Another Reason to Vote for Leslie Byrne

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/1/2008 6:52:54 PM

From the Byrne for Congress campaign comes yet another reason to vote for her on June 10.

Leslie Byrne outlines plan for peace in Iraq

Former Congresswoman was one of first to speak out against war

Fairfax, VA-- On the fifth anniversary of "Mission Accomplished," former Congresswoman Leslie Byrne released her plans for ending the quagmire in the Middle East. She is calling for the swift withdrawal of all of our troops and a new diplomatic and economic offensive in the region.

"For five years, we've pursued military options. The current policy has cost more than 4,000 American lives and as many as one million Iraqis their lives. Today we're no closer to a stable democracy in the region. It's time to give diplomacy a chance," she said.


Byrne was among the earliest to sign onto "A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq," which lays out a path to peace through diplomacy and cooperative effort. More than 50 other candidates for Congress and some of our nation's leading military experts have now endorsed this plan.

"With so many members of the new Congress in agreement on how to repair the damage, we'll be able to start making progress immediately. We can't afford to waste any more time dithering about the correct path, and with the 'Responsible Plan,' we won't have to," Byrne said.

Byrne has been publicly opposed to the war from the very beginning, joining 75 other former congressmen in calling on President Bush to put more effort into diplomacy before the invasion took place. Her leadership on this issue has earned her the endorsements of Senator Jim Webb and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

"It was clear to me in 2003 that the White House was rushing to war, and I said so publicly at that time. I'm the only candidate in this race who had the judgment and leadership to take that step," Byrne said.

Leslie Byrne is a former member of Congress who has fought for economic and social justice in the Virginia House of Delegates, the Virginia Senate, and as the Consumer Advocate of the United states under former President Bill Clinton. She and her husband Larry have two grown children and two grandchildren, all living in Northern Virginia.

Click here for the full plan.

Comments



Huh? (HisRoc - 5/1/2008 7:59:19 PM)
As much as anyone who comments on this blog, I hate this stupid war and the morons (principally Rumsfeld) who got us into it with all their "shock and awe" crap.  However, I don't think that opponents of the war do themselves any favors when they throw out numbers that the neo-con mouthpieces can easily ridicule.

"...cost...as many as one million Iraqis their lives..."

I'm sorry, but that number doesn't pass the smell test.  One million Iraqi's killed in the past five years equals 548 people killed, every day, seven days a week.  Put another way, that is 23 people killed every hour, 24 x 7, for five years.  Does anyone really believe those numbers?  They would make Sadaam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic blush.  Can anyone remember a single day in the past five years when over 500 Iraqi's were reported killed?  How about 1,825 consecutive days?

I think I know where these numbers come from.  About 18 months ago, a group from Johns Hopkins (I believe) conducted a survey that consisted of asking a few dozen people in Iraq if they knew anyone who had been killed.  They then extrapolated the responses to equal the 30 million population of Iraq.  Brilliant.  



Estimate range wildly (Lowell - 5/1/2008 8:29:43 PM)
See here for instance.  

Iraqi Health Ministry survey: 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. (through June 2006)

Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. (through June 2006)

Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. (through August 2007)

That's a huge range right there, from 151,000 deaths (as of June 2006) to 1,033,000 deaths (as of August 2007).  Also, the Iraq Body Count has a range of 83,221 - 90,782 civilian deaths from violence.  I have absolutely no idea what the right answer is.



So, what's your number? (Progress First - 5/1/2008 10:02:07 PM)
The one million estimate has been out there for a while. Byrne's statement here allows that "as many as one million" Iraqi lives may have been lost in this war. A reputable British research firm conducted a study and came back with the one million figure, and other estimates have acknowledged at least the possibility of rates that high. They may be wrong. They may be right. WE DON'T KNOW. Therefore, positing that the civilian death toll may be as high as one million seems perfectly legitimate.
Now, if you want to take issue with the actual substance of her policy proposals, that could be worthy of discussion. They seem pretty thoughtful and reasonable to me...


Show Me (HisRoc - 5/1/2008 10:18:26 PM)
1,825 mass graves with 525 bodies in each one.  Then, I'll believe your 'reputable British research firm.'

Just because the one million estimate "has been out there for a while" doesn't prove anything.  John Edward's $400 haircut and Bill Clinton having LAX shut down for two hours while he got a haircut from a Hollywood stylist on Air Force One have also "been out there for a while."  Neither represents anything close to the truth.

Who is the enemy here?  I'm just trying to help Byrne avoid falling into a trap.  I must say, your knee-jerk defensiveness is not very helpful.  



Interesting parallels (Progress First - 5/2/2008 8:28:36 AM)
"Independent" voters aren't going to get nearly so hung up on a single number as you already have. They want us out of there too, and they are far more concerned with American lives anyway (whether we like it or not).
Again, if you want to take issue with her actual proposals, have at it.
Or, you could just reveal your secret and tell us what the "real" number is...

Knee-jerk



Oh, and another thing.... (Progress First - 5/1/2008 10:20:03 PM)
"A few dozen?" From the Wall Street Journal in October 2006:

The Johns Hopkins team conducted its study using a methodology known as "cluster sampling." That involved randomly picking 47 clusters of households for a total 1,849 households, scattered across Iraq. Team members interviewed each household about any deaths in the family during the 40 months since the invasion, as well as in the year before the invasion. The team says it reviewed death certificates for 92% of all deaths reported. Based on those figures, it tabulated national mortality rates for various periods before and after the start of the war. The mortality rate last year was nearly four times the preinvasion rate, the study found.

Now, about that smell test...



I Withdraw (HisRoc - 5/1/2008 11:59:04 PM)
You seem to be hell-bent on proving a point that defies logical assumptions.

Good luck on that approach with the Independent voters on June 10.



1M (South County - 5/1/2008 8:21:21 PM)
A lot of Iraqis have died, but 1 million sounds too high.


Leslie's point is well taken (Hiker Joe - 5/1/2008 10:45:31 PM)
I too would like to know how she arrived at her one million number. But it won't change her overall point: lots and lots of Iraqis have lost their lives.

Whether it's one hundred thousand or one million doesn't change the point she's making. Lots of lives have been lost and it's time for considering a different solution.



Iraq (South County - 5/1/2008 10:49:59 PM)
Another stat to chew on is the USG doesn't even know how many contractor employees we have in Iraq.  We think its around 150,000, but no one is sure.  You'd think we'd know since we're paying the bill, but...