checking the death toll under obama

[strollingbones]

seems since the new prez is in office...no one mentions the death toll of the wars:

here is a good site....breaks it down....

iCasualties | Operation Enduring Freedom



no american should forget what is going on overseas and the toll this is taking on our military. we have the luxury of being arm chair quarterbacks....these men and woman dont.

 

[pete]

Most news is positive on him even when its wrong. Where are all the SNL skits ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When will Harry Reid ask to read the names of the dead since the Marxists took office?

 

[WillowTree]

The left wing lunatics only did it to use the death of our precious soldiers as a weapon against George Bush.. Course it clear to me obamalama won't keep his promise of withdrawing troops from Irag by 2009.. we can say hypocrites now.


where the hell is code pink?

 

[midcan5]

How do we - this administration - end the mistakes of the Cheney/Bush era? Two so called wars, one simply an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation on trumped up charges. So many needless deaths, billions spent and where is OBL? Time to leave both countries. When Bush started these messes he must have been on some drug that made him think culture change of a thousand years was easy. What buffoons the republicans were and all who sided with war. Except for protecting the Kurds, it is time to leave them form their own nations. Occupation doesn't change people who hate you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How do we - this administration - end the mistakes of the Cheney/Bush era....

OH OH I Know I KNOW!! (Raising hand wildly from the back row because I have the answer)

Clears my throat. We can continue to air raid villages and kill civilians.

That help?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do we - this administration - end the mistakes of the Cheney/Bush era? Two so called wars, one simply an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation on trumped up charges. So many needless deaths, billions spent and where is OBL? Time to leave both countries. When Bush started these messes he must have been on some drug that made him think culture change of a thousand years was easy. What buffoons the republicans were and all who sided with war. Except for protecting the Kurds, it is time to leave them form their own nations. Occupation doesn't change people who hate you.

How about this for a premise:

The left cared not a whit about the casus belli, the costs of the wars, nor the human toll.
All the rage was ginned up, the marches bought and paid for by Soros and 'protest du jour.'

The Democrat stenographers (journalists) the same.

And the motive was simply anti-Bush.

That's it.

Check out the York article:
"It's not getting much attention, but the Netroots Nation conference (formerly known as YearlyKos, a spinoff from the left-wing website DailyKos) is going on in Pittsburgh this weekend. Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg has conducted a straw poll of the participants...

What's truly striking in Greenberg's poll is the degree to which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have fallen off the progressive radar. I attended the first YearlyKos convention, in 2006, and have kept up with later ones, and it's safe to say that while people who attended those gatherings couldn't stand George W. Bush in general, their feelings were particularly intense when it came to opposing the war in Iraq. It animated their activism; they hated the war, and they hated Bush for starting it. They weren't that fond of the fighting in Afghanistan, either.

Then Greenberg asked which one of those issues "do you, personally, spend the most time advancing currently?" The winner was health care reform, with 23 percent, and second place was "working to elect progressive candidates in the 2010 elections," with 16 percent. In 11th place -- at the very bottom of the list -- was "working to end our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan." Just one percent of Netroots Nations attendees listed that as their most important personal priority.

Not too long ago, with a different president in the White House, the left was obsessed with America's wars. Now, they're not even watching.
The netroots agenda: War? What war? | Washington Examiner

Bogus.

Bingo.

 

[xsited1]

checking the death toll under obama

Who cares about dead American soldiers when you've got a health care bill to pass???

P.S. Thanks again to everyone who voted for Obama!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Want to bet we are not watching. President Obama has about three months to show some real results in Afghanistan. Results such as Bin Laden's head. Results such as the Taliban in defeat with no support from the Afghan people.

You fools gave Bush and his cabal of incompetants eight full years to demonstrate that they could blow 3 Trillion dollars with no positive results. Now President Obama inherited the whole mess that you helped create. There is no way that he can straighten it out in only six months. But, by the end of this year, the mess is his completely. If he fails by then to have a plan to get us out of there, and stop our fiscal hemoraging in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will have to answer for his failure.

 

[Old Rocks]

checking the death toll under obama

Who cares about dead American soldiers when you've got a health care bill to pass???

P.S. Thanks again to everyone who voted for Obama!!!

I will accept your thanks. Do you really think we needed another four years of Republican incompetance? Did we need someone in there that was so dead to what was happening that they claimed on the Sunday before Meltdown Monday that the economy was sound? Did we need another four years of being told that tax breaks for the very wealthy was the cure for everything that ever ailed mankind?

We have an ongoing economic crisis in this nation. We can still descend into the Second Great Republican Depression. The peices are still in place. The income inequality is the greatest it has been since WW1. We have not replaced the manufacturing that we shipped to other nations for the profit of the upper 1% in this nation.

We are spending 16% of our GDP on health care, and getting third world results. While the rest of the industrialized democracies are spending half that, with far better result in almost every medical category.

And if you damned Rushpublicans cared so much for our servicemen and women, why did the new GI Bill have to wait for a Democratic administration? Why did the esposure of the horror of how our boys were treated at Walter Reed have to wait for a Democratic majority in Congress? The man who engineered those horrors for his own profit was a Haliburton spinoff. Aren't you just so proud of Cheney?

Yes, President Obama answer for what is happening now. He must make some decisions soon on what our position is to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He is the POTUS, and we, his supporters, will hold him accountable for what happens in those miserable nations. Which is far more than Bush's supporters have ever done.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Want to bet we are not watching. President Obama has about three months to show some real results in Afghanistan. Results such as Bin Laden's head. Results such as the Taliban in defeat with no support from the Afghan people.

You fools gave Bush and his cabal of incompetants eight full years to demonstrate that they could blow 3 Trillion dollars with no positive results. Now President Obama inherited the whole mess that you helped create. There is no way that he can straighten it out in only six months. But, by the end of this year, the mess is his completely. If he fails by then to have a plan to get us out of there, and stop our fiscal hemoraging in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will have to answer for his failure.

I have never, ever seen any USMB poster as stupid as you.

You probably ask for a 'price check' in the dollar store.

No other poster has the traits of
1. making up figures and information
and
2. running and hiding when pressed for documentation.

Since 2001:
Iraq $674 billion
Afghanistan $224 billion
COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

So the math, bonehead:
About $100 billion a year, not "3 Trillion dollars with no positive results."

Far, far less than B. Hussein Obama, peace be on him, has thrown away domestically.

And, btw, yesterday you were wringing you paws about those poor who had no coverage, and went bankruupt. I asked you the following:

"So let's see some data, some numbers in terms of the dollars that it would cost to help the "50% of families going bankrupt in this nation because of medical bills ...'

How much to help these particlular folks? Thousands? Millions? Billions?
Or do you claim that it is trillions, as in the money the administration wants to throw at the problem?

You brought the problem up, now flesh it out with the data...then I'm sure that any perceptive person would see that your solution is swating a fly with a cannon.

Of course when I discriminate against you, by using the phrase 'perceptive person' I can understand why you would choose to ignore the question."

So you ran and hid. Tail between your legs.

Now, here you are again with a 'trillions' fairy tale.

And you have the gall to use terms like "You fools gave Bush and his cabal of incompetants..."

Stop wasting space, and go back to your job as hostess on a live bait barge.

 

[Old Rocks]

The final cost of the war, considering all costs, will easily exceed 3 trillion dollars.



The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More - washingtonpost.com

By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, March 9, 2008; Page B01

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.

 

[Old Rocks]

As for you other comments, they are off topic, which is the continued deaths of our servicemen and women under President Obama.

 

[Annie]

The final cost of the war, considering all costs, will easily exceed 3 trillion dollars.



The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More

The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More - washingtonpost.com

By Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz
Sunday, March 9, 2008; Page B01

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Some people will scoff at that number, but we've done the math. Senior Bush administration aides certainly pooh-poohed worrisome estimates in the run-up to the war. Former White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey reckoned that the conflict would cost $100 billion to $200 billion; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld later called his estimate "baloney." Administration officials insisted that the costs would be more like $50 billion to $60 billion. In April 2003, Andrew S. Natsios, the thoughtful head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said on "Nightline" that reconstructing Iraq would cost the American taxpayer just $1.7 billion. Ted Koppel, in disbelief, pressed Natsios on the question, but Natsios stuck to his guns. Others in the administration, such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, hoped that U.S. partners would chip in, as they had in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, or that Iraq's oil would pay for the damages.

The end result of all this wishful thinking? As we approach the fifth anniversary of the invasion, Iraq is not only the second longest war in U.S. history (after Vietnam), it is also the second most costly -- surpassed only by World War II.

LOL!
A commentary by two authors who repeat, 'by our figuring'. Oh btw, their book was just released at the time, "The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict."
Certainly an unbiased source.

 

[xsited1]

checking the death toll under obama

Who cares about dead American soldiers when you've got a health care bill to pass???

P.S. Thanks again to everyone who voted for Obama!!!

I will accept your thanks. Do you really think we needed another four years of Republican incompetance? Did we need someone in there that was so dead to what was happening that they claimed on the Sunday before Meltdown Monday that the economy was sound? Did we need another four years of being told that tax breaks for the very wealthy was the cure for everything that ever ailed mankind?

We have an ongoing economic crisis in this nation. We can still descend into the Second Great Republican Depression. The peices are still in place. The income inequality is the greatest it has been since WW1. We have not replaced the manufacturing that we shipped to other nations for the profit of the upper 1% in this nation.

We are spending 16% of our GDP on health care, and getting third world results. While the rest of the industrialized democracies are spending half that, with far better result in almost every medical category.

And if you damned Rushpublicans cared so much for our servicemen and women, why did the new GI Bill have to wait for a Democratic administration? Why did the esposure of the horror of how our boys were treated at Walter Reed have to wait for a Democratic majority in Congress? The man who engineered those horrors for his own profit was a Haliburton spinoff. Aren't you just so proud of Cheney?

Yes, President Obama answer for what is happening now. He must make some decisions soon on what our position is to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He is the POTUS, and we, his supporters, will hold him accountable for what happens in those miserable nations. Which is far more than Bush's supporters have ever done.

Why would you think I would want 4 more years of Republican rule? Oh, I get it. Because I'm against Obama, that MUST mean I'm a Republican?

Obama is continuing the failed policies of the Bush Administration and servicemen are dying. I hope you're happy about that because I sure as hell am not.

 

[elvis]

Want to bet we are not watching. President Obama has about three months to show some real results in Afghanistan. Results such as Bin Laden's head. Results such as the Taliban in defeat with no support from the Afghan people.

You fools gave Bush and his cabal of incompetants eight full years to demonstrate that they could blow 3 Trillion dollars with no positive results. Now President Obama inherited the whole mess that you helped create. There is no way that he can straighten it out in only six months. But, by the end of this year, the mess is his completely. If he fails by then to have a plan to get us out of there, and stop our fiscal hemoraging in Iraq and Afghanistan, he will have to answer for his failure.

would you like to remind us, Ms. Lewinsky, how many chances Clinton had to arrest bin Laden and did not?

 

[elvis]

Who cares about dead American soldiers when you've got a health care bill to pass???

P.S. Thanks again to everyone who voted for Obama!!!

I will accept your thanks. Do you really think we needed another four years of Republican incompetance? Did we need someone in there that was so dead to what was happening that they claimed on the Sunday before Meltdown Monday that the economy was sound? Did we need another four years of being told that tax breaks for the very wealthy was the cure for everything that ever ailed mankind?

We have an ongoing economic crisis in this nation. We can still descend into the Second Great Republican Depression. The peices are still in place. The income inequality is the greatest it has been since WW1. We have not replaced the manufacturing that we shipped to other nations for the profit of the upper 1% in this nation.

We are spending 16% of our GDP on health care, and getting third world results. While the rest of the industrialized democracies are spending half that, with far better result in almost every medical category.

And if you damned Rushpublicans cared so much for our servicemen and women, why did the new GI Bill have to wait for a Democratic administration? Why did the esposure of the horror of how our boys were treated at Walter Reed have to wait for a Democratic majority in Congress? The man who engineered those horrors for his own profit was a Haliburton spinoff. Aren't you just so proud of Cheney?

Yes, President Obama answer for what is happening now. He must make some decisions soon on what our position is to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He is the POTUS, and we, his supporters, will hold him accountable for what happens in those miserable nations. Which is far more than Bush's supporters have ever done.

Why would you think I would want 4 more years of Republican rule? Oh, I get it. Because I'm against Obama, that MUST mean I'm a Republican?

Obama is continuing the failed policies of the Bush Administration and servicemen are dying. I hope you're happy about that because I sure as hell am not.

you are not allowed to question Old Bastard's Ossiah.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As for you other comments, they are off topic, which is the continued deaths of our servicemen and women under President Obama.

"Think where man's glory most begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends."
- William Butler Yeats

I'm assuming that the corollary would also be true, and enemies like Cement Cranium are also defining! At least I hope so.

What, another negative rep from this boob??

I've alway felt that such a neg rep was an admission that he was incapable of responding out in the open, and I almost feel guilty slapping him around. Almost.

Let's review:

1. Since 2001, Iraq cost are $674,455,000

2. Since 2001, costs of Afghanistan are $224, 592,000
COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War

This does not include rebuilding any of the areas destroyed, fueling AirForce one for Obama dates to NYC, training of troops in the US, or any other extraneous costs the Washington Compost would care to add.

The cost of the war. Period.

3. In half a year, B. Hussein Obama has accumulated debt of approximately twice the total of both Iraq and Afghanistan over eight years. Twice. That means two time.

4. And, once again, the mental midget throws out statements he cannot defend nor support.
As in the claim that that the ObamaCare plan is needed to help those folks who go bankrupt due to medical costs.
Here's an oldie but goodie:
"Data informs policy.

That's my rule.

Feeling passes for knowing; that's the liberals rule.

So let's see some data, some numbers in terms of the dollars that it would cost to help the "50% of families going bankrupt in this nation because of medical bills ...'

How much to help these particlular folks? Thousands? Millions? Billions?
Or do you claim that it is trillions, as in the money the administration wants to throw at the problem?

You brought the problem up, now flesh it out with the data...then I'm sure that any perceptive person would see that your solution is swating a fly with a cannon.

Of course when I discriminate against you, by using the phrase 'perceptive person' I can understand why you would choose to ignore the question."

Come on blitherer, answer the question.

BTW, I know the answer, but you've spent your whole life letting others do your work for you. Try this one on your own.

Or is this another neg rep?

 

[DavidS]

This is great. Really great. The Republicans think it's a mistake to pull out of Iraq and the Republican criticize Obama on dead members of the military and if no one died, the Republicans would say that Obama isn't taking the fight to the enemy. I imagine if Obama gets UBL, the Republicans will criticize that as well...

The party of no alright. The party of no relevance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is great. Really great. The Republicans think it's a mistake to pull out of Iraq and the Republican criticize Obama on dead members of the military and if no one died, the Republicans would say that Obama isn't taking the fight to the enemy. I imagine if Obama gets UBL, the Republicans will criticize that as well...

The party of no alright. The party of no relevance.

Now, I know you are a fellow NY'er, and if you took Regents Exams, as I did, every one had reading comprehension sections.

How did you do, if you don't mind my asking.

Yes, it's relevant, as I can't find any reference to "the Republican criticize Obama on dead members of the military..."

Here, let me help. The question is 'why is there almost no mention of the human and other costs of the war since the most merciful B. Hussein Obama assumed leadership'.

The idea is that somehow the war(s) have lost moment with the other party in charge.

Did you read my post including the Washington Examiner article? 1% of the extreme lefties are still concerned, and even the aren't marching.

See, it's about the left, not the right.

Get it?