More Soldiers Lost Each Year During Clinton Years Than Since Iraq War
Oh, I just had to post this to get the juices flowing this morning among y’all. (Bravo to GatewayPundit on this one!)
Before Americans hand the keys of government over to the Bush-haters and allow:
* Osama to make another fatwa tape on how weak the Americans are for running from Iraq
* Speaker Pelosi to follow through with the 9-11 Commission’s recommendations after she voted them down in 2004
* Liberal democrats to spit on our soldiers as they drag them from Iraq
* Total chaos and death if Iraq is left to the militias
* Democrats to rewrite the books on this historic military campaign
Which reminds me…a liberal caller was on Hannity’s radio show last week and set forth his belief that America is so weak that we should go to Iran and North Korea to request terms of surrender. Sadly, it isn’t America that is weak — certainly not our Armed Forces — but it is the liberals who fawn over such champions of freedom and civil rights as Hugo Chaves, Kim Jung Il, Fidel Castro, and Saddam Hussein…. and believe their own nation is the root of all evil.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
In other words, Clinton lied, people died.
Comment by V the K — October 16, 2006 @ 9:13 am - October 16, 2006
This chart is exactly the type of thing that would be posted by a conservative, it lacks all intellectual integrity. If you compare the combat deaths durin the Clinton Presidency and the Bush II presidency that would make a lot more sense and it is hundreds of times more prevalent during the Bush Presidency…And we aint done yet….IRAQ IS ALL BUT LOST and NOW THEY ARE LOSING AFGHANISTAN!!
Comment by James — October 16, 2006 @ 10:20 am - October 16, 2006
LOL. Do you really believe that anyone with half a brain could do anything but laugh at your post. Where is you sense?? Anyone looking at your headline and then looking at the substance of the claim, would go away from this blog saying, “these are some silly ignorant peeps”.
Comment by George — October 16, 2006 @ 10:34 am - October 16, 2006
Bruce.
You really seem to be going off the deep end, now. More so than usual. I’m truly starting to become concerned for your mental health.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 10:44 am - October 16, 2006
Gee Bruce, you got punked! Actually, you didn’t even have to figure out the deception on your own: it was fully explained in the third comment to the post you linked. It would certainly strike most thoughtful people that such a curious statistic ought to be investigated a bit. But no, Gay Patriot and others simply linked approvingly and no doubt, the bogus statistic will be reverberating around the Internet until Snopes.com has to do a rebuttal. Pathetic.
Comment by Ian — October 16, 2006 @ 11:03 am - October 16, 2006
I would also note the Pavlovian response of the first commenter. But now that the fraud has been exposed, I’m sure there will be abject apologies forthcoming. Right?
Comment by Ian — October 16, 2006 @ 11:06 am - October 16, 2006
No, Ian.
Just lots of post deletions.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 11:07 am - October 16, 2006
Bruce, thanks for (1) being you… (2) reminding us over time of what remains persistently true despite MSM agenda headlines… (3) making the resident moonbats foam and froth for our amusement.
As a later GatewayPundit commentor perceptively put it, it’s “eye-opening to see how many deaths were the norm during the the past 24 yrs, even there was no war being fought… [and with Iraq, t]he casualties are slight compared to any other war we’ve ever fought…”
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 11:13 am - October 16, 2006
Oh, and monty - Bruce doesn’t owe you squat. If you don’t like this blog for any reason - “post deletions” or anything else you can think of - Simply don’t come here.
It’s called “freedom”.
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 11:15 am - October 16, 2006
Enough of this silliness. Will come back after the neocon defeat Nov. 7th to see what what whiny excuses the pantywaists posit.
Comment by George — October 16, 2006 @ 11:19 am - October 16, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under other names he uses.]
Comment by Frank Felcher — October 16, 2006 @ 11:21 am - October 16, 2006
Kinda like Bush rallies, eh Castrato?
Bruce doesn’t owe me squat. Nor I, him.
It’s called “freedom”??? Yeah….repugs version of freedom. LMAO.
That’s rich. Bwahaha!! Freedom he says. Shut up and sit down. That’s your sick version of freedom alright.
Damn. Your last line is amazingly “telling”.
:)
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 11:23 am - October 16, 2006
I shouldn’t have limited it to “Bush rallies”.
I should have included “Bush speeches to the American people”. He doesn’t seem to know the difference, nor do the repugs.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 11:33 am - October 16, 2006
#14 - #15 - Kewpie, give it up. We know it’s you. Are you really that sad and lonely?
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 11:44 am - October 16, 2006
#15: Look, I can only deal with one “Dear Leader” at a time. I was under the impression that was Bush. If it is now Gay Patriot, then you guys need to let us all know.
Comment by Ian — October 16, 2006 @ 11:56 am - October 16, 2006
Oh, c’mon. You can’t compare ‘all deaths’ to ‘combat deaths’ and pretend that it is a valid comparison. It simply isn’t.
Comment by Cycloptichorn — October 16, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - October 16, 2006
rajIan, you may not, or may, realize FF is punking you. He/she/it *may* be a crazy person, and/or, may be trying to do some kind of bitter satire thing.
Which would be totally up your ally, I know, so knock yourself out with FF if you want.
FF appears under many monikers / sock puppets, the best-known among the old timers probably being QueerPatriot / PussyPatriot.
#17 - Yes, Kewpie. YOU.
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - October 16, 2006
Actually, we should note that IanRaj, in his desperate attempt to smear GayPatriot, left out one line from the alleged “rebuttal” comment:
Or, just compare combat deaths. Interestingly, there was but a single combat death during the Clinton years, or .125 deaths per year.
Let’s see….Black Hawk Down ring a bell, for starters? How about the U.S.S. Cole? Or maybe Khobar Towers? Or how about the U.S.S. Cole?
That, in and of itself, should throw that entire rebuttal into question.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - October 16, 2006
Wow.
Think about all the work that went into programming Powerpoint……just for that graph???
LMAO.
:)
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 12:12 pm - October 16, 2006
I think a more interesting comparison would be to look at the civilian deaths directly attributed to the United States intervention in a military conflict during the two time periods. How many civilian deaths has the Iraq conflict generated now?
Comment by Just A Question — October 16, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - October 16, 2006
Remarkably few, JAQ.
Remember: most civilian deaths in Iraq are perpetrated directly by terrorists seeking to murder civilians. Which is why we’re fighting.
Of the remainder, i.e., civilians killed from combat - Again, the vast majority are killed by terrorists and insurgent force members, not Coalition forces.
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 12:18 pm - October 16, 2006
P.S. Since this is such a fun thread: maybe the interesting question is how many of the above commentors / identities are, in fact, conflicting sockpuppets of a particularly sick, lonely and crazy banned commentor.
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - October 16, 2006
#22: “FF is punking you.”
Noooooo. Really? With a name like “Felcher”, I think “punking” is missing an “s”.
Comment by Ian — October 16, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - October 16, 2006
rajIan, you’d like that.
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 12:32 pm - October 16, 2006
“Remember: most civilian deaths in Iraq are perpetrated directly by terrorists seeking to murder civilians. Which is why we’re fighting.”
Comment by Calarato
———————————–
Oh. THAT’S why we’re fighting in Iraq now?? Terrorists killing their own?? Not tribal fighting that we unleashed or anything like that, eh? Just simply the terrorists again. Eeek.
Kinda like Bushes’ photo jokes about looking for WMD….except: “Yep. Terrorists under my desk!” “Yep. Terrorists everywhere!!”
Thanks for clearing that up.
Damn pesky terrorists.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - October 16, 2006
#18: “Let’s see….Black Hawk Down ring a bell, for starters? How about the U.S.S. Cole? Or maybe Khobar Towers? Or how about the U.S.S. Cole?”
How much effort would it have been for you to simply check the database that is linked by gatewayfundit? Here, I’ll give you a link http://www.murdocnet.net/pics/Death_Rates.pdf
The answers to your questions are there. Even you ought to be able to figure it out and report back. Let me knoiw if you need assistance.
Comment by Ian — October 16, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - October 16, 2006
Why…..thank you FF.
Oh….btw….I see the Grim Reaper is coming up behind you.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - October 16, 2006
No.
Bruce with his Big Old Delete-omatic Button.
Your posts are (no longer) numbered.
:)
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - October 16, 2006
Ah….but Anon1.
The repubs are living in desparate times.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - October 16, 2006
LOL……IanRaj, I know full well what they did — instead of admitting they were combat deaths, they reclassified them as “terrorist attacks”.
By that logic, since the vast majority of our soldiers killed in Iraq have been by “terrorist attack”….you get the point.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - October 16, 2006
monty,
You obviously still haven’t read the 2002 Congressional authorizing resolution for the Iraq war, which listed terrorism - and what was then Saddam’s slaughter of his own people, which his minions have merely continued these last few years - all along.
Really, do look into it. Do try to get a shrivel of knowledge, monty dear, before presuming to argue with the grownups.
And do keep looking into that “freedom” thing as well. You seem to really believe that your opinion of Bruce’s actions matters. It doesn’t, honey. People don’t care about your upset, so leave, if Bruce’s actions are really so heinous.
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - October 16, 2006
I think a more interesting comparison would be to look at the civilian deaths directly attributed to the United States intervention in a military conflict during the two time periods. How many civilian deaths has the Iraq conflict generated now?
I prefer to answer that question as has the blog Iraq the Model (via Gateway Pundit:
Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.
Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.
We believe in what we’re struggling for and we are proud of our sacrifices.
I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime.
No, they would’ve shit their pants the moment they set foot in Iraq and they would find themselves surrounded by the Mukhabarat men counting their breaths. However, maybe they would have the chance to receive a gift from the tyrant in exchange for painting a rosy picture about his rule.
The last paragraph says it all.
When the Democratic puppets admit the full scope of the brutality of Saddam’s regime, then a comparison will be meaningful.
But since they all insist that Iraq was a kite-flying, free paradise ruled over by the benevolent Saddam, that will never happen.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - October 16, 2006
Um, we saw, Fahrenheit 9/11, Anon1, and that’s exactly what was portrayed in it.
Would you like to see numerous examples of Democrats and Democratic leaders praising it as a correct and fair representation?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 16, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - October 16, 2006
The only difference being:
Now they don’t even have a kite to fly??
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - October 16, 2006
Keep on whining there, Castrato.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - October 16, 2006
#37 Yes but when Fahrenheit 9/11 portrayed kite flying idyl no one was meant to believe it was kite flying idyl. Just like when Fahrenheit 9/11 portrayed uncaring golf games no one was meant to believe there were uncaring golf games.
Comment by Synova — October 16, 2006 @ 5:00 pm - October 16, 2006
The chart, interestingly enough, shows more total deaths in 1992 than in 2003. What those deaths are from, I can’t make out, but I think it’s beyond remarkable that the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq plus all other deaths, are *still* less than total deaths by accident and other causes in years past.
But the chart confuses me. During the years that I was active duty and stationed at Clark (as well as before I enlisted) we had hostile deaths to active duty troops in double digits just in the Philippines. I’d like to say 18, but I’m unsure if I was counting in the ambush massacre of a vanload of civilian contractors on their way to Camp John Hay. 13 or 15 seem like conservative guesses. Two soldiers on TDY from Korea were shot in front of a hotel in Angeles City. (An airman I worked with had been there half an hour before… as you can imagine, she was a bit shaken up.)
Those deaths and others that I know happened weren’t domestic or criminal violence, they were attacks specifically on American soldiers by the local version of the People’s Army. In my mind this definately counts as hostile!
So where are they on the chart? Under homicides? They certainly aren’t under terrorist action.
And this is just the Philippines for the few years I was there (most of which was spent on a sort of base lock-down because of the threat.)
Comment by Synova — October 16, 2006 @ 5:22 pm - October 16, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned.]
Comment by Frank Felcher — October 16, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - October 16, 2006
Kewpie, you mean you can’t see the humor in how utterly pathetic and transparent are you / monty / etc.? ROFL
Comment by Calarato — October 16, 2006 @ 5:36 pm - October 16, 2006
Here’s a *great* example of how altering your data makes you look better. Nice graph. I notice that it starts at the number 700, not 0. Therefore, you only show the number 238 against the number 89. which looks a lot better for you side the full number of 938 against 789. In addition, your numbers appear to show military action deaths throughout the entire Clinton administration while we only see the annual death rates in the Iraqi war alone. What if you inlcuded all military deaths in all actions since Bush took the oath of office in 2001? how about including the over 3000 people killed by terrorists on 9/11/2001? Seems to me that should be considered military deaths since they were killed by an enemy of the US on Bush’s watch.
Let’s take all of that into account and let’s make another graph, shall we?
In addition, gateway pundit completely ignores the growning number of people, including past, present, domestic and international military leaders who believe that our presence in Iraq is succeeding only in creating a larger breeding ground for terrorists.
Comment by Kevin — October 16, 2006 @ 6:54 pm - October 16, 2006
Regardless of what our presence in Iraq is doing (and I don’t think it’s creating more terrorists other than in the mind of the faithful who believe without question that “violence breeds violence.”) leaving Iraq to fall would be far far worse. Who could possibly trust us ever again? We have a reputation already of abandoning allies and turning tail when our political wind shifts.
Iraq, herself, should be a liberal cause. Social justice, equality, all those things liberals believe in… Iraq needs those things and we need her to have them. So where are the liberals? Where are the feminists? Why, they’re all preaching failure and retreat, because all those nice things about social justice and all of us human’s being the same inside are just lies. Iraqis can’t understand or adopt democracy, it’s a hopeless cause? Where are the people to point out the inherent racism in this belief that these other people aren’t capable of the freedom we take for granted?
Comment by Synova — October 16, 2006 @ 7:37 pm - October 16, 2006
Isn’t it nice the way the looney left that visits this site attacks the messenger instead of rebutting the post. Impotent rage is an ugly thing.
The numbers don’t lie.
Good post, Bruce.
Comment by Kathy — October 16, 2006 @ 9:01 pm - October 16, 2006
Let me see if i have this right?? 150,000 troops use to secure the peace in a country the size of California with a population of 26,000,000. Heck, NYC has 35,000 cops for a population of 20 or so million, The Rumsfeld doctine supposed even less troops would be needed. while the military asked for at least double that number of troops. The republican guard disappeared and munitons dumps were looted before our troops very eyes because they were understaffed. Heck we couldn’t even guard the Iraqi National Museum. This is war, but there is no draft, no ask for sacrifice except by the men and women of the armed forces and national guard–twice, thrice, four times. The way things are going, WWII will be shown to be accomplished in a shorter time. I’m sorry, but someone is definitely incompetent.
Comment by William — October 16, 2006 @ 9:01 pm - October 16, 2006
Interesting to see the quality of the criticisms to this post. Denial, name calling, more name calling, sound bites, buzz-word terms, name calling etc.
I really like humanity. Our species should be put in a zoo.
Comment by Chuck the Lucky — October 16, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - October 16, 2006
so this is how this thread original source resolved the chart….. This post is highly misleading. You are comparing all deaths in the Clinton years (including accident, sickness, homicide, etc.) to just combat fatalities in Iraq.
If you look at the DoD report you linked to, you will see that the actual comparable numbers show a marked increase since the war began.
For example, the true comparable numbers show that during Clinton’s years, the fatalities from all causes were a high of 1293 in 1992 to a low of 768 in 2000. (Generally, fatalities declined almost every year during the Clinton years due to fewer fatal accidents and illnesses.)
Compared to the 768 deaths due to all causes in Clinton’s last year, the chart shows 1410 in 2003 and 1887 in 2004, both of which are higher than the 938 average number you have calculated for the Clinton years. Presumably 2005 and 2006 are and will also be higher. If you want to be honest and have your chart compare apples to apples, those are the numbers you have to look at.
Or, just compare combat deaths. Interestingly, there was but a single combat death during the Clinton years, or .125 deaths per year. That is the true and accurate figure that should be used to contrast with the average figure you calculated for the Iraq war: .125 vs. 789.
Maybe this comment will exlain the lack of outrage during the Clinton years.
5:36 PM
Syl said…
Maybe this comment will exlain the lack of outrage during the Clinton years.
No. There’s only one thing to explain the lack of outrage during the Clinton years—–Clinton was a Democrat.
Hey–so was I back then. Not anymore–because I got sick and tired of the phony outrage against all things Bush.
6:03 PM
Ardsgaine said…
Aplomb is correct, but it is still eye-opening to see how many deaths were the norm during the the past 24 yrs, even when there was no war being fought. It would be interesting to know the reason for the drastic decline in accidental deaths beginning in 1986.
I don’t think there’s any question, though, that the source of the outrage isn’t the number of US soldier deaths, but the fact that Democrats hate Bush. The casualties are slight compared to any other war we’ve ever fought, and the Democrats had no problem with nation building in Bosnia or Somalia. If it were Al Gore leading us into war, they would feel completely different about it.
6:34 PM
Nahanni said…
aplomb would much prefer the casualties that we suffered on 9/11, after all Al Qaida tried to bring down the WTC back in 1993 and failed. He would much prefer the good ol’days under Clinton where Al Qaida was blowing up our embassies, barracks etc..
He would prefer to watch video of his fellow citizens leaping to their deaths as sacrifices to his great god of LLLism. He is the type of person that if a group of murderous thugs broke into his house would get on his knees begging them to take anything they want as long as they don’t hurt him. He will cower in the corner and watch them rape and kill his wife and children and he would still think that he could talk them out of killing him. The expression the police will find on his dead face will be one of total surprise, that is if he has any face left.
8:01 AM
Frank IBC said…
Interestingly, there was but a single combat death during the Clinton years, or .125 deaths per year.
And I guess “Blackhawk Down” is strictly a work of fiction?
Where on earth did you get that statistic? And who was that unlucky soldier?
9:13 AM
Aplomb said…
“Interestingly, there was but a single combat death during the Clinton years, or .125 deaths per year.
And I guess “Blackhawk Down” is strictly a work of fiction?
Where on earth did you get that statistic? And who was that unlucky soldier?”
I got it from the source cited by Gateway Pundit — the official DoD statistics he supplied a link for. I said so in my comment. Go ahead and click on it. You will see one combat death in Clinton’s eight years, in 1996. No idea who it was, probably someone in the Balkans.
The chart also lists a category for deaths due to terrorist attacks. For the Clinton years, these total 76. In 1993, terrorist attack deaths were 29, presumably the Blackhawk Down incidents in Somalia. Not sure why the DoD considers the Somalia fatalities to be terrorist attack and not combat fatalities, but it is their chart.
You can add the one combat death to this to make 77, divide that by 8, and get 9.625 average annual combat and terrorism-related military deaths if you want.
For some reason, DoD stopped breaking out fatalities due to terrorist attack in 2002 and later, so those are presumably loaded into combat deaths.
So I suppose the fairest comparison of Clinton-era deaths versus Iraq war deaths due to combat and terrorist attack (and not accident, illness, homicide, etc.) would compare Clinton’s 9.265 per year to the 344 in 2003 (the year of invasion), the 737 in 2004, and whatever figures there are in 2005 and will be in 2006 (and 2007, and 2008, etc.)
2:59 PM
jeff said…
It was probably the Army Sergeant First Class who went into Bosnia with the first bunch and died apparently (I haven’t heard anything official on this) attempting to defuse a landmine when he drifted away from his unit at a border crossing.
But yeah, apparently the two Medals of Honor awarded for actions on Oct 3-4, 1993 weren’t combat related. How odd.
Comment by William — October 16, 2006 @ 9:15 pm - October 16, 2006
You must be new here Kathy cause I’m sure that the good folks on GP wouldn’t have any sock puppets lying around. That would be hypocritical now, wouldn’t it.
Yep. Nasty stuff on this blog site….but as they say: “When in Rome………”
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 9:17 pm - October 16, 2006
William, how long would force build up have taken? According to the chart linked at the DOD from Gateway Pundit, active duty numbers in 1990 were 2,046,806 (one was me). By 2000 the number was 1,372,352. The first several years of Clinton’s administration the force reduction was to the tune of 100,000 soldiers a year (one was me).
The problem is, that it takes 10 years to build an NCO. Our military runs on NCO’s. You can’t institute a draft to make up for 600,000 missing people and end up with anything other than 600,000 E-1’s and E-2’s, and what the heck are you going to do with them? Stick em in a tank and point em at the enemy? Gawd, and people think the military should dislike Rummy and his “small force” doctrine.
And is it really Rummy’s doctrine, or is it Clinton’s? Military advisors can say all they like that more troops are needed but unless those troops exist they could as well be asking for bases on the moon. “You go to war with the Army you have” isn’t a callous thing to say, or an insulting thing to say, it’s a true thing to say.
Comment by Synova — October 16, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - October 16, 2006
monty-of-the-lower-case-clan writes: “… I’m sure that the good folks on GP wouldn’t have any sock puppets lying around. That would be hypocritical now, wouldn’t it. Yep. Nasty stuff on this blog site….”
My experience has been that the multiple posting sockpuppets here have all been from your side of the aisle, monty… GayLeftBorg minions carrying their VictimHoodCards, their radical chic DNC Cards, their Blame America First Cards –all held high aloft with Pride.
Hey monty? A personal question for you to answer, unless you want to continue your long standing practice of weaving and dodging and taking hack shots from the cheap seats… why do you keep coming back here if it is so evil, so vile, so nasty as you contend to Kathy?
I think it’s because you share a dysfunction common in the GayLeftBorg… you despise contrary opinions, you seek to discredit and minimalize those who express contrary thoughts to those approved by the GayLeftBorg, you can’t stand continuing to soldier on in the minority for another hopeless 2-4-6-8 years.
If, like a page from your dishonored former president’s playbook, you need a moment to check out the definition of what “nasty” is –go over to the DailyKos, MyDD, BlogActive or half a dozen other whacked radical LeftLiberal Democrat sites and type “But I support President Bush on this issue”… you see what nasty is and it ain’t a Jackson Jackson video or dancestep, monty. But don’t use your “monty” handle… they tend to track down people who dare question the GayLeftBorg’s mindset for the week.
Reduce it all down, monty… your last three months of comments are a joke. Shots from the cheap seats. No flash, no sizzle, no pop; that will be your Party’s downfall in Nov… “Just do No” won’t make you a winner in America.
In France, sure. In Germany, you bet. In Spain, top of the ticket. But here –in America– Just do No ain’t going to get you there even if you hide TeddieK, HarryReid, NancyP, DrDean and BigMouthMurtha.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 16, 2006 @ 9:53 pm - October 16, 2006
Ah….Mish-Mash.
Ya think??
monty
P.S. Mine might be shots from the cheap seats…but they’re honest. Not like the pathological projections coming from your paranoid and twisted reasoning process. Now…please make some more stuff up for our continued amusement. Thanks.
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 10:07 pm - October 16, 2006
Hey Matt, I’m from Michigan too. I’m a Republican by nature. But this necon BS is just that BS. Bill Milliken wrote a letter to the editor of local paper prior to the 2004 election emploring that we not vote for Bush. his words are prophetic now. Our party was infected with evil people who would not stop at anything for power. Look at the legislative record. These people don’t legislate for the good of the country. Heck, pass a “Can’t Kill Horse for Meat For Human Consumption” law, when Social Scurity and Immigration Reform go unlegislated. I for one, am glad to see the house of cards come tumbling down. Hopefully the neoconic scum will be scrubbed out of the party and we will be back on our feet come 2008.
Comment by William — October 16, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - October 16, 2006
Synova. there has been more than enough time in the interim. And besides didn’t General Powell publicly pronounce that we had the force to fight on three fronts. No problem.
Comment by William — October 16, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - October 16, 2006
monty,
You win - the corner of Snide is all yours.
I’d much prefer being a sock puppet than to have a unique identity such as yours with so little exercise of the brain. Your treadmill is running but the hampster is dead, pal.
All you have to do to verify my identity is click on my name. Duh!
Now for the genius who decided that we had to compare combat deaths to combat deaths - let me spell it out for you -
The point is that Clinton’s accidental tour as CIC still cost American soldiers their lives. Comparing the war casualties to peacetime casualties demonstrates the hyperbole of the left caterwalling incessantly about the incompetence of a war that has had the fewest casualty than almost any other. If that’s the best you have to offer in statistical analysis - go back to high school.
I know all you armchair warriors have vast military experience, perhaps war college training that gives you the arrogance to second guess. Applause for your expertise must be deafening.
An interesting statistic to look at with all the accusations of mismanagement is the military vote which goes overwhelmingly Republican.
Blows all your incompetence accusations all to hell.
As to your claim of honesty monty - I believe you. I also think you are stupid. But hey, that’s my honest opinion.
Comment by Kathy — October 16, 2006 @ 10:34 pm - October 16, 2006
Wow. Kathy. No doubt there about your GOP affiliation.
Methinks thou doest protest too much. Did I strike a nerve, hon??
Retiring to my Snide-Away now. LMAO.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 10:44 pm - October 16, 2006
Kath, maybe you never took Stats 401. But then again, it might just be a GED.
Comment by William — October 16, 2006 @ 10:55 pm - October 16, 2006
monty - Yep no doubt about my GOP affiliation - see I knew you could come up with a compliment if you tried really hard. Got that hampster on his feet, did you?
William - You haven’t got an angstrom of an inkling, there pal, I’d respond but your comment is missing something, oh yeah, a point.
Bet you guys can discuss your personal problems all day.
Boring.
Comment by Kathy — October 16, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - October 16, 2006
#55 So call up your Democratic congressperson right now and insist that a mandate to increase the size of the Army is passed as soon as possible. And make sure that you also ask that person to do some public leadership, calling for volunteers to step forward to serve.
As for Powell, if he said we had the force to fight on three fronts, where are they? People who could be rotated to Iraq and Afghanistan go. Airforce security police and Navy combat medics and anyone else take their turns there. But really, the burden falls on the Army and Marines.
We do have resources and are far from helpless if something happens either with Iran or elsewhere in the world but it will be an entirely different sort of fighting because it will be with the armies (namely the Air Force and Navy) that we’ve got. But there really isn’t a larger ground force available, no matter what Powell said, or else where does the “we’re so over-extended” bit liberals are so fond of come from?
And has there been time? Five years? Did you think I was kidding when I said an NCO takes ten? There are pinch points all over the place. To process recruits you need facilities to be built or reactivated. Those facilities need staff. So the choice has to be made to take soldiers out of their units and make them TI’s instead, which takes a different sort of training and time to complete. Could we have done that and increased the size of our Army? Yes, but it’s not a choice without costs and drawbacks. Could we have done it without sacrificing quality in training for quantity? Is it really the best choice?
People, generally people critical of the decisions that were made, act like there’s an obvious right answer and there just isn’t. Even if we had the ability to put several hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground in Iraq in a timely manner would it be the right decision? Those troops would need facilities, and while I’d like to see a US base or two permanently in Iraq the fact is that regular Iraqis don’t like that idea at all (and I’m aware of no liberals who want us there permanently either). Am I to believe that there wouldn’t be a downside to building facilities to support a hugely larger US presence in Iraq?
In 2004 Kerry talked about increasing the size of our special forces. From the milblogs I read, which includes a fair number of former special forces soldiers, the idea was a nice pipe dream. Those soldiers have to come from somewhere and men with the desire for that life already apply. The vast majority of them do not make it. Where are these extra SF soldiers going to come from? Make it easier to make it through BUD’S?
Waving a magic wand won’t work.
Comment by Synova — October 16, 2006 @ 11:32 pm - October 16, 2006
Now….there goes a lovely girl.
monty
Comment by monty — October 16, 2006 @ 11:46 pm - October 16, 2006
Hey Synova, I served in the army during the Vietnam Conflict. You know nothing.
Comment by William — October 17, 2006 @ 12:22 am - October 17, 2006
Bruce, have you totally lost it?
Comment by paul holzapfel — October 17, 2006 @ 12:26 am - October 17, 2006
#62 Right. And we all know this is exactly like Vietnam. I guess since the draft worked so well there we should do it again.
Comment by Synova — October 17, 2006 @ 12:28 am - October 17, 2006
50,000 good guys got slaughtered for what? Your phrenetic delusions? War is a necessary evil now and again. Iraq isn’t.
Comment by William — October 17, 2006 @ 12:32 am - October 17, 2006
And the reason it isn’t, isn’t because it wasn’t a good idea. The reason it is not is because the where with all was missing.
Comment by William — October 17, 2006 @ 12:37 am - October 17, 2006
let me puncuate this. lol. And the reason it isn’t, isn’t because it wasn’t a good idea. The reason, it is not, is because the where with all was missing.
Comment by William — October 17, 2006 @ 12:43 am - October 17, 2006
If I was a politician, this would be my plan for Iraq.
The United States needs to split Iraq into three seperate countries, so as to dillute each one of their power, should they elect a hostile government. We need to then put permanent military bases in Kuridstan, which is secure and where we’d be welcome. In so doing, we’d still be able to influence the region, all the white letting the southern two halves fight it out amongst themselves. Then from our position in the north, we could supply arms and air support to the pro-American forces fighting in the two new southern countries. However, our ground forces would be limited to providing security to the new nation of Kurdistan.
Comment by Chase — October 17, 2006 @ 12:44 am - October 17, 2006
So let me get this str8….liberals beleive that soldiers being murdered by terrorists is o.k,but if soldiers die fighting terrorists it’s shamefull!?I run into this anarchist logic every time I go to the gay bar.When I was just another pretty face I was more than welcome,but since I’ve outed myself as a loyal and honorable gay man i’m what they call a “Gay Fascist”.Ohh….I almost forgot the obligatory “self loathing” coments.You would assume that after insulting my intelligence,denigrating my character and throwing around the same tired old labels that these paragons of gaydom would refuse to have anything further to do with me,right……wrong!I’m still pretty so after insulting me they try to bed me.I can’t help but wonder if things would be the same if I were 20 years older and 20lbs overweight.
I wonder how it is that people who clamor for tolerance for themselves can be so intolerant of others.Now whose the “Gay Fascist”
Comment by L.C. Sula — October 17, 2006 @ 1:21 am - October 17, 2006
Monty’s pissed because we have a president who actually has the balls to deal with the terrorists instead of ignoring them for fun and profit.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 17, 2006 @ 2:17 am - October 17, 2006
Clinton’s combat deaths vs. Bush’s combat deaths vary because CLINTON DID NOT FIGHT THE TERRORISTS!
Comment by Ed of Tampa — October 17, 2006 @ 4:11 am - October 17, 2006
Say, where are those 400,000 cleansed Albanians anyway?
Pesky dead folks won’t lie still to be accounted for BJ’s adventures. Go to war. Go directly to war. Do not listen to Congress and sidestep the UN. Collect no legacy in the process.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 17, 2006 @ 4:27 am - October 17, 2006
70: That’s right - we’re going after terrorists for fun and profit. how much are companies like Halliburton making in profit, overcharging, etc on thsi war?
Comment by Kevin — October 17, 2006 @ 7:20 am - October 17, 2006
monty, I think Kathy took care of your projections and silliness: you’ve got the market cornered on snide… all to yourself (well, except for a few other lower case clanners who pop off every so often)
The answer to the question of why you keep returning if things here, as you advised above, are “so nasty”… I think it’s your penchant for snide, snickering, valueless taunts… kind of like the 5 yr old girls on the playground doing jump rope… snarky remarks don’t enlighten debate, they just degrade it monty ol’ boi.
Hmmm, monty? Try to grapple with that GayLeftBorg dysfunction that keeps you tied to the radical DemocratLeft on the Liberal Plantation… it’s relatively easy to break out. I know your practice here is to flame, spin, weave and dodge like a… like a… hyped-up hamster on a wheel.
But try to answer without the usual nonsense. It’s an easy question even for you. If it’s so nasty, what compels you to keep coming back?
Hey William, you sound a lot more like the unionhall goons than a moderate GOPer to me… and I’ve know both groups fairly well. Bill Milliken is, in short, quite a good gentleman that ran our State and the Party into the ground. Bad economics, bad public public policy, poor administration of scarce state resources, he squandered a liberal GOP legacy in Michigan by using the Party as his personal dumping ground for state govt misfits and illcontents. Yeah, you go ahead and cheerlead for Milliken all you want –the unionhall goons and abortionists drag him or his lovely wife Helen out whenever it suits those groups to divide the debate. If he’s your model of salvation, you need to practice putting out flames in Hell.
Kindly man, but he was the worst thing this State ever had to endure… except Soapy Williams, Dick Austin, or Frank Kelly. Yeah, they were a lot worse. But Bill Milliken is right up there with those kooks.
Neocons in the Michigan GOP? Oh give it a rest! The bulk of the people in the Party are fiscal conservatives and tax/budget policy drives them far more than neocon issues.
BTW, William, for $50 can you name the first dozen neocons who popped up on the natl political scene –that group you so despise? Here’s a clue: they were all Democrats. Hmmm, imagine that?
Michigan GOP controlled by neocons? Good God, man, put down the tin foil hat or get better reception.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 17, 2006 @ 9:09 am - October 17, 2006
Ummm… Sorry guys, but I hope you are considering if you are continuing to be punked by Kewpie sockpuppets.
It’s Kewpie’s M.O. He/she/it seems determined to deride gay Republicans (of which I am NOT one, by the way, but he never does catch on to that). When sockpuppet A fails, Kewpie will switch (often in the same thread) to B. Perhaps a certain rageful or “digging deeper” psychology could be involved? as in, a “They think they’re so smart; I’ll get them with sockpuppets no matter what” type of thinking?
The newly minted characters are often “moderate Republicans” (as F.F. tried to be, earlier in this thread in some posts Bruce deleted). The character also usually has a military connection, perhaps for imagined credibility. “I served; did you?” is a typical theme. But I remember another time when the new character was a dead soldier mother. This was at the height of Momma Moonbat’s 15 minutes. Kewpie posted a lengthy faux exchange between them (the public Q.P., i.e., QueerPatriot, and the newly invented mom), where Kewpie was the only one who would offer sympathy for the mom’s poor grief over her son, in contrast to all us NASTY nasty G.P. rubes who were so HATEFUL that we had immediately seen through the ruse.
Perhaps hoping to establish credibility, a new Kewpie character will also often try to say what Kewpie thinks are “Republican” things to say. Or will express agreement with something Bruce or Dan said.
Anyway - just think about it.
As for monty: That character is kind of like that Muslim street protestor who says “You’re all so nasty and violent, I have to overturn your cars and rape your nuns to show you.” In other words: The source of nastiness here is monty, but to intimidate (morally) and deflect criticism and to have further occasion to be snide, monty accuses others.
Comment by Calarato — October 17, 2006 @ 11:07 am - October 17, 2006
Thanks for the lesson in outing a sockpuppet troll, Calarato.
We got rid of one of ‘em recently… raj, the general-of-the-lower-case-clan. The pesky little puppets breed like gerbils inside Richard Gere.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 17, 2006 @ 12:49 pm - October 17, 2006
Ah…..come on guys.
All I’m doing is saving eveyone some time.
Usually, any reasoned debate is immediately attacked by you insecure repugs with name calling, snide remarks, strawmen, etc…. You all jump anyone who might disrupt your fantasy world by joining forces like a group of hyenas. Might as well be sockpuppets the way you all “group think” from the GOP talking points memos.
:)
I’ve learned that reasoning with you and trying to play nice is a total waste of time.
You guys just get pissed when you try and set someone up for a fall and they don’t “bite”. “Oh, Karl, Karl! What do we do now??. They want to debate fair points and facts. What do we do now?? We are lost. Help us!!”
So….you see….I just “cut to the chase” and save everyone the foolish notion of possibly having any bipartisan discussion. I might just be saving you guys from Hell by you not having to tell more lies upon more lies in order to demonize the Dems with all those pathological, ridiculous and obsurd (over the top) remarks like “Dems eat babies…” etc…
So….I trust you get the idea without me needing to waste anymore time explaining that which needs no explaination.
No need to thank me. Have a nice day.
monty
Comment by monty — October 17, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - October 17, 2006
BTW…Mish-Mash.
Nice homophobic remark about Richard Gere and gerbils. It is so…..YOU.
monty
Comment by monty — October 17, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - October 17, 2006
Another complete misrepresentation of reality by rightwingers. That is really unconscionable. Read the comments on the sourced link for starters.
Bravo to GatewayPundit indeed.
Comment by JonathanG — October 17, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - October 17, 2006
Oh, please. There is no truth to the Richard Gere urban legend.
For those of you who haven’t had your fill of rodents, rectums and Richard Gere, do visit the Gerbilling department of the AFU & Urban Legends Archive, where a crack team of urban legend experts labors ceaselessly to dislodge the truth for you:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/celebrities/a/richard_gere.htm
And anyone who was offended by M-Matt’s statement needs a humor transplant. If we as gays can’t laugh about being gay, what’s the point? Sheesh.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 17, 2006 @ 4:18 pm - October 17, 2006
Observed…
(Dan, why do you post along side that idiot?)…
…
Trackback by JodyWheeler.Com / Naked Writing — October 17, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - October 17, 2006
And anyone who was offended by M-Matt’s statement needs a humor transplant. If we as gays can’t laugh about being gay, what’s the point? Sheesh.
Regards,
Peter H.
____________________________________-
This little paragraph from your linky proves my point:
“If you ask me, these whispered accusations about gays and gerbils are purely homophobic in origin. The Internet, to name just one arena of popular culture, is rife with such whispers, always supplemented with comments to the effect of, “Believe it or not, homos really do this sort of thing!”
I do suggest reading that link from Peter H. and see if you are laughing after that.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/celebrities/a/richard_gere.htm
I, also, really laugh my ass off when gays are said to be pedophiles. HaHaHa. Such good humor, everyone can laugh together, eh??
Make your straight friends think you’re a neat queer. Telll that gerbils joke at the water fountains. They will then think what a nifty, almost straight “regular guy” you are.
With friends like Mish-Mash….gays need no other enemies.
BTW Peter H.
Didn’t you get the memo from VtK that you’re a complete and utter idiot for signing your name at the end of your post??
monty
Comment by monty — October 17, 2006 @ 10:17 pm - October 17, 2006
Read the comments on the sourced link for starters.
BS is still BS, even in the comments you referenced.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 18, 2006 @ 12:42 am - October 18, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned.]
Comment by Frank Felcher — October 18, 2006 @ 9:21 am - October 18, 2006
Hey monty, even if you are a sockpuppet of one of the other GayLeftBorggies who comment here, you can still answer the question: If this place is so “nasty”, why do you keep coming back –again and again?
Frankly, you can take Frank and the other sockpuppet incarnations and go hang at the DailyKos –it suits you better.
I think that group appreciates snide and snarky snippets far more than we do here. You’re just tedious without a purpose.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 10:21 am - October 18, 2006
LOL
the ‘monty’ personality thrives on filth, Matt. His own. He’s the 4-year-old who goes to your house, smears his poo on your walls, then screams “You’ve got poo on your walls! You’ve got poo on your walls!”
Comment by Calarato — October 18, 2006 @ 10:28 am - October 18, 2006
monty, if you’re going to be the corner-guy on snide and snarky, you need to get a little thicker skinned… that or put the gerbil back in its cage.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 10:33 am - October 18, 2006
This whole post and the rightist’s comments are snarky.
In a month that is one of the bloodiest months in Iraq, and when the leader of the coalition forces in Afghanistan issues a dire prediction, GP and his rightists cronies knowingly throw out misleading information about troop deaths,
Then you make jokes about: “making the resident moonbats foam and froth for our amusement”
With such callous snarkiness and a clear disdain for facts, its no wonder you rightists are losing two wars in the past 5 years….lets hope the democrats can get our country out of your mess….
Comment by keogh — October 18, 2006 @ 11:22 am - October 18, 2006
As far as “monty” goes, I will repeat the same response I give to other sockpuppets on this blog - I refuse to fight a battle of wits with an unarmed commentator.
And speaking of witless sockpuppet commentators, looks like 401(k) in #88 has been pulling another Joe Biden plagiarism. How can I tell? Easy - there are no typos, incorrect grammar/punctuation usage and it actually makes halfway sense.
And if you don’t like my signature, you can kiss my macaca.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 18, 2006 @ 11:29 am - October 18, 2006
Libs are so fond of the theory of evolution, it seems to me that they are looking to weaken the resolve of America to defend herself. Should we allow that to happen, I’m not so sure we don’t deserve to be destroyed, you know, survival of the fittest and all. A living thing that has no defenses will not perpetuate.
It’s amazing to me, as well, that libs choose to overlook that fact that the success of terrorism throughout the world will only serve to endanger their lives, as they would absolutely be the firsts to be beheaded under an Islamic regime. (Notice I didn’t say “RADICAL Islamists Regime”)
Comment by michelle — October 18, 2006 @ 11:31 am - October 18, 2006
“Libs are so fond of the theory of evolution”
I didn’t know evolution was a partisan issue….leave it to a rightist to make it one!
Comment by keogh — October 18, 2006 @ 12:09 pm - October 18, 2006
Mish-Mash and Castrato,
Just think of me as Mike Rowe on the TV series Dirty Jobs.
I’m hear to show everyone how nasty, unpleasant, vile, stinking, fettid and totally disgusting a shit hole can be.
monty
P.S. Peter H.
Take it up with VtK. He said it, not me. Oohhh, BTW….love that macaca retort. True brilliance.
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - October 18, 2006
Geez, michelle (of the lower case clan) as this bunch would call you:
I, for one, just can’t wait for Dems to take over so we can hurry up, send up a flag of surrender, and let the terrorists take over our country and start beheading each and everyone of us.
Yep. Just can’t argue with such undeniable logic as that now, can we.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - October 18, 2006
monty, to repeat an oft-written phrase here and elsewhere, “you’ve become tedious without purpose”. You should go back to the DailyKos and OutSports trolls –they suit you better. Thanks.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - October 18, 2006
Methinks monty may be rajiansockpuppet in drag…
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 18, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - October 18, 2006
Methinks Peter H. is like the guy in the gym who picks up everyones jock straps and dirty clothes while the guys on the team snicker at him. He hasn’t the talent to play so this is about as close as he can get to seeming “important”.
Don’t let anyone catch you sniffing their jocks there PH. Oooops! Too late.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 1:29 pm - October 18, 2006
Peter, you just found a new game… it’s called SockPuppet Bingo. Bingo it is. I recall raj used that mish-mash smear in the past. Wow, the GayLeftBorg is uncovered once again.
I think, gauged by the reaction of monty-old-boi, you caught another masquerade incarnation! Hey monty or raj/Ian, “sockpuppets of the world unite!”
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 1:35 pm - October 18, 2006
LMAO.
You guys are SOooooo predictable.
:)
But….if that’s all ya got….run with it. Makes me no never mind.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - October 18, 2006
Well then, at least monty isn’t the other sockpuppet-master Kewpie! We must be grateful for the small favors.
And it explains why monty and Kewpie (F.F. and other identities) were giving each other public hand jobs here. They sincerely “admire” each other’s technique in spreading around their feces, degrading the thread and the other people, etc.
Comment by Calarato — October 18, 2006 @ 2:25 pm - October 18, 2006
The truth stings a bit more than you thought, eh old-monty-boi? Snide, snarky trolls always indict themselves, raj. Guys like you can’t help it. I think it was inadvertantly using the “mish-mash” smear that alerted the others.
Time for some atonement, sockpuppet.
BTW, raj, DanielFtL is in the clear. He’s proven he’s sincere in the discussions here and I, for one, have learned from his perspective. But if it helps you to grab onto someone for cover, you do whatever you need to do to keep up the facade.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 2:27 pm - October 18, 2006
What is it with you and feces, Castrato??
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - October 18, 2006
If anything, the use of Mish-Mash wasn’t “inadvertent”.
You guys having fun yet?? I know I am.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - October 18, 2006
Forget it, monty old girl. Nobody’s paying attention to you now. And your snide remarks of other people’s “importance” reeks of self-loathing and penis envy, considering how UNIMPORTANT you are to us on this board.
Match, set, game. You lose. Now go pick up those socks and jocks.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 18, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - October 18, 2006
LOL.
Can’t even be original, eh Ankle Biter? Oh…I get it….Penis envy from PETER HUGHes. Ha. Good one.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 6:28 pm - October 18, 2006
Mish-Mash and other lackies,
I think people are smarter than that and can see how desperate you all have become. Say anything to bring down your opposition, at any and all costs. Use your own soul for collateral, even. Make up stuff as you go along, etc…..
This whole exercise has been so totally enlightning. I’m sure your ethics professor, not to mention your children and partner are so very proud of you for being the stand up and honest guy you think you are.
:)
You all haven’t even got the guts to go “one on one”. Just shows what basic cowards you all are and why you all scattered so quickly when the Foley thing broke. So typical of cowards…….and you prove that much better than I ever could.
You may succeed in drowning me out, at times, but I’m not going anywhere.
:)
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - October 18, 2006
#101 - Why, nothing. I’ve never used them in any comment before. Until today. NOT ONCE. Ever!
What’s going on is: I suddenly realized what, in fact, you are up to. I simply stumbled across the perfect description of your basic M.O.
The shoe fits you perfectly, monty - so do wear it. I hope that satisfies your curiousity. Bye for this thread!
Comment by Calarato — October 18, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - October 18, 2006
Bye. Castrato.
And…BTW….here’s some toilet paper as a prize for “runner up”.
Have fun finding uses for