USA Today: Toll In Iraq Costs President At Home (Front Page!)

Toll in Iraq costs president at home 115 soldiers have died in combat since May 1, more than during war

Page 1A

WASHINGTON -- The costs of occupation in Iraq are mounting in lives and dollars, and that is eroding support for the war and confidence in President Bush at home.

The Pentagon announced Tuesday that the 115 American troops killed in combat in Iraq since May 1 -- the day Bush declared major combat operations over -- exceeds the 114 killed by hostile fire during the war itself.

Since the heady day six months ago when the statue of Saddam Hussein toppled in the heart of Baghdad, more than one-fourth of Americans who thought the war was worth it have changed their minds. The 71% level of support in USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Polls last spring has fallen to 52% in surveys this fall.

--snip--

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031029/5630995s.htm

I remember Lou Dobbs specifically announcing the number of deaths has surpassed the count when Bush declared the Military Action over!

Not only this article but CNN Reporter this morning announced the death toll had just gone over the amount before Bush's "fly boy" display. I thought at the time that something was wrong with that count.

And BTW what about the injured over a thousand! Why do they never report that? Does the average listener fill it in for them, because they know instintively that the injured are there?

Anyone else remember that the count a month or so ago had gone over, and does this number of 115 seem lower to you than previous counts? :crazy:

Networks Change Casualty Count in Iraq Reports (August 29, 2003)

medical reasons. Scary. You wonder what's wrong with them.

Someone needs to ask if soldiers that "died in combat" are somehow more valuable and "countable" than those who died in their so-called "auto accidents". I can't wait to see how they will further compartamentalize the #'s next.

from injuries sustained in Iraq combat? They parse the deaths so horribly well. Very appalling.

I've never been able to find an answer.

I mean, you've heard him talk. Come on!
The Professor

But this is the first time that the official COMBAT deaths since May 1st exceed the official COMBAT deaths before May 1st.

if you get shot, but don't die untill the next day, they don't fucking count you on tv :mad::grr:

is Arthur Andersen doing the body counts?

How can 1 in 5 Americans, who six months ago supported the war, suddenly turn against it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad. But a year ago, 50% opposed the war, just like now. That same dumbass 20% obviously changed to support the war, and now, has turned around to oppose it once again. How weak willed are people anyway.

I guess I know why some Americans are still falling for the Nigerian bank fraud thing and Canadian lottery thing.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, these are very fuzzy numbers.

From a CNN article August 26, 2003

...The number of war dead after the major conflict was declared over May 1 by President George W. Bush is now at 139, surpassing the 138 U.S. service members to die during the first phase of warfare.

Between March 20, when the war began, and May 1, 138 U.S. service members died, according to the U.S. military.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/26/sprj.irq.intl.main/


<>

playing with the goddamned numbers of DEAD PEOPLE for political gain

god I hate these people

:mad: :nuke:

it should be painfully obvious to one even as stupid as Bush* that you wouldn't be dead if you weren't in Iraq where we are waging war. You, a US servicemember are in a truck in Iraq, that crashes into a canal in Iraq, and you then drown while in the accident in that truck that crashed into the Iraqi canal - you are dead because of the war. If you weren't in Iraq you would be going on about your life, playing weekend warrior to pay for college.

It's just so Chimp to assess the Iraq situation in terms of his political capital. Doesn't that say it all?

It repeats Bush's lie that Lincoln's crew put up the banner.

But then, we're just liberals and elitist people...who think.

This article and the tables that are included help sort out the numbers.

<clips>

As of mid-day, EST, October 25, 2003, 343 U.S. troops had officially died in Iraq since the war of aggression, based on lies, began March 20. 138 were killed during the conventional war (the term I use for want of a better one to distinguish it from the guerrilla war raging since), the war of which Bush spake: "Mission Accomplished" on May 1. In the interim, 205 more have died. These figures include soldiers who died due to accidents, sickness, and suicide, as well as combat deaths. Here's the pattern:

There were relatively few losses from accidents or non-combat causes during the conventional war. But those have now come to total about half the total deaths. Of course, war-zone stress and fatigue can cause accidents, and even cause soldiers to kill themselves. (The suicide rate among U.S. troops in the present conflict is abnormally high.) Accidents happen anywhere, and increase with the mere passage of time. The conventional war was a six-week affair, whereas the occupation has gone on almost six months, so you'd expect a lot more "accidental" deaths during the latter period. If we look at the daily averages we see no change in their frequency.

During the conventional war, there was one U.S. combat death every 9 hours. That figure plummeted to one per 149 hours in May, but then rose dramatically. Official military figures indicate the following pattern:

(I get this breakdown from the Defense Department's description of causes of death. My total here is 105, rather than 107; some of the descriptions are vague and I err on the side of understating KIAs.) Plainly the resistance grew steadily into July, faltered somewhat thereafter but has regained virulence this month, which will in all probability be the bloodiest yet for the occupation forces.

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp10292003.html