An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked Americans: "When it comes to the war in Iraq, do you think that removing Saddam Hussein from power was or was not worth the number of U.S. military casualties and the financial cost of the war?" More respondents answered in the negative (48 percent) than in the positive (43 percent).

We know the costs: lives, dollars, and credibility. Other than removing Iraq's brutal dictator, what, exactly, are the benefits? Blocking Hussein from attacking us with imaginary weapons of mass destruction? Retaliating against Iraq for its non-role in 9/11? Giving democracy to people who fight against it more ferociously than they fought against tyranny?

We don’t need to re argue the election as Bush won and nothing will change it. But..You hit the nail right on the head. Add in Rumsfeld’s job performance and the incompetence before 9/11, ignoring warnings as historical documents etc. It begs the question - Why was Bush re-elected? What about his performance the first 4 years got him re elected?

I think his opponent had a lot to do with it, Robert.

First, of all "begs the question" does not mean "invites the question."

And who cares what a majority of Americans believe? A majority of Americans favor a women's "right" to murder her own child.

Whether or not the Iraq war is or will be a success cannot be answered at this point. There were no WMD. That surely is a massive failure. Removing Hussein was a moderate success. There has not been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Does that have something to do with our presence in Iraq? Perhaps the terrorists are focused on engaging our military rather than plotting in Boston. I cannot say, but it is surely a reasonable hypothesis.

The comment that the success will not be known for a while is correct. "There were no WMD. That surely is a massive failure." That statement is clearly wrong. There were WMD - just ask the relatives of the Kurds. What happened to them and where they are now is another question that will be more fully answered over time.

It is too early to crow about there being no more attacks on America. The Islamist terrorists are patient and their movement continues. They are pre-occupied and that helps to make terror attack here more difficult.

Whether the effort in Iraq was "worth it" depends on whether we win the WOT (defeat the fundamentalist Islamofascist movement). This rides on whether we succeed in instigating the creation of a democratic government in Iraq and whether it is "catching." If we fail, then the sacrifice of American lives will be looked upon as a complete waste.

Brad -

"And who cares what a majority of Americans believe? A majority of Americans favor a women's "right" to murder her own child."

What?!?!

Carlos: We don't have a good shot at winning the WOT if it hinges, as you claim, on whether or not we can establish a bunch of stable democratic societies in Babylon and Persia, etc. It's a herculean task to clean up the political and cultural outhouse of the world. It would take a century of Romanesque imperial rule, and America is not up for that. Rather, we better try to the keep the outhouse of the world from coming here.

Ryan:

Without knowing what your question/exclamation refers to, I cannot respond?

Does "What?!" refer to the percentage of Americans that favor the legality of abortion. Or does it refer to my lack of concern for the will of the people?

Short. It doesn't have to be and it will not be perfect. It is indeed a herculean task - has been so far, and it will be for awhile in the future. A lot of our boys, our friends, our neighbors are giving it their all, literally and figuretively, to accomplish the task. They are doing it in spite of the most ardent efforts of the terrorists, the instability of Iraq, the lack of education of of the people, the cultural obstructions, the heat, the sand, . . . . They are doing it in spite of all the elements in the world who do not want to see success, and that includes strong politcal forces in here and in Europe, and well as much of the main stream media here and in Europe. The terrorists are banking on a failure of will, its their only hope and they have a lot of support, why I don't know. But they will lose, and we will see a wave of democracy sweep the Third World. Yeah, you are right, it is a herculean task.

Then the staff turned into a serpent, the sea divided, and Carlos made his prophesy: the lion will lay down with the lamb, they will beat their swords into plowshares, and "We will see a wave of democracy sweep the Third World."

I guess I'm operating on the assumption that there are some things that our federal government cannot do.

No, the lamb will choose not to lay down with the lion. Given the chance, most lambs choose not to hang out with the lions. Your assumption is correct, but it doesn't apply here. The US cannot make the decision for others, but we can give them the chance. All they need is a chance - but creating that chance gets back to the herculean task bit.

Tell me another strategy for winning. Hunkering down and resigning to just try to keep the outhouse of the world from being dumped here is a bit short sighted. The question isn't hard - do we play for a slow loss or do we win?

It seems a bit of a premature question. It does not seem so now, but if a democratic/republic form of self rule occurs... yes it will definitly be worth it.

What about the issue of the Constitutionality of the Iraq venture? Are the principles enunciated in our Constitution not the object conservatives seek to preserve for future generations?

When did Congress declare war against Iraq? Without an explicit declaration of war we are involved in an undeclared, unconstitutional, illegal, and as folks like Rep. Ron Paul have pointed out very poignantly, a very ill defined war.

The Constitution spells out a number of "limited and enumerated powers" granted to the Congress and the President - the power to go around the world establishing democratic regimes is not one of them.

Carlos,

What, pray tell, is an "Islamofascist"? It is quite chracteristic of liberals to try to refer to hated enemies or groups as "fascists" in order to make sure that all decent folk know that they are quite beyond the pale and must be annihilated at all costs and post-haste. How is your use of the term different, or for that matter, accurate?

James is right this whole mess is completely extra-constitutional and so wholly illegitimate. Funny how naked aggression and will to power could go against the established law of this land (I won't say established tradition for there is a definite American tradition for this sort of action).

Herculean tasks, like Quixotian quests, are NOT to be udertaken . . . hence the name Herculean. Nor should one search for an Archimedean Point, make a Faustian pact, or listen to a Siren's song. Hercules, after all, was a literal child of the gods, and we Americans are but mere mortals (or what's more important imago Dei and thus beholden to His moral law), even those of us from Crawford Texas.

As a real Greek, not a mythical one, informs us matter-of-factly men, "do not deliberate about all human affairs; for instance, no Spartan deliberates about the best constitution [i.e. form of government] for the Scythians." Why did Aristotle make this claim? Because "none of these things can be brought about by our own efforts."

I do not believe we have improved on the wisdom of Aristotle. We cannot determine OR bring about by our own efforts a new form of government in any other society/nation/people. We (or rather reasonable men) do not deliberate about such things because they are not a matter of CHOICE for us at all. They are a matter of deliberation and choice for the Scythians themselves, or for the Iraqis.

And, no, even if a "democracy" is established in Iraq it will not have been worth it. It will not have been worth a single drop of blood by an American soldier or a single penny of American money. Why? Because it is a fundamentally unjust exercise of delusional will-to-power and as an evil act the good that may come of it will be due to the beneficence of Providence and not our efforts; for the ends never justify the means. We have no business meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation when we have no overriding national interest at stake.

That is the single best comment on a blog I have ever seen, Brian. I particularly like your "delusional will to power" line.

Please. Brian's post is so much hot air dressed up in classical allusion.

Are we really suppossed to be against the Iraq war because the Constitution grants war powers to the Congress? Who's in the White House? Truman? That ship has sailed.

Will to power? 'Dubya' the Ubermensch? That's ridiculous.

"We cannot determine OR bring about by our own efforts a new form of government in any other society/nation/people." Maybe I need a lesson in what constitutes "bringing about by our own efforts," but I'm fairly certain we effected something of the kind in Germany and Japan... Aristotle notwithstanding.

"We have no business meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation when we have no overriding national interest at stake." What is the "sovereignty" of tyrants? Can you tell me what you have in mind by "overriding national interest"?

We had an overriding national interest at stake; namely, the interest of not being killed by terrorists using biological and chemical weapons against our cities and our citizens.

We have not found more than traces of possible weapons in Iraq. This does not mean, however, that they are not there, or that they were not shipped to Syria before the invasion. These are both possibilities, and whatever failings our intelligence community has, I find it hard to believe that they could be that incorrect. What reason did Saddam have for not cooperating if he was not, in fact, hiding weapons?

The administration acted on the intelligence they had. No decision in foreign policy is made with full and complete knowledge. If you wait to act until you are sure, then it is too late, and you've already missed the chance. The administration believed there was a real threat of Saddam still possessing WMDs, and that he might give or sell such weapons to terrorist groups. (This may not mean Al Qaeda, indeed it seems Al Qaeda and Saddam did not get along, but there are plenty of other terror groups, including some with training camps in Iraq.) The administration faced the following decision: Act, with the risk of being wrong, or refuse to act, with the same risk. If they acted, as they did, and were wrong about the weapons (which I am not convinced of yet) then this is the result: A brutal dictator removed from power, and an attempt at democracy in a Middle Eastern nation. If that succeeds, the implications for the future of the Middle East are staggering. The survival of a stable democracy in that region of the world would be hugely beneficial to the US, not to mention to the people of Iraq, who are no longer being slaughtered by their leaders.

What if they had chosen not to ack, and their suspicions were correct? We could have seen biological or chemical weapons unleashed on New York, LA, and Washington DC, not to mention in the cities of our alies. Thousands, if not million, of our citizens could have died.

Faced with such a choice, what would you do? The government has to act in the best interests of its citizens, and in this case, it is clear that those interests were served by invading Iraq and helping to keep our peopls safe from WMD terrorism.

Thank you Short for your kind comments and support.

Brad,

To question one . . . Yes we are if we believe in the rule of law not men.

To the Uebermensch reference, you are taking the phrase "will to power" as more Nietzschean than I intended although Nietzsche's usage is basically the same as mine. I had in mind Augustine's concept (and the traditional moral realist concept) of "libido dominandi," lust to rule, or will to power. I find it morally abhorrent in all its modern forms (Macchiavelli's "virtu," Jacobinism, realpolitik, Trotskyism, neoconservatism, etc.). It is moral fanaticism to think it is our place to right the wrongs of the world, including determining which form of government is the best for other people and then enforcing our decision with bombs.

As for your historical counter-examples of Germany and Japan we didn't bring about a new form of government in those nations, they did. In fact, the German case in particular does not work b/c they had their own historical and cultural (Christian) traditions to fall back on in the rebuilding process. They had a short-lived republic in the 19th century as well as the Weimar Republic of the 20th, which wasn't a thrilling success, but which had important political figures and parties that lived on after the Third Reich to transition Germany into a stable democracy. Of primary importance is Konrad Adenauer and the Christian Democratic Party . . . where is Iraq's CDU?

And what about the threat of Stalin to forge an alliance between West Germany and the western democracies, or what about the division of Germany itself, how does that affect your claim of establishing democracy in Germany after teh war?

What do you think sovereignty is Brad? "Will of the People"? How is that determined? You quite often on this site dismiss the majority views of the people even of this very nation since they tend to be pro-abortion. Gosh, I do too, maybe I am not overly impressed by democracy? Now, why do we want to export it again? Don't just throw out a loaded term like sovereignty w/o defining it.

Anyway, the sovereignty of the Iraqi nation is not dependent on the legitimacy of its government, in my opinion, just as the United States is still a sovereign nation despite having more or less dismissed its constitution as a dead letter and the French nation maintained sovereignty through its, what?, 5-6 governments in the last century.

Finally, overriding national interest can take many specific forms, Saddam's direct involvement in 9/11, his harboring of significant forces of Al Qaeda (ala the Taliban), his actual attack of our people (here or abroad), an absolutely truly imminent attack by him, etc. He was capable of none of these things, he did none of these things, he was contained and declawed, and was no threat to us. Therefore every drop of American blood has been an abuse.

To Dan,

Your "choice" between unjustly attacking Iraq and seeing NYC nuked is NOT a choice. The situation never existed that makes that a real choice. It is simply a rationalization of the rash or the hyper-imaginative.

I think there are aliens on the dark side of the moon, call them "Moonies," that have chemical and biological weapons and may even be trying to procure nuclear weapons in order to destroy us. We must attack them now before it is too late. Acting rashly is always the best thing to do, I say.

If lack of evidence of a threat isn't enough to make you hesitate to invade countries then what is stopping you from nuking the moon?

The implications of lunar reform are staggering. Maybe we can put an end to hurricanes and tidal waves, thus bringing hope and peaceful stability to the people of the Carribean . . . particularly the Haitians . . . you know, those people whom we gave a stable democracy to several years back?

My final word on this thread is that if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their backs a-hoppin'. Sorry for being so terse I am just really over this Iraq invasion and feel bad for our honorable troops.

Attacking Iraq did accomplish two goals:
1.) it made Israel safer
2.) by removing a few hundred thousand reservists and guardsman from their normal jobs so temps could be hired in it helped masked the unemployment rate by a tiny bit.

To Brian,

I never said NYC would be nuked. Iraq did not have nukes. If you want to talk about the hyper-imaginative, at least get the facts straight.

What I DID say was that, based on intelligence and evidence that DID exist, despite your claims to the contrary, that there seemed to be a threat of WMDs (aside from nukes) being given to terrorist groups and being used against America.

"The situation never existed that makes that a real choice. "

That MAY be true, if there were really never weapons in Iraq. I personally believe that there were; what other reason did Saddam have to refuse to cooperate with the inspectors? They may have been shipped to Syria. And even if you doubt that, claiming that there was never a situation that made that a real choice is stupid. Hindight is 20/20, but at the time nobody knew there were no weapons. The evidence that you claim did not exist was enough to convince the United Nations to authorize yet ANOTHER resolution (that Saddam, of course, eventually violated). So don't tell me there was no evidence, or no situation in which there was an apparent threat.

"Acting rashly is always the best thing to do, I say.

If lack of evidence of a threat isn't enough to make you hesitate to invade countries then what is stopping you from nuking the moon?"

Um.... perhaps because, again, there WAS evidence? I could hardly call it acting rashly after 12 years of sanctions, and numerous violations of every resolution passed by the United Nations, not to mention the actual USE of WMDs against the Kurds in Saddam's own nation. And as I said before, you can't wait for absolute certainty. Otherwise you've missed the opportunity to do anything about the situation. That's a parephrasing of Henry Kissinger, and I think he knew a thing or two about internationl relations.

"Sorry for being so terse I am just really over this Iraq invasion and feel bad for our honorable troops."

I feel just as bad for our troops. What they are doing for our country is an incredible sacrifice to ask anyone to make, one that I wish was not necessary for anyone to make ever. But sometimes it is. Iraq, for the reasons I stated in this post and the last, as well as for others, was one of those necessary times, at least in my view.

But just because you're being terse doesn't mean you should put words in my mouh (nukes) or ignore the fact that we had evidence.

Dan,

"Are we really suppossed to be against the Iraq war because the Constitution grants war powers to the Congress? Who's in the White House? Truman? That ship has sailed."

So what are you saying? Because other Presidents have launched unconstitutional wars this one is okay?

Or perhaps, as others who support this war have informed me frequently, everything changed on 9/11 and the Framers of our Constitution could have never possibly imagined the brave new world we currently inhabit. In my view, this philosophy seems eerily similar to the whole "living constitution" charade promulgated in our elite law schools and furthered by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

If the "we" you are referring to are those within our Republic who consider themselves "conservatives" I would have to answer in the affirmative. After all, what is it "conservatives" in America seek to preserve anyway? I have always thought - and I think an honest review of the writings of some on the historical American Right (John T. Flynn, Senator Robert Taft, etc.) bears this out - that "we" conservatives seek to preserve our Constitution.

The Constitution gives sole authority to Congress to declare war. Around two years ago, when Congress passed a resolution, essentially giving the President of the United States the power to go to war at his executive whim, our elected representatives abdicated their responsibilities and violated their oaths of office. This makes the war in Iraq, regardless of its justifications, an undeclared and therefore unconstitutional war.

The whole mess is further jumbled by the ex post facto justifications for this venture being bandied about - the whole specter of bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to the Middle East via the Iraq war. The Constitution authorizes no such activity.

Once upon a time, American conservatives recognized this and believed it. Now many of them, particularly the so-called "neocons", parrot the rhetoric of the historic left about the wonders of a global democratic revolution - rhetoric espoused by men like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt - while generally pushing for more foreign interventions. All in all, a rather unconservative and certainly unconstitutional agenda.

James, the post you are responding to was written by Brad, not me. But I'll respond anyway. Just keep in mind that I am not the author, so I don't know what exactly Brad was thinking when he wrote what he did.

"So what are you saying? Because other Presidents have launched unconstitutional wars this one is okay?"

I think what Brad was saying (and correct me, Brad, if I'm mistaken)is that this is no longer an issue, since Congress has granted the president the power to go to war in this manner.

"The Constitution gives sole authority to Congress to declare war. Around two years ago, when Congress passed a resolution, essentially giving the President of the United States the power to go to war at his executive whim, our elected representatives abdicated their responsibilities and violated their oaths of office. This makes the war in Iraq, regardless of its justifications, an undeclared and therefore unconstitutional war."

If you are arguing that the resolution passed by Congress is unconstitutional, then assuming you are correct, the war is unconstitutional. I will grant you that. But since this issue has not been raised before the Supreme Court, I take issue with your claims over the consitutionality of these actions. As for "2 years ago", the resolution regarding Iraq may have been passed 2 years ago, but the War Powers Act (under which this resolution to go to war is made legal)has been on the books for 31 years, since 1973. If it is unconstituational, why has it beena allowed to stand for such a long time? Congress is granted the power to declare war... but the President is in command of the Armed Forces. It does not say in the Constituation that the Armed Forces cannot be deployed without declaration of war. In addition, the War Powers Act can be found here:

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

It states, among other things, that: "Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces."

Congress has not declared war, but it HAS enacted a specific authorization for use of such United States Armed Forces. Under the War Powers Act, this military action is legal. The constitutionality of this act has stood for 31 years.

"The whole mess is further jumbled by the ex post facto justifications for this venture being bandied about - the whole specter of bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to the Middle East via the Iraq war. The Constitution authorizes no such activity."

I agree. Such activity is not authorized by the Constitution. However, regardless of the "ex post facto justifications for this venture", the points from my own post remain. This war was started to defend Americans from potential terrorist attacks using WMDs, and is justified by that fact (putting aside the constitutionalty of this war for now). If you want more detail on that, you can scroll up a bit and read my other posts.

In addition (although I have already justified the war, from my point of view), the Constitution was meant to be adaptable. Hence the elastic clause, and the amendment process. It cannot hope to cover every possible circumstance that might arise, leaving the decisions about war to Congress FOR A REASON. Congress has to decide, given the situation, if the use of force is merited. There are no conditions specified in the Constitution as to when the United States may declare war; it only states that Congress has that power. So just because the Constitution does not authorize establishing democracy in other countries does not mean that doing so is unconstitutional.

Look at this bit of wisdom from pro-War Dan (not Flynn, I'm sure): "In addition..., the Constitution was meant to be adaptable. Hence the elastic clause."

Ha, ha, ha, that's a good one. "Elastic clause!?" Oh yeah, that part that says the government can in the end do whatever it wants, and so everything is really contitutional! What are we, some banana republic-- a state of emergency is declared and the constitution goes out the window?! There is no elastic clause, unless you mean the tenth amendment. If this guy is a conservative then the conservative movement is truly dead.

Pilot washes his hands, and passes the buck for the big decision. Look, congress should either declare war or not, no half-a** stuff.

Dan,

You're right, I did mean to respond to Brad’s post. Maybe this will teach me to stop reading blogs at 3 o’clock in the morning and get to bed at a more reasonable hour.

Let me deal with your last post point-by-point. First, you say:

“I think what Brad was saying (and correct me, Brad, if I'm mistaken) is that this is no longer an issue, since Congress has granted the president the power to go to war in this manner.”

Congress cannot, by legislation, grant powers to the President the Constitution does not mention. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To declare War”. If Congress and the citizens of the United States wish to grant that power to the President they must change the Constitution through the Amendment process.

You continue by saying, “But since this issue has not been raised before the Supreme Court, I take issue with your claims over the constitutionality of these actions.” Whether the intellectual titans on our Supreme Court take the issue up or not is largely irrelevant to me. The President of the United States along with our elected Representatives took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. When Congress abdicates its responsibilities, as I strongly believe it did in this case, it is the duty of the citizenry to remind them of their solemn oaths and hold them accountable. As the great majority of the American people – myself included – are literate and able to understand the English language, we are capable of determining unconstitutional government actions and holding our leaders accountable – this is the essence of self-governance.

In the context of the War Powers Act of 1973, you argue:

“Congress is granted the power to declare war... but the President is in command of the Armed Forces. It does not say in the Constituation that the Armed Forces cannot be deployed without declaration of war.”

I don’t necessarily challenge the President’s power to “deploy” troops or act as an executor of American foreign policy. However, as the War Powers Act itself maintains (Section 2 (c)), the President’s power to “introduce United States Armed forces into hostilities” is governed by:

“(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Obviously "deployment" does not equal "introduction".

I think it’s fairly obvious that criterion (3) is not applicable in the case of the Iraq war – unless, of course, the term “national emergency” is defined in such a way to make the term meaningless and simply subject to the whim of one man. This is would put America in essentially the same position of many European states prior to the American revolution where the King or Queen could send the entire nation to war at the drop of a hat – a direction I would rather not go in. By giving granting the power to make the momentous decision to go to war to the legislative branch our Founders attempted to remedy this.

For a conservative who takes the Constitution and the spirit of the War Powers Act seriously the Congressional Resolution passed "authorizing the use of force" in the case of Iraq when considered in the political context of October 2002 is disturbing. Sec. 3. (a) of the resolution reads:

“(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate […]”

This is a blatant abdication of Congressional authority – an unconstitutional shift of decision-making from the legislative to executive branch. You assent to the pre-eminence of the Congressional role yourself arguing, “Congress has to decide, given the situation, if the use of force is merited.”

Congress did not decide. The joint resolution gives the President the authority to use force as “he determines to be necessary and appropriate”. As you know quite well, this resolution was passed in October 2002. The war did not begin until March 2003. There was still a possibility of avoiding war. Diplomatic efforts were still ongoing. Congress’ abdication of its responsibility put President Bush in the position not of Commander in Chief but as final and absolute arbiter of whether or not this nation went to war – this represents a violation of our Constitution and a troubling return to the days of the Kings and Queens of Europe who sent their countries into combat at executive whim.

To be quite frank, with respect to the “elastic clause”, I do not know what you’re talking about. Maybe Lincoln found the “elastic clause” when he single-handedly revoked habeaus corpus or perhaps Franklin D. Roosevelt located it when he cooked up his New Deal. I think, as short suggested, you’re most likely referring to the Tenth Amendment which reserves all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government to the people and the states – this forms the backbone of the doctrine of “limited and enumerated” powers and the conservative viewpoint of limited government.

I do not disagree with you that the Constitution is “adaptable” in the sense that the principles it enunciates are fully capable of being applied to modern situations. The only way to change it is through the amendment process, not the wishful thinking of some in our elite law schools, judicial fiat, or Congressional statute.

Don't know if anyone still wants to talk about this, but just for the sake of accuracy, I was not, in fact, referring to the 10th amendment.

Elastic Clause

the last paragraph of Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, giving Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for carrying out the powers and purposes of the Constitution. So named because it can be used to expand the powers of Congress to fit appropriate situations, the elastic clause has provided a flexibility that has made frequent amendment of the Constitution unnecessary.

That's the result of my google search for elastic clause. That is what I was referring to.

You American's make me sick!
You are so self absorbed always thinking about yourselves.
WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ!!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO THEM?

CHILDREN
Malnutrition among Iraqi children under the age of 5 jumped from 4 percent immediately after the US-led invasion to 7.7 percent in the fall of 2004, according to the UN Human Rights Commission's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Jean Ziegler. In a presentation to the Commission, Ziegler also said that "more than a quarter of Iraqi children don't get enough to eat," and called the situation "a result of the war led by coalition forces." (Associated Press)

CIVILIAN DEATH
A British medical journal reports over 100, 000 Iraqi civilian casualties since Saddam Hussein’s fall on April 9, 2003. The amount of casualties is significantly higher than previous estimates and suggests that the US has already killed a third as many Iraqi civilians in 18 months as Saddam did in 24 years. (Informed Comment)
OH BUT YOU DON'T DO BODY COUNTS, WHY IS THAT? SICK