44 US Troops Died In Iraq This Month

By On April 29, 2008 · 19 Comments

According to icasualties.org, April has been the worst month this year for US troop deaths in Iraq.

44 troops have been killed so far this month- the most since September 2007.

McCain has promised to keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely…

Evangelize!
  • Print
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
 
  • Matt N.

    The current rates of casualties in the US military are nearly identical to the fatality rates during peace time.

    Approximately 3,300 Americans died this month due to car crashes. About 30,000 died this month from smoking. Influenza kills about 5000 per month… most of which are during flu season, of course.

    Plus, you are taking McCain’s comments way out of context for your political purposes. If you read the full quote, he was taking about having military bases in Iraq for a 100 years, just like we have in many other parts of the world. I’m no McCain fan, but it’s a low blow to misquote him so blatantly.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    If John McCain had a plan to get US Troops out of the middle east and to end this war- then I don’t think the quote would have the same impact.

    But as long as he continues to support the war without any conditions and without any real plan- a war that the majority of Americans don’t want to be in – then it’s pretty fair to use this quote.

  • Matt N.

    You are saying that it’s fair to use a quote, taken out of context, as long as you think it fits what his true position on Iraq is.

    The quote is taken out of context, and you know that. You are being dishonest by claiming otherwise.

  • Pingback: Plunderbund - » Why is the RNC Afraid of the New Anti-McCain Ad?

  • Modern Esquire

    Matt N.-

    A few weeks ago, you took an out-of-state blogger’s factual confusion over the Marc Dann matter to suggest that she might have inside knowledge that Marc Dann himself had committed a sexual assault against one of his employees.

    You made the suggestion even thought the blogger corrected her error some twenty hours BEFORE you seized on it.
    To date, you have yet to acknowledge your error or correct it.

    Now you come here as a champion for fairness and the scourage of political low blows? Are you fucking kidding me? You are trying to take the moral high ground?

  • J-Dog

    Matt: Do figures lie or do all liars figure? Those folks in the military who die of natural causes, or accidentally state side, or who commit suicide are still dying…IN ADDITION to those who get their asses blown up in Iraq. Is there some special key on your keyboard that enables you to make all this crap up, to move the goal posts, etc.? Just be honest for one day please. Oh, and stop letting Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you. You just might find it to be a little liberating.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    @5 & 6: LOL. Very nice. I was gonna come into this thread and do some Naugle bashin’. I see my work here was preempted.

  • Matt N.

    Nothing you say changes the fact that McCain’s quote was taken out of context.

    From the AP:

    Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq

    By Calvin Woodward
    The Associated Press
    February 29, 2008

    No, John McCain is not proposing a 100-year war in Iraq.

    The future Republican presidential nominee and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances.

    That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.

    THE SPIN:

    Obama: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.”

    Clinton: “I’ve also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless, for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be — 50 to 100 years.”

    THE FACTS:

    The Democrats leave out a vital caveat.

    When McCain was asked about Bush’s theory that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 50 years, the senator said: “Maybe 100. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

    A troop presence that does not involve Americans being harmed is, by definition, not a war.

    That hasn’t stopped the Democrats from making hay with the comment on a frequent basis. And it’s seeped down to voters, one of whom challenged McCain this week on his remark.

    The senator pointed to the half-century or longer U.S. presence in South Korea and other parts of the world where forces are stationed to deter conflict, not fight one.

    “No American argues against our military presence in Korea or Japan or Germany or Kuwait or other places, or Turkey, because America is not receiving casualties,” he said. In fact, some Americans do argue against permanent bases in far-flung places, but not with the same vigor they oppose a war with casualties.

    The White House said in May that Bush envisioned a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea, where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Matt, as M.E. points out very clearly, nothing YOU say will make you not a hypocritical nitwit. If not, please point me to your post decrying the out of context Jeremiah Wright sound-bite. Or the Kerry stuff. Absent that you should also learn how to link to things instead of copy and paste from Power Line.

    It’s odd though that the link to the AP article from McCain’s website doesn’t appear to be working. Nor does this Yahoo News item.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    The military presence in Korea, Japan and Germany is VERY different than our presence in Iraq.

    VERY different.

    We won the war in all of these countries.

    Won the war against the COUNTRY we were fighting.

    Who are we fighting in Iraq?

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    @10: Damn, you beat me to this point. That was my very next comment. In fact, thinking of working it into a post about how Obama is right in what he says based on this distinction. McCain is (once again) out to lunch on what the facts on the ground are. His allusion to previous wars mean jack squat to this situation in Iraq.

  • Matt N.

    Joe, we won the Korean War?

    I won’t hold this against you. I understand where you’re coming from, as I am also a fellow survivor of the public education system.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    Depends, I suppose, on how you define “win”, Matt.

    Hundreds of thousands of Koreans weren’t killed last year.

    Can you say the same thing for Iraq?

  • Matt N.

    We didn’t win the Korean War. In terms of the Cold War, our efforts solved little.

    Thousands haven’t been killed in Korea last year? I bet there are some families in North Korea who, if they were allowed to speak, would disagree with you.

  • J-Dog

    Matt:

    Look, we’re all really sorry that no one would agree to go to the prom with you, but that does not give you license to just make up crap. So, are you saying that we lost the Cold War, Matt? Is that what you’re saying? Are you saying that Reagan spent too much money on the military? Are you saying that Eisenhower was correct in warning us about the military-industrial complex? Or…are you going to say that I took what you said out of context?

  • Matt N.

    I said that the outcome in Korea didn’t help our efforts in the Cold War. But we clearly won the cold war. Good grief.

    Bottom line is, McCain was quoted out of context.

  • J-Dog

    Matt:

    No, you’re saying we didn’t win the Cold War and that all of our military spending was wasted. You’re disrespecting all the troops who fought nobly in Korea and saying that their sacrifices were for nothing. You probably even hate Radar O’Reilly. You’re un-American. Why do you hate America, Matt?

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    @16: So was Wright. So was Kerry. But you continue to avoid acknowledging such.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    The problem in Iraq is very different than other wars we’ve been in recently.

    There isn’t any one specific group that we can defeat to pacify the country. There isn’t any one leader with whom we can sign a treaty.

    It isn’t like we can just set up a couple of bases with a few hundred soldiers and keep the peace.

    We have hundreds of thousands of troops over there and they are being attacked and killed every day by multiple enemies.

    Everyone is against us. No one wants us there except Bush and McCain.

    We need a plan to get out.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...

Archives

All entries, chronologically...