Now known as Obama's war, the death toll reached the threshold of 1,000 in Afghanistan. Interesting to see how the MSM is downplaying this monumental number. Under GWB, we had daily countdowns in the paper/TV about death tolls, and major headlines were used at certain totals. I found this buried in our local paper today in snipets from around the world. Haven't watched much TV in days, so not sure what they are doing with this, but I've got a good guess.

Things that make you go hmmmmm.


http://toledoblade.com/article/20100529/NEWS14/5290351/0/CLCARS

Obama Fatigue hasn't quite set in but it's coming rapidly. When that happens the media will start posting the numbers. Wait a minute. What am I thinking? No they won't.

Fucking wonderful.

Bush and Rumsfeld lost the advantage of our early victory and treated Afghanistan as a sideshow without the necessary resources.

Lol, it has nothing to do with Obama-bias, and everything to do with the fact that the war has been going on for a long, long time at this point, and it just isn't "newsworthy," as terrible as that is.

Happened in Vietnam, happened with Iraq, etc.

But, never pass up an opportunity to bitch about mainstream media bias.

Again, it is just a product of the war going on for quite some time. Blame it on the American public, not the news. Eventually, it just isn't "news."

And, that is a terrible, terrible thing, but life. Just as my parents have said happened with Vietnam.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

1,000? thats fucking huge!

i remember back in the day when we would only lose 500 during a war!

I guess I'll be the asshole to say 1,000 isn't really much at all. We haven't had a war with substantial losses since Vietnam; I doubt we will ever see a war top 100,000 American battlefield deaths again. Americans don't have the stomach for it and opponents couldn't do it without WMDs.

My father died of Vietnam War effects, so don't think I don't feel for the families of those who have died. I just think 1,000 is a tiny amount.

^^^You have valid points. First, with 9 years of military service under my belt, I want to emphatically say that even ONE death is a huge price to pay in service to this great nation.

Nevertheless, our illustrious mainstream media went out of its way to give us Iraq War body counts while "W" was in office for obvious liberal political expediency but is strangely silent about BHO's Afghan body count which, quite frankly, is OK with me.

Why? Because the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, while tragic, pale in comparison to past modern American military actions. For example 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam in the 15 years or so of that campaign averaging 3,900 per year. American deaths during the 4 years we were involved in World War II was a staggering 405,000 or 100,00 per year.

By comparison, in the seven years of the Iraq campaign, 4,400 Americans have died for an average of 630 per year.

I'm not trying to downplay those tragic deaths. I'm merely pointing out the bullshit practice of using military body counts as a tool for political gain...particularly when it comes from the supposedly objective 4th Estate.

Nevertheless, our illustrious mainstream media went out of its way to give us Iraq War body counts while "W" was in office for obvious liberal political expediency but is strangely silent about BHO's Afghan body count which, quite frankly, is OK with me.

The public's attitudes towards those wars has always been different.

Afghanistan was always seen as a war of necessity because of what happened on 9/11. No one has ever second guessed for a minute the reasons why we went to war there.

Iraq is, was and always will be different as many people saw that war as Bush's personal crusade and more a choice because Iraq never explicity caused us any harm or sent hijackers our way before the war.

"Bush lied, people died" and "mission accomplished" will always be synonmous with the Iraq war and I think that is why more of an effort was made to smear the president for essentially wasting American lives for no reason as no WMD's were found, and that was the whole pretense for going to war.

If BHO starts a war with a country of his choosing unprovoked, and the reasons behind the war turn out to be a farce, I promise he will be nailed to the cross over it like Bush was.

^^^For the record I never fully understood or agreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq...although a world without Saddam Hussein is without a doubt a better world.

And I might remind you that while "Bush lied," a lot of folks on the left also believed Iraq had WMD's long before Bush took office. Oh I should also mention that many of the outspoken critics of "Bush's War" also gave him a thumbs up on the invasion. But those little details get conveniently ignored once again for the sake of political expediency.

Frankly BHO doesn't have to start an "unprovoked" war to be crucified. The domestic divide on nationalized health care and intense massive government spending that he and the Reid-Pelosi led Congress have created is sufficient enough for that purpose...but the leftist media continues to give the Anointed One a free pass.

one could say a world without Bush is without a doubt a better world. sure some an left believed iraq had wmd's . put they didnt have proof, nor did Bush. but it was Bush that invaded iraq. it wasnt like he didnt have other options. i suppose all 1,000 deaths in Afghanistan occurred while obama was in office

isadore;373653 wrote:Bush and Rumsfeld lost the advantage of our early victory and treated Afghanistan as a sideshow without the necessary resources.

I actually agree with Isi on this. Bush and Rumsfeld lost focus on the priority, which was Afghanistan all along, and went into Iraq unprovoked.

While I agree that Saddam being gone is a good thing, the threat against the US was not what the Bush administration made it out to be. Bush should have focused on Afghanistan and got the job done there and we'd be years ahead in Afghanistan instead of the mess we're in currently.

IggyPride00;373898 wrote:The public's attitudes towards those wars has always been different.

Afghanistan was always seen as a war of necessity because of what happened on 9/11. No one has ever second guessed for a minute the reasons why we went to war there.

Iraq is, was and always will be different as many people saw that war as Bush's personal crusade and more a choice because Iraq never explicity caused us any harm or sent hijackers our way before the war.

"Bush lied, people died" and "mission accomplished" will always be synonmous with the Iraq war and I think that is why more of an effort was made to smear the president for essentially wasting American lives for no reason as no WMD's were found, and that was the whole pretense for going to war.

If BHO starts a war with a country of his choosing unprovoked, and the reasons behind the war turn out to be a farce, I promise he will be nailed to the cross over it like Bush was.

Agree with this 100%. The media crucified Bush over Iraq, not over Afghanistan. Something many on the right choose to moit when calling out the media bias.

Also, I never understood why people like to bring up how many on the left supported the decision to go into Iraq. Well yea, Bush and his cronies claimed they had concrete information that WMD's existed. The fact that he lied to get that left support is why the phrase "Bush lied, people died" was said. Once people realized the info. was not reliable and that the proof wasn't there, people got angry (myself included).

dwccrew;375033 wrote: Also, I never understood why people like to bring up how many on the left supported the decision to go into Iraq. Well yea, Bush and his cronies claimed they had concrete information that WMD's existed. The fact that he lied to get that left support is why the phrase "Bush lied, people died" was said. Once people realized the info. was not reliable and that the proof wasn't there, people got angry (myself included).

the problem is, Bush wasnt gathering the intel himself. it was being gathered by many different agencies who shared the information with more than just Bush and his cronies. i am sure there were several congressional committees that saw the same exact intel Bush saw. i think complaining that Bush lied to the democrats or whatever is just a political cop out for them. they knew if the war went well, they could just ride the curtails, if it went south, blame Bush and get political points saying he lied.

dwccrew;375033 wrote:Also, I never understood why people like to bring up how many on the left supported the decision to go into Iraq. Well yea, Bush and his cronies claimed they had concrete information that WMD's existed. The fact that he lied to get that left support is why the phrase "Bush lied, people died" was said. Once people realized the info. was not reliable and that the proof wasn't there, people got angry (myself included).

C'mon...C'MON!

Again I'll be the first to admit that Bush should have concentrated his efforts in Afghanistan but don't downplay the fact that key figures on the left (the Clintons, Princess Pelosi, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc.) were privy to the same perhaps faulty international intelligence data on Iraq WMD's that Bush used to justify the invasion....and they knew these things BEFORE Bush even took office. Yet these same people - most of whom initially supported the invasion - were just as quick to deny it when WMD's weren't found for political expediency...hiding behind the nonsensical "Bush lied, people died" mantra.

Bush and his "cronies" weren't the only ones to "lie" about it.

dwccrew;375033 wrote:I actually agree with Isi on this. Bush and Rumsfeld lost focus on the priority, which was Afghanistan all along, and went into Iraq unprovoked.

While I agree that Saddam being gone is a good thing, the threat against the US was not what the Bush administration made it out to be. Bush should have focused on Afghanistan and got the job done there and we'd be years ahead in Afghanistan instead of the mess we're in currently.



Agree with this 100%. The media crucified Bush over Iraq, not over Afghanistan. Something many on the right choose to moit when calling out the media bias.

Also, I never understood why people like to bring up how many on the left supported the decision to go into Iraq. Well yea, Bush and his cronies claimed they had concrete information that WMD's existed. The fact that he lied to get that left support is why the phrase "Bush lied, people died" was said. Once people realized the info. was not reliable and that the proof wasn't there, people got angry (myself included).

Both the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees were privy to every piece of intel on Iraq that Bush was. To say that they were "lied to" is ridiculous. If anyone "lied" during this whole ordeal, it was Nancy/Harry/Bam. Nancy & Harry based the entire 2006 congressional campaign on their promise to have us out of Iraq immediately upon taking control of congress...up to and including defunding the war. Bam made roughly the same promise during the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Where did Obama promise to defund the war?

believer;375079 wrote:C'mon...C'MON!

Again I'll be the first to admit that Bush should have concentrated his efforts in Afghanistan but don't downplay the fact that key figures on the left (the Clintons, Princess Pelosi, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Kerry, etc.) were privy to the same perhaps faulty international intelligence data on Iraq WMD's that Bush used to justify the invasion....and they knew these things BEFORE Bush even took office. Yet these same people - most of whom initially supported the invasion - were just as quick to deny it when WMD's weren't found for political expediency...hiding behind the nonsensical "Bush lied, people died" mantra.

Bush and his "cronies" weren't the only ones to "lie" about it.

you would like to believe that .

KnDemocrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction




"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Knightryder, you have now been proven wrong. No more of you "like to believe that" crap. The left lied too!!!! Proof is in the puddin' man.

^^^Facts rarely matter to the left.

Don't kid yourself, both sides love to ignore facts once they have their minds made up.

Mr. 300;375322 wrote:Knightryder, you have now been proven wrong. No more of you "like to believe that" crap. The left lied too!!!! Proof is in the puddin' man.

too bad most of your quotes speak of ,"development " or his "search for weapons of mass destruction " or capacity to bulid them. by the way who in their right mind put Saddam Hussein in power? did the left do that also? yea the proof is in the puddin man. you on the right need to realize your boy bush was a total screw up, a mere joke on world the stage. you piss and moan about obama in a attempt to give Bush's presidency some credence. but that cant change the fact that he and his pals on the right lied to start a war and wrecked the economy. do you remember osama bin laden public enemy no.1? it didnt take bush long to forget about him? cant find him? a 6'5 arab that puts out more video than beyonce and Bush and his cronies cant find him? Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. if not the worst. and you can tell your grand kids you voted for him.

KnightRyder;375747 wrote:too bad most of your quotes speak of ,"development " or his "search for weapons of mass destruction " or capacity to bulid them. by the way who in their right mind put Saddam Hussein in power? did the left do that also? yea the proof is in the puddin man. you on the right need to realize your boy bush was a total screw up, a mere joke on world the stage. you piss and moan about obama in a attempt to give Bush's presidency some credence. but that cant change the fact that he and his pals on the right lied to start a war and wrecked the economy. do you remember osama bin laden public enemy no.1? it didnt take bush long to forget about him? cant find him? a 6'5 arab that puts out more video than beyonce and Bush and his cronies cant find him? Bush will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever. if not the worst. and you can tell your grand kids you voted for him.

This post fails on more levels than I can mention.

^^^I agree but it's safe to say the left excels at it.

True but it's safe to say the left has a particular knack for it.