Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Let's See...What Could They Possibly Mean?

Military Deaths In Iraq Exceed 9/11 Toll

In a span of a few hours, 2,973 people were killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In a span of 45 months, the number of American troops killed in Iraq exceeded that grim toll as the war continues. The milestone in Iraq came on Christmas, nearly four years after the war began, according to a count by The Associated Press. In announcing the Monday deaths of three soldiers, the toll from those fighting the war surpassed the toll from those killed by terrorists in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.


Now, just what is the point of this bullshit? Is it to rub our noses in the war deaths? Or imply that now it was starting to go past quid pro quo? Or maybe it just wanted to make the point that our President now had as much blood on his hands as the terrorists did!

The Drive By media is too clever by half (or too dumb, by the whole). It sneaks in the words 'bogged down' about halfway through the article--as if we won't notice. Then, it allows that it's just the DEMOCRATS who think so and that President Bush (not President Bush and the Republicans--and many Democrats, too) supported going into Iraq. No, this is just Bush's mad scheme to legislate democracy in the world, or some such.

Gee, you don't think they mean to demonize President Bush and hurt the war effort, do ya?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marking a milestone does not hurt the war effort. What hurts the war effort is not sending enough troops to do the job. What hurts the war effort is sending our brave men and women into harms way without enough body armor. What hurts our war effort is not planning for post invasion contingencies. What hurts our war effort is letting tens of thousands of contractors do the work Iraqi contractors could do and with no oversight to boot. What hurts our war effort is calling those who question the competence of some kid, recruited from wingnut central to run the stock exchange because his dad gave money to the Bush campaign, calling those who question, terrorist sympathizers. THESE THINGS HURT THE WAR EFFORT, NOT MARKING A MILESTONE.

7:08 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

You are naive if you think this lousy, biased, slanted report is 'marking a milestone'. Marking a milestone is a neutral exercise. Marking it in such a negative fashion has other uses, and has been done for other reasons.

If people like you weren't so against Bush and the war, then we might've had the support to outfit them and muster the troops better. Look at all the colossal bitching your side does when we do even a gesture toward Iraq--that's on you.

You've handicapped this war--and Viet Nam--in exactly the same way, for the same reasons and lack of moral, historical vision. You can't blame that on Bush. Nor can you blame what happened in Iraq solely on the Bush administration.

About the MSM, I KNOW what they are doing--and so do you.I'm just honest about it.

7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush had support of this country when he sent the troops into battle with insufficient body armor. Bush had support of this country when he threatened to fire anyone who brought up the fact that they need to have a plan for an insurgency. Why do you and your ilk support the gross incompetence of Bush? Yes, Saddam had to go but at what cost? My nephew died in Iraq and I will never, ever forgive Bush for sending him and countless others into harms way with inadequate supplies, no contingency plan and incompetent leadership. He had the chance to supply the troops properly but he would rather spend the money on tax cuts for his friends than body armor for our troops. And I do blame what happened in Iraq completely on the Bush administration. Are you so blind that you cant???

11:53 AM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

Sure, I can see SOME of that--but perhaps we'd have had enough troops if Clinton hadn't beggared our military. You know damn well the tepid support of people going into the war was marginal at best. I can admit I'm not always happy with what Bush has done, but war is always waged perfectly IN RETROSPECT. I don't expect a perfect President.

But for flippy dippy 1960's ideas that still hold sway we'd have done MUCH better in Iraq. You guys have to admit your thinking is part of the problem.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous z said...

anonymous, very sorry about your nephew....'sorry' isn't even word enough. What one has to remember is you've listed all the negatives from CNN, MSNBC, etc.., mostly mischaracterized at that. It's a joke to have thought Iraqi contractors could just step in and take over...but perhaps you've never dealt with bidding processes this large. I know for a fact that the process can take a year or two just to get a final winning bidder. We had no time.

We had to go in...the army says VERY different things than you are about body armor, etc., and we have Clinton largely to blame for 'having to go in with what we had' as Rumsfeld said..not blaming, not name calling, just facts. Yet HE got the heat. We let our guard down, downsized our military and got hit. And they blame Bush for not knowing something was coming within 9 months of a presidency? for having to send our precious kids without what we should have had excess of?

The kind of lies you're hearing and buying are characterized best by the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" sign on the aircraft carrier. Guess what, anonymous...the mission WAS accomplished. We got SADDAM. Nobody said differently. THe mission was to get Saddam. And then, yes, things went worse than they should have. So did much of Viet Nam and WWII.

Thank goodness we stuck to it in WWII....too bad millions died because we left Viet Nam early. I don't want to see that happen to the Iraqi people.

Neither do most soldiers.

Listen to two sides, it's eye opening, clarifying and makes you sound more informed. Your love of Americans and America comes through even in your bitterness, which I can't blame you for..losing a precious nephew would about do me in. But, we have to listen to the constant negativity of the mainstream media..try listening to the arguments of those desirous of staying in Iraq....give sticking to this a try.

Your line about Bush giving tax breaks to his cronies is typical but wrong. Let's not forget the rich pay something like 80% of ALL taxes in this country. The poor pay NONE, so they don't NEED returns, there ARE no returns. The middle class and small businesses have prospered since Bush's tax cuts.

Getting back to Iraq, I doubt your beloved nephew, though I don't presume to speak for him, would be happy if his mission was in vain. I wouldn't be.

God bless you and your family.

2:51 PM  
Blogger VerityINK said...

ZinLA, thank you so much for writing this beautiful piece you did1 It ws very intelligent, and you filled in more than my gaps--thanks so much for posting here.

6:36 PM  
Anonymous z said...

thanks, D......that milestone thing really bugged me the other day when it happened and the media ran with it. As if it matters..as if, when we hit the number killed in Pearl Harbor (which we probably did in half a day at Normandy?) we should have just gone home? What IS that thinking? Same idiocy motivating those who'd like to set TIMELINES! Sure...tell the enemy when we're leaving...then they'll back off and the left'll say "SEE? Timelines WORKED!" Then, we'll be gone and hell will break loose.

Thanks, lefties..GOOD thinking...dopes.


7:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home