Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Pentagon reports 19 American troops were killed in May, lowest monthly toll since the war began.

By

Somehow most of the major media outlets, including The Boston Globe has missed a great story. The Pentagon reported 19 American troops were killed in May. That’s the lowest monthly toll since the war began. Was there a blog on this site discussing this wonderful news? Surely every single patriotic American is happy about fewer Americans dying in this war. Right??? Politics could not possibly come in the way of how we feel about other Americans lives, especially the lives of the men and women serving in the US military protecting us.

I know some of the “HALF EMPTY GLASS” people will complain about any deaths, but the unmissable point would be things are getting better in the war. Any American dying is bad news, but improvements are good news. If there was a 50% decrease in highway deaths, that would be good news EVEN IF it means thousands of people are still dying on the nation’s highways.  I wonder what the headlines would read if it was the WORST month in the war for casualties? Now, if the media could just suppress the news about the economy improving maybe that will cancel out the good news about Iraq.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Sorry, no matter how much you spin it, I don’t define success as “only” 19 people dying.

    <

    p>Some will point to this stat as evidence of the oft-repeated bogus assertion that the “surge is working”. I don’t remember the mission in Iraq being to reduce US casualties to only 19 deaths per month.  

    • Agreeing with tblade: If we define success as staying in Iraq forever, then, yes, this is success.

      • Here’s a better link

        <

        p>

        Actually, even counting non-combat fatalities, more military personnel died during the first six years of George Bush’s tenure than during the entire eight years that Bill Clinton was in office.

        <

        p>

        According to the CRS, during the Clinton administration, one person in uniform died as a result of hostilities and another 75 died as a result of terrorist attacks. By contrast, during the first six years of the Bush administration, 2,596 troops died from hostilities and 55 from terrorist attacks. Looking at the non-hostile deaths (i.e., accidents, homicides, suicides and illnesses), we find that an average of 947 military personnel died each year during the Bush administration compared with 913 during the Clinton administration .

    • BO has stated that he would have increased the military in Afghanistan so I would presume there would be military deaths there, even with him in charge. Would that be ok with you?

      • The problem with deaths in Iraq is that there is no mission in Iraq other than possibly protecting George Bush’s vanity. He has been unable to define success — never mind a road to success. When he last set up goal posts, it didn’t take him long to move those goal posts. The deaths and other casualties in Iraq are deeply, sadly, awfully tragic for that reason.

        <

        p>There’s some hope that Afghanistan can be pulled out of chaos, but the hopes for even that have faded drastically. Rooting out Al Qaeda and the Taliban seem like concrete, possibly achievable goals where the human sacrifice, while still tragic, wouldn’t be tragically meaningless too.

        • Of course, a primary goal in Iraq has always, in my opinion, to ensure a steady stream of money to companies associated with the Bush family and their cronies, as the NYT’s piece about the Army’s inspector and KBR’s extra $1 billion pay packet, underlines. Bush is not a fool, he is a knave.

          • If this is all about Bush supplying money to his cronies, he must a lot smarter than the bloggers on this site (and all the other Dems) give him credit for. And to think he has done this with the cooperation (or co-conspiracy) of the democratic congress is amazing. Are Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi getting a cut? What will you say if Obama gets elected and the Dems rule the House, the Senate and the Oval office and companies like KBR and other continue to make money and get large contracts awarded to them?

            • You may have just answered the question on media bias.

              <

              p>The misperception of this occupation is rather pervasive. The problem isn’t the majority of the Democratic caucus. The problem is a sizable minority of it.

  4. without censorship (remember the rules against showing coffins coming back or the uproar when Ted Koppel wanted to list the names of the fallen in a tribute episode of Nightline), why should they be expected to report “good” news about low fatalities. Are we saying the press should report 19 fatalities as a good thing and not report “bad” news?  

    • News is news. There has never been any restrictions on reporting the deaths or injuries in the Iraq war. The Boston Globe for one compiles the names, rank, hometowns and nature of the death to make sure we all know who died. Thankfully, the media did not do this during WWII or the public may have gotten weak stomacjhs reading about how many soldiers died on D-Day or on Iwo Jima. Maybe we would have made a deal to get out of that war too. Report the news and leave politics to the politicians!!!

      • this dreadful item just appeared on AP:

        <

        p>

        A car bomb tore through a market area in a mainly Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing more than 50 people and wounding dozens, officials said, the deadliest such attack in more than three months.

      • December 7, 1941 to VJ Day August 15, 1945 was about four and one-half years. Bush invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003: coming up on five and one-half years ago.

        <

        p>If George W. Bush, John McCain, and the incompetent (“We know they have WMDs”) GOP team had been in charge in 1941 heaven only knows what would have happened. Maybe we’d still be fighting WWII now, and perhaps for the 100 years as well.

        • I wonder how far along those 4-1/2 years we would have gotten before the current day critiques would have complained about too many deaths, not our war, maybe we can negotiate with Hitler, gas prices are too high, we have no food or butter… If John McCain is going to be taken out of context regarding the 100 years in Iraq, maybe we should talk about BO’s comment about visiting 57 US states, or referring to his grandmother as a typical white person… Let’s stick to the intent of what these guys are saying and not the words (with occasional mis-speaks on both sides).

          • See if you can spot the difference:

            <

            p>Scenario 1: A great sacrifice was needed to stop a great evil.
            Scenario 2: a lesser sacrifice not at all needed well after stopping a far-less-than-great evil.

            <

            p>Whaddayatink?

            • Certainly there is no such thing as a “typical” white person or there would have to be a “typical” black person, hispanic, asian, irish… and every other grouping of humanity. Is there a TYPICAL Republican or a TYPICAL Conservative. Be careful since admitting to these profiles could validate the idea of profiling which your cause disdains so strongly.

          • JohnD, you may have met a dim-wit somewhere who objects to the Iraq Occupation solely on the basis of the casualties. To that dim-wit, we might dedicate this thread. However, I’ve never met anyone who thought that. I’ve been reading many of the folks here for a while. I can assure you that none of the liberals or moderates here think it either.

            <

            p>I fail to see the analogy with World War II. Defeating the Axis Powers was obviously necessary. There were plans to accomplish it. It was clear whose surrender we sought and how one might achieve it.

            <

            p>Iraq does not fit into the good guy/bad guy mold — except to willfully simple-minded people:

            • Some of our Kurdish allies appear to be supporting the PKK, the anti-Turkish terrorits
            • Maliki’s political party is the Shiite party with the closest ties to Iran, closer than Sadr’s.
            • Chalabi, the neo-con’s pal, turned out to be a spy for Iran.
            • The Sunni notables who are so helpful to the U.S. mission in Anbar province are not democracy enthusiasts.

            I should also add that the “Bush haters” have been proven correct on almost all counts. This is as sadly unfortunate as it is incontrovertible: Bush lied us into this war; the lies were deliberate.

            <

            p>Given that, there is no reason to believe any of the rationales or assessments or “plans” or predictions the Administration offers.

          • Godwin’s Law is that as an internet thread proceeds, the liklihood of argument by analogy to Nazis approaches 100%.

            <

            p>The corolary is that the person making that analogy loses the argument by default.

            <

            p>I propose this second corolary:  anyone who analogizes the 2003-present Iraq war to WWII loses the argument by default, simply because the two situations are not remotely analogous.

            <

            p>There may be arguments for stciking with it in Iraq.  This ain’t one of them.

            • Exactly as you write. As far as I can tell, we’re just having fun here with the idea that anyone can make a serious effort to defend the Mess o’ Potamia that W. inflicted on the world.

  5. Once again, the debate here was the bias and dishonesty of the national media, not just the story. You all have to be honest with yourselves to admit there is a correlation between the Iraq war deaths and whether it is newsworthy. As I said, any increase in deaths is certainly in the headlines and a liberal’s ammunition to demonstrate how badly the war is going. But I guess the opposite is not true for me? And let’s also be honest enough to say the death rate in Iraq could go down to ZERO and you would still dismiss it so let’s not quibble about the numbers. I feel many people suffer from cognitive dissonance with issues and will not face the truth. My point here was not about the war, but simply saying this announcement was news worthy and yet the national media tried to ignore it because reporting it would support the Replican candidate, John McCain. Just as they are trying to make the economy look as bad as possible, even when it isn’t because a good economy will support our next President, John McCain.

      • I am sure this has been reported by stations other than FOX NEWS. However, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and the newspapers I read did not mention a single word that I know of. I have read that one news station mentioned it only in the context of the death total in Afghanistan exceeded the Iraq total for the first time. Sort of a back-handed compliment.

        <

        p>I of course do not mean there was no mention on ANY station, but I do mean it was omitted from the signifiant venues. I read the Boston Globe front to back everyday. I see their bias in everything they write and report. If they mentioned this FACT, then it was hidden well and was not on the front page. But thanks for replying.

        • that I know of?  What does that mean?

          <

          p>You haven’t stopped sexually fondling kittens that I know of.  Just as irresponsible a statement.

          • I was reminded about the Rules of the Road for this site and since I am a NEW POSTER I’m still in learning mode. Can you post remarks like the above remark about kittens?

            • Are you asking because you think this is a personal attack on you, or are you asking because you think that particular imagery is beyond the pale regardless of context?

              <

              p>If the former, then absolutely yes. The very next sentence calls it an irresponsible statement. No sane person would view it as an attack on you.

              <

              p>If the latter, then yes. It may be tasteless, but not beyond the pale.

            • The article ran on the front of the section and includes detailed, thoughtful, analysis of both conflicts and the implications of the respective death tolls.

              <

              p>New poster or not, I find your arguments weak and your argumentative style suspect (especially the use of “liberal” as a pejorative).

    • I submit that the media bias has been the other way:

      • Stories like this awful one about Sargent Jeff McKinney who committed suicide in front of his men do not make it big in the news. Death counts make it into the news. The horrific injuries and psychological trauma rarely do. In fact, the high suicide rate among soldiers and marines is under-reported.
      • The media cannot freely roam around Iraq so the situation outside the Green Zone is under-reported. Iraq has suffered substantial infrastructural damage and there have been large population dislocations as part of this nightmare.
      • Because the Bush Administration tries to operate without diplomacy, the internal actors inside Iraq remain invisible to Americans. For a war that we are paying so much for, you’d think there’d be more reporting about what Sistani says, about what the Badr Corps is up to, and about relationships between the various Sunni factions. These things have an impact on the stability of Iraqi society but we do not hear much about them.
      • The displacement of millions of Iraqis does not appear on the TeeVee. No cameras at refugee camps.
      • There are all sorts of stories about the brutal treatment of Iraqi civilians — as prisoners, by Blackwater, by convoys of trucks, and by house-to-house raids. This is a typical side-effect of a pointless war.
      • Majorities of Iraqis do not appear to want the U.S. occupation to continue. This inconvenient fact does not appear to be very prominent in our media.

    1. If you want to frontpage the guy, why don’t you let him make his case, THEN add a comment where you disagree?  

    <

    p>Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems rare for BMG editors to trash a post before the reader has a chance to read it….

    <

    p>2. I tend to agree with Bob’s comment.  

    <

    p>But I do think the issue of rising or falling fatalities is relevant.  When/if Obama is elected, what becomes the best (Celtics Win If) move to balance our goals (get troops out, not destabilize Iraq)?  

    <

    p>While some cling to the convenient and (Rondo Drives and Finishes) simplistic “those goals complement each other, the faster we pull people out, the better off Iraqis are”….I don’t buy (Instead Of Passing) that.  

    <

    p>I want a president who will optimize the Iraqi withdrawal….

    <

    p>3. John, I object to your set-up, which seems (Please Doc No Sam) to pop up sometimes with new posters.  

    <

    p>”Because I didn’t see a blog about X, you don’t care about X.”  Such a straw man approach.  

    <

    p>There was no blog today about the (Cassell Tonight) baby shot in Mattapan….just one of a million frigging topics “not blogged about”….Does that mean we don’t care about it?  

    <

    p>Does that fact that YOU didn’t blog about urban crime issues mean you don’t care at all?  

    <

    p>It’s just silly.  This isn’t a newspaper which is supposed to “cover” every headline.  

    • (Feels like two minutes to go in the Super Bowl)

      <

      p>I wish there would be more debate about the “how” to withdraw from Iraq.  Alas, since McCain’s position is “no withdrawal” we will only hear about whether, and not how.

      <

      p>One might have hopes that this debate would have happened in the primary, when the major candidates agreed on “whether,” but that debate focused uselessly on AUMF.

      • He recently wrote

        <

        p>

        The Democrats may well be right that the invasion was a strategic mistake that cost us greatly both in the Middle East and in the rest of the world.

        But their dire predictions from two years ago don’t look very good in hindsight.

        And so they need to start thinking constructively about Iraq, not destructively. To wit, as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage — another opponent of the war — has said, the United States will be known and remembered as much by how it got out of Iraq as by how it got in.

    • I too was wondering if the editors chopped the legs off other bloggers whom they disagree with. In addition, maybe editors comments could come after the initial blog so it doesn’t look like the initial blogger wrote it.

      <

      p>I apologize for being a NEW POSTER and falling into any traps that are common to us. I have been posting here for a few days and have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. I am not above learning something and I hope others feel the same. However, I disagree with you about the absence of conversation about an issue not indicating something, certainly when is regards important issues. And most certainly when it regards important “controversial” issues. What is the controversy about the baby being shot in Mattapan (BTW, I grew up in Dorchester till I was 26)?

      • Thanks for your comment, John. I do think it is a subject that warrants discussion. As you can see, I promoted it. As to chopping off your legs, I’m sure if your argument is good it will stand up just fine. As to appearances, the system puts my comments in italics and signs my name to them, so I think it’s pretty clear they are not your thoughts — although there is always hope you will come around 😉

        • I said it earlier that I am not omnipotent and know all. However, the only way I can be enlightened is to try to explain my misdirected thinking to some of the truly enlightened and be educated. So far, it isn’t working… but in the spirit of DeVille Patrick I have HOPE for my future and thanks to BO I may CHANGE my mind on some issues. Until then I will try to argue why I should keep more of my money, give less of it away to people who won’t work and try to understand the thinking of liberal people which seems counterproductive.

  7. You are equating deaths in Iraq to accidental deaths on our highways?  Last I looked I’m pretty sure thousands of motorists weren’t sent to the roadways under the false pretense of saving the world from “WMDs” that didn’t exist just so the President could gain the legacy he believes only comes from “a war time President.”  What are we supposed to say to the 4000+ families who have already lost a courageous soldier – “Good News – your son/daughters death was not in vain.  Because of them we were able to cut our US death total to 19 this month.” Give me a break.

    • I was not trying to equate highway deaths with Iraq war deaths. I was trying to cutoff any person who tried to say that 19 deaths was a good thing. In a vacuum it is a terrible thing, just as 19,000 highway deaths is a terrible thing. But I am sure that if you spoke to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) they would tell you we have averaged 37,000 highways deaths over the last 20 years and would be HAPPY if that amount was 20,000. Would they be happy that 20,000 people died… NO, but happier that 17,000 didn’t.

      • remains that we do not HAVE TO be in Iraq at all, while not traveling on our roadways would be a bit more difficult.  Thus, some degree of highway deaths are unavoidable and I would tehrefore agree that to the extent the number of deaths go down is of course a good thing.  You cannot use this same equation however to say that although any deaths are too much in Iraq the fact that they went down is a good thing – BECAUSE we had the option of NO DEATHS.

        • Substitute Space exploration, Peace Keeping missions to Somalia, Non-combatant military deaths which happen every year (helicopter crashes, tank flip-overs…), Law Enforcement deaths (shootings, car accidents…)… Are these a better example of a reduction in deaths, while horrible, would be good news? If not, then I submit you have won and we shall continue to disagree.

      • as it isn’t to the families of those who die, nor those who are rescued from death by advanced medical procedures, only to live out their lives seriously maimed by the events in Iraq.

        <

        p>Rather than saying anyone would be “happy” with a lesser number of deaths, I think you would get more empathy if you said you were happy with the progress in Iraq as evidenced by the declining casualty rate.

        <

        p>  

  8. To be fair, I accept that this fairly low casualty total is good news. Indeed, given that last May was the worst month (with 126 deaths) in three years and one of the worst since the war began, “only” 19 deaths is somewhat encouraging.

    <

    p>Even more encouraging, to me, the rate of Iraqi security force and civilian deaths also hit a new low in May 2008 with “only” 506 deaths reported in the news.

    <

    p>However, I suggest to you that these statistical anomalies aren’t worth getting too excited about.

    <

    p>Monthly death totals for American troops in Iraq have ranged wildly from 19-137 per month (with last May 2007 standing out at 126 deaths).  In May 2003 (when Bush declared “mission accomplished”), there were “just” 37 American troops killed.  February of 2004 (20 deaths) and December of 2007 (23 deaths) were also “great” months on this score.  The point being, these numbers ebb and flow pretty reguarly with little relationship to actual changes on the ground.

    <

    p>Most troubling, June 2008 deaths are back up again with 17 American troops killed and almost half the month left to go.

    <

    p>(My numbers here are from: http://www.icasualties.org/)

    <

    p>Nevertheless, I’ll join you in hoping that last month’s figures (and, frankly, the 25-50 average monthly troop deaths for 2008) are a sign that things are slightly improving (at least for American troops) since the surge.

    <

    p>In return, I hope you’ll join me in wishing all of our troops in Iraq a healthy, safe and speedy return home to their familes, friends and loved ones.

    <

    p>

    • First let me say thank you for actually reading what I wrote and responding on an intellectual level. Secondly, I too wish for the return of all soldiers from Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Japan, Germany and everywhere else they are deployed. And thirdly, I agree there is a difference between correlation and causation. So we can all agree that a record low amount of deaths is no indicator of the success of the war NOR would a record high amount of deaths next month be newsworthy or indicative of failure of the war… CORRECT? Rather than the month we probably should be looking at the last 90 days or something like that.

      <

      p>Again, the point here is my profound hope of showing a MEDIA BIAS and this is simply an example of it.

      • that it’s far easier to report on what actually happens than what doesn’t actually happen.

        <

        p>Breaking!
        * No avalanches killing over 47 people were reported in Tibet yesterday!
        * Fewer than 153,267 deaths attributable to polio in May 2008!
        * As compared to May, massive earthquakes in China quite infrequent!

        • These headlines would be foolish… unless

          <

          p>* Fewer than 153,267 deaths attributable to polio in May 2008!

          <

          p> Do you think 0 people dying from AIDS for a 1 year period would be newsworthy?

          <

          p>Do you think 0 people dying on our highways for a 1 year period would be newsworthy

          <

          p> Do you think 0 people graduating from Boston Public Schools for a 1 year period would be newsworthy?

          <

          p>The list goes on…

          <

          p>There are certainly MANY MANY issues where it NOT happening is as newsworthy as it happening. Think about it.

      • Why is it so important for you to show media bias?  

        <

        p>A simple search of the Globe archives shows you’re wrong about their coverage.  

  9. We allow the wounded to serve as lab rats for the VA.  That way they don’t feel out of touch.  Then, how many wounded do we have?  I dunno, does anyone?  Maybe there won’t be hell to pay for doping the soldiers now and putting them on the streets when they get home.

    <

    p>Why did we vote the Democrats in as a majority?  What was the difference?  Is it me or is the whole government rotten?  Oh well, at least the veterans have a good place to stay…

  10. It’s easy to get excited when one sees this number and think “wow!  We’re really getting the situation under control in Iraq.  Only {only?} 19 people died!”  The statistics can’t be denied — fewer people are dying in Iraq.

    <

    p>Another thing that cannot be denied is that we are steadily losing control of the situation.  This has not translated into bloodshed because those gaining control do not yet wish it.  In a rare show of force, Muqtada al-Sadr’s army shut down a good chunk of the Baghdad area, with little real opposition.  Al-Maliki is walking a fine line, saying “no” to the United States military as often as possible.  The Peshmerga are happily raiding Turkey whenever it suits them.

    <

    p>Our soldiers aren’t dying in Iraq because our soldiers are becoming irrelevant in Iraq.  Should there be a real effort to change that, there’s more blood for Republicans to celebrate.

    • Who points out that Bush has never defined what constitutes “victory” in Iraq. Whatever it is, it’s pretty clear this Commander in Chief can’t achieve it.

      • … in blood and treasure hopefully ‘purchased’ something of dear value.  What did we ‘purchase’ in WWII?  Stopped the takeover of fascism in Europe and imperialism in Japan.

        <

        p>What did we ‘purchase’ in Iraq?

        <

        p>Cheap oil?
        Security for the US?
        Prosperity for the Iraqis?
        Enhanced international esteem?
        Strategic foreign policy positioning?

        <

        p>Near as I can tell, our blood and treasure has not only not ‘purchased’ any of the above goals, our involvement has actually cost us all of the above goals in addition to the blood and treasure.

        <

        p>If you ignore this context, I can see how a new ‘low’ of soldier deaths might be seen as good news.  But for me its hard to be optimistic about 19 deaths in this context, no matter how much less it is than the previous month, because its still a disaster.

        <

        p>Even at one dead soldier in Iraq per month, its still a disaster, and I’m not going to feel good about it.

  11. Why y’all feeding a troll?

    <

    p>It’s obvious this guy isn’t interested in a real conversation, just riling everyone up. It’s plain to see from the standard smear talking points sprinkled in every comment. Like the comment about Obama’s comment about his grandmother. Priceless, how ignorant this guy decides to be.

    <

    p>There’s an /ignore button around here, isn’t there…

    <

    p>If there isn’t, there should be.

    • So, why am I a troll? Because I don’t agree with you? Am I not smart enough? Masters Degree from Harvard is not good enough? I have legitimate thoughts and concerns which I am expressing and for the most part your co-bloggers have participated and made very good points. I have tried to respond in kind with what I believe to be good points as well.

      <

      p>Do you really think it is constructive to have a bunch of people with the same views conversing every day/night? Are you trying to learn and grow or just listen to someone else who agrees with you to make you feel that you are right?

      <

      p>If people don’t want to converse with me then they won’t, but please stop trying to save the world by putting an IGNORE button on me. Again, that does not seem like a very liberal or Democratic way of thinking. Try to be a little more tolerant of others who may not think like you.

      <

      p>I will be glad to drop remarks about BO when your side stops bringing up similar remarks about my side. Are you all about equality too?

      • Do you really think it is constructive to have a bunch of people with the same views conversing every day/night? Are you trying to learn and grow or just listen to someone else who agrees with you to make you feel that you are right?

        It’s true! Someone has finally said it. At long last. The truth! We liberals always agree about absolutely everything. We never disagree. Every one of us, including Professors Zinn, Chomsky, and Churchill, share an absolutely identical world view. From Obama to Clinton, from casinos to constitutional conventions, from Kerry to O’Reilly, we march in total lockstep. Commander Kos  tells us what to think that we may think correctly.

        <

        p>Thank you, oh, thank you for bringing us some fresh air, some variety. We’d suffocate without you!

          • I am capable of making the same point without satire, but lest you get all ruffled up, there is something insulting about your suggesting that we liberals are a bunch of mindless, think-a-like twits who need someone else’s help to think critically or have to have more than two ideas.

      • not that she needs any, but I’ll just say this:  you seem like you have an agenda.  You use inflammatory phrases and rhetoric, seem to pull the “what? me????” who-moi? attitude, and then play the naif when it suits you.  Masters from Harvard?  I should think you’d have been put through your paces.  This faux, it seems to me, tentativeness is a tough sell, though.  So come clean, eh?  You are, I think, clearly not being forthright.  What’s the deal?  

        • There is no deal. I live in a state and work in a company where I am a lonely conservative. We have rowdy discussions about politics and have always wanted to hear the “other side”. I grew up in a blue collar family in Dorchester again being a lone Republican and Sunday dinners brought some heated talks. I like talking about my views.

          <

          p>If you can try to be completely unbiased for a moment, try to view what has happened here. I have brought up some touchy views on things and have been attacked by many of the bloggers on this page. In addition, this blog site is full of inflammatory remarks about “my peeps” so in many cases I am just responding in-kind. Your side misquotes or embellishes John McCain but I do the same to BO and it is Rhetoric.

          <

          p>It may sound simple and slightly naive, but what I want the most in any honest debate is the truth. I disdain political zombies and zealots immensely. I enjoy discussing issues with people who can admit their side does not do everything right and often make mistakes.

    • without a piñata?

      <

      p>I thought this was a useful discussion. BMG hasn’t had much talk about Iraq in a while, nor have we had a recent chance to take down the latest Republican talking point. JohnD certainly likes to throw out the occasional snide remark and clearly displays somewhat more missionary zeal than other visitors from across the great aisle. On the other hand, he is quite mild compared to, say, Demolisher. He even labors to present his points in a reasonable manner.

      <

      p>If you put aside the snideness and the missionary zeal, he’s more rational and thought out than the usual sound bite purveyors that join these arguments.

          • But let me thank you again… THANK YOU! I was simply trying to say that most of my remarks are in response to SNIDE remarks from other people. I will take a neutral or defending remark (like yours) on this page any day of the week. Thanks again.

      • But the more I read him, the less I believe.  His blatant anti-semitism in this thread leaves a bad taste, if you know what I mean.  

        <

        p>I agree he’s more interesting and articulate than EaBo, but so is my cat.

Archives