Real Cost of War

What war does to people and nations. 'Cost' is much more than a monetary valuation. War really costs most of us our Humanity!

Thursday, July 21, 2005
On this day:

What does Treason in a 'time of war' deserve?

Despite all the self-serving rhetoric Bush shills are pounding out on the airwaves and in print there is still an actual crime which has been committed against the American People!

Will 'justice' really prevail, or has the Fascist Coup already tightened the reigns so completely that even a semblance of justice is no longer possible?

Republicans Must Choose: Bush Or America?
By Ted Rall
07/19/05 - - NEW YORK

"Karl Rove is loyal to President Bush," a correspondent wrote as Treasongate broke. "Isn't that a form of patriotism?" Not in a representative democracy, I replied. Only in a dictatorship is fealty to the Leader equal to loyalty to the nation. We're Bush's boss. He works for us. Unless that changed on 9/11 (or 12/20/00). Rove had no right to give away state secrets, even to protect Bush.

Newly loquacious Time reporter Matt Cooper has deflated half a dozen Rove-defending talking points since we last visited. Republicans, for instance, have argued that Rove had merely confirmed what Cooper already knew: that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. That claim evaporated in Cooper's piece in the magazine's July 25 issue: "This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

"I've already said too much," Cooper quotes Rove as he ended their 2003 conversation.

Rove may avoid prosecution under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, says John Dean, counsel at the Nixon White House. "There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated," he says, alluding to Title 18, Section 641 of the U.S. Code. The "leak of sensitive [government] information" for personal purposes--say, outting the CIA wife of your boss' enemy--is "a very serious crime," according to the judge presiding over a similar recent case. If convicted under the anti-leak statute, Rove would face ten years in a federal prison.

Even if Rove originally learned about Plame's status from jailed New York Times journalist Judith Miller, Dean continues, "it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate)." Conspiracy will get you five years at Hotel Graybar.

Rove's betrayal of a CIA WMD expert--while the U.S. was using WMDs as a reason to invade Iraq--is virtually indistinguishable from Robert Hanssen's selling out of American spies. Both allowed America's enemies to learn the identities of covert operatives. Both are traitors. Both are eligible for the death penalty.

And he's not the only high-ranking Bush Administration traitor.

In last week's column I speculated that Treasongate would almost certainly implicate Dick Cheney. Now, according to Time, Cheney chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby is being probed as a second source of leaks to reporters about Plame.

We already know that Rove is a traitor. So, probably, is Cheney. Since George W. Bush has protected traitors for at least two years; he is therefore an accomplice to the Rove-Libby cell. We are long past the point where, during the summer of 1974, GOP senators led by Barry Goldwater told Richard Nixon that he had to resign. So why aren't Turd Blossom and his compadres out of office and awaiting trial?

Democrats are out of power. And, sadly, Republicans have become so obsessed with personal loyalty that they've forgotten that their first duty is to country, not party or friend. Unless they wake up soon and dump Bush, Republicans could be permanently discredited.

Bush sets the mafia-like tone: "I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it." His lieutenants blur treason with hardball politics--"[Democrats] just aren't coming forward with any policy positions that would change the country, so they want to pick up whatever the target of the week is and make the most out of that," says GOP House Whip Roy Blunt--and blame the victim--Rove, absurdly argues Congresswoman Deborah Pryce, was innocently trying to expose Wilson's "lies."

The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds Bush's credibility at 41 percent, down from 50 in January. Given events past and present, that's still a lot higher than it ought to be.

We don't need a law to tell us that unmasking a CIA agent, particularly during wartime, is treasonous. Every patriotic American--liberal, conservative, or otherwise--knows that.

Monday, July 11, 2005
On this day:

Control Orders and their real affect

If you are one the enlightened few who really do feel that what happens to any one other person also happens to yourself, you are probably in the vast majority in this world.

However, if you are, and you have enough within yourself to empathize with those who are being mistreated in many ways daily, and of course, even being torture and killed, the following article reproduced from Signs of the Times will no doubt elicit some of that empathy being spoken of.

True, this man is not being 'overtly' tortured, but psychological torture may even be more devastatingly painful than physical torture in some ways.

Here is the article:

Control order flaws exposed

First interview with ex-detainee reveals a regime that leaves him in despair : Ex-detainee exposes flaws in terror control orders
Audrey Gillan and Faisal al Yafai
Thursday March 24, 2005
The Guardian

The bizarre world of the government's controversial anti-terrorist control orders was yesterday revealed when one of the 10 men who had been detained in high-security institutions for more than three years walked into the Guardian offices without any security escort.

Highlighting the stark contradictions in the control orders, Mahmoud Abu Rideh, who had been detained without charge and trial in Belmarsh prison and Broadmoor psychiatric hospital, is kept under house arrest at night, but is able to roam freely under tagging during the day.

The Palestinian refugee, who was held for three-and-a-half years, says he cannot understand the double standards of the order, and said it was further exacerbating his psychiatric difficulties. He has been diagnosed as mentally ill.

In the first interview from any of the 10 detainees placed under control orders, he said: "I go everywhere now - on the underground, buses, the mosque. But I must be home by 7pm. People think I am dangerous, but I am not dangerous. The government is playing games. If I am a risk to security, why are they letting me out to be with people? I wouldn't do anything silly. I am not a dangerous man."

Mr Abu Rideh's control order says he is a key UK-based contact and provider of financial and logistical support to extreme Islamists with connections to al-Qaida. It says: "You belonged to and have provided support for a network of north African extremists directly involved in terrorist planning in the UK, including the use of toxic chemicals."

Mr Abu Rideh denies this is the case.

The control orders were rushed through parliament earlier this month in the face of widespread opposition. The contradictions inherent in them are clear from Mr Abu Rideh's experiences since being released on bail almost two weeks ago:

* He is not allowed to make arrangements to meet anybody, but he can drop in to see anyone if he does so unannounced;
* He cannot attend any pre-arranged meetings or gatherings, but was present at the anti-war demonstration at Hyde Park last Saturday. He says he stumbled across it while playing football in the park with his children;
* He is banned from having visitors to his home unless they are vetted in advance, but he is allowed to arrange to attend group prayers at a mosque;
* He thinks he is being followed on the tube, but if he calls a taxi, no one tails him.

Mr Abu Rideh told the Guardian that his confusion over how the control orders work, and his lack of support, led him to take a drug overdose last weekend. He was taken to Charing Cross hospital after he swallowed 35 tablets and was not released until Monday evening. He says he cannot bear to live under the conditions imposed by the home secretary.

He said: "I only want to kill myself. I don't want to kill anybody else. I am not a danger to anybody else, but this government has made me a danger to myself. It is just as bad to be free with a control order as it is in Belmarsh prison or Broadmoor hospital."

The control orders authorised by the home secretary, Charles Clarke, caused a parliamentary crisis two weeks ago and were only shunted through after 30 hours of ferocious tussling between the two houses and a compromise on the part of the government.

The 10 men include Abu Qatada, the Islamist preacher who has been described by a judge as a truly dangerous individual who was "at the centre of UK terrorist activities associated with al-Qaida".

At the time of the parliamentary debate, the Home Office said that the 10 released men were still a risk to national security. This week, lawyers for Mr Abu Rideh and the other men began a legal challenge to the control orders. They told a high court judge that the orders were confused and difficult to work with, saying: "It has been continuous crisis management for the past 10 days."

Yesterday, Mr Abu Rideh explained some of these problems. "The conditions are too complicated and they don't work. The Home Office emergency number doesn't work. I phoned Fulham police station and they said it's not their problem," he said.

He claims that the voice recognition system operated by the tagging company, Premier Monitoring Services, does not work and the Guardian found that the Home Office control order hotline was an answering machine.

Mr Abu Rideh is so frustrated that he has threatened to take direct action similar to Fathers4Justice. He said: "I will go to Big Ben and make a demonstration, I will chain myself to the railings of the high court or the House of Commons. My lawyer has told me not to, but if I don't get justice I will."

The transition from being in Belmarsh and then in a hospital with the criminal mentally ill to being at home with his wife and five children is proving to be fraught. "I think they will arrest me again. My kids worry that when they get back from school I will be gone and they might not find me again. My wife can't sleep. She is asking me not to go out."

Surprise searches by Scotland Yard officers leave his family on edge, he said, and his wife sleeps fully clothed in case of any eventuality. He complained that officers rifled through his wife's underwear drawer. "That's wrong in anybody's culture," he said. "I asked them, What are you searching there, do you think I have a bomb in my house, do you think I would kill my kids?"

But the most frustrating thing of all is that, despite being called an international terrorist by the government, he has never been told where he crossed the line.

He said: "I want to talk to whoever locked me up. Talk to me. Tell me, why? See my face, see my body. But I can't find anybody to talk to me."

A spokesperson for Premier said the company could not discuss individual cases.

Comment: Abu Rideh's experiences sound like they were written by Franz Kafka. He lives in a netherworld where he is neither innocent nor guilty, subject to apparently contradictory rules, with no one on the other end of the line to explain to him the unfathomable logic.

If conditions develop along the lines of force currently dominant, we'll all be wearing electronic bracelets one day. Already our movements can be tracked through our credit card and bank card purchases the GPS chips in our car. Our thoughts and interests can be tracked and noted through our use of the Internet.

We're all on someone's list.

We have flipped into a society where everyone is considered guilty until they can obtain Top Secret clearance...and even then, they'll be someone with Above Top Secret clearance who will continue to watch.

Utopias are easy to imagine yet impossible to build; dystopias are both easy to imagine and easy to create. We are collectively creating such a dystopia -- truth be said, it is already here, only the pretty wrappings haven't quite been enough removed to make it apparent to those who are too caught up in their daily affairs to notice. This dystopia, a corporate fascism where capital and business legal individuals have more rights than individuals of flesh and blood, has been slowly but steadily manifesting since the dry run in Germany and Italy seventy years ago. Those in power have been studying society with great care to find a way of making us willing accessories, and they are succeeding.

Step by step, drop by drop, with the occasional unexpected shock to our collective nervous system for good measure, we are being imprisoned with legal restrictions, with fear, with ideology and dogma, with prejudice against those who do not dress, speak, walk, or look like us.

The slogan "We are all Londoners" was seen after last week's bombing. But we are also all Fallujans, we are all Palestinians, we are the Americans who died on 9/11. We are all being manipulated and set against each other to serve aims of which we have no conception, of which we can only discern by carefully reading between the lines, by seeing the overall pattern that emerges from a study of history, of science, of geology and archaeology.

To get an understanding of what we are referring to, we point you to The Secret History of the World and How to Get Out Alive.

Monday, July 04, 2005
On this day:

Iraq Remains a Quagmire despite Administration Denials

I came across this article from Counterpunch at Signs of the Times which is a solid indictment of the protests people like Cheney and Rumsfeld are making about the use of words like "Quagmire" and their like to describe what our forces are facing in Iraq.

It is really sad but our service people there are facing 'real fireworks' while those in the US are playing around with pretty colors and loud bangs!

The article:

Last Throes of the Lying Charlatans?

Quagmire of the Vanities
July 4, 2005

"It depends", said Bill Clinton, "on what the meaning of 'is' is" ; and he was promptly pilloried by scandalized commentators and shocked - shocked - legislators whose morals and motives were of course impeccable. But there is curious silence on the part of these paragons of semantics and virtue now that there is disagreement about the meaning of words used by two pathetic crackpots who occupy posts in the present US administration.

Washington's charlatan-in-chief, Cheney, has boasted he stands by his statement that Iraq's insurgents are in "their last throes", because it all depends on what the meaning of 'throes' is. He decided to order some deep thinking, and his researchers told him to say "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period".

The vain and arrogant draft-dodging Cheney should know all about that. When the war in Vietnam was in its last throes, and he was obtaining deferment after deferment because he said he had "other priorities", the conflict was indeed violent. And the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country.

It is obvious that when Cheney first used the phrase "last throes" he was convinced the insurgents were in their final shuddering spasms before collapsing. He meant he was sure that the insurgents were indulging in last desperate efforts and that the débâcle would soon end in victory for the Washington warmongers. And if there were a few hundred more US troops killed in the process that wouldn't matter because, in the words of Bush, the "Mission Accomplished" president, "I'm not giving up on the mission. We're doing the right thing."

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on June 23, General John Abizaid, commander Central Command, didn't seem too keen on Cheney's smart comment. He admitted there are just as many insurgents now as there were six months ago, but when asked if they were in their "last throes" he could say only that "There's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency . . . . I'm sure you'll forgive me from criticizing the vice president." I'm not sure what that means except for one thing : if he had agreed with Cheney that the insurgency was in its last throes, he would have said so in a very loud voice. But he lacked the moral courage to answer the question.

Then there is the matter of the word 'quagmire' that so excites Rumsfeld. Webster defines 'quagmire' quite simply : "Marshy ground that gives way under the foot; a difficult situation". Oxford says it's "A hazardous or awkward situation." The sense comes through. Quagmires are nasty.

In his anxiety to portray Iraq as a non-quagmire the equally vain and foolish Rumsfeld told the Committee that the insurgents "in recent months have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support." Nobody pointed out that in recent months US occupation troops "have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support." In March to May there were 168 American soldiers killed and 534 wounded in Iraq. But it isn't a quagmire, of course.

Senator Ted Kennedy asked a question about quagmires and "Rumsfeld, flanked by top US commanders, responded : 'First let me say that there isn't a person at this table who agrees with you that we're in a quagmire and that there's no end in sight'." So there must, conversely, actually be an end in sight to the counter-insurgency war.

Let's think back to 1967, to the quagmire in Vietnam. The US embassy in Saigon held a New Year's party to welcome 1968. The invitation read "Come see the light at the end of the tunnel". Exactly a month later, on the night of January 31, 1968, 19 Vietnamese guerrillas arrived at the embassy and blew their way in to its compound, killing four US soldiers. The Tet offensive had begun. And on February 6 Art Buchwald's column read :

"Dateline: Little Big Horn, Dakota. General George Armstrong Custer said today in an exclusive interview with this correspondent that the Battle of Little Big Horn had just turned the corner and he could now see light at the end of the tunnel. "We have the Sioux on the run", General Custer told me. "Of course we'll have some cleaning up to do, but the Redskins are hurting badly and it will only be a matter of time before they give in."

The Senate hearing was on Thursday June 23, and the world was told by Rumsfeld that there is an end in sight to his war in Iraq. But on June 26, on Fox News Sunday, Rumsfeld said "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, ten, twelve years". So what happened in Cheney-Bush Washington between Thursday and Sunday?

One of the things that happened was a decision that Rumsfeld should get himself on the Sunday news shows to try to make up for his stumbling and embarrassing performance in front of the Committee. But his pathetic attempts to achieve credibility fell flat.

NBC's Tim Russert showed Rumsfeld a video clip of Cheney's silly claim that the US invaders would be "greeted as liberators" and was asked "Do you think this was a misjudgment?" There is only one honest answer to that question, because it was one of the most foolish misjudgments of the many made by the Cheney-Bush administration. But of course Rumsfeld couldn't give an honest answer. He got himself in deeper by avoiding the question and then claiming he had given Bush "a list of about 15 things that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started."

Rumsfeld declared that "oil fields could have been set aflame like they were in Kuwait, [and] we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it didn't happen. The bridges could have been blown up. There could have been a fortress Baghdad where the moat around it with oil in it and people fighting to the death. So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen." Certainly, "a great many of the bad things" didn't happen before the invasion. They happened later, as a direct result of the triumphal mindset and unthinking brutality of the conquerors.

There was no moat of oil around Baghdad. That was a ludicrous prediction. But as to the other main warnings Rumsfeld says he gave, it appears he doesn't read newspapers. It was his air force that destroyed bridges, and there have been scores of oil pipeline fires caused by guerrilla attacks since Iraq was "liberated".

Pipelines are much less risky to target than oil wells, as anyone could have told Rumsfeld if he had not been so vain and smug as to reject advice about his war. Such attacks have several effects : they deny oil, and thus national income ; the threat of interference ties up security forces ; and they demonstrate the impotence of occupation forces and the make-believe government in Baghdad. The day before Rumsfeld's talking parrot performances it was reported that guerrillas had blown up two pipelines : one in the far north, from Kirkuk to Turkey, and the other in the south, along the line from Basra to Baghdad. But Rumsfeld said Sunday that "solid progress is being made . . . economic progress is being made . . ." He must imagine that building more US prisons and military bases all over the country can be called economic progress.

Rumsfeld's alleged warning to Bush about refugees and relocations was not relevant at the time of their invasion. These disasters took place afterwards. Has he heard of Fallujah? It was his merry men who took Nazi-style reprisals on the city and reduced much of it to rubble, creating hatred of America that will last for generations. Rumsfeld doesn't want the world to know the extent of the destruction wrought by his merciless blitzes, but the State Department has revealed officially that "about 90,000 of Fallujah's 300,000 residents have recently returned to the city".

Where are the rest? -- They are despairing, bewildered, poverty-stricken, helpless, tent-dwelling refugees who have to be fed, after a fashion, by the UN and other charitable refugees' organizations. They are examples of Rumsfeld's "solid progress."

And in the north there is massive "relocation" taking place, because the Kurds are forcing out the Arab population at gunpoint, and US forces are doing nothing about it. They couldn't do anything even if they wanted to. They don't understand the problem and they haven't got the expertise or troop numbers to even begin to moderate the ethnic cleansing and slaughter that are taking place. "Solid progress"?

Then there was Rumsfeld's amazing nonsense about the full scale insurgency that has taken thousands of lives. Tim Russert wanted to know if the vain and arrogant secretary of defense had foreseen this, so asked him "Was a robust insurgency on your list that you gave the president?"

That was a very good question. In old-fashioned British military parlance (and to quote Evelyn Waugh), it was a 'swift one'. If Rumsfeld had told the truth and said "No", there would have been melt-down. If he had answered "Yes", he would have looked even more stupid. So he tap-danced round the point and said "I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed the possibility that you could have dead-enders who would fight."

It may be credible to some that the US secretary of defense does not remember if there was a factor as vital as post-invasion insurgency on the list of 15 likely problems he says he gave to his president. On the other hand, you could conclude that Rumsfeld is a liar.

Rumsfeld's tactics are eerily reminiscent of the Nixon era -- "Just say you don't remember". In fact the writer George Higgins summed up the Nixon presidency and was unknowingly prescient about the Cheney-Bush administration when he wrote in the Atlantic of November 1974 that "The Nixon School of Lying was erected on the premise that people will hear what they want to hear, and all you have to do is give them something." Last Sunday Rumsfeld gave the people of the United States of America the same sort of mendacious twaddle that Nixon and his people dished out about Watergate.

Rumsfeld said he didn't remember if he had mentioned the biggest single problem facing any military occupation force : the likelihood of an uprising by people who don't like their country being occupied and who do not take kindly to swaggering bullies blowing down their doors in the middle of the night, stealing their savings, humiliating men, terrifying women, torturing captives and in general behaving as barbarians. The army and marines acted and continue to act like a tribe of video-game hi-tech savages. Their conduct is a direct result of lack of training that was caused by lack of planning.

And the lack of planning was the direct result of inaction on the part of a vain, naïve and foolish man : Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. He thought he knew it all. He thought he was infallible. Perfection personified in a priggish buffoon. But at the Senate hearing he was taken down a well-deserved peg by Senator Byrd who said "Mr. Secretary, I've watched you with a considerable amount of amusement . . . I don't think I've ever heard a secretary of defense who likes to lecture the committee as much as you. You may not like our questions, but we represent the people . . . We ask the questions that the people ask of us whether you like it or not . . . The problem is we didn't ask enough questions at the beginning of this war that we got into, Mr. Bush's war . . . I don't mean to be discourteous [but] I've just heard enough of your smart answers to these people here who are elected . . . So get off your high horse when you come up here." Rumsfeld could not summon up a reply. (This splendid piece of ego-deflation was not a feature in the main newspapers or any TV reportage.)

Rumsfeld might have been shaken by such a well-merited rebuke from someone whose boots he is not fit to polish, and his dumbfounded reaction certainly indicates this possibility. But he is so absurdly convinced of his righteousness that he and his soul-mate Cheney cannot understand that anyone who disagrees with them might actually have a reasonable point to make.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are so arrogant, ignorant and vain that they imagine they can never fail. But they have failed disastrously and in the course of their reckless self-deception they have disgraced their country. There is small comfort in the fact that hubris leads to nemesis, because countless human beings have been sacrificed to their bumptious pride. They don't yet realize it, but they are in the quagmire of their vanities.

Brian Cloughley writes on military and political affairs. He can be reached through his website

Saturday, July 02, 2005
On this day:

Many more Soldiers dying than reported

From the Baltimore Independent Media Center comes the following very sad article which tends to corroborate what I was fairly certain all along was the case regarding the numbers of dead and woulded service men and women who are fighting in places far away in a war that is unjust and totally unnecesary.

It really saddens me because this carnage, both of our own service people and of those who are living in the countries we are distroying and pillaging, raping and torturing, is carnage of 'my people'.

What I mean by the above statement is that I feel all people, everywhere are 'my people'. For some, the only 'people' they actually care about is 'themselves'!

Author peaceseeker
29 Jun 2005 10:01:36 PM

no rightsThis work is in the public domain

Has the Bush administration drastically understated the U.S. military death count by redefining "death"? The following article suggests that it has, and it calls for a nationwide campaign to honor deceased service members by naming and counting them.
According to the article: "...DoD lists currently being very quietly circulated indicate almost 9,000 [U.S. military] dead"; this far exceeds the "official" death count of 1,831. How can this be? It's largely because "U.S. Military Personnel who died in German hospitals or en route to German hospitals have not previously been counted."

In other words, "death" has been redefined.


1. If you know (or know of) service members who've died in Bush([search])'s wars, look for their names on the full, alphabetized "official" Pentagon death list, at IF THEIR NAMES ARE NOT INCLUDED, PLEASE SEND A REPORT TO: tbrnews (at) You're also encouraged to notify your Congress members, your local newspaper, and other interested parties.

( Note that the alphabetized list is updated regularly at It currently includes deaths reported up through early June. )


3. Forward this web page to veterans' groups, other organizations, responsible journalists and respectable elected officials.


"The Bush Butcher’s Bill: Officially, 80 US Military Deaths in Iraq([search]) from 1 through 21 May, 2005 – Official Total of 1,831 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.

by Brian Harring, Domestic Intelligence Reporter

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* (See note below. This figure is now over 24,000 Ed) 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 –

I have a copy of the official DoD casualty list. I am alphabetizing it with the reported date of death following. TBR will post this list in sections and when this is circulated widely by veteran groups and other concerned sites, if people who do not see their loved one’s names, are requested to inform their Congressman, their local paper, us and other concerned people as soon as possible.

The government gets away with these huge lies because they claim, falsely, that only soldiers actually killed on the ground in Iraq are reported. The dying and critically wounded are listed as en route to military hospitals outside of the country and not reported on the daily postings. Anyone who dies just as the transport takes off from the Baghdad airport is not listed and neither are those who die in the US military hospitals. Their families are certainly notified that their son, husband, brother or lover was dead and the bodies, or what is left of them (refrigeration is very bad in Iraq what with constant power outages) are shipped home, to Dover AFB. You ought to realize that President Bush personally ordered that no pictures be taken of the coffined and flag-draped dead under any circumstances. He claims that this is to comfort the bereaved relatives but is designed to keep the huge number of arriving bodies secret. Any civilian, or military personnel, taking pictures will be jailed at once and prosecuted.

...This listing program is finished so act accordingly. If there is an actual variance of, say, 10 names, that is acceptable. 50 would indicate sloppiness and anything over 100 a positive sign of lying. As of June 16, TBR has received 32 new, unlisted names

*The latest on the wounded: “Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, is a 150-bed hospital that's already seen over 24,000 wounded military patients from Iraq and Afghanistan since the commencement of hostilities “. Knight Ridder Newspapers June 6, 2005 (Note: The Pentagon refuses to publish accurate lists of any wounded. Ed)