Monday, June 26, 2006

570,000 Dead Americans

Today is Monday, 26 June 2006.

What would be the average American’s response if 570,000 Americans had been killed over the past three years by a foreign military intervention?

That’s the proportional equivalent of the more than 50,000 Iraqis killed since the United States Empire/United and Subject States began the conquest of Iraq in 2003.

570,000 dead is the equivalent of the deaths of every resident of Seattle, Washington or Washington, D.C.

These figures come from a story in the Los Angles Times (25 June 2006) by Louise Roug and Doug Smith. They are based on reports from the Baghdad morgue, Iraqi Health Ministry, and other sources. The true toll is undoubtedly higher, since these statistics don’t include the three Kurdish provinces, and reporting from the rest of Iraq is inconsistent.

Warlord W. Bush has acknowledged a death count of only 30,000.

(By way of perspective: more than 300,000 Vietnamese civilians are still missing as a result of the USE/USSA war against Vietnam, versus fewer than 3,000 Americans.)

This news comes as the Republican-controlled Congress refuses to set a timetable for withdrawing USE/USSA occupation troops from Iraq, since to do so would be to “cut and run”. (The running endorsed by the GOP is away from Jack Abramoff and his cash.)

However, General George W. Casey, Jr., commander of USE/USSA forces in Iraq, has recently proposed a timeline for troop withdrawal, subject of course to circumstance, whim, and election opportunism.

“A difference which makes no difference is no difference.”

One can’t help but wonder if the Bush regime is preparing a fallback position resembling that of the 1950 and 1952 elections. A major GOP slogan then was “Who lost China?”, the answer of course being “Harry Truman and the Democrats”. In reality, China was lost by Chaing Kai-shek’s Kuomintang Party, as incompetent and corrupt a crew as ever looted a country.

If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, might not the Bush regime choose to “cut and run”, blaming their failure on the weak support for the war by the Democratic Party?

I’m put in mind of those who continue to claim that the USE/USSA could have “won” in Vietnam, except for liberals who “made us fight with one hand tied behind our back”. Given that some 6,000,000 Indochinese were killed in the Vietnam War, should a two-fisted policy have been adopted which would have killed 12,000,000 or more, but theoretically would have resulted in “victory”?


Bush and Cheney are slamming The New York Times for “revealing” that USE/USSA intelligence agencies monitor international money transfers in a search for terrorist financing. Rep. Peter King (R., NY) called the Times report “treasonous” and demanded the newspaper be prosecuted under the Espionage Act.

In reality, this information has been in the public record since the release of a UN report in 2002. (See Plus, does anyone really think “terrorists” are so lame-brained as to assume their money movements are not being monitored?

This maneuver is only the latest example of the bad faith and coldly-calculated deceit of the Bush regime and its minions.



1963 - John F. Kennedy addresses a rally of 1.25 million in West Berlin: "Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast in the world was 'civis Romanus sumi.' Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is 'Ich bin ein Berliner.'" Unfortunately, the phrase "I am a Berliner" was incorrectly translated by Jay Lovestone, then an AFL-CIO executive and secret CIA asset, who had formerly been leader of the Communist Party USA from 1927-1929. The correct translation would be "Ich bin eine Berliner". "Ein Berliner" refers to a type of pastry. Thus, Kennedy in effect said, "I am a doughnut".

2001 – Warlord W. Bush looks into the eyes of Russian Federation tsar Vladimir Putin and likes what he sees: “straightforward and trustworthy”.

As Sandy would say: “Arf!”


Anonymous Clayton said...


"Warloard W. Bush"
"Bush regime & its minions"
"yada yada"

Who are your early picks for Democratic and Independent Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates?

2:15 PM  
Blogger HH said...

Thank you for the question, Clayton.

Can't say I'm excited right now about anyone who has a chance.

But the question deserves a thoughtful answer, so I'll put the conical thinking cap on my pointy head and do a post on it soon.

8:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home