NationStates Jolt Archive

They can't even get the numbers of casualties right. Paul Wolfowitz--the number two man at the Department of Defense and one of the chief architects of the Iraq war plan--appeared before a House subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee Thursday and was asked how many casualties the US has suffered in Iraq. The story is here. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=5&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_deaths_wolfowitz)

Wolfowitz said there were around 500 causalties of which around 350 were combat related. The official numbers are 722 with 521 from combat. A Pentagon spokesman said that Wolfwitz just misspoke, but come on--the number two guy in the DOD needs to be closer than that. It's disgraceful.

the guy just mispoke, just him a break.

Paul W. should be god with numbers though, he does hold dual US-Israeli citizenship.

the guy just mispoke, just him a break.

Paul W. should be god with numbers though, he does hold dual US-Israeli citizenship.
Apologist and an aspersion in a neat package. You're a ninja!

Paul W. should be god with numbers though, he does hold dual US-Israeli citizenship.

I'm sure that's never been a conflict of interest...

the guy just mispoke, just him a break.

Paul W. should be god with numbers though, he does hold dual US-Israeli citizenship.
Apologist and an aspersion in a neat package. You're a ninja!
damn right!

the guy just mispoke, just him a break.

Paul W. should be god with numbers though, he does hold dual US-Israeli citizenship.
Apologist and an aspersion in a neat package. You're a ninja!
damn right!

:?: Ok. if you want to claim it....

This reminds me of Bush talking about how he saw the first Plane hit the World Trade Center and didn't realize it was an attack until we saw the second one: The trouble was that there was no film of the first hit until the day after...

So, how did he watch it live?

This reminds me of Bush talking about how he saw the first Plane hit the World Trade Center and didn't realize it was an attack until we saw the second one: The trouble was that there was no film of the first hit until the day after...

So, how did he watch it live?
he didn't watch it live. he may have heard about it like I did. Some shitty DJ on a shitty top 40 station breaking into the Britney Spears song to tell the listeners that plane had hit the WTC. After the 2nd plane hit, the DJ did the same thing except he added, "this plane was no accident, this was a deliberate act."

He was in a classroom at the time wasn't he? Got to have an alibi of course.. 8)

This reminds me of Bush talking about how he saw the first Plane hit the World Trade Center and didn't realize it was an attack until we saw the second one: The trouble was that there was no film of the first hit until the day after...

So, how did he watch it live?
he didn't watch it live. he may have heard about it like I did.


And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/firstplane.htm

This reminds me of Bush talking about how he saw the first Plane hit the World Trade Center and didn't realize it was an attack until we saw the second one: The trouble was that there was no film of the first hit until the day after...

So, how did he watch it live?
he didn't watch it live. he may have heard about it like I did.


And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/9-11/firstplane.htm

Um... how does YET ANOTHER Bushism indicate a conspiracy? What if he just, you know... LIED about seeing the tape? Or, didn't even lie, just flubbed up again?

Bush -- TOTALLY complicit in the horrific events that were unfolding that morning -- HAD TO HAVE BEEN watching the perpetrators' OWN VIDEO FEED of the extraordinary treachery which THEY THEMSELVES were unleashing on New York City! This MUST have been transmitted from the perpetrators' OWN VIDEO CAMERAS in place near the World Trade Center.

There is NO other explanation!

These people are total idiots. Books have been written about how incompetent Bush is at speaking in public. Why on earth would someone assume this one statement to be factual, knowing about all his other asinine comments?

Next you'll be saying his "I believe man and fish can coexist" statement is "proof" that we have been fighting a covert fish war for years. Or that "it's hard to put food on your family" means that he forces his daughters to act as tables when he has dinner parties.

Um... how does YET ANOTHER Bushism indicate a conspiracy? What if he just, you know... LIED about seeing the tape? Or, didn't even lie, just flubbed up again?


So, he's either a liar - mentally retarded - or a conspirator...

Um... how does YET ANOTHER Bushism indicate a conspiracy? What if he just, you know... LIED about seeing the tape? Or, didn't even lie, just flubbed up again?

Next you'll be saying his "I believe man and fish can coexist" statement is "proof" that we have been fighting a covert fish war for years.QahJoh, me and you don't agree on a whole hell of alot, but myself, like you, is growing tired of all these so called conspiracy theories of Tex. I love the way he actually believes in conspiracies that contradict with each other.

Um... how does YET ANOTHER Bushism indicate a conspiracy? What if he just, you know... LIED about seeing the tape? Or, didn't even lie, just flubbed up again?


So, he's either a liar - mentally retarded - or a conspirator...

Like I said, whole books have been written on his incompetence as a public speaker. To argue that this one flub is somehow distinct and indicates a conspiracy is the equivalent of jumping off the deep end. Into an empty pool.

They can't even get the numbers of casualties right. Paul Wolfowitz--the number two man at the Department of Defense and one of the chief architects of the Iraq war plan--appeared before a House subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee Thursday and was asked how many casualties the US has suffered in Iraq. The story is here. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=5&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_deaths_wolfowitz)

Wolfowitz said there were around 500 causalties of which around 350 were combat related. The official numbers are 722 with 521 from combat. A Pentagon spokesman said that Wolfwitz just misspoke, but come on--the number two guy in the DOD needs to be closer than that. It's disgraceful.

Meh, who cares how many of them died. People always die in war, and no casualty count will ever be accurate.

No evidence for a conspiracy here. Just more incompetence.

Meh, who cares how many of them died. People always die in war, and no casualty count will ever be accurate.
As long as our number of casualties is less than the bad guys number of casualties, we will win. in this war I don't think being a few hundred off on our side really matters.

Meh, who cares how many of them died. People always die in war, and no casualty count will ever be accurate.
As long as our number of casualties is less than the bad guys number of casualties, we will win. in this war I don't think being a few hundred off on our side really matters.

Even if we lose more than them, they can be considered martyrs for the greater good.

Meh, who cares how many of them died. People always die in war, and no casualty count will ever be accurate.
As long as our number of casualties is less than the bad guys number of casualties, we will win. in this war I don't think being a few hundred off on our side really matters.

Ummm...No thats not the strategic directive of this war. That hasn't been a directive since the early days of Vietnam. In a non-traditional warfare scenario, the enemy will always have more forces then you because he draws them from the environment while your forces are always dwindling because you are trying to provoke a conventional response from a unconventional foe.

Ummm...No thats not the strategic directive of this war. That hasn't been a directive since the early days of Vietnam. In a non-traditional warfare scenario, the enemy will always have more forces then you because he draws them from the environment while your forces are always dwindling because you are trying to provoke a conventional response from a unconventional foe.
I feel like I am back at Ft. Huachuca after reading that response.

Even if we lose more than them, they can be considered martyrs for the greater good.
You sound like Osama ... I mean Bush ... no, Osama .. WAIT, They're indistinguishable!!

I feel like I am back at Ft. Huachuca after reading that response.
hahahahhahahahahahhahaha

good one :wink:

Even if we lose more than them, they can be considered martyrs for the greater good.
You sound like Osama ... I mean Bush ... no, Osama .. WAIT, They're indistinguishable!!

No. I sound like me.

Even if we lose more than them, they can be considered martyrs for the greater good.
You sound like Osama ... I mean Bush ... no, Osama .. WAIT, They're indistinguishable!!

No. I sound like me.

Thread derail - Seph, TM me about FUA.

Even if we lose more than them, they can be considered martyrs for the greater good.
You sound like Osama ... I mean Bush ... no, Osama .. WAIT, They're indistinguishable!!

No. I sound like me.

Tex isn't big on the differentiation stuff. Hence the whole Bush=Kerry thing. By association, I guess this means Kerry=Osama, too.

I'm surprised we haven't heard more Hitler comparisons, to tell the truth.

Even if we lose more than them, they can be considered martyrs for the greater good.
You sound like Osama ... I mean Bush ... no, Osama .. WAIT, They're indistinguishable!!

No. I sound like me.

Tex isn't big on the differentiation stuff. Hence the whole Bush=Kerry thing. By association, I guess this means Kerry=Osama, too.

I'm surprised we haven't heard more Hitler comparisons, to tell the truth.

I've noticed.