U.S. Iraq war casualties reach new milestone

[Diomedes]

3,577

The body count for June just rolled into triple digits, making three consecutive months of 100 or more U.S. casualties.  April and May '07 marked the first time that mark was reached in consecutive months, and now we have the first time it has happened in three consecutive months.  These three months are the deadliest stretch since the war began years and years ago.  For the last ten months the average casualties have been climbing. 

[Rome]

Scenes like this have to farging stop.  NOW.

[SD_Eagle5]

Al Qaeda as strong as ever

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Associated Press has learned.
The conclusion suggests that the group that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war, and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Mission Accomplished

[Diomedes]

3,611

[MURP]

Bush gave $43 million to Taliban 4 months before 9/11

[Butchers Bill]

Bush gave $43 million to Taliban 4 months before 9/11

Typical blind hatred for Bush...again.   

The US gov't was providing fund to the Taliban to fight the "war on drugs" since at least 1998.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/115.html

[Diomedes]

Typical Bush apologist...again.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

The U.S. has so many enemies that they've often backed the perceived-to-be-slightly-not-as-bad entities, a la Saddam Hussein circa early 80's.


That said, this is hilariously awful.  I hate the U.S. government increasingly more every day.  It seems the more they try to do, the more they farg it up.  Libbies like to blame it on Bush and assume government bureaucracies elsewhere function swimmingly, but it's all a bunch of shtein.  They suck at what they do, and we pay them handily for it anyway.  No accountability at all.  The possible winners of the 2008 Presidential election are all part of the farging problem and really aren't even different enough from each other to matter.

But hey, don't take my word for it.  Go out there and vote for Obama or Hillary or Edwards or Gore, and watch how much of a hackjob they do on our country with the friendly left-wing Congress.

[MadMarchHare]

Couldn't agree more, FF.

Of course, when Bush doesn't abdicate, it won't matter much.  Being set up beautifully in the media lately.
"Al Qaeda back to pre-9/11 strength"
"Al Qaeda still targeting US"
"Al Qaeda still trying to get nuclear/bio/chemical weapons"

Something is going to happen in the next 12 months, whether Bin Laden does it or not.  Then we can watch the dominoes fall:

-martial law declared.
-statement to the effect "we can't afford a change in power right now", eliminating the election all together.
-Congress balks, so it's dissolved.  There will be enough popular and military support after the attack to make it happen.

I've been saying this for years now.  And I truly believe it will happen, even though it sounds X-files alarmist.
The real question then is, who's going to do anything about it.

[Rome]

I don't think anyone in this country would stand for democracy being replaced by a totalitarian regime.

Not even hard-core neo-conservative freaks who still support Bush would tolerate that for long. 

[Geowhizzer]

It's all part of Andy Reid's diabolical master plan for Mormans to rule the world.

Two words:  Mitt Romney.

[MadMarchHare]

I'm sure most Germans felt the same way in 1939.

[Phanatic]

With the US history of backing the wrong horse it really has nothing to do with political affiliation. It's really bad advice to each administration by the CIA most likely. Though I don't know for sure so no one assasinate me for thinking it...

[Geowhizzer]

I'm sure most Germans felt the same way in 1939.

First, a technical correction:  Hitler became Chancellor in 1933.   His power became complete with the Enabling Acts of 1933, and Paul von Hindenburg's death in 1934.  By 1939, Hitler was well entrenched.

Now, my more substantive arugment:

Comparing the German condition in the 1930s and the U.S. today is a pretty big stretch.  Here are some major differences between the two:

1.  At best, Germany was a fledgling democracy when Hitler took over.  The Weimar Republic was not initiated until the end of World War I, and did not have over 200 years of successful democratic tradition.  The German people were well used to autocratic leaders (Otto von Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm).  The U.S. Constitution, with a much firmer separation of powers, has a much stronger, more proven base.

2.  The German economy was devastated with World War I, and was not helped by the fall fo the rest of the world into the Great Depression. The U.S. economy, while not growing by leaps and bounds, is not nearly as precarious.

3.  The German system was geared more towards giving the executive branch enough power to dissolve it.  Bush has no constitutuional power over the Congress at all (which I am sure you are well aware of), especially one where the opposing party is in control.  The two-party system also is actually a detriment to this end, since Hitler actually had to create a coalition to get control.  Bush would have to actually militarily take over the Congress, with quite a few executions of sitting members, to do this.

Of course nothing is impossible.  If anything, the Roman Republic's evolution into the Roman Dictatorship (under Caesar) and Empire (under Augustus) would to me be a closer fit to the current American condition.  The constiutional system, as bastichized as it's become by the politicians, was truly an inspired work.  While allowing that Bush could possibly have delusions of being a new Roman Emperor, I don't personally see it happening.  There are too many things lined up against it.

Besides, if Bush was to succeed, Cheney would immediately "take him hunting" and take over for himself.

[Rome]

I'm sure most Germans felt the same way in 1939.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the message but the comparison you're making is almost completely erroneous.

Germany in the 1930's is nothing like American in the first decade of the 21st century.  Conditions that made the rise to power of a monster like Hitler are nothing like what we're experiencing today.

Again - it's possible but highly unlikely.   A calamity could change all that because in essence security is nothing but a state of mind, but still, unless something happened on a nationwide scale (limited nuclear war, severe biological or chemical attacks, etc.) I don't see a coup d'etat succeeding here.