4,000 Americans dead...The "Surge" failed. We need a new word to replace "Surge": "Mission Accomplis

There is NO good news.

There is no Iraqi reconciliation.

The news is grim.

The news is bad.

The "plan" sucks

The "surge" is a failure

March 23, 2008

A.P.'s Death Toll for Iraq War Reaches 4,000

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 11:45 p.m. ET

BAGHDAD (AP) -- A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on

Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the

five-year war to at least 4,000.

The grim milestone came on the same day that rockets and mortars pounded the

U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and

the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall

lull in violence.

A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad soldier also was wounded in the

roadside bombing, which struck the soldiers' patrol vehicle about 10 p.m. in

southern Baghdad, according to a statement.

Identities of those killed were withheld pending notification of relatives.

The 4,000 figure is according to an Associated Press count that includes

eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.

Last year, the U.S. military deaths spiked along with the Pentagon's

''surge'' -- the arrival of more than 30,000 extra troops trying to regain

control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The mission was generally

considered a success, but the cost was evident as soldiers pushed into Sunni

insurgent strongholds and challenged Shiite militias.

Military deaths rose above 100 for three consecutive months for the first

time during the war: April 2007, 104; May, 126 and June at 101.

The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year

for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the

second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.

The milestones for each 1,000 deaths -- while an arbitrary marker -- serve

to rivet attention on the war and have come during a range of pivotal

moments.

When the 1,000th American died in September 2004, the insurgency was gaining

steam. The 2,000-death mark came in October 2005 as Iraq voted on a new

constitution. The Pentagon announced its 3,000th loss on the last day of

2006 -- a day after Saddam Hussein was hanged and closing a year marked by

rampant sectarian violence.

The deaths taken by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, however, are far less than in

other modern American wars. In Vietnam, the U.S. lost on average about 4,850

soldiers a year from 1963-75. In the Korean war, from 1950-53, the U.S. lost

about 12,300 soldiers a year.

But a hallmark of the Iraq war is the high wounded-to-killed ratio, partly

because of advances in battlefield medicine, enhanced protective gear worn

by soldiers and reinforced armored vehicles.

There have been about 15 soldiers wounded for every fatality in Iraq,

compared with 2.6 per death in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea.

The deadliest month for American troops was November 2004, with 137 deaths.

April 2004 was the next with 135 U.S. military deaths. May 2007 saw the

third-highest toll.

Last December was the lowest monthly death toll, when 23 soldiers were

killed -- one less than February 2004.

Two factors have helped bring down violence in recent months: a self-imposed

cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grass-roots Sunni revolt against

extremists.

But commanders often say there is no guarantee the trends will continue.

Among the concerns: the strength of breakaway Shiite factions believed armed

by Iran and whether Sunni fighters will remain U.S. allies or again turn

their guns on American troops instead of al-Qaida.

Civil strife also could flare again.

Shiite militias are vying for control of Iraq's oil-rich south. In the

north, the contest for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk could spark new bloodshed

and should be the focus of intense ''U.S. diplomatic and economic leverage

to make sure it doesn't happen,'' said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey at a

speech in New York in March to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led

invasion.

There is also the question of Iraq's security forces and the slow pace of

their training.

American commanders would like to see the Iraqis take more of a front-line

role in the fighting, but their ability to operate without American support

could still be years away.

''We are always quick to note that the progress is tenuous and that it is

reversible,'' said the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus,

''and that there are innumerable challenges out there.''

On Mar 24, 12:10�am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> There is NO good news.

> There is no Iraqi reconciliation.

> The news is grim.

> The news is bad.

> The "plan" sucks

> The "surge" is a failure

>

> March 23, 2008

>

> A.P.'s Death Toll for Iraq War Reaches 4,000

>

> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>

> Filed at 11:45 p.m. ET

>

> BAGHDAD (AP) -- A roadside bomb killed four U.S. soldiers in Baghdad on

> Sunday, the military said, pushing the overall American death toll in the

> five-year war to at least 4,000.

>

> The grim milestone came on the same day that rockets and mortars pounded the

> U.S.-protected Green Zone, underscoring the fragile security situation and

> the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups despite an overall

> lull in violence.

>

> A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad soldier also was wounded in the

> roadside bombing, which struck the soldiers' patrol vehicle about 10 p.m. in

> southern Baghdad, according to a statement.

>

> Identities of those killed were withheld pending notification of relatives..

>

> The 4,000 figure is according to an Associated Press count that includes

> eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.

>

> Last year, the U.S. military deaths spiked along with the Pentagon's

> ''surge'' -- the arrival of more than 30,000 extra troops trying to regain

> control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The mission was generally

> considered a success, but the cost was evident as soldiers pushed into Sunni

> insurgent strongholds and challenged Shiite militias.

>

> Military deaths rose above 100 for three consecutive months for the first

> time during the war: April 2007, 104; May, 126 and June at 101.

>

> The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year

> for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the

> second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.

>

> The milestones for each 1,000 deaths -- while an arbitrary marker -- serve

> to rivet attention on the war and have come during a range of pivotal

> moments.

>

> When the 1,000th American died in September 2004, the insurgency was gaining

> steam. The 2,000-death mark came in October 2005 as Iraq voted on a new

> constitution. The Pentagon announced its 3,000th loss on the last day of

> 2006 -- a day after Saddam Hussein was hanged and closing a year marked by

> rampant sectarian violence.

>

> The deaths taken by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, however, are far less than in

> other modern American wars. In Vietnam, the U.S. lost on average about 4,850

> soldiers a year from 1963-75. In the Korean war, from 1950-53, the U.S. lost

> about 12,300 soldiers a year.

>

> But a hallmark of the Iraq war is the high wounded-to-killed ratio, partly

> because of advances in battlefield medicine, enhanced protective gear worn

> by soldiers and reinforced armored vehicles.

>

> There have been about 15 soldiers wounded for every fatality in Iraq,

> compared with 2.6 per death in Vietnam and 2.8 in Korea.

>

> The deadliest month for American troops was November 2004, with 137 deaths..

> April 2004 was the next with 135 U.S. military deaths. May 2007 saw the

> third-highest toll.

>

> Last December was the lowest monthly death toll, when 23 soldiers were

> killed -- one less than February 2004.

>

> Two factors have helped bring down violence in recent months: a self-imposed

> cease-fire by a main Shiite militia and a grass-roots Sunni revolt against

> extremists.

>

> But commanders often say there is no guarantee the trends will continue.

> Among the concerns: the strength of breakaway Shiite factions believed armed

> by Iran and whether Sunni fighters will remain U.S. allies or again turn

> their guns on American troops instead of al-Qaida.

>

> Civil strife also could flare again.

>

> Shiite militias are vying for control of Iraq's oil-rich south. In the

> north, the contest for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk could spark new bloodshed

> and should be the focus of intense ''U.S. diplomatic and economic leverage

> to make sure it doesn't happen,'' said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey at a

> speech in New York in March to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led

> invasion.

>

> There is also the question of Iraq's security forces and the slow pace of

> their training.

>

> American commanders would like to see the Iraqis take more of a front-line

> role in the fighting, but their ability to operate without American support

> could still be years away.

>

> ''We are always quick to note that the progress is tenuous and that it is

> reversible,'' said the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus,

> ''and that there are innumerable challenges out there.''

"The Surge did not fail."

Hello Suckers:::::::

--- Crazy "Jingo" John McCain

See Proof

http://www.robert-fisk.com/bloodied_child_2.jpg

http://www.robert-fisk.com/burnedchild.jpg

http://www.robert-fisk.com/1_146318_1_6.jpg

http://www.robert-fisk.com/1_146933_1_6.jpg

http://www.robert-fisk.com/injured3.jpg

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraq23.jpg

http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh575.sht

"The surge is working and if it takes one-hundred years....This Bud's

For You. Thanks to Cindy's dad. Otherwise, where the fuck would I have

been?"

Two Tongued John McCain

"Where can I get a yammuka wholesale?"

Religious men wear a black kippah (or yammuka, the smaller head-

covering that many Jewish men wear), and on top of that they wear a

big black hat that has a wide brim.

"So, where do I get me a big black hat to wear to lunch with my

closest Yid friend, Mossad Agent, "Likud " Lieberman" ????

What a country calls its vital... interests are not things that help

its people live, but things that help it make war. Petroleum is a

more likely cause of international conflict than wheat.

~Simone Weil, Ecrits historiques et politiques, 1960

Shalom:

Kirkuk to Haifa Pipeline: Reason for the War?

In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to

revive the pipeline to Haifa

http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/category/netanyahu-watch/

US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy

headache at a stroke Ed Vuillamy in Washington Sunday April 20, 2003

The Observer

By Steven Scheer

LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he

expected an oil pipeline from Iraq to Israel to be reopened in the

near future after being closed when Israel became a state in 1948.

"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the

port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British

investors, declining to give a timetable.

"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and

Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."

Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of

looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during

the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.

Shalom:

"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said.

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to

Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential

future government figures in Baghdad.The plan envisages the

reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the

British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's

northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Iraqi invasion: oil perspective

The British built the Kirkuk-to-Haifa pipeline in 1927. In 1934, they

completed a 12-inch pipeline from the Kirkuk fields to Al-Haditha on

the Euphrates River. At that point the pipeline forked. One branch

went through Syria to Tripoli (Lebanon). The other went across Jordan

to Haifa. The British built refineries at both Tripoli and Haifa to

handle this Iraq oil. (In World War II, Germany wanted to get control

of this oil.)

In 1945 the British added a parallel 16-inch pipeline in Syria.

When Jews started to invade Palestine in 1945, Syria shut down its

branch to Tripoli. Iraq shut down all oil from from Kirkuk to Haifa.

At that point, most of northern Iraq's oil went to the Turkish port

city of Gihan, which was OK with the US, since Turkey was a US ally

against the USSR. Turkey collect transit fees for this oil.

In 1947 the British oil refinery at Haifa still handled trickle of oil

from miscellaneous areas, and still employed some 1,700 Arab workers,

plus 360 Jewish employees. The Arab and Jewish workers formed a union

to oppose British tyranny. Then Israel was created. Immediately Irgun

(commanded by Menachem Begin), the Hagana and other terrorist groups

moved in. Irgun had bombed the King David Hotel the year before, and

they started massacring Arabs in Haifa and elsewhere.

In 1952, western oil companies built two new lines through Syria to

Tripoli. The pipeline to Haifa was allowed to decay. Pieces of it were

dismantled. Various interests used the pieces to build water

pipelines.

In 2003, Bush invaded Iraq, partly to topple Saddam Hussein, partly to

revive the pipeline to Haifa (Kirkuk oil fields were said to contain

perhaps 40% of Iraq's oil), and partly to bring oil deals to his

personal friends, such as Ray L. Hunt. Small American oil companies

like Hunt Oil will extract Kurdish oil as soon as and if Mosul and

Kirkuk are broken off from Iraq (17 November 2007). Mosul is the first

stop for Kirkuk oil.

When the Haifa pipeline opens back up, only Jordan (not Israel) will

collect hefty transit fees. Kurdish oil will go to Europe via Israel,

not Turkey. This might be a reason why Turkey is threatening to

invade. The minute Bush invaded Iraq, the Turkish realized that the

pipeline to Haifa would be opened back up. Therefore Turkey tried to

make deals with Central Asian states (such as Azerbaijan) to get new

pipelines to Turkey, but now Iran and Russia have foiled Turkish plans

by forming the new alliance of Caspian Sea states. Turkey feels

squeezed. This is yet another reason why they are threatening to

invade northern Iraq.

Shortly after the 2003 invasion, Benyamin Netanyahu (the then Israeli

finance minister) boasted, "Soon you will see Iraqi oil flowing to

Haifa. It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is

reconstituted, and Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean. It's not

a pipe dream."

Under a 1975 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) the US guaranteed all

Israel's oil needs in the event of a crisis. This MoU is quietly

renewed every five years. It commits US taxpayers to maintain a

strategic US reserve for Israel, equivalent to $3 billion in 2002

dollars. Special legislation was enacted to exempt Israel from

restrictions on oil exports from the US. Moreover, the US government

agreed to divert oil from the US, even in case of oil shortages in the

US. The US government also guaranteed delivery of oil in US tankers if

commercial shippers become unable or unwilling to carry oil from the

US to Israel.

SEE

Israel-United States Memorandum of Understanding

(September 1, 1975)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html

Israel can wrench lot of oil from the region if the pipeline were used

again and Kurds were willing to sell the oil. It would also make Kurds

dependent on Israelis for oil revenues and thus give a greater

leverage to Israelis over Kurds of the region...

We are All Jews Now

Aidel gepotchket - Delicately brought up

Consider the present crisis in America and the rise of anti-

Americanism worldwide. "The US has become a Jewish state in more ways

than one. It has the same security checks, the same holocaust museums,

the same poverty for many and riches for a few as Israel

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Jones_Palestine.htm

Azoy gait es! - That's how it goes!

L'Shalom

"Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head"

<messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:0fdf2995-3fb7-4d6e-95fa-c59446297192@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 23, 9:10 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> There is NO good news.

>> There is no Iraqi reconciliation.

>> The news is grim.

>> The news is bad.

>> The "plan" sucks

>> The "surge" is a failure

> In your opinion...which is easily disputed.

>

> Note: Racist Obama seems to think it's good enough to pull the troops

> out(he is all over the place on a timeline)....And then if the region

> goes genocidal, he will send them back in. [Yes, he actually said he

> will send troops back in to Iraq if it goes to shit]

>

4,000 dead is not an "opinion"

At least ten attacks on the Green Zone is not an "Opinion"

> >> There is NO good news.

> >> There is no Iraqi reconciliation.

> >> The news is grim.

> >> The news is bad.

> >> The "plan" sucks

> >> The "surge" is a failure

> > In your opinion...which is easily disputed.

>

> > Note: Racist Obama seems to think it's good enough to pull the troops

> > out(he is all over the place on a timeline)....And then if the region

> > goes genocidal, he will send them back in. [Yes, he actually said he

> > will send troops back in to Iraq if it goes to shit]

>

> 4,000 dead is not an "opinion"

No, the fact that it is just 4000 shows the MNFI isn't losing anything

and has won the insurgency.

>

> At least ten attacks on the Green Zone is not an "Opinion"

10 attacks??? In a country of 27 million, you think 10 attacks is

alot?!?!?!? Dear sir, if anything it is clearly proof the Iraqis

support the US being there and clearly support what the MNFI are

doing.

Good day to you, sir.

"Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head"

<messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:f037df00-664d-435c-b641-dedc7b0bc104@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

>> >> There is NO good news.

>> >> There is no Iraqi reconciliation.

>> >> The news is grim.

>> >> The news is bad.

>> >> The "plan" sucks

>> >> The "surge" is a failure

>> > In your opinion...which is easily disputed.

>>

>> > Note: Racist Obama seems to think it's good enough to pull the troops

>> > out(he is all over the place on a timeline)....And then if the region

>> > goes genocidal, he will send them back in. [Yes, he actually said he

>> > will send troops back in to Iraq if it goes to shit]

>>

>> 4,000 dead is not an "opinion"

> No, the fact that it is just 4000 shows the MNFI isn't losing anything

> and has won the insurgency.

>>

>> At least ten attacks on the Green Zone is not an "Opinion"

> 10 attacks??? In a country of 27 million, you think 10 attacks is

> alot?!?!?!? Dear sir, if anything it is clearly proof the Iraqis

> support the US being there and clearly support what the MNFI are

> doing.

>

> Good day to you, sir.

Your logic is as impeccable as jr's!

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:kRFFj.23676$r76.12531@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton

administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996.

That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:kRFFj.23676$r76.12531@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton

administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996.

That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:25:09 -0500, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker"

<White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

>

>What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton

>administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996.

>That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

>

>http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

What a cowardly attempt to divert blame and attention from where it

belongs. Bill Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that

our leadership wasted the lives of 4,000 of our countrymen and

countrywomen in a war that was justified with lies, against a tiny,

virtually unarmed and defenseless nation that did nothing to our own.

While allowing Osama bin Laden, his deputy in al-Qaeda, Ayman

al-Zawahiri, and the Taliban leader on 09/11/01, Mohammed Omar, to all

remain alive and free for 2386 days following the WTC tower attacks

they planed.

Two-thousand, three hundred and eighty-six days.

6 years, 6 months + 13 days.

But who's still counting, right?

Charles

"Charles Aulds" <caulds@hiwaay.net> wrote in message

news:qj8fu39ebu6heo29s5ne9n3qrvj1t8u169@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:25:09 -0500, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker"

> <White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

>

> >

> >What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the

Clinton

> >administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in

1996.

> >That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

> >

> >http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

>

> What a great attempt to affix blame and attention to where it

> belongs on Bill Clinton

=================

Yes i know. Not one outraged Liberal could be found in Clinton's 8 years

screaming about the 4417 military deaths then.

Obama's Mama's A White Cracker wrote:

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:kRFFj.23676$r76.12531@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>

> What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton

> administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996.

> That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

>

> http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

>

>

>

That bit of information manipulation has been tried before, and was shot

down in flames. The Clinton number

includes all deaths, eg. deaths due to training exercises, car

accidents, heart attacks, equipment failure etc.

The 4,000 dead under Bush are for the Iraq war and do not include

personell killed on other postings.

The truth is as follows and is from the Congressional Research Service:

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ............. 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) .... 8,792 deaths

Another 901 troops died in 2007 just in Iraq, do the math.....

"Obama's Mama's A White Cracker" <White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote in

message news:zYidnUFfGoisAHranZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com...

>

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:kRFFj.23676$r76.12531@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>

> What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton

> administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in

> 1996.

> That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

>

> http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

>

>

Either you're stupid or a liar. Or maybe both. You're comparing deaths from

all cause to just combat related deaths.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html

"Obama's Mama's A White Cracker" <White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote in

message news:buadnVsNWuSsOXranZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@comcast.com...

>

> "Charles Aulds" <caulds@hiwaay.net> wrote in message

> news:qj8fu39ebu6heo29s5ne9n3qrvj1t8u169@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:25:09 -0500, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker"

>> <White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

>>

>> >

>> >What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the

> Clinton

>> >administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in

> 1996.

>> >That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

>> >

>> >http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

>>

>> What a great attempt to affix blame and attention to where it

>> belongs on Bill Clinton

> =================

>

> Yes i know. Not one outraged Liberal could be found in Clinton's 8 years

> screaming about the 4417 military deaths then.

People die of normal causes every day you fucking idiot. Those weren't

combat deaths

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_more_soldiers_die_during_bill_clintons.html

Obama's Mama's A White Cracker wrote:

> "Charles Aulds" <caulds@hiwaay.net> wrote in message

> news:qj8fu39ebu6heo29s5ne9n3qrvj1t8u169@4ax.com...

>

>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:25:09 -0500, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker"

>> <White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

>>

>>

>>> What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the

>>>

> Clinton

>

>>> administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in

>>>

> 1996.

>

>>> That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

>>>

>>> http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

>>>

>> What a great attempt to affix blame and attention to where it

>> belongs on Bill Clinton

>>

> =================

>

> Yes i know. Not one outraged Liberal could be found in Clinton's 8 years

> screaming about the 4417 military deaths then.

>

>

>

>

Because reasonable people realize peacetime deaths in the military are a

constant. Like the rest of us, the military

die from car/truck crashes , machinery accidents, heart attacks and

plane crashes during peace time.

Bush's 4,000 dead in Iraq are on top of the regular deaths unrelated to

combat operations. Bush's count had

already exceeded the military deaths for all causes under Clinton back

in 2005 .... I also see nowhere any mention

in your post of the 29,320 US military wounded in Iraq that have

occurred under Bush.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:53:08 -0500, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker"

<White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

>

>"Charles Aulds" <caulds@hiwaay.net> wrote in message

>news:qj8fu39ebu6heo29s5ne9n3qrvj1t8u169@4ax.com...

>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:25:09 -0500, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker"

>> <White Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

>>

>> >

>> >What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the

>Clinton

>> >administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in

>1996.

>> >That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

>> >

>> >http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

>>

>> What a great attempt to affix blame and attention to where it

>> belongs on Bill Clinton

>=================

>

>Yes i know. Not one outraged Liberal could be found in Clinton's 8 years

>screaming about the 4417 military deaths then.

>

>

Though this is not really funny, your attempt at justifying Bush

policy is. You are citing ALL military deaths and your cite is that

bastion of unbiased news, the New York Sun. The 4000 deaths are

unwarranted deaths due to the most corrupt political machine in

history (probably) taking this country to the wrong war for the wrong

reasons. Keep working on justifying it, though. You a couple of more

months to beat your chest before he is finally gone. It always amazes

me the way that the Republicans can blame anyhting on Clinton, even

after 7 1/2 years of incompetence, most of which had a Republican

Congress (also rife with Republican corruption of historical

proprtions). Keep up the good work! Keep watching O'reily and

listening to Rush. Repeat until you believe it!

On Mar 24, 8:53 am, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker" <White

Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

> 4,000 Americans dead...Clinton Failed us Again

You mean "Clinton's penis". It's always the fault of HIS PENIS!

I wonder if Bush keeps killing thousands of Americans in Iraq and

hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians because W. can't get an

erection anymore.

The 4,000 death Americans was inevitable who, gods help us, who knows

how high it will reach before the Bush Horror leaves office.

But I do wish, for the sake of all those who have died, Americans and

Iraqis, and for all those who will die, that this had happened last

week on the 5th anniversary of the immoral and pointless invasion of

Iraq. It would have shown even more clearly how psychotic W. Bush's

remarks were on that day.

-Tom Sr.

"Tom Sr." <tomswiftsr@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:808d0045-87a4-4647-9ff7-9983c665e1c6@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 24, 8:53 am, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker" <White

> Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

> > 4,000 Americans dead...Clinton Failed us Again

>

> You mean "Clinton's penis".

====================

Gee , i guess you have a reading comprehension problem. The only place the

word penis came up was in your post . Have you come out to your parents yet?

> >> >> There is NO good news.

> >> >> There is no Iraqi reconciliation.

> >> >> The news is grim.

> >> >> The news is bad.

> >> >> The "plan" sucks

> >> >> The "surge" is a failure

> >> > In your opinion...which is easily disputed.

>

> >> > Note: Racist Obama seems to think it's good enough to pull the troops

> >> > out(he is all over the place on a timeline)....And then if the region

> >> > goes genocidal, he will send them back in. [Yes, he actually said he

> >> > will send troops back in to Iraq if it goes to shit]

>

> >> 4,000 dead is not an "opinion"

> > No, the fact that it is just 4000 shows the MNFI isn't losing anything

> > and has won the insurgency.

>

> >> At least ten attacks on the Green Zone is not an "Opinion"

> > 10 attacks??? In a country of 27 million, you think 10 attacks is

> > alot?!?!?!? Dear sir, if anything it is clearly proof the Iraqis

> > support the US being there and clearly support what the MNFI are

> > doing.

>

> > Good day to you, sir.

>

> Your logic is as impeccable as jr's!

Obviously my "logic" wins the day or you would have come up with

something better than the typical "nut-unh" and "Whatever" response.

10 attacks...Laughable.

Again, good day to you sir.

On Mar 24, 8:57 pm, "Obama's Mama's A White Cracker" <White

Cracker@Obama's Hood> wrote:

> ====================

>

> Gee , i guess you have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually, no. I have a reading comprehension level of 98%+, very much

above average. I own over 6,000 books and worked in a library for

over 20 years. I read on the average over 100 books each year.

I also know the personal pronoun "I" is capitalized.

> The only place the

> word penis came up was in your post .

You are seriously humor-impaired and unable to understand even basic

sarcasm; that is typical of fanatics.

I also know there is no space between the last letter of a sentence

and a period.

> Have you come out to your parents yet?

About what?

-Tom Sr.

Obama's Mama's A White Cracker wrote:

>

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:kRFFj.23676$r76.12531@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>

> What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton

> administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996.

> That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

Right. Peacetime. Not a quagmire.

> http://www.nysun.com/article/48926

Obama's Mama's A White Cracker wrote:

>

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:kRFFj.23676$r76.12531@bignews8.bellsouth.net...

>

> What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton

> administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996.

> That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

Chimpoleon, one quagmire.

Clinton, none.

> http://www.nysun.com/article/48926