have Been Killed Since The War Started" |
| 2007-09-16 |
| Reno Gazette-Journal reporter Anjeanette Damon sat down with U.S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to speak about the war in Iraq...: Q: You disagree with the assessment President Bush and Gen. Petraeus put forth this week. How do you think the course should be changed? A: All you have to do is look at what they said. Nothing has changed since the surge started. Today, now we learn that 1 million Iraqis have been killed since the war started. A million. That's pretty hard to comprehend: 3,800 Americans, 30,000 wounded. More than 2,000 double amputees. The president, of course boasts about how well things are going. Q: How should the course be changed? A: We should do what my amendment said we should do: start redeploying troops immediately and have all the American troops out of Iraq by the first of April, except those who are involved in counter-terrorism. The original amendment said protecting our assets and it also said training Iraqis. Our new amendment we will offer next week will not include training Iraqis. We have spent billions of dollars training Iraqis and they should be trained up pretty good now. Q: There's been talk that you were working on a less aggressive withdrawal in order to persuade Republicans to get to that 60 votes. A: We're doing some other things. We hope to get more Republicans to support the Webb amendment. (It would extend the amount of time troops are home between deployments.) Last time we got 56 votes. (U.S. Sen.) Tim Johnson, D-S.D., was still ill. His being back will make it 57. We need three more Republicans. We hope that can be done. Q: You don't think you'll get 60 votes for the "bring them home by April" amendment? A: I think it will be very tough to get that. Most Democrats will vote for it, but Republicans are pretty much sticking with the president in this endless war. We had a few brave souls that broke away, and I appreciate that. We need a few more. We need 10. At this stage the best we've done is seven. Q: What do you think about President Bush's premise that stability in Iraq is necessary for the security of this country and the Middle East region as a whole? A: It's hard for me to be pleasant in answering that question. He's the one who created all these problems from the worst foreign policy blunder in history of our country. The Middle East was not in the shape it's in now. Q: Do we have a responsibility to help create stability there? What do you think our role should be in that region? A: I think our role should be counterterrorism, going after al-Qaida and protecting our resources there. That should be it. We should get out of there. Iraqis, let them handle their own concerns. They don't need us. They got along for a long time without us. It's a rich country. It's not as if they are looking for handouts... |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #21 "..Against all enemies, foreign and domestic". This guy is a traitor and should be arrested at least, executed at best. I hope when the troops do come home, they march up that hill and have a reckoning with the politicians who have been try so hard to sell them out. I'm pretty sure that we can survive without a congress or senate for a few years - let the state governments have the power that the Constitiution intended. |
| Posted by: Robjack 2007-09-16 23:53 |
| #20 I hope it is a million. And I double dare them to knock down another building. |
| Posted by: Gravitch Gonque7032 2007-09-16 20:22 |
| #19 I'm sorry, that was a CIA Factbook statistic. Let's satisfy the lefties and use some WHO (U.N.) data: With an official death rate of 10.0 deaths/1,000 population (2005) and a population of 27.5 million, we would expect 275,000 deaths per year from ALL causes. Harry Reid is STILL full of crap. http://www.emro.who.int/emrinfo/index.asp?Ctry=irq |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-09-16 19:56 |
| #18 With an official death rate of 5.26 deaths/1,000 population (2007 est.) and a population of 27.5 million, we would expect 145,000 deaths per year from ALL causes. Harry Reid is full of crap. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2007-09-16 19:47 |
| #17 unpatriotic opportunistic scumbag...how's that? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-16 19:23 |
| #16 US and Coalition forces used smart bombs against targets so as to avoid civilian casualties. Even concrete-bombs were part of the air arsenal. Ergo: the extravagant claims of deaths of collaterals, is pure propaganda. And anyone who would repeat them is either a dupe or an opportunistic scumbag. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-09-16 19:19 |
| #15 I only wish the US were that ruthless or manipulative. Too right, ed! If our military had accurately targetted that many Iraqi combatants the war would be over and Iran would now have its tit in the Bendix. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-16 18:55 |
| #14 not likely - he's a Senate Leader and brings attention (mostly bad) and $ to his state. He's an embarrassment, but on the pork side, he's a plus |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-16 18:34 |
| #13 only 4% of Harry Reid's fevered imagination. Obvously, the in the 2 1/2 year period mentioned, it's 2.7% of Reid's considerable imagination. 4% for the 2003-present period. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-16 18:34 |
| #12 Is there any chance Reid won't get re-elected by the citizens of Nevada the next time he comes up for re-election? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-16 18:09 |
| #11 If those numbers are right, then by the time we lose as many soldiers as we did in Korea or Vietnam there won't be ANY Iraqis left! |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-09-16 18:07 |
| #10 To give put a numerical toll to Harry Reid's hysterical shrieking, just before the Al Askariya mosque was destroyed in Feb. 2006, civilian deaths were about 400/month, primarly Shiite in Sunni terrorist attacks. Shiite retaliation was immediate and civilian deaths quadrupled near the end of 2006, mostly Sunni at the hands of Shiite militias. Even the AP admits civilian deaths tools till Sept. 2007 were 27,564 since they began collecting data on April 28, 2005. That's 2 1/2 years of the bloodiest period in Iraq and only 4% of Harry Reid's fevered imagination. BTW, the Shiite murder spree after the Al Askariya mosque bombing worked to the US (but not Harry Reid's) advantage. Only after the Sunnis got in spades what they were doing to the Shiites and were staring at the abyss of ethnic cleansing or genocide did they begin to have a change of heart. So I say, piss on them. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-16 17:49 |
| #9 "1,000,000 Iraqis Have Been Killed Since The War Started" I only wish the US were that ruthless or manipulative. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-09-16 17:27 |
| #8 Is Reid's divorce from reality final or is it just a legal separation? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque6305 2007-09-16 17:25 |
| #7 Q: What do you think about President Bush's premise that stability in Iraq is necessary for the security of this country and the Middle East region as a whole? A: It's hard for me to be pleasant in answering that question. He's the one who created all these problems from the worst foreign policy blunder in history of our country. The Middle East was not in the shape it's in now. I'm pretty sure Harry didn't answer the question. Ya know what? Let's just assume that evey single thing we've done up to now is wrong, wrong, wrong. Whadda we do now, Harry? Parcel it off to the Iranians, Saudis, and Turks? Send an ingraved invitation to the head choppers to come on over here? What do we do NOW, Harry? I guess the Dhims can't get their head out far enough to see ahead, only back, back, back. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-09-16 16:56 |
| #6 One word answer, Harry. Victory in Iraq. Good or bad for the Democratic Party? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-09-16 16:54 |
| #5 STFU Reid. Also note how he neglects to mention that the vast majority of Iraqi civilian deaths are caused by Muslim terrorists. Perish the effing thought. TRAITOR. They got along for a long time without us. So getting along now means having people lowered into industrial shredders and brides being raped on their wedding day. Such is the democratic party's vision of a just and utopic world. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-16 16:37 |
| #4 A 'million' is probably political-speak for up-averaging 'over 1/2 million. Outrageous tactic? But of course. Manipulating statistics and/or propagandizing them for political gain is scurrilous. A little high, imho. Probably in the 4-500k range on the upper end. 'Perhaps' more than 1/2 million if MSM reports are, for whatever reason, grossly underreported. |
| Posted by: logi_cal 2007-09-16 16:24 |
| #3 Iraqis, let them handle their own concerns. They don't need us. They got along for a long time without us. It's a rich country. It's not as if they are looking for handouts... Ried said while ignoring many other facts... |
| Posted by: Boss Craising2882 2007-09-16 15:57 |
| #2 a million, huh? explains the budget issues - he's a numbers moron... well, let's just say a moron and be safe |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-16 15:48 |
| #1 I see someone slept through Math class... |
| Posted by: john frum 2007-09-16 15:46 |