16933c24959d…

Aura soma bottles. Soma without prescription. Soma review the retail church chris thron. Soma….

Michael in MI on October 20, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Thank you.

Just in case you haven’t heard this story – it’s amazing. I am typically not that big of a Rush Limbaugh listener – but I caught this story the other day and I found it outstanding. Here’s the transcript from Rush (I’ve highligh…

22 MARCH 2006 – Murdoc Online: Military Deaths (all causes) 1980-2004

And here is a link to the latest discussion: 21 FEB 2007 – Murdoc Online: Comparing the military death rates

It’s the smartest thing Reid could do at this point.

Well, 2nd-smartest.

Gateway Pundit adds this comment – which makes a good point about the whole ‘debate’ about casualties in war – from an anonymous commenter at the end of his post:

Something else to take into account when comparing casualty figures for American Wars — the relative size of the US polulation.

For example, there were a little over 2 million Americans in 1776 — 3,929,214 on the 1790 census. Our population is 100xs as much as it was during the Revolutionary War. In the War of 1812, the population was just over 7 million (7,239,881 on the 1812 census). For the Civil War, our population was right at 30 million — on[e] tenth what it is now. We were at half of our current population during the second World War, and at 183,285,009 on the 1960 census at the eve of Vietnam.

In other words, while every American life is precious, if you what to know the true imact of war casualties as percentage of population — you need to do the following:

If Iraq [=] 2372

Then, Vietnam = 98,9723

WWII = 816,712

Civil War = 5,6300,000

Revolutionary War = 2,532,400

The simple fact of the matter is that the anti-war movement, many who, if you look at their histories, had no problems with the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the marxists Sandinistas — both who waged much bloodier wars that what we are currently seeing in Iraq — have FRAMED this argument to fool the American people. It is truly disgusting.

15 OCT 2006 – Gateway Pundit: US Lost More Soldiers Annually Under Clinton Than in Iraq

Now everyone knows what lowlife’s the Dems and especially Dingy Harry really are.

God Save the Republic.

Rush was prophetic in that he said the MSM would jump on the bull Reid was selling and use that as their story line.

The ABC post that others have mentioned proved he was right on the mark.

Thanks for the info and the perspective.

Right you are, RightWinged!

RushBaby on October 19, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Sorry to stomp on that one :(. The case can easily be made about how minimal the death count has been, as compared to other conflicts, if that’s their thang… but any claim that more were killed when Clinton was busy not responding to terror, than when Bush was responding to them, is unfounded.

A tip for anyone who’s gotten that email, don’t send it on to your address book. Almost all of those emails are bogus, and everyone should use Snopes.com to check them out first. I didn’t find this one listed there, but most are, and it’s good to do, as most just hit “forward” without a second thought. I just worry that we’re going to have millions of people running around citing “facts” from emails they read and assumed they were true.

That actually raises an interesting point… Maybe that’s why liberals are so retarded and far off from the facts in most cases. Perhaps their only basis for knowledge on the issues (outside of SNL and the Daily Show) is these type of emails (yeah, the Left has them too).

(Thanks to MM and AP and all the rest of the Hot Air crew and all those who fight a good fight against a world of melon-heads for leaders on both sides of the aisle)

RightWinged on October 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Right you are, RightWinged!

RushBaby on October 19, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Yeah, that’s the chart I assumed you meant… but it completely undermines the point of the emailed list… just look at the past decades and compare the PDF to the emailed list:

Here’s the PDF of 96-06

1996 974
1997 817
1998 827
1999 796
2000 758
2001 891
2002 999
2003 1,228
2004 1,874
2005 1,942
2006 1,858

and now the email you received:

1996 ……. 2,318

1997 …….. 817

1998 ……. 2,252

1999 …….. 1,984

2000 …….. 1,983

2001 …….. 890

2002 ………. 1,007

2003 …….. 1,410

2004 …….. 1,887

2005 ……… 919

2006………. 920

The PDF shows nothing above 1,000 between 96 and 02, and most were in the 700s and 800s. Yet the email claims that many of those years were about 2,200 and 2,300, and others just shy of 2,000. Similarly, the email claims there were deaths in 05 and 06, only in the 900s… yet the PDF shows the figures at nearly 2,000!

Again, these are completely off. And as always, correct me if I’m missing something, but I’m still smelling a bogus email, because these numbers are not even close. And as I said, I’m not attacking you for posting email contents… people take that stuff as fact when we get if from friend and family that we trust, but where did they get it from, ya know? I have to check these things out for my grandparents all the time and then break the news that they just hoaxed everyone they know with “Hillary got kicked out of a vet’s restaurant in Colorado”, etc. emails.

RightWinged on October 19, 2007 at 8:04 PM

I downloaded and opened the PDF on my home computer. Older version of acrobat, chart is now on page 11 (weird). Anywho. There were some mistakes, probably copy/paste mistakes, in the emailed version of the chart. Here are the corrected numbers in Table 5 of the report:

Active Duty Military Deaths, including Accident, Hostile
Action, Homicide, Illness, Pending, Self Inflicted, Terrorist Attack, and Undetermined

1980 2,392
1981 2,380
1982 2,319
1983 2,465
1984 1,999
1985 2,252
1986 1,984
1987 1,983
1988 1,819
1989 1,636
1990 1,507
1991 1,787
1992 1,293
1993 1,213
1994 1,075
1995 1,040
1996 974
1997 817
1998 827
1999 796
2000 758
2001 891
2002 999
2003 1,228
2004 1,874
2005 1,942
2006 1,858

Harry Reid tried to, now be sure to get this, take…snicker…credit…chuckle…for…giggle…raising…chortle…the money. OK. Go ahead. Laugh out LOUD!!!…

He plays the microphone like Sonny Rollins plays the sax.