posted on April 15, 2007 08:10:50 AM new
BELOW IS SOME STATS FROM THE BUSH IRAQ WAR. BUSH'S LATEST "THE SURGE" BEGAN 2/17/07. FARTHER DOWN IS THE INCREASE IN DEATHS, WOUNDED AND MONEY SPENT IN BUSH'S LATEST SURGE.
2/17/07 with the President's new Iraq War plan officially started in Iraq. A plan called "THE SURGE" its a good time to start a new post about the on going Iraq war.
Lets start with just a few facts to-date.
3,133 Dead American Troops.
23,530 wounded Troops.
367 Billion American Tax Dollars already spent
HERE IS IRAQ STATS FROM 4/15/07 AFTER 2 MONTHS OF "THE SURGE" IN THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR. NOTICE THE INCREASE IN LOST LIVES,HOW MANY MORE WOUNDED WE HAVE AND THE MONEY SPENT IN JUST LAST 2 MONTHS OF THE BUSH FOLLY
UP TO-DATE STATS AFTER 2 MONTHS OF "THE SURGE" IN THE BUSH IRAQ WAR BELOW.
4/15/07 with the President's new Iraq War plan called "THE SURGE" now being 2 month old its a good time to start a new post about the on going Iraq war.
Lets start with just a few facts to-date as of 4/15/07.
3,298 Dead American Troops.
24645 wounded Troops.
417 Billion American Tax Dollars already spent
NOW THE LEFT OVER REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS ARE BLOCKING THE DEMOCRATS FROM ENDING THE BUSH WAR.
posted on April 15, 2007 11:42:19 AM new
The democratic party and their leaders sure have changed since JFK's admin.
tsk tsk tsk
Now they want us to admit DEFEAT....bring our troops home....allow the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's....let the AQ in Irai WIN.
Yep...that's so different from how the democratic party once was. And it's SAD.....sadder than sad.
=============
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
John F. Kennedy
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 15, 2007 02:00:45 PM new
THE KILLINGS GO ON AND ON WHILE REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS BLOCK THE DEMOCRATS FROM ENDING THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR.
04/15/07 Reuters: 19 bodies found in Baghdad on Saturday
Police found the bodies of 19 people in various parts of Baghdad in the past 24 hours, police said
04/15/07 Reuters: 20 Iraqi troops and policemen abducted
A group linked to al Qaeda said it abducted 20 Iraqi troops and policemen and demanded the release of all Sunni women held in Iraq's prisons, according to a Web statement
posted on April 15, 2007 02:11:55 PM new
five attacks on US interests during the clinton administration.....no action taken.....then 9-11.
They showed how brave they were over clintons lack of action.
carter lacked the same convictions.....he allowed Iran to hold our hostages for 444 days.
clinton bombed iraq for the same reasons we went in under this admin....but the liberals REFUSE to acknowledge THAT.
We're in a war for western survival....and the liberals now want to RUN AWAY and admit defeat.
Yep...vote for the in '08.....and don't complain about what the terrorists do from THEN on. It was your choice.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 15, 2007 02:37:59 PM new
LIAR_K,
Your kind of people made a mistake and voted for BUSHY. Now you have the burden of that mistake to carry around.
What is victory in Iraq LIAR_K?
Is Victory more of this?
04/15/07 AP: 37 die as car bomb hits near Iraq shrine
A car bomb blasted through a busy bus station near one of Iraq's holiest shrines Saturday, killing at least 37 people, police and hospital officials said.
Is Victory more dead American troops?
Is victory more wounded American troops?
Is Victory more U.S. Dollars being thrown away by the pallet load in THE BUSH WAR?
Is Victory more of below?
04/15/07 BBC: Two die as UK helicopters crash
Two British helicopters have crashed in an apparent mid-air collision in Iraq, killing two military personnel and seriously injuring another.
posted on April 15, 2007 03:13:56 PM new
So it appears to me then that you don't care that hundreds of thousands MORE Iraqi's will be murdered by the terrorists/AQ we ARE fighting in Iraq if we leave now.
It's been posted over and over again 'waco'. When the Iraqi's feel they can handle security for their own country.
And yes, there are going to be many more lives lost.
That's war. Never been one where American lives haven't been lost.
These are volunteers....brave and courageous men and women who CHOOSE to join our Armed Forces....who were TRAINED to fight wars....and whom most would LIKE to see your and the left actually SUPPORTING them in their missions...rather than working for their DEFEAT and FAILURE.
No surprise you just don't get that. But then ani-war liberals never have.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 15, 2007 04:25:22 PM newCheney: Democrats will back down on Iraq
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Vice President
Dick Cheney says he is "willing to bet" that Democratic lawmakers will back down and approve a war-spending bill that doesn't call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.
Top Democratic leaders shot back that Cheney has lost all public credibility.
[linda's note - Cheney has???? lol lol More like the liberals/dems who can't just STOP FUNDING THE WAR have lost THEIR credibility with those who voted for them]
With President Bush and Congress in a stalemate — he plans to veto legislation that orders U.S. troops home, which the House and Senate plan to send him — both sides are looking ahead.
In an interview broadcast Sunday, Cheney predicted the Democrats will blink. He said Congress will end up passing a "clean" bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any troop withdrawal timetables.
Democrats control Congress, but they do not appear to have the votes to override a presidential veto.
"They will not leave the troops in the field without the resources they need," Cheney said of the Democrats.
Asked what would happen if they don't back down, Cheney said: "I'm willing to bet the other way — that, in fact, they will."
"There may be some people who are so irresponsible that they wouldn't support that," Cheney said. But the majority will send Bush the bill he wants "once they've gone through the exercise and it's clear the president will veto the provisions that they want in," he said.
However, the Senate Armed Services Committee's chairman said Congress won't relent in winding down the war.
If Bush vetoes a bill calling for troop reductions, Democratic lawmakers would likely come back with a second try that requires the Iraqi government to meet performance benchmarks or face consequences, said Chairman Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.
Iraq's leadership is struggling to make the progress it has promised on political reconciliation, distribution of the country's oil wealth and other vital goals.
"We are very, very serious about what the American people said in November," Levin said, referring to the election that put Democrats in charge of Congress. "They want a change of course."
[linda's comment: Then why haven't you voted to STOP FUNDING THE WARS....it's April 15th now....you've had all that time to do so.]
Cheney's blistering criticism of Democrats, the latest in a series of recent speeches and interviews, drew harsh words from Levin.
"He has misled the people consistently on Iraq," Levin said. "He has misstated. He has exaggerated. And I don't think he has any credibility left with the American people."
The uncooperative tone comes just as Bush plans to meet bipartisan leaders of Congress this week at the White House. The purpose of that session on Wednesday is to discuss how to get a war-funding bill done, yet no negotiation is expected.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, four bombs exploded in predominantly Shiite sections of Baghdad on Sunday. They killed at least 37 people in a renewal of sectarian carnage that set back the U.S. push to pacify the capital. The latest violence came three days after an explosion set off by a suicide bomber ripped through a cafeteria at the Iraqi parliament, a stunning attack inside Baghdad's U.S.-guarded Green Zone.
Cheney, though, said U.S. and Iraqi forces are making progress. "I do believe we can win in Iraq," he said. "I think it is a worthy cause. I think it's absolutely essential that we prevail."
The House and Senate are expected to negotiate war spending legislation this week. The Democratic proposal would approve $96 billion in military money, mostly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and set a timetable for troop withdrawal.
"The American people know that the height of irresponsibility is to put this country at risk by mismanaging a war from day one," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada. He, too, said Cheney "has long since lost credibility."
Attempting to pressure Democrats, the White House publicly counts each day that Congress does not pass the emergency war spending bill. Top military commanders contend the delay will soon begin to weaken troop preparedness and keep some soldiers in combat longer.
Majority Democrats say it is only a matter of time before they will get their way. Senior Democrats are calculating that if they keep the pressure on, eventually more Republicans will jump ship and challenge the president — or lose their seats to Democratic contenders.
The Senate bill would require a U.S. troop exit in Iraq to begin within 120 days, with a completion goal of March 31, 2008.
The House bill would order all combat troops out by Sept. 1, 2008. Most Republicans stand with Bush on grounds that a timetable is a dangerous war policy.
"Now is the time to pour it on politically, economically and militarily, and build on this momentum," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., who recently visited Iraq.
"We're not going to let car bombers define the fate of Iraq."
Cheney's interview, taped Saturday, was on CBS' "Face the Nation." Levin and Graham spoke on "Fox News Sunday."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 15, 2007 04:36 PM ]
posted on April 15, 2007 06:25:24 PM newTop Democratic leaders shot back that Cheney has lost all public credibility.
Bush and Cheney can keep repeating the same lies over and over and over again. The American people are not falling for it. It will only weaken the chances of the Republicans retaining the White House in 2008.
Americans frustrated with the Democratic congressional leaders for dithering over Iraq should never forget who actually drove us into the Iraqi quagmire. Even those Democrats who voted for the president's war resolution in 2002 did so only after the president repeatedly promised -- with the deepest insincerity -- that he would only invade Iraq as a "last resort."
Responsibility for that lie and many others rests squarely with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who have spent nearly four years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to create catastrophe. Today every policy alternative, including a phased withdrawal, is likely to impose costly consequences on us, on the Iraqis and on the world.
So perhaps the Democrats deserve more than a month or two to determine how best to extricate our troops from that complex and perilous trap.
Besides, Bush and Cheney have declared that they'll ignore any congressional action that would cut short their bloody misadventure. Rather than engage in honest debate over a saner course in Iraq, the vice president has resorted to the same discredited rhetoric used by him and his allies from the beginning.
Seeking to intimidate the congressional leaders last week, he recited the misleading old formula conflating war in Iraq with the struggle against al Qaeda. That theory has been blown up with the same force and frequency as the daily explosions on Baghdad's streets. Only days ago, the Pentagon inspector general issued a devastating report describing how Cheney's agents in the Defense Department distorted intelligence to "prove" the mythical linkage between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, every credible analysis of the Iraq insurgency estimates that only a tiny fraction of the fighters are linked to al Qaeda in any significant way. While the jihadist movement is growing, bin Laden and his lieutenants can profit from our mistakes without leaving their strongholds thousands of miles away.
During Cheney's latest foreign trip, he warned Speaker Nancy Pelosi that redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq would "validate the al Qaeda strategy" -- as if bin Laden had somehow lured the United States into invading Mesopotamia. "Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will," he added later. "That's their fundamental underlying strategy: that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home."
Actually, we now know that the occupation of Iraq has strengthened al Qaeda by recruiting thousands of young Muslims to its cause. We know that because the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) prepared for the Bush administration a year ago said so. According to The Washington Post, the classified NIE concluded that "rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position."
As if to underline his cluelessness, the vice president visited South Asia soon after his remarks about Pelosi "validating al Qaeda." In Pakistan, he demanded that President Pervez Musharraf strike the border strongholds of the Taliban, which poses a real threat to the weak Western-backed regime in Kabul. If the Pakistanis failed to deal harshly with their old friends in the Taliban and al Qaeda, Cheney said he couldn't promise to protect Pakistan from reprisals by the congressional Democrats.
Oblivious to the contradiction in his own remarks, then he flew on to Bagram Airbase outside Kabul, where he came dangerously close to obliteration by a Taliban suicide bomber. Having neglected Afghanistan to pursue pre-emptive war in Iraq, the Bush-Cheney administration has ensured safe havens and recruiting grounds for terrorists in both countries.
Those twin failures reflect the broader collapse of Middle East policy under Cheney's intellectual stewardship. Thanks to his belligerent outlook, we have abandoned the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, encouraged both Shiite and Sunni extremism, diminished our own military strength, and made democracy synonymous with irreparable destruction.
No wonder the vice president thinks things are going so well.
In their oblivious arrogance, Cheney and Bush seem confident that they will prevail over any Democratic initiative, and they may be right. They can repeat their canned denunciations of their critics and their fanciful formulations about the war. They can pretend that their confused, incompetent policies demonstrate resolve. They can mock the "nonbinding" resolutions that do nothing to deter their reckless escalation.
They should understand, however, what even an act of symbolic legislation against the war represents: the complete and irreparable forfeiture of the people's confidence in the Bush White House.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 15, 2007 06:58:26 PM new
I disagree.....
not that the anti-war liberals aren't frustrated....lol..after all they've been LIED to.....but that almost ALL the democrats who vote to allow this war....KNEW WHAT THE BILL STATED. And they STILL voted for it.
Try reading what the bill giving the President the power to go to war ACTUALLY says....not what some op-ed says.
And here you can read all the democrats words for yourself.
THEN try denying they not only supported this war in Iraq....but they'd been supporting saddam being removed from power during the clinton admin.
Also might try reading the 'Liberation of Iraq Act'. Making it AMERICAN national policy to remove saddam from power.
Bush asked him nicely to leave Iraq....he refused. Now he's DEAD.
That bill was passed during the clinton administration also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 15, 2007 07:02 PM ]
posted on April 15, 2007 07:08:05 PM new
Another couple of points I want to make to the anti-war posters here.
First of all....our Constitution gives the responsibility for DECLARING WAR to the congress...puts THAT POWER in THEIR control.
But as many have noted.....congress chickens out and gives THEIR power to the President.
That way they can blame him....just as they are doing now.
tsk tsk tsk
Then our Constitution also gives congress control over the wars purse strings. They can stop ANY war ANY time they wish to.
Just don't approve funding for it to continue.
Have they? NO
Will they? I seriously doubt it....they sure haven't so far...and their/your leaders are talking like they're not going to.
So while you continue to blame this President for what you don't agree with him doing - trying to make this work......where is your OUTRAGE with your own party for giving him the war power to begin with....and for not taking charge and voting not to fund the war?
I think your anger is totally misguided/misplaced.
Blame those who gave up the power they were given by our founding fathers....THEIR OWN constitutional powers.
And remember when the war flip-floppers first started calling for troop withdrawal. This President forced a vote on it....to make them VOTE rather than just keep SAYING they didn't want to continue the war.
Remember what results THAT vote had? LOL LOL LOL LOL
Yep...once again we got to see the dems had been ALL TALK....no courage of their convictions.
tsk tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 15, 2007 07:15 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 15, 2007 07:21 PM ]
posted on April 15, 2007 07:52:10 PM new
WHILE LIAR_K TYPES TEN THOUSAND WORDS THAT SAY NOTHING. REAL AMERICANS LIVES ARE BEING LOST IN THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR.
Do I care if Iraq stays in Civil war when our American Troops are brought home. Its not for me to care. Iraq is in civil war now brought on by BUSHY and will be for the foreseeable future.
ITS THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR BUSH THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE OF THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR NOT ME.
posted on April 15, 2007 07:57:37 PM new
Well....that's sad that YOU DON'T care.
But it sure is what most liberals/dems have been SCREAMING about....all the innocent Iraqi's that have been murdered since we invaded.
tsk tsk
shame on you 'waco'.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 16, 2007 05:04:40 AM newAlso might try reading the 'Liberation of Iraq Act'. Making it AMERICAN national policy to remove saddam from power.
Yep, Saddam has been removed and is dead. One more reason why we should no longer be in Iraq. We have completed another mission.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 16, 2007 07:43:44 AM new
LIAR_K,
As always you only support the BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR because its a BUSH failure your trying to gloss over.
Just look how you criticize Clinton for his failures and never praise his successes.
So in fact you are the one that has to carry the burden of THE BUSH CIVIL WAR YOU VOTED FOR HIM NOT ME.
I BELIEVED BUSH WHEN HE SAID "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
04/15/07 CSM: In Iraq, a parliament in disarray
The response to last week's bomb attack underscored that the 275-member body is stymied by partisan divides that undermine hopes for political progress.
posted on April 16, 2007 10:27:39 AM newJust look how you criticize Clinton for his failures and never praise his successes.
Thanks for pointing out yet one more addition to Linda's list of hypocrisies.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 17, 2007 11:38 AM ]
posted on April 17, 2007 12:10:53 PM new
"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility - I welcome it.
John F. Kennedy
=============
The lives and blood of our troops are going to be on the dem party's hands if they don't get busy and approve the war funding.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 17, 2007 12:18:42 PM new
"The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.
John F. Kennedy
===============
One path we shall NEVER choose, and that is the path of SURRENDER, or submission.
Guess now his OWN party is proving him wrong.
tsk tsk tsk
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 17, 2007 06:53:02 PM new
BUSH IRAQ WAR FOR 4/17/07
AMERICA NOW HAS 3,311 DEAD TROOPS UP 2 SINCE THIS MORNING.
LEFT OVER REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS ARE NOW BLOCKING DEMOCRATS FROM ENDING THE BUSH IRAQ WAR.
THE BLOOD OF THE DEAD AND WOUNDED AMERICAN TROOPS ARE NOW ON THE REPUBLICANS HANDS.
04/17/07 AP: 17 decomposing bodies found in Ramadi
Police in Ramadi uncovered 17 decomposing corpses buried beneath two schoolyards in a district that until recently was under the control of al-Qaida fighters. At least 85 people were killed or found dead across the country Tuesday.
THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE GOES ON ALMOST EVERY DAY FOR OVER 4 YEARS IN THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR.
April 17, 2007 Permalink
70% of Iraqi children suffer severe trauma Submitted by Amanda Lang
About 70% of primary school students in a Baghdad neighborhood suffer symptoms of trauma-related stress such as bed-wetting or stuttering, according to a survey by the Iraqi Ministry of Health. The survey of about 2,500 youngsters is the most comprehensive look at how the war is affecting Iraqi children, said Iraq's national mental health adviser and author of the study.
posted on April 18, 2007 05:46:50 PM new
UPDATE FOR THE BUSH "SURGE" IN VIOLENCE FOR THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR 4/18/07
AMERICA NOW HAS 3,312 DEAD TROOPS UP 1 SINCE YESTERDAY.
LEFT OVER REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS ARE NOW BLOCKING DEMOCRATS FROM ENDING THE BUSH IRAQ WAR.
THE BLOOD OF THE DEAD AND WOUNDED AMERICAN TROOPS ARE NOW ON THE REPUBLICANS HANDS.
04/18/07 TV3: Iraqi army commander arrested after bombings
An Iraqi army brigade commander has been arrested after a string of bombings that killed more than 190 people around Baghdad. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says the officer was arrested because of the weakness of security measures to protect...
THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE GOES ON ALMOST EVERY DAY FOR OVER 4 YEARS IN THE BUSH IRAQ CIVIL WAR.
posted on April 19, 2007 06:34:01 PM new
04/19/07 NPR: Iraq Security Measures Failing, Iraqis Say
Amid a flurry of fatal bombings, many Iraqis say U.S.-led attempts to increase security in Baghdad are failing. Critics say additional checkpoints simply mean larger crowds — and make for bigger targets.
LEFT OVER REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS ARE NOW BLOCKING DEMOCRATS FROM ENDING THE BUSH IRAQ WAR.
THE BLOOD OF THE DEAD AND WOUNDED AMERICAN TROOPS ARE NOW ON THE REPUBLICANS HANDS.
Are YOU a Bunghole?