home

Bush: Expect More Losses in Iraq in 2007

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 09:33:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Bush seems determined to send more troops to Iraq. He's even warning us to expect more losses.

Deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq now have reached 2,950. When will this man stop? Or a better question, who can finally stop him?

< Give the Gift of Digby | Late Night: Shelter From the Storm >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush: Expect More Losses in Iraq in 2007 | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    More losses for others... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 10:40:40 PM EST
    ...but none for him as usual.  Everyone else must sacrifice, everyone else must pay a price, but never him.

    He's in 3D -- Disgraceful, disrespectful, delusional.

    Dadler, you forgot (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:10:48 PM EST
    Criminal

    Bush's Christmas Gift to the Nation (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by john horse on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 05:44:20 AM EST
    re: "Bush: Expect More Losses In Iraq In 2007"

    Just in time for Christmas.  Bush promises more American casualties for the coming year.  Bush's war in Iraq.  The gift that keeps on giving.  Don't forget to wrap those presents up in a bodybag and a flag.

    the only way........................... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cpinva on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    sending more troops would help, is if they sent 3 or 400,000 more, enough to actually occupy and control the country and its borders. the number they're talking about won't do it, by a long stretch.

    of course, if rumsfeld & bush had actually listened to the professionals in the first place, once they'd already decided to go to war, they would have started out with half a million, the number the war planners recommended. but, that would have given a lie to the "lean, mean, business machine" army of rumsfeld's wet dreams.

    it would also have required a draft, something no republican in his/her semi-right mind would support; it would be their death knell.

    I hate beating a dead horse but (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by bx58 on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 12:16:09 AM EST
    does anyone think the democrats will do anything to stop our inexorable march towards a wider war in the ME?

    Anyone in here really think so? These are the same folks who issued a carte blanche to the Israelis, basically saying the Israelis could bomb Lebanon till the cows come home?

    This was done while the WHOLE world was asking for moderation. Nothing will change.

    Dem Leaders Unite as Anti-Surge (none / 0) (#8)
    by john horse on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 05:58:57 AM EST
    Good news.
    Per Talking Points Memo, "The Tally: Dem Leaders Unite as Anti-Surge, GOP Leaders Silent"

    Of course, the proof is in the pudding.  Lets wait and see what the Dems actually do.


    Parent

    Beating a deqad troll horse, for if you... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 12:31:54 PM EST
    ...remember, the rethugs still had a 100% lock on government when Israel was destroying the Lebanese infrastructure, and misstating the facts the way you do simply shows that you are either: ignorant of very recent history or simply trolling. The democrats issued carte blanche to NO ONE since it was republicans handing out the credit cards, as usual.

    Wouldn't you be happier over at LGF, Redstate, or any other rightwing site where you will find agreement?

    Parent

    degad is ancient Rosacrucian for dead. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 12:33:42 PM EST


    Parent
    Deqad troll horse,don't make me laugh (none / 0) (#14)
    by bx58 on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    I guess Bill Arnett only likes to read posts he agrees with.

    Do you agree the Democrats and republicans tried to out-likudnik each other with their resolutions endorsing the Israeli bombing of Lebanon?

    Nothing will change.

    Parent

    Nothing trollish about the Dems being Likudniks (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 02:42:42 AM EST
    AIPAC money is very much awash in Dem campaign coffers as well. I will be very surprised if any significant changes occur when they take over.

    Parent
    Bush is dithering. (none / 0) (#1)
    by JSN on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    If Bush were dithering over the decision to purchase a refrigerator it would be understandable but when the kill rate is about 100 persons per day from all sides one expects the President of the United States to be more decisive.

    "who can finally stop him?" (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:19:12 PM EST
    congress can, when it meets next month. it alone holds the power of the purse, and it alone can bring him to heel. no money=no war.

    the real question is: will the democrats have the will needed to reign him in?

    Funny you asked that question... (none / 0) (#5)
    by JHFarr on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:53:44 PM EST
    Who can finally stop him, I mean. I think that's leading in the wrong direction. Bush is not a monster who arose from nowhere, and there is no savior, no silver bullet.

    Remember the post-presidential election interview with supposedly sensible people who said they disagreed with Republican policies but voted for Bush anyway, because they thought he'd keep them SAFE? Bush is the perfect embodiment of the country's insufficiently acknowledged fears. The shadow of the collective, if you will. BUSH IS US... The Bush presidency is falling apart now because more and more of us better know our selves. When this new clarity and growth are powerful enough, change will come.

    Unfortunately however,  too many people may still be asleep to prevent the horror that awaits us. The tragedy, if it comes, will be as swift and shocking as it needs to be to complete the transformation. The loss of our entire army in Iraq and the permanent quintupling of oil prices for the West, for example, all of which could happen between now and New Year's Day. I can think of a dozen other combinations, all equally heretofore supposedly inconceivable, that would change all our lives forever, in an instant.

    If this is what's required for growth in the collective consciousness, then it will happen. Asking who can stop the beast will only hasten the all-but-inevitable, because it allows us to maintain the illusion that we are good and he is not. When we are whole, Bush disappears. The answer is inside of every one of us.

    Already out of date (none / 0) (#9)
    by Sailor on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 11:25:42 AM EST
    Deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq now have reached 2,950

    The above was written last night. As of this morning:
    U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 2952
    Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 6
    Total     2958

    There are already almost 450,000 thousand troops in Iraq (140,000 American, 17,500 (ever shrinking) coalition of the shilling and 280,000 trained Iraqi troops and cops) and they can't even secure the capitol of Iraq. Why would bush think another 20,000 to 30,000 more troops are the answer!?

    C'mon, Sailor, you are WAY too kind... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Dec 21, 2006 at 12:37:50 PM EST
    ...with all those troops they STILL DON'T CONTROL THE SIX MILE ROAD FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE GREEN ZONE.

    So much for the mighty U.S. Military, eh?

    Maybe someone ought to recommend that we gain control of a six-mile stretch of road BEFORE we send anymore troops.

    Parent

    Bush: Expect More Losses in Iraq in 2007 | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment