Hard Facts about Iraq: Do the candidates know?

Being Senators, you would think Barack Obama and John McCain would be aware of some of the particularly grim and grisly facts about the Iraq war.

That is, the facts most Americans DON'T KNOW (or care about), thanks to our reliance on corporate media, our general ignorance -- and, indeed, our apathy over a war we have not been required to pay for. At least not directly ...



I want to touch on Obama's Middle East tour very briefly, and then move on, because it really means nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

First of all, it irritates me that McCain and his surrogates are trying to have it both ways on this issue. They ripped him for not going over to Iraq to meet with Lord Petraus and other commanders -- and now they're ripping him for doing just that, the claim being that he's using the troops as props and the lovely Iraqi countryside as a Hollywood soundstage, a land of make believe in which he has become President Obama, seasoned foreign diplomat.

I don't argue either point -- that Obama should have gone to Iraq sooner, or that his current visit has no bearing on the "reality" of the war. I just think, to be fair, McCain should have picked one of the other ... but expecting campaigns to be fair is like expecting water to be dry.

It just ain't. And never will be.

Given that a substantial part of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are being prosecuted covertly -- by various clandestine U.S. entities as well as private government contractors -- it's safe to say that John Q. Public doesn't have the foggiest idea what's really going on over there. Especially in light of the fact that virtually all information about the war comes directly from the Pentagon itself.

With very few exceptions, the military controls where journalists can go, what they can see (and what they can't see), to whom they may speak ... bottom line, the military tells reporters what's happening outside the Green Zone and they report it.

So, now let's talk about that "reality" stuff a little bit, in terms of what has been made public, but not often talked about -- and certainly not by Obama or McCain.

FACT:  The number of war casualties you hear bandied about in the media (now 4,125) is NOWHERE CLOSE to the true number of American troops who have died in the conflict. This number represents only the troops killed on the battlefield itself. In other words, wounded solders who die later -- most likely in Germany or the U.S. -- are not included in this number.

According to an independent analysis, the grand totals (through March 19, 2008) were 8,273 dead and 23,052 wounded.

FACT:  According to another independent study (through Jan. 28, 2008), over ONE MILLION IRAQIS have been killed during the war.

FACT:  Going back to Gulf War I, the U.S. has been utilizing munitions (from laser-guided bombs to artillery rounds) containing depleted uranium, which has had a devestating impact on the heath of both Iraqis and American servicemen/women.

FACT:  There has been a plan since the war began -- pushed both inside and outside the Pentagon -- to foment civil war in Iraq and ultimately divide the country into three parts. In other words, many influential players believe that creating a unified, sovereign, democratic Iraq is not in the best interests of the U.S.

Okay, that's all I have time for at the moment.

The point is this: Our national debate on Iraq -- as led by the presidential candidates -- should be framed by the closest approximation of REALITY of the war, not the fabrications of the Pentagon as dutifully reported by the corporate media.

Then, if you think we should still be there for decades to come, fine. Personally, I'll think you'd either be a moron or a sadistic bastard, but fine ... you're entitled to your opinion.