More bipartisan death in Afghanistan. 6 US troops dead today. 23 US troops this month.

[Karmadillo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_afghanistan

6 US troops, 12 civilians killed in Afghan attacks

KABUL, Afghanistan – Six American service members and at least a dozen civilians died in attacks Saturday in Afghanistan's volatile east and south, adding to a summer of escalating violence as Taliban militants push back against stepped-up operations by international and Afghan forces.

NATO said four U.S. service members died in the east: One as a result of small-arms fire, another by a roadside bomb, a third during an insurgent attack and the last in an accidental explosion. Two other U.S. troops died in separate roadside bombings in southern Afghanistan. Their deaths raised to 23 the number of American troops killed so far this month in the war.

Also, unknown gunmen killed 11 Pakistani Shia tribesmen in the east and at least one person died when a bomb planted on a motorbike exploded in Kandahar city in the south, officials said.

Explosions also hit two convoys of international troops in different parts of the country, with Germany saying two of its troops were wounded by a roadside bomb in the northern province of Kunduz. Another explosion targeted NATO troops in Khost in the east, but the alliance said there were no casualties.

more...

[Karmadillo]

1. I thought Obama was against dumb wars.

nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Well, he considers this dumb (and, lost) war "necessary.

Necessary for his re-election, that is.

[OhioChick]

2. K&R n/t

[undeterred]

4. "bipartisan death"?

So were the soldiers a mix of Dems and Republicans?

[Karmadillo]

5. I don't know the political preferences of the soldiers who were killed.

nt

[annm4peace]

6. I would like to thank all the Democrats who continue to vote to fund the wars

:sarcasm:

[Karmadillo]

7. Just in case you didn't see this one

An interesting account of how things work.

http://www.counterpunch.org/vickrey07092010.html

Why Did Anti-War Democrats Vote For to Fund the War?
For the Want of Three Votes
By GREGORY VICKREY

The vote in the House of Representatives last Thursday (July 1, 2010) approved $33 billion more for Barack Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Most accounts of the vote in the progressive media viewed the vote positively, focusing on the various anti-war amendments that failed, but got sizable votes. The one with broadest support (162 "Yes" votes) would have required Obama to produce an exit plan. Its sponsors included Democrats David Obey (WI) and Jim McGovern (MA). Another would have funded the exit of the troops. It was sponsored by Democrat Barbara Lee (CA) and got 100 "Yes" votes. An even stronger anti-war amendment, however, got only 25 "Yes" votes.

But these progressive media accounts looking primarily at the breadth of support for the exit plan amendment have overlooked a couple of key numbers that reveal an entirely new view of the votes on the bill and its amendments.

The first key number is the vote on the main bill itself. Because all of the GOP voted against it in order to reject the domestic spending sweetners added by Nancy Pelosi, this vote was much closer. It passed by 215 to 210. If only 3 more "Yes" voters would have voted "No", the funding bill would have failed (by 212 "Yes" vs. 213 "No"). Failure of the bill to pass would have been an earthquake in US politics.

The other key number overlooked by most progressive media accounts of the vote was this: enough leading anti-war Democrats voted for the actual funding bill that they could have defeated it had they voted "No". Among leading anti-war Democrats, which ones voted for the war funding?

more...

[Bluebear]

8. kick

:cry: