The Pentagon today announced the deaths of 14 more U.S. troops, bringing the total acknowledged U.S. troop deaths to 3,493 — just seven shy of yet another grim milestone…which will probably be surpassed by the time anyone reads this post. Has anyone else noticed that the river of American blood is continuing to flow, despite (or probably because of) Bush’s nonsensical troop surge?
Over the past several months, I’ve been tempted to post U.S. casualties every day, to drive home the point that Bush’s failed policies in Iraq are continuing to kill people. I’ve refrained simply because the casualties accumulate more often than I have time to keep track. But I still do notice the almost daily announcements. Seven one day, a dozen two days later, three the next…exactly what is America trying to prove? That we will keep sending targets for suicide bombers until Bush finally gets replaced by someone with a better strategy?
Here’s what I’d like to see — instead of calling Bush a “wartime president,” let’s call him what he is: a moron president, a failed-strategy president, pointless-death president. With 3,500 American troops dead, and virtually nothing positive achieved, calling him a “wartime president” is far more valorous than he has ever deserved.
You've got my vote. Calling someone the "wartime President" presumes that the guy knows when to fight, when not to fight, how to fight and why to fight. The current President doesn't have a clue regarding any of these aspects of war. He only knows that he wants to fight.
By the way, if you assume that the dead American soldiers are about six feet tall on average (wearing their gear), if we laid all of those dead soldiers end to end, they would stretch for four miles. Their bodies could be arranged as the perimeter for the entire National Mall in Washington DC. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mall).
But no, we don't publicly discuss all of those dead soldiers, nor their grieving families. We don't admit that we have grave doubts as to whether their sacrifices were in vain. We're like one huge dysfunctional family. We'd rather talk about sports scores and movie stars, so we do those things instead.
"Their bodies could be arranged as the perimeter for the entire National Mall in Washington DC. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mall)."…
That is a very powerful visual for me. I've been to DC many times, and have never forgotten what a long and sometimes tiring walk it can be just to go from one end of the Mall to the other. I can only imagine the impact it might make to actually encircle the National Mall with 3500 flag-draped pine boxes.
Let's also remember that the official casualty count is only those soldiers who die on the "battlefield". It doesn't include those who survived long enough for evacuation. Nor does it count the permanently maimed. Nor the civilian "consultants" hired because our own military comes woefully short of the need. Nor the at least tenfold higher count of casualties on the other side.
Some sources:
iraqbodycount.org
GlobalSecurity.org
Wiki Iraq Body Count
icasualties.org
IraqMortality.org
In the 6th century B.C., Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War". The book outlines 13 simple rules for conducting a sucessful war. This book has sound advice that has withstood the test of centuries, and is often quoted today. Many military leaders base they warfare styles based on this book, and many corporations apply its advice to business strategy.
Ther really scary thing is this:
While many translations of "The Art of War" are available for free on the internet, it would appear that our president is blissfully ignorant of it. However, the leadership of the corporations profiteering from the war seem to know it well.
Dan's comment is the reason why I used the word, "acknowledged," in the first sentence of my post. The Pentagon does everything within its power to minimize the official number of *acknowledged* U.S. troop deaths; thus helping to ensure continued public support for the Iraq occupation…and still more U.S. troop deaths. It's the same twisted mindset in which "support our troops" means sending them to die (see, http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1327/). It is the same twisted mindset that says any sensible redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq would be a "retreat," even though the word, "retreat," obviously doesn't apply to a military occupation (see, http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1215/).
this new directive, signed on may 9th, gives Bush total power over federal gov't…shredding separation of power. In the event of an emergency…
-"(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."
What kind of emergency?
-"(b) "Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;"
Emergency here is subjective, and there's no telling what the White House would consider "extraordinary"
Went unnoticed by the media, google " National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" with CNN, MSNBC, etc. and you wouldn't find Anything. Just in time for the next election, why am I freaking out…and now I remember a quote by Hermann Goering…
"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vi…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/2…
Further to Vitri's comment, if that directive is a *presidential* directive (as opposed to a Congressional law), then the scope of the directive would do little to expand the power of the presidency, because the directive would merely be explicitly declaring a power that is granted implicitly by the Constitution. Congress and the courts would lose nothing by such a declaration, and would retain power to determine just what constitutes a "catastrophic emergency."
What is most disturbing about the directive is not that it is an attempt to grab more power, but that it demonstrates what has highest priority on the Bush Administration's agenda. With so many other serious problems to address, with American troops dying every day in Iraq, it should shock the conscience that this where the Bushites are spending their time and energy.
In case anyone is keeping track, the death toll officially topped 3500 today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_on_re_mi_e….
In one attack, American soldiers apparently began firing their weapons at random. So much for fighting terrorism.