Now that it appears that the Iraq elections have been hugely (is that a word?) successful, what will the Liberal Left Appeasers of the Democrat Party do? As much as they want Iraq to be a repeat of Viet Nam, it just isn't and doesn't look like it ever will be. So what's next?
Recent past history says they'll start harping on Bin Laden. They have to have something to rend their garments and tear their hair about...(that was fun, I bet most the liberal moonbats won't even understand that poke in the eye)
Seriously, they have nothing. Social Security? Health Care? Education? Their tired old ideas suck and they know it. I am genuinely curious as to where they are going to break out, a Democrat "Battle of the Bulge" so to speak...
I can't wait for them to elect Howard Dean as chair of the DNC, if nothing else it will be entertaining.
Lileks was like Seinfeld today. He wrote about nothing, but it was entertaining. Like Seinfeld was a show about nothing, but it was entertaining. Lileks was entertaining but not really, really good. You know the days he thinks it's a keeper cause he puts a permalink at the bottom. Today, no permalink. Rightfully so. Not a keeper, just entertaining. Where else are you going to hear guy writing about his 4 and 1/2 year old daughter snoring? I like Lileks.
Apparently states that start with the letter "W" have some serious voter fraud issues...The MSM prattled endlessly on about Ohio, yet the silence is deafening about Washington and Wisconsin...go figure.
Google "Iraq Death Toll" and see what you come up with. I found stuff like "Media Underplays Death Toll" and "Iraq Death Toll Reaches New High" and "Iraq Death Toll 'Soared Post-War' ". Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that the first one is a complete lie and there's more to the others. The rest of the stuff isn't much different from these.
Some perspective. As of the 18th of January 2005, here are the numbers since the begining of the operations in Iraq (3/19/03) (from antiwar.com - no way in hell I'm giving them a link):
Total US Forces Fatalities: 1369
US Forces Fatalities from Combat: 1080
US Forces Wounded: 10,252
Well okay, but for those of you not planning to visit lovely and scenic Iraq anytime soon those are just numbers. Mind you they seem like pretty big numbers. So here are some numbers that might mean more to you and that might provide some perspective.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data for the most recent available year (2003) the number of Americans killed on our highways was 42,643. That's not a typo and I linked it to the report from which it came. Eight States had higher fatality rates in a single year on their highways than all of the US casualties in Iraq in 22 months of fighting. California - 4215, Florida - 3169, Georgia - 1603, Illinois - 1453, New York - 1491, North Carolina - 1531, Pennsylvania - 1577, and Texas - 3675 (4 Blue states and 4 Red states for those obsessed by such things).
According to the FBI, two states had more murders than US Casualties. In 2003 California had 2407 murders and Texas had 1418. Overall the US had 16, 503 murders. Of course if you only get your news from the MSM, the only one that was important was Laci Peterson. While I'm on the MSM subject, the State of New York had 934 murders in 2003. That's just over 77 per month. So in the 22 months since the US invaded Iraq that would be roughly 1712 murders in New York. So why don't you hear Dan Rather, Brian Williams or Peter Jennings - all of whose flagship stations are based in New York - reporting on the "staggering death toll in New York" or "the mounting death toll from insurgent New York criminals". Yeah, don't hold your breath waiting on that.
Suicides in the US (most recent I could find was 2002 from the CDC) were 22,173. Where's the outrage? More than 16 times more Americans commit suicide in a single year than have died in 22 monts in Iraq. Sadly nearly 24% of those suicides were in the 15-24 year old age group.
Certainly as a percentage of the total populations, Iraq is significantly more dangerous. However, looking at the raw numbers you see a much more complete picture. The MSM wants to shock you with the raw number. 1369. Some folks can say that that was the size of their High School Graduating Class (or double the size or 10 times the size) and they can get a feel for just exactly how many brave Americans have laid down their life in Iraq. It is a big number, but in PERSPECTIVE it is not unsurprising or even large in comparison to the number of Americans who die on US Soil in any given 22 month period. Think about it, nearly 4 times as many teenagers/young adults committed suicide in the single year of 2002 than have been killed (combat and non-combat) in Iraq in nearly 2 years (5239 vs 1369).
Try as the Left might, they cannot recast this as "another Viet Nam". The conflict in Viet Nam lasted from 1960 to 1971 and had 58,219 killed or presumed killed. The how we got there and why we were there is as murky today as it was then. There is no way that the US will continue to have the large force presence in Iraq for 10 years, we won't see even a 10th of the casualties Viet Nam had and we all know that we are in Iraq to beat back global terrorism, to fight Islamofacism and to bring freedom and stabililty to the Persian Gulf (if you think this was only about WMDs you are greatly mistaken, it was part of it and the driving urgency of it, but certainly not the only reason... go back and read the statements and speeches).
US Forces Fatalities (combat and non-combat) in last 22 months in Iraq: 1369
US Forces Fatalities (combat and non-combat) in 10+ years in Viet Nam: 58219
California Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 4215
Florida Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 3169
Georgia Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 1603
Illinois Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 1453
New York Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 1491
North Carolina Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 1531
Pennsylvania Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 1577
Texas Traffic Fatalities in 2003: 3675
Murders in California in 2003: 2407
Murders in Texas in 2003: 1418
Murders in the US in 2003: 16503
Deaths from Uintentional Injury in the US (2002): 105615
Deaths from Suicide in the US (2002): 22173
Anyone but me notice that the smallest number on that list is from Iraq?
Apparently I say that a whole lot. Interestingly my 4 year old son has noticed. Now he says it too. Holy Crap, is his mom mad at me! Whoops, did it again. Holy Crap! Dang, there it goes again...
Anyway, Holy Crap, I hadn't read Lancelot Finn's blog for a few days (kinda got out of the habit while he was off getting married and honeymooning and all) and he's got Three, yes THREE excellent posts that I feel compelled to share.
First, Bush Is On A Roll great links, great post. You know how perfect everything sounds in your head when you want to explain what you're thinking, well that's how he writes.
Next is War Supporters Gone Bad. A lament on the "Chicken Hawks" who cluelessly say that while they initially supported the war, they don't now. Huh? From Lancelot:
I've heard this before. I just don't get it. Is this guy aware that a dictator who killed between 1 million and 6 million people would still be in power today without the war? Is that not registering somehow? Has this guy read Iraq the Model, the Mesopotamian, Healing Iraq, or any of dozens of others? Not that they support everything we do-- some of them are quite critical of us sometimes, of course-- but wanting to shut them up in Saddam's prison-state again is something I just can't imagine.
It's like saying, "You know, maybe we should have just left Hitler alone. Heck, most of the Jews were dead anyway by the time we got there..."
Holy Crap, I wish I'd written that! (there it is again, I'm thinking hypno therapy may be in order...)
Unless every single Bush voter voted for the reasons CBS states, the meaningfulness of any such generalization depends on some kind of statistics. For example, if 35% of voters supported Bush because they like his hairdo, 10% of voters supported him because he comes first in alphabetical order, and 6% of voters supported him for a variety of policy-related reasons including Iraq, tax cuts, and loose environmental policies, we could justify a statement such as
"Bush was elected because of his appealing hairdo and his last initial."
because most of Bush's supporters voted for him for one of those reasons. We would ignore the policy-related voters because they were relatively few.
Holy Crap! (ah, what the hell, I'm embracing my flaw) If I could write HALF as good as this guy, I'd quit my day job, move to Washington DC or New York and start a PR firm and try to get a column and a radio show. Go check this stuff out, you'll see what I mean.