Comments on: American Deaths In Afghanistan Reach 500

Last 3 Months The Deadliest For U.S. Troops In Afghanistan War

[pirmin3]

No wonder Gates wants more troops in Afghanistan. GOP wants the body count up to Iraq levels. If Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon could kill 55,000 in Vietnam for absolutely nothing George needs to catch up.

[demwatcher]

Of course, Libs don''t know the difference between a good economy and a bad one, as long as they get their welfare checks and FEMA handouts.

[demwatcher]

Ya gotta feel happy for the Libs. At least, dead American Soldiers gives them something to cheer about.

Especially considering that there is NOTHING to cheer about Obama. NO experience, NO economic plan other than inflating your tires, NO plan for Iraq except for whatever some guy in Iraq says that Obama immediately copies.

And then there is the Do-Nothing Democrat Congress and their SEVEN PERCENT approval rating - Off on a FIVE week holiday, courtesy Queen Pelosi.

[rave_on3]

And, like the Soviets got, the US is going to get its butt whipped once again.

Posted by LINDH4 at 12:39 AM : Aug 08, 2008

Good to see you''re from a country that doesn''t have a stake in the outcome.

[lindh4]

500, eh? Well, the US has a ways to go before reaching the Soviet casualties (about 15,000) but given time, they''ll get there. And, like the Soviets got, the US is going to get its butt whipped once again. Remember the Soviets were also invited in to "preserve" the Afghan government.

"come into my parlor, said the Pakistani spider...".

[randynason]

But, the troop surge in Iraq worked. Right? At least, that''s what George and Gramps keep saying... over and over and...

[pvperson]

You know, I keep saying Bush or McCain, like there''s a difference?

[pvperson]

"What kind of idiot sends a tiny force to Afghanistan in response to 9-11, and a massive force to Iraq to get WMDs that (they knew) dont exist?"

that would be Bush and McCain

[pvperson]

Not to worry, McCain says that he can close in on the Iraq level. His motto is, 4000 by 2009 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012 or 2013 or etc etc etc

[piercetheval]

...Oh, what''s the difference?

[piercetheval]

...er...ah...wait...maybe that was "Your Azz will be Liberated?"

[piercetheval]

...Message from the BORG...er...ah...I mean BUSH: Resistance is futile your AZZ will be elimanated...er..ah...I mean "You will be assimilated!"...

[liberalme]

IraqII, now that Bin Laden is in Pakistan--we don''t need to be in Afganistan---now that Bush can''t get the oil---we need to be out of Iraq---2 failed Bush wars--no Bin Laden=== no oil!

[txgrouch2006]

All righty then! Something the liberal news media can understand - A BODY COUNT!!!

In news speak, we would say "US forces moving into its SEVENTH hundred of deaths."

ONE hundred to one hundred ninety nine is the SECOND hundred...

[tapsettle]

They must feel abandoned there. What kind of idiot sends a tiny force to Afghanistan in response to 9-11, and a massive force to Iraq to get WMDs that (they knew) dont exist? America must be real dumb to let this idiot sacrifice its armed forces, trash its economy, and flush its international credibility down the toilet.

[ontheleft]

Bush has all the war mongers in this country believing the Iraq war is the main front in the ''war on terror'' while almost completely ignoring what''s going on in Afghanistan.

''U.S. military officials have said the Afghan effort needs three more brigades of troops, or about 10,500 forces. '' What did Bush just recently do? He announced the shortening of tours of duty. Why is he not sending those troops to Afghanistan? Because Afghanistan has no oil.

[emelder]

American lives are dear ... I trust President Bush and our military have a clear mission and exit strategy (this time around).

[nextgenman]

Woo Hoo! Another Bush McLame Milestone!

[babooph]

The "news" is not allowed to show all the horribly wounded,& trashed bodies-they have been directed to show war as "nice " as possible.

[obama441]

TALIBAN: "we don''''t need no stinking timetable"