A Weaker Stream

Yes, Doug is still peeing himself.. but it doesn't seem to have the same urgency that it once did. His post is obviously in reference to this post of mine, from last week. Doug has gone back to not quoting and not linking, which is not surprising. He is, at his core, a coward after all.

Let's dive in.. shall we?

Was entering into Iraq a mistake? Some would say so, and others would not. The liberal left seems to think that Islamism is a marginal phenomenon, and fail to understand why Conservatives take the threat of Sharia's creeping advance so seriously. The obvious Islamization of Europe, and the fact that it will be an Islamic continent before long, seems not to concern them. After all, the liberal would argue, war is "Not a game of Risk," and as a result of Iraqi people are dead.

I actually laughed when I read that, because it couldn't fit Greenwald's observations any better then if I had written it for my Right Wing Loon blog.

One of the defining traits of right wing loons is their usage of veiled threats. In this case, "The obvious Islamization of Europe, and the fact that it will be an Islamic continent before long, seems not to concern them."

And that means exactly what, Doug? How do you propose to stop the "Islamization of Europe"? He doesn't say.. because, again, he is a coward... too afraid he will look crazy if he says it. Of course, he is crazy.. mad as a fucking hatter.

So.. Doug... Americans should determine the religious affinity of the various European countries? Understanding that every single European country pre-dates the United States by millennia, America should still wield the authority to determine what immigration policies and religious persuasion should be allowed in Europe?

What do we do if the European governments are not agreeable to our religious policy in their own countries? Do we bomb them? Do we use military force?

Again, Doug keeps signaling the end of the world as we know it, but says not one word about "fixing" it.

Will the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan affect the changing demographics in European countries? He does not say.

Next up, the out-right lying portion of his post, where he bemoans the loss of American service members, but says it's comparable to the number that died during Clinton's presidency;

But one thing I can say about those on the left complaining about all of the death from the war is that they apparently have not looked closely at the facts. Don't get me wrong, I dislike war as much as the next guy, and I mourn the deaths of each and every one of our service members as they bravely fight this necessary war. But if you look at the statistics of U.S. Military losses over the last twenty years you will recognize that Clinton in a non-wartime presidency had an extremely large amount of military deaths on his watch as well.

Doug's post references this "report" on military deaths over the last 20 years.

The problem is, I actually clicked through to look at the government statistics referenced in that "report" and they do not match, and are misleading. Not surprising when you consider that these right wing propagandists are dishonest.. lying fucks... They think nobody will actually check their fucking lying ass numbers. Scumbags.

Let's break it down.

This is the what the "report" lists as casualties. I bolded the numbers in error, and put the actual number from the government report next to it in italics.

As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ......... 2,392
1981 ........ 2,380
1984 ......... 1,999
1988 ......... 1,819
1989 ......... 1,636
1990 ........ 1,508 - 1507
1991 ......... 1,787 ..........................................
1992 ......... 1,293 Clinton years @ 13,417 deaths
1993 ......... 1,213
1994 ......... 1,075
1995 ..........2,465 - 1040
1996 ........ 2,318 - 974
1997 ......... 817
1998 ........ 2,252 - 827
1999 ......... 1,984 - 796 ..........................................
2000 ..........1,983 - 758
2001 ......... 890 - 891
2002 .......... 1,007 - 999
2003 .......... 1,410 - 1228
2004 ......... 1,887 - 1874
2005 ........ 919 - 1942
2006.......... 920 - 1858
7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
------------------------------------------------------------------

First, notice the time spans that are included with each President's statistics. The person who compiled the "report" makes a mistake that is common.... well, common to most stupid people.

Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, and began serving the office in 1993, and concluded in January 2001. Therefore, the years that would be statistically relevant to Clinton would be 1993-2000 (inclusive). The "report" uses 1992 to 1999.

George Bush was elected in 2000, and began serving his term in 2001. Therefore, the years that would be statistically relevant to Bush would be 2001 to present. The "report" uses 2000 to 2006.

Again, that's not surprising considering two issues. One, the author of the "report" is a lying fuck.. and two, he's really stupid to boot. On the conservative side, they go hand in hand.

Also, notice the numbers that are changed. The author of the "report" inflated (lied) the numbers on Clinton's side, and reduced (lied) the numbers on Bush's. This is typical - but you actually have to look at the source statistics to see that they're lying.

So, lets compare the actual numbers, and average them per year.

1213
1075
1040
974
817
827
796
758

Clinton 8 years - 7500

891
999
1228
1874
1942
1858

Bush 6 years - 8792

Clinton per year - 937
Bush per year - 1465

Again, the deception and the lying from Doug and his "sources" is constant and never-ending. But wait.. there's more.. because those numbers represent total deaths. Doug completely glosses over the number killed as a result of "hostile actions", i.e., killed in war.

Bill Clinton, 8 years, 1 total killed in action.

George Bush, 7 years, 3973 total killed in action and counting.

But, that's still not the entire picture.

George Bush, 7 years, 28,773 total wounded.

They will not stop lying. They will not stop using misleading statistics that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. They are fundamentally liars, cowards, and immoral blood thirty war mongers.

And Doug will not allow me to post this on his blog, because he is a coward, and will not allow his own readers see what a liar he is. He's afraid of the truth.. he's afraid of the bogeyman living under his bed.

In addition, the number of US casualties does not account for the 1 MILLION DEAD Iraqis. When you take away the statistics, and look at it in terms of actual human toll, it is an absolute horror for both the Iraqis and American military.

Greenwald suggests that the Great American Right Wing Loons ask themselves this question;

"Maybe my belief that I'm waging an apocalyptic War of Civilization against The Uniquely Evil Enemy is grounded in a psychological need, one that is extremely common if I look to the past, rather than an objective assessment or any sort of political belief or ideological conviction. Maybe I'm exaggerating the threat posed in order to inflate my own importance and give myself a sense of purpose and power as I convince myself that I'm waging all-important (though risk-free) war."

No.. they cannot entertain that question.. because their entire identity is bound to the need to have an enemy to fight. In their minds, this is the Biblical Holy War, and they are the Grand Crusaders of Truth, fighting valiantly with their keyboards.

While still being too cowardly to say exactly what they want. Doug did at one time hint at it.. He wanted to turn "sand into glass" - with visions of nuclear bomb blasts adorning his Blog of Manly Virtue.

Say it coward.. come on.. say it.. You want to kill all the Muslims... at least the ones that aren't passive and compliant to their Christian superiors.. right?

That must be your final solution because all you are offering now are vieled threats with no real means to your end. You offer nothing but lies and fear. You embody the virtues of Satan (as a literary figure) himself.

/update

While on this topic, I had the idea to check on a former nemesis, SkyDiveRick. Weird.