Cynical Nation

Shit even Tony Blair was pleased that they were 'released' on that BBC page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4836614.stm

Good lord, these CPT people are upset that they were 'rescued' because it shows that they were threatened by deadly terrorists and not desperate freedom-fighters. You have to have your head so...far....up....in there...to maintain such a preposterous position and it's sickening and insulting to the soldiers who saved their blind asses.

The brain-dead slugs who keep insisiting that (1) "we brought terorrism on ourselves by our unfair treatment of the rest of the world" and (2) our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have "created more terrorists" CANNOT be over-stated.

They are more than mere "defeatists," they are even more than merely anti-American, they are siding with the Medieval savages against the forces of Western civilization.

They are a force for evil.

To put the curret U.S. Military losses in perspective, here's an intersting study from the Depratment of Defense.

Active Duty Deaths: Bush vs. Clinton

http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/03/22/active_duty_deaths_bush_vs_clinton/

March 22, 2006
By rob on March 22, 2006 at 9:59 AM

Here's an interesting report compiled by the Department of Defense's Manpower Data Center.

What I found most interesting was a comparison of the active duty deaths between the first four years of Bill Clinton's term and the first four years of Bush's term.
Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302

Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187

The difference? 885 deaths over four years, or about 221 deaths a year. Of course, during Bush's first four years in office we liberated both Afghanistan and Iraq. What did we accomplish, in terms of military victories, during Clinton's first four years in office?

I can't think of a thing.

Unfortunately this report doesn't go beyond 2004, but using some other sources we can develop numbers for additional comparisons. There were another 3,198 active duty deaths under Clinton during the second four years of his term (1997 - 2000). That's about 800 active duty deaths per year. In 2005 - according to these numbers which, admittedly, aren't official - there were 846 active duty casualties. So far in 2006 we've had 139 active duty casualties. Those numbers may be a little low as I believe they may on encapsulate deaths in Iraq, but going with the assumption that most active duty deaths are going to be occurring in Iraq anyway they're probably pretty close.

And regardless, the point is clear: US Military active duty deaths simply have not gone up that much despite the fact that we've fought two major wars, liberating two formerly oppressed countries, and have struggled against an active terror insurgency in both countries ever since. Given the numbers above it is safe to say that fighting two major wars has resulted in an annual active-duty death total that is only about 250 (give or take) more than the annual total from a time when this country was relatively at peace.

The media and the anti-war crowd in this country would suggest that our military is depleted. Used up. I would argue that, given the modest increase in active duty deaths despite fighting two wars in two different countries, that we haven't even scratched the surface of what our military is capable of.

None of this is to suggest that military deaths should be taken lightly, yet we are often told of the "high cost" we are paying to wage these wars in the middle east. Is the cost - which is high from the perspective that any U.S. soldier's death is a high price - as high as some would have us believe?

Kind of puts the defeatists in perspective, doesn't it?

The actual DoD report is here;

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/Death_Rates.pdf

It's odd, but I kind of get the impression that the group would have been happier if the three had all been martyred like Fox.

Why would you think that K?

Don't get me wrong, while I certainly don't care all that much, one way or the other, about the fortunes or misfortunes of misguided "peaces activists," John Fox included. In fact, at this juncture, I must consider them to be a "part of the problem."

Without any doubt a "peace" can be had.

But we don't want "peace" under Sharia Law.

We don't want a "peaceful coexistance" in a world where Medieval savages disrupt global trade and make it hard, if not impossible, for America to export its "entertainment," and other exports around the world.

The Sharia savages will have no other "peace" - and THAT is why we must fight...I'm betting another tweny years...maybe another quarter century of serious fighting, then we're home free.

What I found interesting was the MSM using words such as 'released' and 'freed' in their coverage rather than 'rescued'.

The connotation seeming to be that no efforts were made by special ops to save their sorry asses.

Add to that the fact that their ungrateful reaction received scant mention in the MSM.

And then they have the temerity to bristle when it is suggested they are somehow biased.

Amazing.

That's true Mal.

"Rescue" implies "heroism" on the part of the soldiers the MSM despises (at least they seem to despise what they do), but "fully supports" (whatever "support" may mean to them).

As for their "ungrateful reaction" being overlooked, I suppose that would be the same reaction most in the MSM would have, so it probably didn't seem at all noteworthy to them.

Correct, JMK.

The question here is which received more coverage this week: this rescue or any of the bombings of Iraqis?

We know the answer don't we? And still the MSM gets their noses out of joint when criticized for beig lopsided in their coverage.

That is the reason that reports from people who've actually been over there differ so much from those you get from the MSM.

I suppose that's also why Richard Belzer said what a lot of the MSM elitists were thinking, "Most of the soldiers aren't College grads, so they don't know as much about Iraq as do the reporters...even those covering Iraq from a far."

Belzer's comments on Bill Maher's show raised quite a few Conservati hackles, but again, virtually no notice within the MSM.

It probably didn't seem at all noteworthy to any of them.