A black milestone has been reached: the 2,000th fallen American serviceman in Iraq. This is more tragic than 1,999 and less tragic than 2,001. In other words, 1,999, 2,000, and 2,001 are just numbers but the men and women who are dead are not. A military spokesman calls the 2,000 figure an "artificial mark on the wall." Michelle Malkin calls 2,000 a "bogus" mark. But there's nothing "bogus" or "artificial" about the 2,000 dead. They were people, Americans. They had families, friends, lives. Now they're gone.

But while we're on the subject of "bogus" and "artificial," it's worth noting that nearly 95 percent of U.S. deaths in Iraq occurred after President Bush gave his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech. The war, we know now, wasn't a "cakewalk"--as warhawk Ken Adelman assured us it would be. The war has been paid for by U.S. taxdollars, and not by Iraqi oil assets as Paul Wolfowitz incorrectly told a House committee. President Bush and his underlings based the war pitch mainly on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The administration now concedes that the WMD that they were looking to confiscate weren't there. Don't the vice president's insinuations on Meet the Press of an Iraq-9/11 conspiracy qualify as "bogus" and "artificial"? What about the forged documents detailing Iraq's efforts to gain uranium from Niger? Even the White House admitted that they bought a hoax on that one.

After inundating the American people with fantasies (a Saddam mushroom cloud over New York, a stable, free, and democratic Iraq, a "cakewalk" conflict) war cheerleaders are now calling reality (2,000 American war deaths) "bogus" and "artificial." Senator Hiram Johnson had it right when he said, "The first casualty when war comes is truth." Unfortunately, as today's bad news reminds us, truth isn't the only casualty.

Dan, I have to confess a certain amount of fatigue with the WMD issue. It's pretty darn certain that, if they weren't there, everyone from Slick Willy, Teddy Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi on down to Dubya TRULY felt there were. After all, we know he used them in the past.

And its also abundantly obvious from the Oil-for-Food scandal that Saddam, having successfully bribed his way out of the sanctions process, would undoubtedly have started his WMD programs again.

As a veteran (former F-14A pilot), I am probably more sensitive to the 2,000 (not nearly all combat-related by the way) military deaths than most. But then, I had lost 12 friends from my graduating class in aircraft accidents by the time I completed my tour of active duty, and I frankly don't remember too many tears shed, or eulogies for them by or from anyone but those with whom they served. I guess it's more fashionable now for many who don't really give a fig for the military in peace time to be concerned about combat casualties. This is not something of which I am accusing you; it's just an observation about a large, liberal segment of our population.

And please keep that no war is even close to perfect. I was recently reading about an airborne operation in WWII during the Sicily invasion in which 29 C-47 transports were shot down, 97 men of the 82nd Airborne killed, and approx. 400 wounded by frienldy fire. I would refer you to the following link http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.23371/pub_detail.asp for a most insightful dissection of not only what might have gone wrong with the war in Iraq, but which also points out why it was, and remains, the right thing to do.

McKee-- I don't think it matters who else thought some WMD were there. (I was one of them, though I didn't support the war anyway.) Only the people who pushed for war based on claiming Iraq had WMD are culpable for an unneccesary and increasingly costly and embarrassing war.

Besides, the Bushies said they had proof, and they hid behind their security clearances, pretending they had more evidence than they did. They are culpable for that. Remember the line that they just couldn't show us or Congress the proof because it would compromise sources?

Skeptic, I understand the "Bushies" pushed for war, but your statement that they pretended "they had more evidence than they did" is pure conjecture on your part, and does not constitute fact simply because you write it. My assertion that the prior administration, under which a great deal of the intelligence on Iraq's WMDs was accumulated, and a long list of prominent Democrats stated unequivocally he had them is on the record and not to be refuted.

I would ask you then to respond to four questions:

1. Was Saddam using the Oil-for-Food program to get around the U.N. sanctions and get the weapons inspectors out of Iraq?

2. Having done so, is there any question in your mind he would have reinstituted his WMD programs, most notably his efforts to obtain nukes?

3. Having reconstituted the WMD programs, would the Middle East have been more or less stable?

4. Finally, knowing the answers to one and two above are unquestionably "yes", and number three "less", would you have had the President wait until Iraq, like North Korea, had nuclear weapons in their possession before acting?

As I recall, he stated specifically he was acting BEFORE the threat was imminent.
I await your response.

McKee: Your questions are a red herring. They are irrelevant. Considering I didn't support the war when I thought Irad had some leftover WMD, why would these questions make any difference to me? The issue, which you are trying to distract from, is the one you brought up: is the admin culpable for the false WMD claims they used to justify the war to Congress and the Am people? I say, yes, because *they pretended they had more evidence than they did.* This is a fact, not conjecture. They said things like "WE KNOW that Saddam has WMD." That is a lie. To claim one knows what one doesn't, especially when such claims are supporting an unneccessary war, is a bad thing, for which the Bush and his hawks are especially culpable.

Has anyone seen the PNAC document? Between PNAC and energy policy reports (Cheney), it says a lot about premeditation of foreign policy.

Of course PNAC has been available and in the open for a while, so it's not like it's a conspiracy or anything. I dunno if that makes it better or worse.

PNAC can be found here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I'm not sure, but I think the documents have been altered (will have to check) - at the very least there are revisions of position found in other documents: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

Just for the recond there was not agreement on the status of Iraq's WMD. In fact the UN weapon inspectors left Iraq saying there was no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. French intelligence, DGSE, and Russia's intelligence all said they had seen no evidence to support the statements coming out of Washington.

It's true that lots of prominent Democrats and Republicans made statements regarding Iraq's WMD but taking that as corroboration of Bush's and Cheney's statements on Iraq is very misleading. We know Cheney made statements concerning Iraq's nuclear program that had no intelligence backing at all. Likewise "intelligence" operations like the Office of Special Plans were set up to circumvent the normal channels of intelligence and pass bogus information right into the White House.

Senators and Congressmen, unlike those in the Bush Administration, did not play a significant role in trying to manipulate intelligence to suit a preconceived agenda. They were just innocently repeating the intelligence findings in the NIE of 2002. Placing equal culpability on those who unknowingly spread false intelligence as on those who manipulate intelligence is gross moral trangression. Do we view the person who unknowningly spends a couterfeit dollar as equally culpable as those who did the counterfeiting?

Lastly, I find it interesting that the Bush cultists act if invoking liberals -- who are liars and traitors, right? -- somehow strengthens Bush's credibility.

I got it straight from one of my very liberal co-workers this morning that the head of the DNC was on cable last night and said that Iraq will go down as the "greatest military blunder, ever!".

"GREATEST MILITARY BLUNDER, EVER!".

Wow, now I know. Right from the horses as...mouth.

This is not a happy number to reach. I fear the death toll in Iraq is going to surpass the total number of Americans who died on 9/11 and that will just be obscene.

Thom, having toppled Saddam's regime is the Middle-east more or less stable today than it was before we did so?

"Black milestone". Please. Since when did Leftists care about soldiers? You seem to believe that people weren't paying attention to your side's shenanigans during the Vietnam protests, or the movement to cripple our response to a possible Soviet lunge across the Inter-German Border by protesting the deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles.

Oh, yeah, the Left loves the troops, alright--as long as they can be portrayed as victims.

I really ought to read a man's blog more carefully before calling him a foul name like "Leftist". Forgive me, please. Aarrggh.

Brian, I think the answer to your question as to the stability of the Middle-East depends on how you define "stable". Based on the Oil-for-Food revelations (which were only made possible by the fall of Saddam), it's now clear Hussein was simply waiting out the U.N. "sanctions". And based on the amount of WMD equipment and number of development sites found in Iraq, it's clear how easily he would have reconstituted his WMD program. So yes, a democratic Iraq, no matter how tenuous, is more stable to me than a strengthened Saddam Hussein.

Skeptic, whence came your quotes that the Bushies "pretended they had more evidence than they did"? Also, you state they "lied"; that's opinion, not fact, unless of course you have insight into their intentions and actual knowledge at the time. You can say you THINK they lied, but to state your opinion as fact is...a lie! And please, you may call me Thom. "McKee" sounds so formal!

Thom: The word "know" indicated the truth of the thing known. So if I say I know something and it turns out false, then I did't know it. We know Bush said something false when he claimed knowledge about Iraq WMD. But did he lie? Bush said he knew something he knew he didn't know. He knew that the 'evidence' he had was made up of obscure satellite photos that had to be explained to him, historical conjecture, and reports from sycophant refugees with a reason to manipulate US policy. Therefore, he lied to us when he said that he knew Iraw had WMD. He pretended that the evidence he had was certain and claimed knowledge, but he knew his evidence was uncertain.

If you want quotes from Bush et al., here you go:
"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." Fleicher
"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." Rumsfeld
"He's got them... We know he's got chemical weapons, probably has biological weapons." -Bush