Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (14855)	9/23/2002 5:36:01 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

The Professor who can not count straight... weeklystandard.com. Piss poor editorial. And it certainly does not say that the study was a fabrication. Or even close to it. So we know where that came from. The prof's study certainly acknowledges that there are different estimates for any event and the estimates change over time. This is not a surprise. Nor is it unusual for the Administration to change it's mind on who was or who was not hit. One can be optimistically kind, and say that's a fact of life. Information in a war zone is not perfect. And then there is this nonsense from Joshua Muravchik: ...some of our foreign "friends" to believe the worst about America. What propaganda! No one has heard of civilian casualties in a war? Maybe civilian casualties is something that Joshua ever imagined, but he's a rare breed. If this is an issue, it's one that the Administration brought on themselves. The US policy is that we neither count or can reliably estimate military or civilian casualties. Hence there is no US estimate on any casualties in Afghanistan. Somehow though, Rumsfeld can claim that there were fewer civilian casualties in Afghanistan than any other war. How can he make that claim, knowing that there are no estimates in the DoD for civilian casualties? Did he divine it? jttmab