The New York Times reports, "Statistics on a Pentagon Web site have been reorganized in a way that lowers the published totals of American nonfatal casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan." On Monday, the Defense Department's website listed a total of 47,657 "nonmortal casualties" in Iraq. But on Tuesday, "the same page no longer showed a total for nonmortal casualties. The bottom line is now 'total -- medical air transported,' and the figure is 31,493." The new figure no longer includes minor injuries, gastrointestinal illnesses, or mental illnesses. Paul Sullivan of Veterans for America "said the changes actually meant the Pentagon was trying to conceal the rising toll of injuries and illness." Earlier this week, the Veterans Affairs Department also revised the casualty number on its website at the request of the Defense Department.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/us/02wounded.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
2007-02-02 23:38:26 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am really not that surprised that the Bush Circus would do something like this.
2007-02-04 12:07:16 · answer #1 · answered by GOP - Going Out of Power 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely, when the PBS station list's between 20-30 dead each and everyday now for the last 5 years. It doesn't add up to what Bush is disclosing. The BBC says completely different over the death toll the Republicans are disclosing as well.
2007-02-03 15:06:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
if thats the biggest thing that worries you overseas you have more issues than al qaeda and jihad. the casualty count is a non issue. the pelosi/reid regieme will keep us notified every time a soldier stubbs a toe as they wont miss a half a chance to villify bush from everything from the weather to bad bedroom performance. bottom line, whats the difference either way...al qaeda is real and deadly and you face a basic choice...fight them there or here...they dont care, they want you dead either way.
2007-02-03 07:46:36 · answer #3 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NY Times great source, they love the military and would never rig numbers!!
2007-02-03 08:57:27 · answer #4 · answered by Hunter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I hear anyone dancing around and saying that "31,493 medical air transported" casualties is not very many compared to other wars, I'm going to throw up.
2007-02-03 07:43:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
i will add to that fact,,that many of the military men and ladys are in real danger now,,so what do you expect?,,,,goes hand in hand with current policys,,,but ,,,lol,,,when its over,,,,then ,,,the checks are going to be cashed,,,,and the truth is to be in the trillions of lawsuits,from any number of form factors,,dont forget depleted uranium munitions,,,just to start with,,,very nasty ,,,,anyway bush can fix it,,,or ? ,hail bush,,,decider....
2007-02-03 08:52:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well you know how this is going to end. A big investigation that ´ll satisfy no one in the end .
2007-02-03 07:45:03 · answer #7 · answered by RJ2K1 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would triple cross check reference any article written in the tabloid NY Times before I used it as reference for a YA question.
2007-02-03 07:41:10 · answer #8 · answered by dr_tom_cruise_md 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
The numbers should have been left alone because it just gives the media one more thing to whine about.
2007-02-03 07:44:35 · answer #9 · answered by Abu 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋