U.S. combat deaths in Iraq plunge to new low

I want to know why they under talk the war in Iraq? When was the last time they showed the daily sirens that go off because of missiles that are targeting the base. Our soldiers are seeing IEDS all over the place and we don't see that anymore. This war is killing our troops and mentally hurting our troops. More troops to Afghanistan is already happening so why are they not speaking of that. I understand protecting our national security but is this about that or oil. I know many people feel the same way. I love our country and would die for our country but speak the truth.

So Obama is goning to bring our troops home and send them to Afghanistan all at the same time.
Gosh he is good. Now if we can just figure out for WHAT.

Around 4120???????? They are our sons and daughters ,fathers and brothers.The count is definitive -just ask some mothers who lost their child in this folly. and what about the thousands of them who come home to try and deal with their lives-never again to be the same or shipped to some long term care facility because they are shells of what they were. and you can't even give "the number"

Rats!!! How is Obama gonna be able to surrender if things are going good. I'm confident he'll find a way around this.

5 deaths in iraq for july!!!!! this cannot be true.on this past sunday morning w. george steph. he reported 22 deaths in the past 2 wks !!!!!! the pentagon is lying as usual.

I think it's good that our troops are safer in Iraq, maybe now is the time to start bringing them home for I feel certain that the Israelis with the prodding of George W. are going to start something in Iran that we will half to finish and our troops need a break before that starts. Bush is a war monger and I pray he doesn't light up Iran before his term ends, this country has flushed enough money down the toilet called the middle east!

no matter what the death count is, it still doesn't make it a just war.

Marcus, you nailed it! I'm sure Obamamaniacs will find a way to give Lord Obama credit for the reduction in violence. If Obama had his way on the surge, we would be seeing a much higher casualty rate.
I cannot trust a candidate that will not give credit where credit is due. A new type of politics.. yea right. I used to be an Obama supporter (even volunteered on his website) but not anymore.
MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT!!

It's like squeezing a balloon. You squeeze one side the air goes to the other. Shift the troops out of Iraq to Afghanistan, then the terrorists will reposition there. This is a war in which we will have troops over there for many years to come. Any politician that says they will be bringing our troops home is either flat out lying to get elected or doesn't have a clue.

This is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE for liberal Dems and the Obama campaign. A terrible economy and defeat in Iraq is what they both are hoping for. Sad isn't it.................

Iraq needs to be partitioned for a decade, to cool off! This is pure common sense. As long as there are women in abayas, there will be no way to stop female bombers! This is the reality of Moslem countries, and nothing will change this ... except dissolving the country until the hate dies down! This is why I believe that Prime Minister al-Maliki must accept a temporary partition, unless he is willing to order all women in bikini! The Kurds have no such problem, and they should be given an independent state. But the Sunnis and Shiites need to be separated by the UN!

George W.'s War

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched. After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat. At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.

something to think about to all you self righteous bleeding heart liberal ignoramous's

George W.'s War

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an unconscionable thought.

Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war. It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader 'Commander in Chief.'

George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it. Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief had to lobby for legislative approval.

Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster to rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.

George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end, only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its hands and watched. After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount. It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag its feet about funding the effort.

Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance.

As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the struggle.

Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then and there, in overwhelming and total defeat. At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come, and hope returned.

Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.

Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.

So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown, a satisfied George Washington sat upon his beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.
THIS IS FOR ALL YOU SELF RIGHTEOUS BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS THAT MORE THAN LIKELY CHOSE NEVER TO DEFEND THIS GREAT COUNTRY....... I HAVE PROUDLY!!

Are you surprised by the decline? Obama just sprinkled magic dust all over the Middle East! Next week the entire region will form a giant chain by holding hands. They will be singing " I want to buy the world a coke and sing in perfect harmony".

I would suggest that each of you who know everything there is about the middle east and conducting war and feel you can speak for every soldier in Iraq, even though you probably can't find it on the map, find the time to learn, without political bias, the true history of the region and our involvement. For those of you who have never been in the military...your not qualified to say anything about what they see every day or how they feel unless you know every soldier, sailor, marine or airman there.
And yes, if you want to know, I am a Vietnam veteran and spent 12.5 years in the Air Force. Why don't you get behind your country rather than sit around complaining to the world. We can argue about whether it was right or wrong once all of our folks are out of harms way.

To Chris A.... I realize you are probably too young and a product of the "new" education system...but do you not understand that WW I and WW II were both fought on foreign soil?

Ok...now count the critically injured, PST's and service men that will never have a normal life.

Once you count "all of them"...then write your story.

ok, let me understand this. When casualties were high liberals said we were losing and wanted to bring home the troops to save US lives. Now that casualties are low they want to bring home the troops because we are winning.

Seems to me the bottomline for liberals is bring home the troops regardless of the situation. Any why do they only want to bring home troops from Iraq. Does it really matter to a family if their loved one is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? If the goal is to protect US troop lives then why say we should shift there?

Could those who have been against the war since the beginning please answer something that has been bothering me? First let me state that I do not like President Bush.

However, from the left I keep hearing how stupid Bush is. If he is so stupid then how did he convince all those smart liberal dems in congress to vote to give him the power to wage war? I know he lied but if those lib dems were sooooo smart why didn't they see the lie? Either Bush is a lot smarter than given credit for or the lib dems in congress are stupid to be fooled by a dunce.

Which is it?

Laura...you are confusing what is sometimes a necessity of war with "love" of war. With few exceptions I doubt you'll find many in the world who love war. But you also need to understand that at times there is a necessary reason for going to war. If you study the middle east and our relations with them since WWII...there was minimal involvement before WWII, mostly missionaries, teachers... you will find that behind the scenes, not available to the public, presidents of both parties and their staff were making all the decisions as to how to deal with the region using information the public and sometimes the congress did not have access to. Most people think it's all about the oil...and that was a lot of it, but not for us... 75% of the oil for Europe, after WWII came from the middle east. The US felt that it was necessary to provide assurances that Europe would not be cut-off and that's why we got involved...we were also afraid the Soviet Union would move into the strategic area if we did not. You have got to stop thinking emotionally and start looking at history and facts. By the way, in 1946 we were supply all of our own oil so we didn't see the need for middle east oil.

Sometimes it requires a true sacrafice and yes people die and get maimed physically or mentally for life. But you better understand because people before you and I were willing to make the sacrafice, you and I both have the right to sit here and make our comments about our government. If you want to see the difference why don't you take a trip to Syria or Lebanon and stand in the middle of the market place and as loud as you can start demeaning their governments and inciting their citizens to rally against them. Then maybe you'll understand the sacrafices made were not in vain as you suppose but actually did buy your freedoms.

to AJlowa
I beg to differ........ circumstances are quite similar.......... entire towns and villages were burned to the ground by the enemy after they took what they wanted. Also with The murder of young and old men who were suspected of soldiering. Other than technological advances it is the same. Are you aware the British actually introduced the practice of scalping the enemy, torture? I think so.
AHH...... are we more united now? militarily, Yes........ socially and economically...... Far from it. Alot of people need to start looking outside of the tiny box they live in

Bleeding heart liberals. What's up with that? The words liberal, democracy, socialist, capitalist, republican, communist are all just distractions. They have all been used by the masses for great debates but the truth is they are just merely distractions that make us loose focus on the real issues at hand. The world since the last real justifiabe war, the second world war has changed considerably. Wars now are not fought for glory and freedom, they are fought for corporate agendas. Example: September 11/01 Twin Towers taken down by hijacked planes. The culprits of this attrocity were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Since the invasion of Iraq millions of people have paid dearly for something they have or never contributed to. They were not involved with 9/11 but for some reason paid a huge price and continue to do so. Why? because George Bush and company have one heck of a good relationship with the Saudis. The Saudis have trillions of dollars of money tied up in America and if the US would of done the right thing the first time around the Saudis would have pulled everthing out of the US and bankrupted it. So the next best thing was to lie to the good people of America and tell them that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was americas biggest threat. The american media fed off this like a pack of hungry wolves. No one questioned everyone just agreed to agree. Some of the worlds most powerful corporations like a certain oil and gas services company and weopons manufacturers have reaped the benefits of this lie since the start of it and will continue to do so after for many years. Being Proud of where you are from is important, but understanding what you are getting yourself into is just as important. I think 4120 young american men and women dying for a corporate agenda is wrong and hopefully one day the truth will prevail and the guilty will be brought to justice.

I don't know if the war in Iraq was necessary to perserve our freedom but a war somewhere against radical Islam is necessary. Was the best place Afghanistan? I doubt it. Was/is Iraq the best place? I don't know. But it is better than Europe or here. We (the west) are in a war against radical Islam (notice I don't write all Islam) and will have to fight somewhere. Anyone who thinks that we can talk to the radical islamist is either an idiot or .... there is no "or". They are idiots and if they (the idiots) gain power in the west then we will lose or at best be forced into another horror like WW 2.

Can people please comment on this... I would love to hear YOUR opinions...

Maybe (just maybe) the lull in the deaths of our troops in Iraq is due to the ideas of the timetable pullout??? I mean think of it as strategy from the other side, if we were in Iraq, and Al Qaeda was discussing on the news (Al Jazeera) almost EVERY day about pulling their troops out of Iraq within the next year, and they were electing a new leader who was pushing for a pullout... wouldn't WE (U.S) just kick back, train more men, prepare and get ready for when the enemy leaves then do MASSIVE offensives and take over??? I'm just curious as to why our government hasn't considered this, and what we are going to do about when we begin our pullout, and Irak will become worse than ever?!

COMMENTS?!?! YOUR THOUGHT?!?!