Above: Reuters reporter Steve Holland and an unidentified colleague discuss the 2000th US casualty in Iraq.
Posted on 10/25/2005 3:20:57 PM PDT by Hadean
WASHINGTON, Oct 25 (Reuters) - Crossing the threshold of 2,000 American military deaths in Iraq on Tuesday added to the pressure on President George W. Bush to show progress in Iraq amid waning public support for the war.
Bush launched the Iraq war in 2003 hoping for a quick victory with minimal casualties. The Iraqi army was quickly defeated and, when confronted by early attacks by militants, Bush was initially defiant, declaring: "Bring 'em on!"
But within months the attacks grew in intensity, bogging down the U.S. force of more than 100,000 troops, aircraft and armor and delaying plans for rapid reconstruction of the shattered country.
The 2,000 threshold of American miliary deaths was a grim sign that despite some progress on the political front, much work lies ahead in halting insurgent attacks and stopping the flow into Iraq of foreign fighters from around the region, including Syria.
No change in strategy appeared likely as a result of the new death toll, and Bush said the best way to honor the fallen was to "complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading freedom."
"This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," he told military wives earlier on Tuesday. "The terrorists are as brutal an enemy as we have ever faced."
Bush was already in political trouble over Iraq, the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina and soaring gasoline prices. These problems and others have pushed his job approval rating to the lowest of his presidency.
A special prosecutor's investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's name, which has its roots in the Iraq war, is shaking the White House. It could seriously trouble Bush's second term if his top political adviser, Karl Rove, is indicted.
The agent's husband, former U.S. diplomat Joe Wilson, had accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence when officials cited a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the 2003 invasion. No such weapons have been found.
IRAQIS TO TAKE OVER FIGHT
Bush, who says it is essential to make progress on Iraq's political process to undermine the insurgency, saw some grounds for hope when millions of Iraqis turned out to vote on a new constitution that was ratified on Tuesday.
"Iraqis are making inspiring progress toward building a democracy," Bush said.
Public support for the war has eroded sharply and many Americans want to see U.S. troops brought home, a view dramatized in August by protester Cindy Sheehan in her weeks-long vigil outside the Bush ranch in Texas. Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed in Iraq.
U.S. officials say political progress and the training of Iraqi security forces are prerequisites for a U.S. withdrawal.
"I grieve for every death," Bush said at his ranch on Aug. 11 during Sheehan's protest. "It breaks my heart to think about a family weeping over the loss of a loved one. I understand the anguish that some feel about the death that takes place."
But, he said, "pulling the troops out would send a terrible signal to the enemy."
While U.S. officials cite the growing capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, there are nagging questions about how well prepared they are for combat and how much they have been infiltrated by insurgents.
Reute-gasm.
Imagine this media reporting on the battles of WWII...
Oh spare me, the MSM's constant drumbeat of "More trouble for Bush" is getting tiresome and transparent. These people can't wait to pronounce woes upon this administration and it's gotten really stale. How stupid do they think we are?
They had it...but it was over the radio and called, not-so-lovingly, "Tokyo Rose".
"Rooter" is nothing but a Jihadi propaganda piece anyway.
It would have been like this.
Abortions: 29,247,142 legal abortions were performed in the United States, 1970-95. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47 No. SS-2) Estimated abortions worldwide: 527M to 836M (1920-2000) [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp333sd.html]
I assumme when the 30th million murder happens, I presume the MSM will keep us up to date./Sarcasm off
I just listened to Brian Williams, (not really listened, just kind of walked by and heard him)
He sounded nearly gleeful at the "milestone death"...
How sad. They are all so ready to use the death of our troops to further their political agenda.
Hell, they'll make it a national holiday and a symbol of left-wing accomplishment.
Thanks! That was spot on!
Above: Reuters reporter Steve Holland and an unidentified colleague discuss the 2000th US casualty in Iraq.
Al-Reuters at it again. This isn't 1970 and they just aren't relevant anymore.
I'm sure we have passed 30,000,000 abortions by now. Dear Lord. I didn't hear a thing ... no sarcasm required. :(
The anti-American crowd is sure celebrating today.
With the media geared up and celebrating the 2,000th troop lost in Iraq, I once again wish they'd have the spine to be honest about what's going on there, and put those 2,000 brave volunteers, many of them heros, lost in Iraq in the proper context.
Just once, I would like the msm to point out the fact that, compared to Vietnam, where over 58,000 troops were killed in over ten years, averaging 15.9 troops killed per day in Vietnam (more if you count the "advisors" killed in the early 60s, and the hundreds of POWs and MIAs which are surely gone now after being abandoned by our government 30 years ago) 8( , compared to Iraq where since March 15th, 2003 I believe it was when the war in Iraq started, since then, 2,000 troops killed (800 or more being non-combat deaths), and that makes an average of 2.1 troops killed per day in Iraq, that's 87.5% lower than the death toll per day in Vietnam. Is that not significant???
And, as I always love to point out, Vietnam, N and S, is significantly larger than the total geographic area of Iraq. Iraq is 168,000 square miles in size. South Vietnam is only 67,000 square miles in size. Iraq is nearly three times larger than South Vietnam. North Vietnam, which we NEVER occupied at all, is 61,000 square miles in size. So even if you include all of Vietnam, Iraq is still about 22% larger than all of Vietnam, which we never completely controlled.
South Vietnam never had an established government elected by the Vietnamese people. Iraq does. Vietnam never had an election or a constitution. Iraq does. Three elections now in fact, and a constitution.
Also, in Vietnam, the U.S. military was opposed by North Vietnam soldiers exclusively. I’ve never seen or heard any evidence that the Chinese or Soviets were in Vietnam fighting our soldiers. They were there as advisors, but not fighting, except maybe for some Russian or Chinese pilots that manned fighters against ours, making it really impossible to ever prove. The terrorists movement in Iraq is over 90% foreign. The few Iraqi’s that are involved with the terrorists were part of hussein’s government.
It’s also important to point out that we never occupied all of Vietnam, and there were over half a million troops in Vietnam at the height of the war. In Iraq, there have never been more than 160,000 American combatants present. The major combat operations in Iraq was over in a matter of weeks. In Vietnam, major combat operations were never opened, and there was never as much of South Vietnam secured as is currently secured in Iraq.
Iraq is going better than any war the U.S. has ever fought in, not counting the first Gulf War. No other war in U.S. history has ever taken so few casualties, only about 2 per day, other than the first Gulf War. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the smaller wars, ALL had a casualty rate much higher than 2 per day. Where is the media reporting of that fact? There should be celebrating in the streets that it’s 2 per day and not 14 like Vietnam, or over 40 per day like WWII, and praise by name the 2,000 heros who gave their lives for freedom and democracy. Those 2,000 brave fallen heros are symbols to be praised and held up on high, not symbols of a failed effort. The media presenting them as such clearly demonstrates their deliberate bias against the military and any war effort not led by a democrat President.
Most importantly. When the 1,000th troop was killed in Iraq, I remember doing this same thing, figuring the average per day, and it came to about 4.5% per day killed in Iraq when the 1,000th troop was lost. And now, at 2,000, that average is 2.1% per day, so the number of troops killed per day is half what it was about a year ago, but the media talks about the number of attacks being up as though that is the only significant event. Well if the number of troops lost per day is half what it was before, and the number of attacks is up, that demonstrates that more of those attacks are failing and fewer troops are killed by them, and THAT is more significant than the number of attacks taking place. But the media will NEVER point that out. Iraq is going VERY well, and Vietnam NEVER went this well on its best day. I should know a thing or two about Vietnam, my father was there for four years and has told me about it all my life. But the media will say Iraq is as bad as Vietnam, and that couldn’t be a bigger lie.
But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a liberal inflammatory headline?
The sky is falling, the sky is falling, is now the bleat for MSM and lefties.
2,000 individual combat deaths of brave Americans in Iraq since 2003 is a terrible and tragic thing, but, as compared to what? War is not a video game, people die for real under most horrible circumstances, it has always been this way.
50,000 American causalities (over 7,000 KIA dead) from the three days battle at Gettysburg on July, 1st, 2nd and 3rd in 1863. This, when the total population of America, both north and south, was 30 million souls.
26,277 Americans were killed in the Battle of Meuse-Argonne from September 26 - November 11, 1918.
Over 2,000 Americans died on just Omaha Beach alone on June 6, 1944.
War is hell, always has been, and always will be so.
Oh yeah, and not to mention that 79% of voters in Iraq voted to ratify their new Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet the media says that Iraqi's are "split" on it. 79% doesn't seem very "split" to me. 79% sounds like a VERY loud unified planting of the feet of the overwhelming majority of the people saying they want freedom and have had enough of the 90%+ non-Iraqi terrorist group that have invaded their country, trying to stop their desire for real freedom. The American military are NOT the invaders! The RADICAL FOREIGN TERRORISTS in Iraq ARE the invaders! WE are there because the Iraqi's want us there. The foreign terrorists are the one who were not asked in, and the Iraqi's want out but refuse to leave, and it's the foreign terrorists who are killing Iraqi's on a daily basis, NOT the coalition military. THAT'S the fact of the war in Iraq.
Excellent. 8) That shows just how stupid the media is today. It's also nauseating how much they make of the sacrifice of 2,000 troops, when the media has sacrificed less than just about any group of Americans ever, and takes more than just about any group of American. Like someone constantly coming to every pot-luck dinner and having some of all the food, but NEVER bringing their own to contribute. THAT is the liberal mainstream media.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.