Over 1,000 Dead In Bush’s Afghanistan War

by Ben Hoffman

On Tuesday, the toll of American dead in Afghanistan passed 1,000, after a suicide bomb in Kabul killed at least five United States service members. Having taken nearly seven years to reach the first 500 dead, the war killed the second 500 in fewer than two. A resurgent Taliban active in almost every province, a weak central government incapable of protecting its people and a larger number of American troops in harm’s way all contributed to the accelerating pace of death.

Read more…

The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden immediately after the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, but Bush would have none of that. Nope, the AWOL-in-chief had his excuse for war and he wasn’t going to blow it.

JALALABAD, Afghanistan –– A senior Taliban leader said Sunday that the Islamic militia would be willing to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country if the United States halts the bombing of Afghanistan and provides evidence against him.

President Bush quickly rejected the offer.

“The president has been very clear, there will be no negotiations,” White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said. Washington has repeatedly rejected any negotiations or conditions on its demands that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.

Read more…

Leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attack, there were many warnings and predictions of an impending attack, but the Bush administration refused to act. Even after it was shown that bin Laden was responsible for the U.S.S. Cole attack, Bush did nothing. Well, he did lob a few bombs at Iraq, but other than that, he did nothing.

George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of over 1,000 troops in Afghanistan and over 4,000 in Iraq, yet there has never been a complete investigation into how he got us into these messes. And that is a crime.

Advertisements

16 Comments to “Over 1,000 Dead In Bush’s Afghanistan War”

  1. Obama didn’t withdraw, and instead sent more troops in, so it’s not Bush’s war any more – it’s Obama’s, unless you’re saying the Commander in Chief not the Commander anymore?

    Bush’s failure to act prior to 9/11 is inexcusable, and his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan post-9/11 was deplorable, but Obama’s administration wants a US-friendly Afghanistan just as much as Bush does or as much as any other American President would. The allies are fighting over there to protect Western economic interests, not Western security interests.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unocal_Corporation

    • No, Bush is responsible for the war. It’s Obama’s war in that he’s in charge, but we shouldn’t have occupied the country in the first place.

      As you said, it’s a war of economic interests. For the U.S, it’s about oil. For the people of Afghanistan, it’s about jobs. Had we worked with the Taliban, accepted their offer to turn over bin Laden, we could have achieved our economic goals. But instead, over 1,000 American lives have been sacrificed (not to mention all the wounded), thousands of Afghani civilians have been killed, which has fostered hatred towards America and may result in more terrorist acts.

      The war in Afghanistan is a war of simple-minded ideology. It is and will always be Bush’s war.

      • Regardless of whether it would have made a difference or not (I doubt it would have), I don’t believe the offer from the Taliban was legitimate for a second – key words: “…and provides evidence against him” – but if someone hates Bush that bad I can see how they’d believe it.

        I don’t disagree that going in there was wrong, but I agree with and believe in why we’re there. We can’t leave it to the Russians or Chinese, and if we left it to the Afghani’s/Taliban, the civilian deaths wouldn’t be accidental.

  2. Sorry, but Afghanistan is completely justifiable in light of 9/11. Liberals need to get off that one. You can argue whether the management of things since then has been proper, I suppose, but our involvement initially was absolutely acceptable. Had 9/11 happened on Obama’s watch, and he didn’t do what Bush did, we’d be all over him. Justifiably so.

    Ben, would you not have attempted to get Bin Laden? What WOULD justify action?

    • [Ben, would you not have attempted to get Bin Laden? What WOULD justify action?]

      The question is: why didn’t Bush go after bin Laden? Was it because of his business ties to bin Laden’s family? If Obama had ties to the bin Laden family, he would have been run out of the country by now. There was more interest in Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers than Bush’s ties to bin Laden. Why was that?

      Here is a piece about Bush letting bin Laden get away at Tora Bora:

      The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

      “We [messed] up by not getting into Tora Bora sooner and letting the Afghans do all the work,” said a senior official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism. “Clearly a decision point came when we started bombing Tora Bora and we decided just to bomb, because that’s when he escaped. . . . We didn’t put U.S. forces on the ground, despite all the brave talk, and that is what we have had to change since then.”

      Read more…

      • I’m not sure that answered the question though. I’m not saying that Bush and Co. conducted things properly or efficiently. But the decision for action. I don’t question that.

      • [There was more interest in Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers than Bush’s ties to bin Laden.]
        From what perspective? Last time I checked, Michael Moore didn’t have any plans for a movie on Ayers and Obama.

        […and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda]
        It’s remarkable how Democrats are now insinuating that Bush should have sent more troops in. If you remember, you were all calling for an end to the war, and were definitely against the surge.

      • [From what perspective?]

        From the mainstream media. Most people don’t even know about Bush’s ties to the bin Laden family, but it you’d be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t heard about Obama’s ties to Ayers.

        [If you remember, you were all calling for an end to the war,]

        No, that’s a lie. The majority supported our invasion of Afghanistan and wanted Bush to do everything possible to get bin Laden.

  3. Mr. Hoffman.

    “As you said, it’s a war of economic interests. For the U.S, it’s about oil. For the people of Afghanistan, it’s about jobs. Had we worked with the Taliban, accepted their offer to turn over bin Laden, we could have achieved our economic goals.”

    Wow, I can see why you voted for Barak Hussein Obama, mmm,mmm,mmm.

    “thousands of Afghani civilians have been killed, which has fostered hatred towards America and may result in more terrorist acts ”

    So how is Obama’s Appeasement workin out? Let’s see. Allies like Brazil and Turkey have figured out that it’s better to cozy up with President ” I’m a nut job “of Iran than to think Barak will do anything more than trying to talk to death Iran and Venezuela.

    “The war in Afghanistan is a war of simple-minded ideology. It is and will always be Bush’s war.”

    So why doesn’t your hero just leave ?

    “The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden immediately after the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, but Bush would have none of that. ”

    Of course, you have proof ?

  4. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” “The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden immediately after the U.S. began bombing Afghanistan, but Bush would have none of that. ””

    ” [Of course, you have proof ?]”

    “Yes, it’s in the original post.”

    I think that if you were to read your own source material carefully and not be blinded by your “irrational Bush hatred ” you would see how ridiculous your charge is.

    ” Kabir said that if the United States gave evidence bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and halted the bombing, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country” – a country, he added, that would never “come under pressure from the United States.”

    “If America were to step back from the current policy, then we could negotiate,” he said. “Then we could discuss which third country.” ”

    Why would any nation be so “stupid” to agree to that. A third unnamed country. And what about the tens of thousands of Al Queda terrorist fighters?

    Did we let Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan dictate such idiotic conditions for peace in WW11 ?

  5. [I think that if you were to read your own source material carefully and not be blinded by your “irrational Bush hatred ” you would see how ridiculous your charge is.]

    I think if you weren’t such a blind follower of the Republican cult, you’d realize how big a screw-up our entire Afghanistan mission was/is.

  6. Mr. Hoffman,

    That’s like saying ” I know you are, but what am I? ” I always beat you on specifics .

    Believe it or not, there are folks to the left of you who cannot discuss details either. I keep recommending you to them but, they never show .

  7. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Your “specifics” are lies. ”

    Prove it! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: