Monday, March 24, 2008

As the US Death toll hits 4000 what does it mean as you look at today's examples of Bush's middle east Destruction! How many more will die before...

As you watch the ugly fruit of Bush's deceitful efforts at new order it is moving so fast we can not keep up with the damage. in the US it is the facade of concern for average Americans while he destroys their life's and makes them think they owe him thanks for it. Around the world it is the facade of concern for world peace as he does absolutely everything possible to undermine it as he endeavors to replace existing order with the Bush version. In the middle east it is the practice of Division used to divide and conquer he uses on us and the entire world as he uses once again his facade for desired peace but fails to remind you, only on his terms and no one else's and he will destroy the entire world to have his peace.

Anyway as our death toll hit 4,000 in what he says is an endeavor to bring peace or stability to Iraq but is actually a desire to stay his original course for attacking them and that is attacking Iran. Watching as expected Iraq explode again I have to hope this sinks McCain's effort to capitalize off Iraq as Bush has. However I want to discuss our 4,000 deaths and discuss what they mean amidst today's proof of Bush's middle east explosion that is just beginning and will not be quelled period. What does it mean? How many more?

Last night I am sorry to say we heard the death toll in Bush's illegal war hit 4,000! The four were killed when a homemade bomb hit their vehicle as they patrolled in a southern Baghdad neighborhood, the U.S. military headquarters in Iraq said. A fifth soldier was wounded. The grim milestone comes less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the start of the war. Also Sunday, at least 35 Iraqis died as the result of suicide bombings, mortar fire and the work of gunmen in cars who opened fire on a crowded outdoor market. Nearly 100 were wounded in the violence.

* The news of the 4,000 mark came on the same day that Iraq's national security adviser urged Americans to be patient with the progress of the war, contending the struggle has implications for "global terror." "This is global terrorism hitting everywhere, and they have chosen Iraq to be a battlefield. And we have to take them on," Mowaffak al-Rubaie said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer." "If we don't prevail, if we don't succeed in this war, then we are doomed forever. I understand and sympathize with the mothers, with the widows, with the children who have lost their beloved ones in this country. "But honestly, it is well worth fighting and well worth investing the money and the treasure and the sweat and the tears in Iraq." * I thought the decider made Iraq the frontline of the so-called war on terror deciding to fight them there before the front comes to our shores as it will regardless of what they say!

Supposedly When conditions warrant the withdrawal of American troops, the Iraqis will say, "'Thank you very much, indeed,' " al-Rubaie said. "A big, big thank you for the United States of America for liberating Iraq, for helping us in sustaining the security gains in Iraq ... and we will give them a very, very good farewell party then." The lies about Iraq

4,000 wasted American lives and I hate to say it but the Iraqi's would only say get riddance but our idiots in charge will not be leaving. They will kill each other whether we are there or not so knowing this is just beginning in the middle east what do the deaths mean?
ANALYSISBy ANTHONY H. CORDESMANThe 4,000-dead mark will symbolize the real cost of the U.S. participation in the war in Iraq, and the courage and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. It will also inevitably trigger another wave of polarized debate. Those who oppose the war will see the 4,000 dead as further reason to end it. Those who support the war will point to military progress and say that future casualties will be much lower. There is likely to be something of a saturation effect in this debate.

There already are a host of Iraq-related issues to deal with. We will reach the 4,000 mark at a time when the fifth anniversary has already triggered a new wave of debate on its own, and Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker's testimony before Congress on Iraq progress will come in early April. It will interact with the $3 trillion war cost debate, the bitter exchanges between Democratic Party candidates, Iraqi debates over political accommodation, and al Qaeda's ongoing suicide attacks and atrocities.

This makes it likely that the level of debate over just how much a round number of killed matters may be less intense than it might be otherwise. No one will be able to avoid mentioning the number, but it will be one statistic among many. As for its real world significance, the 4,000 figure is obviously a symbol. The grim fact is that 4,000 killed is really no different from 3,999 or 4,001. There are, however, several points that do deserve consideration when we reach this figure. The wounded figure since March 19, 2003, is now well above 29,000. It is far, far higher than the number killed, and often has a more lasting impact on those who sacrifice as a human tragedy and in terms of costs. If one counts the number of men and women whose lives have been virtually destroyed by critical combat wounds and adds that total to the number killed, we reached 4,000 long ago. Far too much media coverage focuses only on "killed.

" There needs to be balance in counting all of the wounded, and far more attention paid to the number of critical physical and psychological wounds and disability cases. In many ways, news reporting on the "stats" of the fighting now covers only half the sacrifice of those who serve in uniform. Tragic as this situation is, the actual casualty rate has been incredibly low by historical standards relative to Vietnam, Korea and previous wars. Far fewer have been killed and far fewer wounded. For all the debates over MRAPs and body armor, the United States has been able to sharply reduce the human cost of war.

Those who have done so much to reduce casualty rates also deserve recognition. In practice, they often seem to receive virtually nothing but media and congressional criticism. No one can really predict at this time whether we will be able to sharply reduce the future rate of casualties during 2009-2010, and move to "strategic over watch" and reliance on the ISF for almost all the fighting. We could see a failure of political conciliation lead to more intense U.S. fighting and a new rise in casualty rates or even to U.S. withdrawal. The odds of success in Iraq now seem higher than those of defeat, and events seem more likely to steadily reduce U.S. casualties, but there are no certainties. The Uncertain Meaning of 4,000 American Military Dead in Iraq
It really bothers me that anyone in their right mind does not realize what Bush's original goal was and how this is going to turn out. Peace in Iraq is just one of the numerous facades that mark Bush's mis-administration as he endeavors to destroy existing societal and world order to replace it with his new version! I just want to highlight today's events as a result of Bush's "drive for Peace"
Islam in Turmoil!
Al Qaeda's No. 2 figure, Ayman al-Zawahiri, calls on Muslims to attack Western interests in defense of the Palestinians in Gaza

Factions fight in Lebanese camps! Kurds shot dead in Northern Syria! US air strike kills 6 Iraq Allies! Hamas men tortured in Egypt!Saudi's to retrain 45,000 clerics, Yeah right! Iraqi forces battle rogue Shiite militants! Amidst this and much, much more:
Baghdad's main mortuary has seen a rise in the number of corpses received in the past fortnight amid a new wave of violence in and around the Iraqi capital, its director told AFP on Monday. The mortuary has received an average of 15 bodies per day of people killed in attacks in Baghdad in the past two weeks, Munjid Redha Ali said.

Redha Ali said since the beginning of 2008, the mortuary had noticed a new grim trend -- the arrival of bodies of women, mostly married, who had been killed with gunshots to the head. At least two out of every 10 bodies were of murdered women between 20 and 30 years of age. "We have no idea what is the reason for the killing but most of them have gun shots," Redha Ali said. International human rights activists say there has been an overall rise in crimes against women since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, with so-called "honor killings" rising steadily. mortuary success in Baghdad

This is the success in the middle east the success in Iraq Bush brags about and McCain wants to build on!? As staying the course becomes more and more evident not just in the destruction of the middle east but also world order it should be increasingly obvious to the most jaded idiot that Bush has already ensured that 4,000 American casualties will in the end be dwarfed. Oh my sons!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma


PoliShifter said...

AP published a statistic today that in Vietnam there were 2.6 soldiers wounded for every one killed.

In Iraq there are 15 wound for every soldier killed.

The meme is still pushed that Iraq isn't a 'real war' since 'only' 4000 soldiers have died. After all, 58,000 died in Vietnam, or so the arguement goes.

Reality is that if Battlefield medicine was the same as the Vietnam era we'd be closer to 20,000 dead and on pace to tie if not surpass Vietnam.

It's sad. Over 30,000 have lost limbs. That's enough to fill a stadium. Maybe the wounded from Iraq should tour the U.S. baseball stadiums all together to help get some exposure.

Fact of the matter is our government did learn from Vietnam: you don't have a draft. Instead use the backdoor draft and send all the reservists and national guard to war. You don't show flag drapped coffins.

They learned how to make war more palatable to the American Public.

jmsjoin said...

I tried to find an article about the vast amount of American fatalities in Vietnam coming after Johnson was told vietnam could not be won but he would not listen. I couldn't find it but it was quite stunning. I gave it to two crows and she used it. Maybe she could find it.
Anyway you cannot compare the deaths. Anyone who tries ought to friggen be shot. Everything is different as you point out except for the screwed up lying mentallity behind this. They will dwarf anything history has ever known.
I don't want to downplay Vietnam. That was hell as you know for those that were there. That was ours. This is our sons and feel for them as this is just the beginning.
The son that is crazy and likes this shit thinks Bush is a God and we are the enemy. I only hope he survives the SOB's warmongering then he can pay off his debt the rest of his life. My blood curdles. His hell is even here is just beginning.

Unknown said...

The 4,000 is an entirely deflated number. They hardly ever mention all the contractor deaths (somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000). They do not count those that are ferried out and die from their wounds later. Try and track down THAT number. Also, the wounded are more criticly wounded, ending up with life-long disabilities such as lost limbs and serious head injuries.

Bush, and his illegal, immoral, un-Godly, Holy Oedipal Crusade on Iraq, has me ready to puke. I only wish he were in hurling distance.

sumo said...

I hated to see this day dawn...though all the while knowing it would come. What a sad and awful day. I want "them" to pay for this...don't know how...but I hope they find themselves at the Hague. We know that won't happen...sigh...

jmsjoin said...

I think it was tc or maybe polishifter that discussed the comparison of Iraq deaths to Vietnam's. the war will be a hell of a lot longer but no better or worse. There are no winners!
This is creating what I feared about a modern war in the first place and that is an increasing amount of PTSD.
The war is bad enough but to me the reality is compounded by being raised in an increasingly liberal over accepting society.
The traumatic injuries that are survived today that would have killed during Vietnam are mind Boggling and none of this along with the increased use of depleted uranium war heads etc can not be forgotten. Sadly as you know, this hell too is just beginning!

jmsjoin said...

I know! The thing that stinks is while violence as expected is occurring as it does every time the idiot brags of success, it is being blamed on Iran now not Al Qaeda so Bush will be able to attack them and get this breakdown going full swing dwarfing anything in Iraq. This is just beginning!

Anonymous said...

Meantime, Bu$hCo is again changing the rhetoric of success to: "We're close to achieving a strategic victory." No doubt a prelude to his...well whatever debacle he's got up his sleeve next.

Somehow, I cannot count the wasted lives, mangled bodies, horrific collateral death and misery, not to mention $600B in wasted opportunity as any kind of strategic victory, but then...I'm just an amphibian...not a 'Decider'.

Larry said...

Top this Jim:

Happy Anniversary, America!
How Lethally Stupid Can One Country Be?

By David Michael Green

Watching George W. Bush in operation these last couple of weeks is like having an out-of-body experience. On acid. During a nightmare. In a different galaxy.

As he presides over the latest disaster of his administration, (No, it’s not a terrorist attack - that was 2001! No, it’s not a catastrophic war - that was 2003! No, it’s not a drowning city - that was 2005! This one is an economic meltdown, ladies and gentlemen!) bringing to it the same blithe disengagement with which he’s attended the previous ones, you cannot but stop and gaze in stark, comedic awe, realizing that the most powerful polity that ever existed on the planet twice picked this imbecilic buffoon as its leader, from among 300 million other choices. Seeing him clown with the Washington press corps yet once again - and seeing them fawn over him, laugh in all the right places, and give him a standing ovation, also yet once again - is the equivalent of having all your logic circuits blown simultaneously. Truly, the universe has a twisted and deeply ironic sense of humor. Monty Python is about as funny - and as stiff - as Dick Nixon, by comparison.

It’s simply incomprehensible. It’s not so astonishing, of course, that a country could have a bad leader whose aims are nefarious on the occasions when they are competent enough to rise to that level of intentionality. Plenty of countries have managed that feat, especially when - as was the case with Bush - every sort of scam is employed to steal power, and then pure corruption and intimidation used to keep it. History is quite littered indeed with bimbos and petty criminals of this caliber. What is harder to explain is how a country of such remarkable achievements in other domains, and with the capacity to choose, and in the twenty-first century no less, allows this to happen. And then stands by silently watching for eight years as the tragedy unfolds before their eyes, all 600 million of them, hardly any of them even blinking.

And so, remarkably, as we mark now the fifth anniversary of the very most tragic of these debacles, the most destructive and the most shameful - because it was the most avoidable - the sad question of the hour is less what is to be done about it than will anyone even notice? Not likely. And not for very long if they do. And, most of all, definitely not enough so as to take meaningful action to bring it to an end, even at this absurdly late date.

But let’s give credit where credit is due. This is precisely by design. This is exactly the outcome intended by the greatest propaganda-promulgating regime since Hermann Göring set fire to the Reichstag. It was Göring himself who famously reminded us that, “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Sure worked in Germany. And it worked even better here, because these guys were so absolutely careful to avoid exposing the costs of their war to those who could demand its end. For example, by some counts, there are more mercenaries fighting in Iraq, at extremely high cost, than there are US military personnel. There’s only one reason for that. If the administration implemented the draft that is actually necessary to supply this war with adequate personnel, the public would end both the war and the careers of its sponsors, post haste. For the same reason, this is the first American war ever which has not only not been accompanied by a tax increase, but has in fact witnessed a tax cut. Likewise - to ‘preserve the dignity’ of the dead, of course - you are no longer permitted to see photographs of flag-draped caskets returning to Dover Air Force Base. And the press are embedded with forces who are also responsible for their safety, which is just a fancy way of saying that they’re so censored they make Pravda look good. It is, in short, quite easy for average Americans to get through their day, every day, without the war impacting their lives in any visible respect, and that is precisely what hundreds of millions of us are doing, week in and week out. All of this is courtesy of an administration that couldn’t run a governmental program to save its own life - but, boy, they sure as hell know how to market stuff.

So perhaps there is no excuse, after all, for my naïveté, for my credulousness in wanting to believe that twenty-first century America might be different enough not to follow the smallest of men - a personal failure and a 40-year drunkard who, unlike Herr Göring’s führer, couldn’t even claim charismatic eloquence as the sole virtue accounting for his power - to follow such a petulant child off the deep end of a completely unjustified war. Perhaps Americans and American democracy are no wiser or better than any other people or political system, even today, even after the worst century of warfare in human history, even after the mirror-image experience of Vietnam. Maybe the experience of Iraq hasn’t even changed them, and they’ll once again follow like lemmings when led to war by pathetic creatures such as George W. Bush, fifty years from now. Or five years from now. Or even five months from now, as the creature d.b.a Dick Cheney tees up a confrontation with Iran in order keep Democrats out of the White House, and himself out of jail.

Sure, presidents and prime ministers, no less than kings and führers, will lie their countries into war. Sure, they’re very good at it, and getting better all the time. Definitely a frightened people are more prone to stupidity than those lucky enough to contemplate in the luxury of quiet safety. Without question, it helps an awful lot - if you’re just Joe Sixpack, out there trying to figure out international politics in-between a long day’s work, helping the kids with their algebra homework, and the Yankee game - to have a checking-and-balancing Congress, a responsible opposition party, and/or a critical media helping you to understand the issues accurately, rather than gleefully capitulating to executive power at every opportunity. But that by no means excuses a public who were fundamentally far more lazy than they were ignorant or confused. And lazy is one thing when you’re talking about a highway bill or even national healthcare. But when it comes to war, lazy is murder.

I don’t think it took a giant leap of logic to understand that this war was bogus from the beginning, even based on what was known at the time. The war was sold on three basic arguments, each of which could have been easily dismantled even then with a little thoughtful consideration.

The first was WMD, of course. So, okay, perhaps your average American didn’t know that the United States government (including many in the current administration) had actually once supplied Saddam Hussein the material to make these evil weapons, and had covered for him at the UN and elsewhere when he used them. Although this historical myopia is very much part of the problem, of course. Americans are so ready to denounce supposed enemies without doing the slightest bit of historical homework to become acquainted with the slightest bit of history to make sense of the situation. If you don’t know that the US actually canceled elections and helped assassinate a ‘democratic’ president in Vietnam, of course you’re going to support war there. If you don’t know that the US toppled a democratically elected Iranian government to steal the country’s oil and then installed a brutal dictatorship in its place, of course you’re going to be angry at US diplomats being held hostage. And if you don’t bother to learn the true history of Iraq, perhaps you’ll find the WMD argument quite persuasive.

But, in fact, even without the historical background information, it never made a damn bit of sense. Iraq had been pulverized by war and sanctions for over twenty years prior to 2003. Two-thirds of its airspace was controlled by foreign militaries. Its northern region was effectively autonomous, a separate country in all but name. It was in no position to attack anyone. Moreover, it hadn’t attacked anyone - not the United States or anyone else. Indeed, it hadn’t even threatened to attack anyone. Shouldn’t that be part of the calculation in determining whether to go to war? Do we really want to give carte blanche to any dry (we hope) drunkard in the White House who today wants to bomb Norway (”They’re stealing our fish!”), or tomorrow wants to invade Burkina Faso (”They dress funny!”)?

Too often, of course, the historical answer to that question has unfortunately been yes, we apparently do want to do that. But let’s consider the massive warning signs in this case, even apart from what could be known about the administration’s lies at the time. Shouldn’t it have been enormously problematic that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? Even the administration never had the gall to make that claim. Wasn’t it transparent to anyone that America had plenty on its plate already in dealing with the enemy we were told we had, rather than adding a new adventure to the pile? And why wasn’t this thing selling throughout the world, or even amongst the traitorous half of the Democratic Party in Congress? Remember how everyone at home and abroad - yes, including the French - supported the US and its military actions in Afghanistan only twelve months before? Shouldn’t it have been a warning sign of epic proportions that these same folks wouldn’t countenance a war in Iraq just a year later? That the administration had to yank its Security Council resolution off the table, even after breaking both the arms of every member-state around the horseshoe table, because it could still only get Britain and two other patsies to lie down for this outrage, out of a total of fifteen, and nine needed to pass?

And how about the logic of that whole WMD thing, after all? Did anyone ever stop to think that several dozen other countries have WMD, including some that are pretty hostile to the United States? Did anyone not remember that the Soviets once had nearly 25,000 strategic nuclear warheads pointed in our direction? What ever happened to the logic of deterrence? To mutually assured destruction? And what about the mad rush to go to war, preempting the UN weapons inspectors from doing their job? Are we really okay with the notion that instead of ‘risking’ whatever would have been at risk by giving the inspectors another six or eight weeks to finish up, we’ve instead bought this devastating war down on our own heads for no reason at all? If you stop to think about it, it makes you shudder. Which I guess explains why not too many people stop to think about it.

The second rationale for war was the bogus linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda. The extent and ramifications of this lie are so significant that the White House, it was just recently revealed, squelched a Pentagon report showing no connections between the two. Is this sort of censorship what the Bush administration means by democracy, the remedy it’s always preaching for the rest of the world but never practicing at home? Anyhow, remember how definitive Cheney and the rest were of this supposed al Qaeda linkage, based pretty much entirely on a meeting between two operatives in Prague which likely didn’t even take place? Now we find out that the Department of Defense has spent the last five years combing through a mere 600,000 documents, and found zero evidence of such a link. Not some evidence. Not mixed evidence. Zero evidence.

But you could tell even then that they had almost nothing to go on. Christ, the United States government itself has had far more interactions with al Qaeda - including helping to build the beast from its inception - than one disputed meeting between two spooks in Prague. Doesn’t it seem that a decision to go to war should hang on more than a single thread like that, let alone a narrow and tattered one? And how many of us are down for attacking any country right now that might have had a single meeting between a low-level functionary and an al Qaeda representative?

Then, once again, there’s the matter of that whole pesky logic thing. Pay attention now, class. What do we know about al Qaeda? They are devoted to religious war - jihad - in the name of replacing governments across the Middle East with theocracies, or better yet recreating the old Islamic caliphate stretching across the region, right? Right. Now if this vision could have more thoroughly contradicted Saddam’s agenda for a secular dictatorship seeking regional domination on his own Stalinist terms, it is hard to imagine how. You don’t need a PhD in international politics to see that these two actors were about as antithetical to each other as the Republican Party is to integrity. Then again, even having one doesn’t necessarily mean you have the foggiest clue about what’s going on in the world, as Condoleezza Rice clearly demonstrated by brilliantly failing to anticipate that Hamas would win elections she had pushed the Palestinians to hold. For someone serving as secretary of state, this idiocy is the rough equivalent of anyone else being shocked when a dropped bowling ball hurtles to the ground, because they’re not yet fully acquainted with the concept of gravity. Evidently, in Texas this is what they call ‘credentials’.

Lastly, Bush’s little adventure in Mesopotamia was supposed to bring democracy to the region, remember? Never mind, of course, that there has long already been a fairly thriving Islamic democracy, right next door. Oops! It’s called Turkey. And let’s not forget Mr. Bush’s long-standing devotion to democracy, as he amply demonstrated in the American election of 2000. Or as he has continually manifested by bravely and publicly pushing the Chinese to democratize. Just as he has with his pals in Egypt and especially the family friends running Saudi Arabia, the recipient of more American foreign aid than nearly any other country in all the world. And let’s not forget the several hundred thousand perished souls from Darfur, whom this great champion of human rights has fought valiantly to keep alive by… by… well, I’m sure he’s done a lot behind the scenes. Sure is gonna be hard for them to exercise their precious right to vote from the next world, eh?

What is clear is that the reasons given to the American public for the war in Iraq were entirely bogus. This much is already on the public record, from the Downing Street Memos and beyond. Even if we can only speculate on why they actually invaded - oil, glory, personal insecurity, Israel, clobbering Democrats, Middle Eastern dominance - what we know for sure is that the rationale fed to the public was a knowingly fabricated pack of scummy lies. It wasn’t about WMD, it wasn’t about links to al Qaeda, and it sure wasn’t about democracy.

But even if we can’t identify the true motivations within the administration for invading, we can surely begin to see the costs. Probably a million Iraqi civilians are dead. Over four million are displaced and now living as refugees. Together, these equal a staggering one-fifth of the population of the entire country. Meanwhile, the remaining four-fifths are living in squalor, fear and a psychological damage so extensive that it is hard to grasp. America has lost 4,000 soldiers, with perhaps another 30,000 gravely wounded. Hundreds of thousands more will be scarred for life from their experiences in the hell of Mr. Bush’s war. Our military is broken and incapable of responding to a real emergency, at home or abroad. Our economy will sustain a blow of perhaps three trillion dollars before it is all said and done. Our reputation in the world is in the toilet. We have turned the Iranian theocracy into a regional hegemon. And we have massively proliferated our own enemies within the Islamic community. That would be one hell of an expensive war, even if the reasons given for it were legitimate. It is nearly incomprehensible considering that they were not.

This week, a man died in France, the last surviving veteran of World War I, a devastating conflict that - even a century later - nobody can still really explain to this day. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, John McCain and Joe “Make-me-SecDef-Mac-oh-please-pick-me-Mac” Lieberman parachuted into Iraq for photo-ops to sustain the war they don’t have the integrity or the guts to abandon. Never mind that their visits had to be by surprise, and that they stroll around the Green Zone wearing armored vests - surely the most powerful measures of the war’s success imaginable. Of course, to be fair, we’ve only been at it for five years now. Perhaps after the remaining ninety-five on McCain’s agenda go by, Americans will finally be safe enough in Iraq to announce their visits in advance.

So, Happy Anniversary, America! You put these people in charge, and then - after seeing in explicit in detail what they were capable of - you actually did it again in 2004! You stood by in silence watching the devastation wrought upon an innocent people, produced in your name and financed by your tax dollars. And you continue to do just that again, now in Year Six.

Brilliant! Put on your party hat, America. You won the prize.

You’ve successfully answered the musical question, “How lethally stupid can one country be?”

Weaseldog said...

To nitpick, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. then because we're too stupid or too corrupt to count votes, the Supreme Court Unconstitutionally appointed him President, because the nation was suffering from the mild inconveniences of a democratic system.

In 2004, I don't even know if Diebold counted our votes at all.

I don't believe that America will even elect the next president. I don't think democracy has anything to do with our Presidents are selected anymore.

jmsjoin said...

Probably long overdue but I just added you to me favorites so I can keep tabs and link in the future if apropriate.
Bush's forever war is just beginning. Attacking Iraq was just the reason to get in the middle east again to attack Iran. Very soon!
The idiot said the 4000 dead laid the foundation for peace for many generations to come. Friggen underhanded two faced liar.
They were lied too! They unwittingly set the stage for war for many generations to come. Then there's his future debt they will have to pay. I am very peeved as for now I only have 2 sons in this lie. one flying support right now and one in EOD heading back to his wars.

jmsjoin said...

You are something! I don't know if you realize it but I suspect you do that you continuously follow a line of thinking and conclusion. Again this is no exception!
I just got through saying and have said it numerous, numerous, numerous times, that this idiot is doing everything on purpose. There is no mistake her. I hat to give him credit because he is not smart enough. He is just the idiot cheerleader they have been waiting for.
How Lethally Stupid Can One Country Be?

Happy Anniversary, America!


Watching George W. Bush in operation these last couple of weeks is like having an out-of-body experience. On acid. During a nightmare. In a different galaxy.

As he presides over the latest disaster of his administration (No, it's not a terrorist attack ­ that was 2001! No, it's not a catastrophic war ­ that was 2003! No, it's not a drowning city ­ that was 2005! This one is an economic meltdown, ladies and gentlemen!) bringing to it the same blithe disengagement with which he's attended the previous ones, you cannot but stop and gaze in stark comedic awe, realizing that the most powerful polity that ever existed on the planet twice picked this imbecilic buffoon as its leader, from among 300 million other choices. Seeing him clown with the Washington press corps yet once again ­ and seeing them fawn over him, laugh in all the right places, and give him a standing ovation, also yet once again ­ is the equivalent of having all your logic circuits blown simultaneously. Truly, the universe has a twisted and deeply ironic sense of humor. Monty Python is about as funny ­ and as stiff ­ as Dick Nixon, by comparison

jmsjoin said...

I am afraid I agree with you 100% and have said it numerous times. This is not a Demorcy merely the facade of one. This facade if Democracy like that or Christianity is merely to be used to achieve the underhanded agenda od a new societal and world order.
Our entire system is designed to steal elections. Involvement of we the people is merely a facade to keep the facade of Democracy going around the world.
I don't know which way yet but this election too will be stolen. Assassination and martial law if all else fails or Iran can't be attacked first. This really stinks!

TomCat said...

4,000 is indeed a sad number. But the number at which the dealt toll became too high was 1.

jmsjoin said...

You're right of course. One was too high to start with because it is all based on lies beginning to end. Funny but I just this second finished writing on that. Did you hear Robert's anouncement? I'm bummed!

Weaseldog said...

Amen Tomcat.

landsker said...

The Iraquis and (Iranians) will never surrender, nor will the Palestinians, but the politicians and planners of war are too arrogant to admit defeat.
As long as there are soldiers willing to die for the plans of the elite, then just like Vietnam, the war will continue, and like Vietnam, one side fights for their land, the other for "freedom" and a few hundred dollars a week.
When there are no more willing recruits, then the war will be over.

jmsjoin said...

Of course you're entirely right! Bush thinks he can have hie way but no way in hell. He wants hie new middle east order and the so called Islamists want their version. This will only end in all out war Period!