7 more American soilders killed today.

wilheim · Jan 29, 2004

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Seven U.S. soldiers were killed and three injured in an explosion Thursday, U.S. Central Command said. One American soldier was missing.

An Afghan interpreter also was injured in the 3 p.m. explosion near the city of Ghazni, 60 miles southwest of the capital, Kabul. The soldiers had been working around a weapons cache when the blast happened, Centcom said in a statement.

The wounded soldiers were evacuated to a hospital at Bagram Air Base, headquarters for U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. Names were being withheld pending notification of relatives.

Earlier this month, the U.S. death toll in the two-year war in Afghanistan reached 100.

Only 16 Americans died in the lightning war that drove the Taliban from power at the end of 2001 for providing a refuge and base for Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, attacks. The rest of the Americans died after the Taliban's defeat.

The total number includes deaths in other parts of Operation Enduring Freedom, such as a helicopter crash in the Philippines nearly two years ago that killed 10 American soldiers.

In November, five U.S. soldiers died in a helicopter crash near the main U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul, apparently due to mechanical failure.

The United States provides 9,000 of the 11,000-member coalition troops stationed in Afghanistan.

TheGeneral+ · Jan 30, 2004

Thanks again George.

We all feel so much safer now that we are rebuilding Iraq.

lander · Jan 30, 2004

When a cowardly war-evading appointed President has already had tens of thousands of people murdered what's another 7?

If the psycho was actually in power long enough he would have more deaths on his hands than Saddam.

Ironically, Saddam hides in holes during the war & Dumbya goes AWOL and uses his Grandpa's name to hide from a war ... these two aren't so different.

KMAN · Jan 30, 2004

Why don't you thank Bill Clinton for weakening our military. Also, thank yourself and the UN for the US not finding any WMD in Iraq. I mean damn, we gave the guy 3 months to hide his weapons. I know that's how you guys would run things if in charge. (Give criminals a warning on search warrants).

What a f***ing joke.

KMAN

jimbutorac · Jan 30, 2004

KMAN, how did Bill Clinton weaken the military? It's only the strongest military in the entire world. And during Clinton's adminitration, they developed JDAMs and other technological advancements. Not saying he gets all the credit but that's a big fvckin' stretch to blame him for weakening the military and to be somehow responsible for the 7 deaths.

hansenbros. · Jan 30, 2004

how apropos.

the military is 30% smaller in troop size -- directly thanks to the clinton regime!

gl

first Iraq, then France

Phaedrus · Jan 31, 2004

You know kids, there's a valuable lesson to be learned about politicians here, if you look closely enough:

Irresponsible FedRes, SEC and treasury policies under Clinton led to an unsustainable tech sector bubble which, once it burst, caused major economic problems for America, which are blamed on Bush.

In his last year in office, GHW Bush ordered massive military cuts. The subsequent base closings, which did not take effect until after GHWB left office, were blamed on Clinton.

It goes on and on back through the decades, and is not isolated to the Oval Office. If any of us are still alive when GW leaves office, I'm sure many of his shortcomings will be blamed on his successor.

Politicians pass the buck and pass the buck, and everybody falls for the same old snake oil no matter who is in power.

Phaedrus

codeworks · Jan 31, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMAN:
Why don't you thank Bill Clinton for weakening our military. Also, thank yourself and the UN for the US not finding any WMD in Iraq. I mean damn, we gave the guy 3 months to hide his weapons. I know that's how you guys would run things if in charge. (Give criminals a warning on search warrants).

What a f***ing joke.

KMAN<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are delusional if you think we did not have a big enough millitary to startegically attack a a nation such as Iraq. Problem was there was not enough intelligence on the ground and they stormed way to fast into Bahgdad. Does anyone really know how many sons of a bitches there are in Iraq that would love to kill more US soldiers. I am guesing it is in the 100 k range.

This is one big cluster fu ck and someone's child is dying daily

jimbutorac · Jan 31, 2004

Hansen Bros,

Check it out. Rumsfeld wants to make it smaller. In case you didn't get the news, the Cold War is over.

New military relies more on quickness and technology. The only reason they are now looking into making it larger now is because of the drain on resources due to the Iraq occupation which wasn't forseen by the current Administration.

Typical Republican bullshvt.

Jointpleasure · Feb 1, 2004

Seven more killed by these fvcking sand scum. I guess this is what happens when you wage a compassionate war, to do all that is possible to kill as few innocent people as necessary. In order to do this Bush obviously made the decision to accept American deaths. In other words he probably figured 500 American deaths would have to be tolerated to avoid 10 million deaths in the middle east. Compassionate war - Yeh, the middle east will be thanking American for years to come because of the liberation of their region and the dead American soldiers will not only be heros here in America but heroes to future Iraqi generations.

The mighty USA could have dropped a few dozen huge bombs, they will say, and millions of our fathers, grandfathers, great great grandfathers, would have died, but the Americans didn't. The Americans came here to liberated us from a ruthless ruler who tortured and killed us and who would have done all that is possible to torture and kill Americans as well, all while having their very own soldiers die for that purpose.

I feel sorrow for the families of the dead soldiers. Those families will know that Clintons' foreign policies allowed this all to happen in the first place. Eight years of Clinton deflating the moral of the American troops. Eight years of Clinton being more afraid of the Washington Post than the Al Quida or Saddam. Thanks Bill, you sorry ass commander and cheif.

lander · Feb 1, 2004

"compassionate war"

Does your stupidity have no bounds?

codeworks · Feb 1, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jointpleasure:
Seven more killed by these fvcking sand scum. I guess this is what happens when you wage a compassionate war, to do all that is possible to kill as few innocent people as necessary. In order to do this Bush obviously made the decision to accept American deaths. In other words he probably figured 500 American deaths would have to be tolerated to avoid 10 million deaths in the middle east. Compassionate war - Yeh, the middle east will be thanking American for years to come because of the liberation of their region and the dead American soldiers will not only be heros here in America but heroes to future Iraqi generations.

The mighty USA could have dropped a few dozen huge bombs, they will say, and millions of our fathers, grandfathers, great great grandfathers, would have died, but the Americans didn't. The Americans came here to liberated us from a ruthless ruler who tortured and killed us and who would have done all that is possible to torture and kill Americans as well, all while having their very own soldiers die for that purpose.

I feel sorrow for the families of the dead soldiers. Those families will know that Clintons' foreign policies allowed this all to happen in the first place. Eight years of Clinton deflating the moral of the American troops. Eight years of Clinton being more afraid of the Washington Post than the Al Quida or Saddam. Thanks Bill, you sorry ass commander and cheif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well your F'ing President George comes in a does not change one damn thing on the terrorism front then under his watch 2 buildings come under attack and then this war dodger starts chasing the wrong people

What a nutcase

wilheim · Feb 1, 2004

Anyone know what the statute of limitations is for blaming Clinton for Bush's screw ups?

wil.

JinnRikki · Feb 1, 2004

That would be uhh... forever, Clinton will be the only whipping boy Republicans will ever need, because let's face it, there is absolutely positively nothing worse than a BJ!

Jointpleasure · Feb 3, 2004

Remember Septemeber 11, 2001

Future generations will.

Lets get Syria, Iran, Pakistan and North Korea next. Let's do it a little different with Syria though. A few dozen bombs would work nicely there. Very few if any American casualities. 1 bomb should clear out about 50 square miles.

Jointpleasure · Feb 3, 2004

Blaming Clinton for 9/11 is appropriate.

A little analogy for you simple minded, race baiting, amoralistic libs.

A middle aged gentleman goes in for a complete physical examination and test at age forty seven years of age at a well respected hospital. The hospital runs all of the standard tests, and because his insurance company would pay for more tests, they ran the additional tests as well. When the results came back he sat down with a group of four doctors who went through the results of all the tests and happily inform the middle aged gentlemen he was in very good health. Everything looks normal or even better than normal. The doctors deemed this gentleman to be in very good health.
This didn't come to a surprise to the well conditioned middle aged man who regularily worked out and ran 4 to 5 times a week.

The next day, the man was lacing on his running shoes when he fell over right there. He died before the ambulance had arrived of a heart attack.

My question. Did this person all of a sudden become sick or was this person sick, all along ,but just had no signs or symptoms of illness.

The intelligence that we had leading up to 9/11 was sick all along and 9/11 was the day that we, the American people, noticed it. Thank God we did not die. We got stronger as a result. Yes, we got sick when Clinton was president.

wilheim · Feb 3, 2004

Now how about the month of January for GWB?

If the ten months leading up to the election are measured in terms of a ten round boxing match, with each month constituting one round, then the Democrat presidential candidates should be more than satisfied with where they stand after Round 1.

For the entire month of January President Bush was nothing more than a punching bag in the political ring, with hits coming from all sides. If Bush didn't fall down, he was certainly stumbling and holding dearly to the ropes. Bush didn't just lose this round, he lost big. Not many election years have started so poorly for a President.

Furthermore, the issues raised in January are not going away any time soon. Unless Bush gets a new game plan for future rounds, defeating him in November may not be as difficult as once thought. By no means should we let down our guard, but by all means, let's take a moment to recall the events that caused Bush to reach his lowest approval ratings ever as President...

January 7th - IMF declares the U.S. deficit threatens global economic security. The deficit may create higher interest rates, reduce investment worldwide, and slow, if not reverse, the economic recovery. While the administration try's to shrug it off, the financial world is listening and the pressure on Bush is mounting.

January 8th - Bush's immigration plan is met with hostility by Republicans, Democrats, and many immigrants. The fallout has just begun as many Republicans who had committed to donating to the re-election efforts now refuse. The proposal is rightly viewed as merely a political move during the election.

January 9th - The labor department announces only 1,000 new jobs were created in December, 349,000 short of Bush's estimate and 147,000 short of Wall Street's. The campaign theme to defeat Bush becomes clear to all: "It's the Jobs, Stupid!"

January 11th - Paul O'Neil confirms to the world what many have suspected all along; President Bush is nothing more than "a blind man in a room full of deaf people." O'Neil confirms Bush's disconnect from important policy discussions, his plans to take out Iraq before 9/11, and that Dick Cheney is really running the show.

January 19th - After months of attempting to express their frustration with President Bush, hundreds of protesters were finally able to get into shouting distance during the President's public relations stunt celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day. This was just a taste of what Bush would hear at every visit if it were not for the illegal "free speech zones."

January 20th - Bush makes his State of the Union address but fails to convey the real state of the country. Once again, he attempts to deceive the American people in regards to Iraq, the economy, and the war on terror. The speech is overshadowed by John Kerry's surprise win in Iowa and the fact that Bush didn't tell the truth.

January 25th - Speaking of John Kerry, Newsweek releases a poll conducted Jan. 22-23 showing Kerry defeating Bush 49% - 46% if the election were held today. The news is widely reported and proves Bush is in much more trouble than he may have thought.

January 26th - David Kay, chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, announces to the world what many already knew: there are no WMDs. Now an independent investigation is being called for to delve into how and why the intelligence was so wrong. This may have sealed Cheney's fate to be off the ticket in November. Additionally, it raises the question "What are our troops dying for?"

January 27th - The Congressional Budget Office revises its estimate of the U.S. budget deficit for the next 10 years, increasing the deficit by $1 trillion to a total of $2.4 trillion, and $477 trillion for this year alone. As the financial security of the country declines, so does the people's faith in their leader.

January 28th - The 9/11 Commission announces that it needs more time to conduct the investigation. This is a political hot potato the President doesn't want to be caught with during the election. If he doesn't extend it, he looks like he has something to hide, if he does extend it, the truth could come out during the election. Either way, Bush can't win.

January 29th - Bush announces the Medicare package passed last fall to be one-third more costly than first predicted, or $140 Billion dollars. This only adds fuel to the fire of Republicans who view Bush as an out of control spender and government expander.

January 31st - Bush's approval ratings sink to an all time low of 49%. Could this be a preview of things to come in the next 9 rounds? If the trend continues, anything is possible.

wil.

Jointpleasure · Feb 5, 2004

Posted by wilheim:

"If the trend continues, anything is possible."

Better stated this way: You never know, if you go to the circus, you may get stepped on by an elephant".