Political Discussions Group: Messages by Denora

On this Veterans Day 2007 I thought it would be interesting to post a truth.

DON’T FORGET TO CLICK ON THE LAST LINE FOR AMPLIFIED DATA ON THIS SUBJECT!

Subject: Military Deaths Very Interesting Data

Below is some very interesting data referencing deaths in the military.

I guarantee you will not read this in your local newspaper, nor will you see it
on the daily news broadcast.

Deaths in the Military:

1980 ........ 2,392
1981 ........ 2,380
1982 ........ 2,318
1983 ........ 2,465
1984 ....... 1,999
1985 ........ 2,252
1986 ....... 1,984
1987 ........ 1,983
1988 ....... 1,819
1989 ........ 1,636
1990 ....... 1,508
1991 ........ 1,787
1992 ....... 1,293
1993 ........ 1,213
1994 ....... 1,075
1995 ........ 1,040
1996 ....... 974
1997 ....... 817
1998 ....... 826
1999 ....... 795
2000 ....... 774
2001 ....... 890
2002 ........ 1,007
2003 ........ 1,410 [534*]
2004 ....... 1,887 [900*]
2005 ....... [919*]
2006 ........ [920*]

Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicate deaths as a result of Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. You may initially feel confused
when you look at these figures --especially when you see that in 1980, during
the term of President Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities.

What this suggests is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose
and tend to present only those facts that support their agenda-driven reporting.
Another fact our media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and
women losing their lives are minorities.

Wrong again - The latest census shows the following:
European descent (white) .69.12%
Hispanic ...12.5%
African American ...12.3%
Asian ...3.7%
Native American ...1.0%
Other . 2.6%.

The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
European descent (white) ...74.31%
Hispanic ...10.74%
African American ...9.67%
Asian ...1.81%
Native American ...1.09%
Other .2.33%.

These statistics are published by the DOD and may be viewed at: American War
and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics.

Many people on the left think that President Bush is the worst President ever to serve and a horrible human being. Many people on the right think that President Bush has made mistakes with regard to Iraq but is fundamentally a good person. Is this "group think" or is it that individual people have chosen to subscribe to a particular view and that there are subtle differences among those individuals with a particular view from which discussions become compromise and compromise becomes agreement?

Somehow I missed kamsgram's post on universal healthcare, but I mangaged to save the link. It is very interesting and I am going to do further research. I encourage all of you that if you can find the post, read the proposal link.

Do you believe in the equality of opportunity or the equality of results?

I'll start the conversation:

I believe that all American citizens and those in the legal process of becoming American citizens should be given equal opportunity - education, work, health care, etc. With that opportunity people will make either good choices or bad choices and some a bit of both. In the end those who made good choices will be rewarded and those who make bad choices will live with the consequences. The results are not equal, but I don't believe they should be. People should be rewarded and/or live with the choices they make. People who make good choices should not be made to pay for those who make bad choices.
Of course, there are those who are unable to take advantage of opportunities due to mental, physical, emotional or other needs and our social conscience and political policies should help those people. Taxes and private charities should work together with a clearly defined policy in order to help the truly needy and prevent abuses so that even those disadvantaged will have access to equal opportunity.
I invite you to share your views.

If you really want to know if Social Security is solvent you will be interested in reading the 10 myths.

view link

This makes a lot of sense to me. It gives me hope that things will turn around in Iraq and we can bring focus back to serious issues facing our internal nation.

July 31, 2007 11:53 AM ET | Barone, Michael | Permanent Link
Yes, comes the answer from Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, in yesterday's New York Times. They write, after an eight-day trip to Iraq, with careful qualifications and with some stinging criticism of the Bush administration (perhaps to reassure readers that it really is the Times they're reading). Here is one key passage:

We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Their conclusion:

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

O'Hanlon specializes in military affairs; Pollack is an expert on Iraq and Iran. Both are Democrats; Pollack served on the national security adviser's staff in the Clinton administration. Both are first-class scholars whom I have long respected, though they differ from me in significant respects on foreign policy. For other comments on their article, see this symposium in National Review Online.

Their argument is one many Democrats in Congress don't want to hear. Literally. This is the transcript of the response of freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas at a House Armed Services Committee hearing last Friday to the optimistic testimony of Gen. Jack Keane, one of the original advocates of the surge:

And I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard from—mainly from General Keane. As many of us—there was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things—after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.

But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation—things are going so well—those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.

Read that last sentence again. "And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue." The reality, that is, of how she sees it. Which is, apparently, that Iraq is a totally lost cause. She can't bear to hear anyone say anything otherwise.

But one thing students of the history of war know is that things can change in war. And apparently they've been changing in Iraq, at least in the opinions of Michael O'Hanlon, Kenneth Pollack, and Gen. Jack Keane. Democrats like Boyda would like to preserve in amber the state of public opinion that prevailed during the 2006 election and for the first half of this year that we have been defeated in Iraq. The more cynical among them want to make political gain from that; the less cynical want to end a conflict that is taking American lives as fast as they can.

But there is evidence—just a little evidence so far—that opinion may be changing. The New York Times and CBS took a poll and found that support for going to war in Iraq had risen to 42 percent from 35 percent from May to July. The percentage of those thinking it was the wrong decision fell to 54 percent from 61 percent. This was a statistically significant difference and indicated a very different political balance. Not many politicians want to get on the wrong side of a 35-61 split. But many politicians are willing to take the risk of getting on the wrong side of a 42-54 split. The former means that opinion is running negative in just about every state and district. The latter means that opinion is running about 50-50 in states and districts somewhat more Republican than average. Which is many, many states and districts.

Using the 2004 election results as a gauge of what states and districts are more Republican than average (though not of current opinion today, which is different from what it was in November 2004), you find that very many are: George W. Bush carried the 50 states by a 31-19 margin and carried the 435 congressional districts by a 255-180 margin.

The Times and CBS News didn't believe the 42-54 result, for the good reason that the poll didn't show movement on opinion on Iraq and for (I suspect) the bad reason that they couldn't imagine there could be any rise in the percentage favoring the policies of Bushchimphitler. So they took another poll—an unusual step, because it costs money to take polls, and news organizations, particularly those with declining audiences like the Times and CBS, have limited budgets. Presumably they expected to get a different result. But they got pretty much the same numbers.

Interesting. We'll be able to see if there are similar shifts in other polls. Maybe there will be; maybe there won't. The nightmare scenario for Democrats is that increasing numbers of Americans will see progress in Iraq and will not want to accept defeat when they could have victory. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, according to the Washington Post's Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza, is already having such a nightmare. He said that a positive report by Gen. David Petraeus in September will be "a real big problem for us":

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

The "us" in question is of course the House Democratic leadership. A political party gets itself in a bad position when military success for the nation is a "real big problem for us." Voters generally want their politicians to root for the nation, not against it. We're still a good distance from this nightmare scenario for congressional Democrats, and we may never get there. But it seems that Jim Clyburn, a highly competent politician and from everything I've seen a really nice man, is worried about it.

Finally, read this interview by radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt of John F. Burns, the New York Times's chief correspondent in Iraq. Burns is a superb reporter, probably one of the best war reporters of all time, and his analysis is absolutely fascinating. And if you haven't already, take a look at the reader-supported reporting of Michael Yon and Michael Totten.

There is a difference between extreme right/left and
RepublicanConservative/DemocratLiberal. I still think we can talk without name calling, especially when it references Nazi. Most of us have strong opinions about certain issues but very few of us are extreme. The problems in this country have less to do with us and more to do with the cronies on both sides in Washington. They will not fix any problem that benefits them and their pockets. We should be holding their feet to the fire and not attacking each other.

We all hear the economy is great, the war in Iraq is bad, health care is deplorable, unemployment is down, gas prices are up.
I would like to know, as an average person, how is your life?

I am concerned about the direction of the country and find myself angsting daily. If I focus on my personal self this is what I find:

I live in an expensive area. It wasn't when I moved here, but I choose to live here and put up with the cost of living.
My husband and I are doing pretty well on his salary; have some investments but I fear not enough.
My grown children live here and are struggling but doing okay. The bank of dad has not been invaded recently. But they do have that to fall back on, at least until he retires.
Gas prices are lower but still bad; affects my kids more because I go nowhere and my husband works nearby.
Groceries are expensive. I have to watch it carefully. Rarely buy avocados any more even though it is a big industry here they are soooo expensive.
My biggest concern is health care costs after retirement. My husband's hope to retire at 62 is fading and even when he is 65 I will only be 61, still a cost nightmare.
I know the overall feeling around the country is glum but I would like to hear from you personally.
O

Take a line from "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" and argue your political point without spewing personality rhetoric:

I take - Play fair -
Nobody who enters the White House as President of the United States is stupid. Mr. Bush's policies may be responsible for the mess in Iraq, but he consulted his advisors and made judgements based on facts he perceived to be real. History will tell. How do you think the world would view crossing the Potomac if Washington were President today; Normandy if Roosevelt and Eisenhower were under today's scrutiny? I just watched Flags of Our Fathers and learned that when a sailor fell overboard the ships did not stop. The news media would have a field day today. If Mr. Carey were in office when 9/11 happened we really don't know how he would have responded. But he would have made his best judgement based on his advisors. Should we challenge our government? Absolutely! Should we spew hatred through personal attacks? Look over each line in "Kindergarten" and challenge yourself and us to reasonable debate.