63,000 - Yes, That's Some Number

It's unfortunate that one might predict an almost celebratory tone in announcements from the media and the Left that US deaths in Iraq have reached 3,000. I had to search around to find a news story that actually named the individual.

Spc. Dustin R. Donica, 22, of Spring, Texas, was killed Thursday by small arms fire in Baghdad, the Defense Department said. Donica was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division.

While neither the media nor the Left will pause to take note, there are a few other numbers we can justifiably project for ourselves on this New Year's Eve, Dec. 31, 2006.

An estimated 16,692 persons were murdered nationwide in 2005, an increase of 3.4 percent from the 2004 figure.

Murder comprised 1.2 percent of the overall estimated number of violent crimes in 2005. (Based on Table 1.)

There were an estimated 5.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants.

Based upon the 2005 figures, approximately 46 Americans are killed within our borders every day. The Iraq War officially began on March 20, 2003 - approximately 1,375 days ago. Consequently, one can project that well over 63,000 Americans have died at the hands of other Americans since the beginning of the war.

It might do a person some good to think that our media and our Left cared just that much more about the 3,000 military deaths over the same period because they were proud members of our military ... serving our country with courage, dignity and honor. Unfortunately, given that both the media and the Left seem so quick to ignore the more than 63,000 civilian deaths which have occurred during the same time period, I don't know that I will take much comfort from what will likely be their over-coverage of this particular milestone in the Iraq War.

Comments

[ede]

Its just sad that 3000 MORE Americans died.The sad thing is that the RIGHT WING still thinks it was a good idea to invade Iraq.So 3000 folks die on 9/11 and we attack a country that had nothing to do with it!Hussein could have been controlled like Muammar al-Gaddafi.He could have been bought and was no threat.Now you have a humanitarian disaster with ethnic cleansing and no end in sight.3000 is just the beginning.The number will continue to rise.Its so sad and the RIGHT WING still will not admit it was a BAD idea.Just admit it.You f****d up big time.Bush is a disaster and a war criminal and has caused chaos in the region.In my opinion he deserves was Hussein got yesterday.Seriously.He destroyed a country and for what?Oil profits for his golfing buddies.Democrats are also to blame for not saying anything while this maniac decided this was a good idea.Brilliant!!!Lets attack Iran also!!!

[Darth Malice]

Iraq and Afganistan are part of the long war.3000 is a lot ,but it is only the start.Bush has at least begun the counter-attack.

[Purple Avenger]

"Its just sad that 3000 MORE Americans died."

Well about 500 of those would have happened anyway. You do realize that right?

[Darth Malice]

Purple liberals think only the best about our true enemies.It's like blaming the rape victim for the rape.That's what they do.

[Rhod]

I guess Ede is psychic. All liberals are, when they contend that Iraq was in permanent stasis, the No Fly Zones and Oil For Kofi were in place forever, and that 250,000 troops (among other things) were a permanent deterrent to the anarchy masquerading as tyranny in Iraq. All lefties seem to think we're living in a permanent present tense.

[ede]

Yes.All liberals are evil America Hating cowards.The only true Americans are the Republican bible thumping war mongers.All republicans know how to do is borrow money and start wars they can not finish.This war was a mistake and no republicans will admit it because they are just too proud.

[docweasel]

Well, comparing it to murders is apples and oranges, I think. A more suitable comparison is with other wars, just as those moonbats screaming about "we've been in Iraq longer than WWII lasted!" is bullshit.

We ended up staying in Germany and Japan for 60+ years, in fact we are still there. And making a democracy where none existed, in a very violent land, may take a little while, and many deaths, yes.

That doesn't make it not worth doing, just as 150k+ American deaths were probably "worth" ending slavery and uniting our country.

The thing is, I've yet to hear a moonbat (or a D3morcrat, besides Lieberman) come up with an alternative. Ok, we pull out. Then what? What happens when Al Qaeda or whoever sets up shop in Iraq? And then starts using the base to launch terrorist attacks against the US? Or threatens the oil production, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia, or the Arabian Gulf? What then?

They never say. They just say "iraq war bad bush is a bad man and he looks like a chimp and bush lied" etc.

Happy New Year.

[Phoenix]

The true Americans are those who do not define themselves by political affiliation. Neither party has much to be proud of these days, and it takes character to detach and view both sides with a jaded eye. But for screaming and lumping and whining and lack of foresight, it takes a liberal.

You are a fine example, ede. "The only true Americans are the Republican bible thumping war mongers." ... Yeah. Right. You should be embarrassed at that fine misrepresentation based on pure thoughtlessness.

By the way, approximately 44,000 Americans are killed each year in car accidents; fifty-percent involve alcohol. Perspective is always good.

Damn Bush. He shoulda banned cars and alcohol.

[Darth Malice]

Happy New Year to all......Have hope for 2007!

[Phoenix]

Happy New Year to all.

Darth - Yes. Hope for 2007!

[Purple Avenger]

"Yes.All liberals are evil America Hating cowards."

Pretty much, with a very few exceptions.

[Dan Riehl]

"All liberals are evil America Hating cowards."

Actually, they don't, but it's worse than that. Liberals don't hate "America," they hate the value systems,traditions, morals and institutions that have made America what it is and demonstrate that for which she stands. What makes it worse, is not that they hate "America," but that they seek to change what she is.

[Kathy]

Docweasel, comparing the U.S. occupation of Iraq to Germany and Japan is apples and oranges, too. And yes, opponents of this war DO respond to questions from war supporters; war supporters simply do not listen.

And Darth Malice, in what way is an American being killed in Iraq comparable to a rape victim being blamed for being raped?

[Kathy]

"Actually, they don't, but it's worse than that. Liberals don't hate "America," they hate the value systems,traditions, morals and institutions that have made America what it is and demonstrate that for which she stands. What makes it worse, is not that they hate "America," but that they seek to change what she is."

Actually no, Dan; that's conservatives of your ilk who do that. It's conservatives like the ones you write for who want to shred the Constitution and use it for toilet paper. You are the ones who want to throw out habeus corpus, allow the government to spy on Americans without search warrants, and set up "military tribunals" to give suspected terrorists "trials" in kangaroo courts with no legal rights.

All of you who support these policies have been dancing with the devil since 9/11, convinced you would change him -- but the devil has changed you, instead. None of the things you support in connected with the so-called "war on terror" are even remotely connected to traditional American values or traditions.

[Purple Avenger]

"None of the things you support in connected with the so-called "war on terror" are even remotely connected to traditional American values or traditions."

Oh my, Kathy needs to read up on FDR's concentration camps and some of the stuff Lincoln did during the civil war.

[Dan Riehl]

"It's conservatives like the ones you write for who want to shred the Constitution"

No, many of us simply want to shred the ridiculous de facto, non-democratic additions to it undertaken by Liberal courts over the years without a single vote by the poeple.

[Naz]

Well Dan, I've counted the number of times that the MSM has cited the number of military deaths, and the number almost eclipses the death numbers from world war 2

[Kathy]

"Oh my, Kathy needs to read up on FDR's concentration camps and some of the stuff Lincoln did during the civil war."

Do you believe that FDR's concentration camps (which are heartily approved of still today, by your crowd, you know) represent American traditions and values? Oops. I guess I answered my own question. You do. But I don't.

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was also, in my view, indefensible and cast a dark shadow on the Constitution and on historic American values. Also, as David Greenberg pointed out in a Slate article, it did not significantly enhance national security or make the Union victory come faster. Thousands of people who had done nothing wrong were arrested without charges and were not given the fair or speedy trials they should have gotten.

I do not, however, agree that Lincoln's actions during the Civil War are anywhere near as heinous as FDR's actions during WWII. There is no reasonable argument that can be made in defense of having interned Japanese-Americans -- although of course that doesn't stop throwbacks like Michelle Malkin from trying to make them.

[Kathy]

And to Dan:

I take it, then, that you consider the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution to be "ridiculous de facto, non-democratic additions to it undertaken by Liberal courts over the years without a single vote by the poeple."

[Dan Riehl]

"the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment"

Given that they are amendments, that would be impossible. What is not in the constitution is that we own those rights to every citizen of every nation in the world, or that they are inviolate when dealing with defined enemies of the state who seek our destruction. I suspect you hold many strong beliefs but would not attempt to uphold them in strictest form when to do so would amount to suicide. The nation is not obliged to undertake that folly, either.

[Phoenix]

"None of the things you support in connected with the so-called "war on terror" are even remotely connected to traditional American values or traditions."

Kathy,

Could you expand on this without delving back into history more than, say, ten years? That is, explain just how it is we are not 'connected' to traditional American values or traditions.

[Kathy]

"What is not in the constitution is that we own those rights to every citizen of every nation in the world, or that they are inviolate when dealing with defined enemies of the state who seek our destruction."

My, my. That is a loophole you could drive a Mack truck through, isn't it? "Defined enemies of the state" could be literally anyohe, including a U.S. citizen (and has been, hence Jose Padilla being stripped of all legal rights). Who does the defining? And using what standards?

Moreover, I don't agree with your implication that the basic legal and human rights protections of the U.S. Constitution are like pool privileges at the local country club. The rights guaranteed in the Constitution do not derive from citizenship; they derive from natural human rights inherent in being human.

And I might also add that we have not been faced with any situation in which charging a prisoner with a specific crime, or allowing him to consult an attorney, or showing him or his lawyer the evidence against him, would amount to suicide.

[Kathy]

"Could you expand on this without delving back into history more than, say, ten years? That is, explain just how it is we are not 'connected' to traditional American values or traditions."

The values I have always understood to be peculiarly American are such as religious pluralism and religious freedom. The idea that religion is private and not the province of the state is also a historical, traditional value. The idea of personal freedom, liberty -- that a person should be able to live their lives the way they see fit (as long as they are not breaking the law of course) without government interference; the idea that government has no business interfering in or attempting to dictate personal morals or private, individuals moral or ethical beliefs (again, within the iimits of statutory law). The concept of personal, individual privacy is a traditional value. Obviously, modern technology has challenged traditional concepts of privacy, but even given that reality, government has no right to run surveillance operations on Americans, in the absence of probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or is about to be, and without a search warrant. I should not have to worry that, or even wonder if, the federal government is ordering my local librarian to provide them with lists of all the books I checked out in the last six months or year -- and forbid the librarian from telling me that the request was made.

Americans should not have to worry -- no, no one should have to worry -- that they will be arrested in the middle of the night and detained indefinitely without charges. And that could happen, in Bush's America, to any one of us. If you believe it only happens to terrorists or people who have done something wrong, you are mistaken, and are very naive. Dangerously naive.

I hope the above answers your question, at least in part.

[docweasel]

Kathy, war is a dirty business. As someone once said, its hard men doing a dirty job so you can sit on your chubby, spotty behind typing comments reviling them (ok, I paraphrased).

Also, so libruls can sit behind their moniters stuffing their faces with Chee-tos while they cheap-shot anyone who supports the war but doesn't fight in it as a chicken-hawk (as if they don't rail about US aid to poor and AIDs infested countries, but I don't see them joining the Peace Corps or manning an AIDS clinic in Biafra).

Why? Because its a stupid formulation. There are thousands of things I support, and dangerous jobs that I, and libruls, need done, like police protection, firemen to put out fires, workers on oil rigs, stuntmen for our Tee-Vee & movie entertainment, etc., its impossible and irrational I should have to actively _do_ all those things because I support the concepts.

I've yet to read a librul with an alternative to actually FIGHTING the Islamofascists, to use an un-PC term. How exactly do you propose we stop their terrorizing, manipulating and subverting of Western civilization?

More diplomacy, I guess, that worked out so well for Clinton (and the country).

[Bill Faith]

Moonbat 1: Bummer 'bout Saddam, man.

Moonbat 2: Yeah, man, bummer.

MB1: Helluva guy. Shoulda just let him keep all that oil.

MB2: Yeah. Helluva guy. Bummer. Oughta hang Bush.

MB3 (rushing in): Grim milestone! Grim milestone! Number 3000! Party time!

MB1: Like, 3000 what, dude?

MB3: 3000 soldiers killed in Iraq! It's party time! ...

[Phoenix]

Hmmm. Is "All's fair in love and war." a traditional American value? Seems the first part is, anyway. As for the second part, war, seems we have some disagreement as to what is fair. I'll make a point here and then fiddle around with some thoughts.

This war isn't against an army that this country is familiar with or has ever been familiar with. It is global enemy that has no boundaries and no goal other than to kill us. It doesn't seek our riches. It seeks our souls, and if killing us means such, so be it. And American values insist we entertain ROE that work fine for 'civilized' opposition armies. But this new enemy is not that. So... different measures must be taken to adapt to this enemy.

The end to that part. So, liberals drop in and yell and cavil and call people here assholes and morons and talk about what a chimpanzee our president is, forgetting that his major job description is protecting this country. Everyone hates us so we don't get a lot of support from other nations for whom we've kept on their feet over the years. Nice betrayal there. Now the betrayal comes from within. Commenters drop in and lose control and say the most hideous, ignorant things, and yet, not one has ever been able to figure out how to fix the problem of an enemy that is guided by a hijacked religion bent on our annihilation. If someone challenges them, they go back in time and cough up history - as if that history is relevant today. In the past, the enemy took days to get here - if they dared try, and they had uniforms on. Nowadays, the enemy could be your next-door neighbor.

So, go check my library records. It's the least I can do not to grip about it as I sit here and enjoy life and think about the soldiers over there fighting so I can keep on enjoying this life. I can give up my library rights. Just don't put me in a burka and make me some disgusting pig's chattel. I'll even give up a few more rights if asked. It's the least I can do. Worried about being arrested in the night? For what? Being a bitch?

One last thing in this simplistic commentary: Quit blaming people. Ask yourself where that gets you. Nowhere. If you hate America - fucking leave. Your outrage is smoke on the water.

[Steel]

..."Defined enemies of the state" could be literally anyone, including a U.S. citizen...

Is that a problem, Kathy, or do you not recognize treason as a crime?

Or sedition.

Or espionage.

Perhaps you are too close to the subject to be objective.

[yot]

3,000 soldiers works out to about 3% of the total number of soldiers (about 100,000) in Iraq.

That is equivalent to over 9 million Americans getting murdered.

[Phoenix]

Yo, Yot. Your point?

Keep it real, dude.

[Sgt.York]

Neo-con puzzy who never served in the military sez: "More people die of murders in American every year... so 3000 soldiers killed in Iraq and 8000 soldiers horribly mangled for life is no big deal."

F-you, you chicken-shit azz-hole.
Just f-you, you little worm.
====================================

[larry]

heh heh heh. THIS is what the shit-for-brains idiot leftists mean when they claim intellectual superiority?

[Kathy]

"How exactly do you propose we stop their terrorizing, manipulating and subverting of Western civilization?"

Your underlying assumption is false. That's a huge part of the problem.

>

I think you do yourself a terrible disservice when you respond in this manner to points of view about the war you disagree with. I don't believe that you represent most conservatives who support the war; I don't believe you represent most U.S. troops who are fighting in the war. Moreover, I *know* you don't represent most Americans, because the majority of Americans (a majority that gets bigger with every poll) disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, think the war was a mistake, that it's making America less, not more, secure, and that Pres. Bush should bring the troops home now.

[Kathy]

Ooops. I see this software does not support brackets. I'll repost that:

I WROTE: "..."Defined enemies of the state" could be literally anyone, including a U.S. citizen...

STEEL REPLIED: Is that a problem, Kathy, or do you not recognize treason as a crime?

Or sedition.

Or espionage.

Perhaps you are too close to the subject to be objective."

MY RESPONSE: I think you do yourself a terrible disservice when you respond in this manner to points of view about the war you disagree with. I don't believe that you represent most conservatives who support the war; I don't believe you represent most U.S. troops who are fighting in the war. Moreover, I *know* you don't represent most Americans, because the majority of Americans (a majority that gets bigger with every poll) disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, think the war was a mistake, that it's making America less, not more, secure, and that Pres. Bush should bring the troops home now.

[jonrog1]

Uh, no, that's just undifferentiated rage. One might argue justifiable. but just rage. Like "shit-for-brains idiot leftists" is grade-school name-calling. And using grade-school name-calling to call into question someone else's intellect ... well, if that ain't irony, I don't know what is.

Rage aside, this sort of ridiculous statistical equivalence shows both innumeracy and immorality. Riehl isn't using the comparable x/100,000 form, as accepted by, well, anyone who understands statistics -- as Yot does -- because it undermines his argument. The number Riehl cites is, in every possible way, meaningless as a comparison. He either doesn't understand statistics 101, in which case he shouldn't be trying to use numbers to make his point; or he's intentionally distorting the meaning of that comparison, in which case he's bogglingly amoral. If you'd like to actually grind through some numbers in a statistically significant manner, I did so a little earlier here.

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/11/murder-rate-in-baghdad.html

Math aside, let me appeal to your sense of fairness. I have the feeling that if I argued because roughly 63,300 Americans died of murder in say, 2001, that the 3,000 dead in 9/11 are not significant, that Riehl would chew my head off -- and rightfully so, as it's a completely bullshit comparison. But he makes the exact same argument in the other direction, and you fall all over yourselves. Isn't that just a little embarrassing?

Feel free to scram "leftist" at me now. I know, I know, it's forever 1968 for you people. Anyone who disagrees with you are socialists, leftists, fucking hippies, just like Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell and the other fucking moonbats. You should come join us in the 21st Century. There's HDTV . It's cool.

[Purple Avenger]

"which are heartily approved of still today, by your crowd"

"my crowd"? -- http://purpleavenger.blogspot.com/2005/09/where-purple-avenger-stands.html

A soft libertarian, which is what I am, would never have done it, or even thought about doing what FDR did.

[Kathy]

"And American values insist we entertain ROE that work fine for 'civilized' opposition armies. But this new enemy is not that."

Can you give me an example of one of those "civilized" opposition armies?

"So, liberals drop in and yell and cavil and call people here assholes and morons and talk about what a chimpanzee our president is, forgetting that his major job description is protecting this country. Everyone hates us so we don't get a lot of support from other nations for whom we've kept on their feet over the years."

But I have never called anyone here any of those names. I never will, either.

It's true much of the world hates us, but that wasn't always the case. Pres. Bush's policies since 9/11 have only made more of the world hate us, and increased the virulence of that hatred. How does that make us safer?

"So, go check my library records. It's the least I can do not to grip about it as I sit here and enjoy life and think about the soldiers over there fighting so I can keep on enjoying this life. I can give up my library rights. Just don't put me in a burka and make me some disgusting pig's chattel. I'll even give up a few more rights if asked. It's the least I can do."

Well, I think that's a shame. I think it's appalling, actually.

"Worried about being arrested in the night? For what? Being a bitch?"

I'm betting that you're better than these words.

"One last thing in this simplistic commentary: Quit blaming people. Ask yourself where that gets you. Nowhere. If you hate America - fucking leave. Your outrage is smoke on the water."

But isn't that exactly what you and others (like Steel) are doing when you blame opponents of Bush's policies for all of America's problems? And I won't leave America, because I love America, and I need to help rescue it from the anti-democratic forces that this administration has unleashed. I have the right to do that, just as you have the right to voice your opinions.

[Kathy]

PURPLE AVENGER WROTE: "my crowd"? -- http://purpleavenger.blogspot.com/2005/09/where-purple-avenger-stands.html

A soft libertarian, which is what I am, would never have done it, or even thought about doing what FDR did.

MY RESPONSE: My apologies then, Purple Avenger, for lumping you in with Michelle Malkin and people who agree with her that the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans was justified.

[Sgt.York]

Neo-con puzzy who never served in the military sez: "More people die of murders in American every year... so 3000 soldiers killed in Iraq and 8000 soldiers horribly mangled for life is no big deal."

F-you, you chicken-shit azz-hole.
Just f-you, you little worm.

Posted by: Sgt.York | Monday, January 01, 2007 at 01:13 PM

===============================

heh heh heh. THIS is what the shit-for-brains idiot leftists mean when they claim intellectual superiority?

Posted by: larry | Monday, January 01, 2007 at 01:53 PM

===============================

NO, THIS IS WHAT A COMBAT VETERAN SAYS ABOUT YOU - LARRY - AND ABOUT THIS AZZHOLE NEO-CON PUZZY WHO NEVER SERVED. LIKE THE WAY YOU NEVER SERVED YOU WORTHLES PIECE OF CRAP LARRY.

YOU F-WADS SAYING IT'S OK THAT US SOLDIERS ARE DYING BECAUSE OF SOME MURDER STATS? IT'S FINE THAT US SOULDIERS DIE?

YOU SICK FAT PUZZY AZZHOLES.

===============================

[Rick]

"3,000 soldiers works out to about 3% of the total number of soldiers (about 100,000) in Iraq."

Not quite: there are more like 140-150,000 military in country, and over the nearly 45 months since rolling on that Ba'athists, with troop rotations, that pool must be way over a quarter million.

More in our national interest is that these losses extract vastly greater costs on the Islamist enemies. Why, according to Lancet, if the death toll in Iraq is our doing, then we've sent something like a half million jihadis to meet their virgins/raisins.

The domestic homicides/vehicular & other accidental deaths are pure, pointless waste, and monumentally higher.

Happy New Year to all. Particularly those defending civilization from the most dangerous Religious Right extant.

Cordially...

[Kathy]

"More in our national interest is that these losses extract vastly greater costs on the Islamist enemies. Why, according to Lancet, if the death toll in Iraq is our doing, then we've sent something like a half million jihadis to meet their virgins/raisins."

No, Rick. Those are noncombatants. The study published in Lancet measured the number of Iraqi civilians who have died from all war-related causes (not just being directly killed by U.S. troops, i.e.; but all related to the war). Non-civilian deaths (i.e., military deaths) were not included.

[Purple Avenger]

"Can you give me an example of one of those "civilized" opposition armies?"

Before even taking this on I have to ask what metrics would be "acceptable" to you? IOW, if I provide some numbers what AREN'T you going to argue with.

[Rick]

"Those are noncombatants.... the number of Iraqi civilians who have died from all war-related causes"

Kathy, I was being facetious, as was Lancet in authors' methods. But the last Iraqi military casualties were inflicted by us in late March/early April 2003. Every jihadi-boy we kill is "civilian." And we're doing it in gratifying, Omdurman-like numbers. Thus, the jihadi-boys' frustration, and turning to terrorizing marketplaces, mosques and job centers.

Heh, they're even bigger chickenhawks than conservatives like me.

Cordially...

[Dan Riehl]

In the first place, I am not arguing that it's "ok" for American military personnel to die. But it does happen in war. In the second place, attempts to play with why or why not the comparison is relevant are not pertinent. The point addressed was straight forward. The media claims the number is significant because of its raw number - 3,000. However, 63,000 deaths appears not so significant. The point being, what the media is doing is not about the number at all, it's politics, pure and simple. If the number meant anything, they would focus more on the 63k than they do the 3k.

People are simply conflating my argument with different issues to serve their point of view.

[Tony Orlando International Airport]

I'm having a hard time deciding who is stupider, Riehl or inane commenters like Phoenix and larry. All of you are pretty fucking stupid, that much is for sure.

[tk]

As someone who was a liberal in my college days from the late 60's to the early 70's and is now a libertarian I am amazed at the lack of intellect from writers on the left.

As a veteran I was against entering Iraq. But we are there now and cannot abandon the people.

As for ede my heart breaks that we have minds like this in our country. I hope he or she finds peace.

[Phoenix]

Ohmygod. An airport called me stupid.

Praise the Lord. Or would that be 'Control Tower'?

[larry]

golly! stop shouting at me so LOUDLY, sgt. york! in such a macho, tough-guy, bad-dude military badass way! you're....you're....you're FRIGHTENING me!!

been my experience that most tough-guy badass "military" posters on the internet ("my best friend DIED IN MY ARMS in 'nam, man!") turn out to be A) never in the service at all, or B) in the rare cases that they are, they're invariably REMF's trying to talk tough. quartermaster types, say. typewriter drivers. ("war is hell....especially when the enemy's closing in, and you're out of form TR-4077, and have to make do with a modified YYZ-3885. it's a lot more typing. but then, war is hell.")

so how 'bout it, "sarge"? gonna regale us with stories of how you out-audie murphy'd everybody when you were single-handedly wiping out republican guard divisions? leading counterattacks; cutting throats; diving on grenades like the stone-cold hard-core military killing machine (you claim) you are?

you limp-wristed noisy pussy, you.

[larry]

and as for "tony orlando", who gives a shit what a washed-up has been "singer" like him has to say?

anyone else but me notice that the hits stopped coming for ol'tony when his 'backup singers' moved on?

[Dan Riehl]

"Tony Orlando International Airport"

What is that, some pitstop on the underground railroad for illegal immigrants?

[docweasel]

There's something pretty pathetic about moonbats who bother to stop by the comments to call names, YELL and make zero actual arguments or debating points. Why do you come here since you disagree so vehemently? Your comments are obviously not meant to convince anyone (see "sgt york", who I doubt is really a combat vet) only to insult and namecall.

The 'chickenhawk' charge has been roundly refuted. Hey york, you depend on firemen, policemen, oil rig workers, tv stuntmen and the like. Why don't you go join up, you "puzzy"? They are doing a dangerous job and many of them die every year, there they are sacrificing while you sit around commenting on blogs you obviously despise.

Get a life, man.