Dems dim on numbers
Democrats, slobbering over their new power, are promising to hamstring the President's efforts to end the Iraq War in victory. They are promising to do everything short of cutting off funding for the current troops. When you tell the troops that we're running like cowards, I don't really think they'll sigh in relieve that their "funding" wasn't cut off.
Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy is reportedly preparing legislation that would force the President to come hat in hand to Congress before deploying any new troops. Congress has the Constitutional right to declare war, they do not have the Constitutional right to micromanage it. The President via the Constitution is given the job of "running" the war by being placed as the Commander in Chief. Congress trying to micromanage a war is why few Vietnamese today enjoy any freedom.
All this because the Democrats claim they now have a "mandate" from the voters. Is there any worse nightmare that Democrats with power?
Funny that when the GOP took Congress in 1994 it was called "a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage" and "the voters had a temper tantrum". Remember, that was two years into the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, Six years into the Bush(W) administration the Democrats squeak into control of Congress after years of tepid commitment on the part of GOP politicians to the principals of Conservatism, and the Dims want to claim a platform on anything and everything they can, except the very things their own looney voters want: An immediate end to the war, and Bush impeached. If they want to claim a platform, there's their platform. They campaigned on hinted promises to nutcases, and now the nutcases are on the outside screaming to be let in.
"Speaker Pelosi, it's Cindy Sheehan again. What do I tell her this time?"
Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the DNC need to face reality. With an unenthused right, the bulk of the vote was split between Conservatives that held their noses and voted anyway and the moderately rational left (yeah, there are actually some out there, but the media treats them like their mythical creatures. Y'know like they do former homosexuals and Conservative Blacks). The deciding factor were the moonbats like Sheehan, Al Franken and Daily Kos readers. When the inmates elect you king of the insane asylum, it doesn't impress anyone when you then pretend to have been given a "mandate" for moderation.
Oh, but they keep on whining about how many soldiers have died in Iraq. Here's some stats they won't want to see and wouldn't want you to see...
[* source] Length Combat Deaths War of Independence* 6 years 8 months 4,435 World War I* 1 year 7 months 53,513 World War II* 3 years 8 months 292,131 Korean War* 3 years 1 month 33,651 Vietnam War 7 years 6 months 47,369 Iraq War (as of 1/8/2007) 3 years 9 months 2,415
So why is it we're expected to believe that this war is so much more "costly" than any other?
I know the 3,000 plus number is being bandied about but the Media and the Dims count all troops who have lost their lives, as if being in combat means nothing can kill you except the enemy. There have been 585 non-hostile deaths among the troops, and given that there are somewhere around 150,000 of them, that's not a large number. The current death rate for all Americans is 8.26 deaths/1,000 people/year. 8.26 times 150 times 3.75 would be 4,646.25. Hmm, that means even including the combat deaths, the life expectancy of a US soldier in Iraq is greater than the average US citizen. Dang, send me over there!
Obviously the demographics are different. All US citizens would include senior citizens, who...well, tend to die at a fairly high rate.
So let's look at the mortality rate for people aged 25-34 (I couldn't find the one for just men, so since women tend to outlive men, this is still lower than it should be for a comparable demographics of our troops, since they are mostly men) The CDC puts the death rate for 25-34 year-olds at 103.6 per 100,000. So multiplying 103.6 time 1.5 (150,000 troops) times 3.75 (been there 3 years 9 months) we get 582.75. How many non-combat deaths have there been in Iraq? Wasn't it 585? Hmmm.
But, here's something else to note...
The overall demographic would exclude those inconvenient, unborn babies Liberals are so fond of slaughtering by the millions each year. Each year it is estimated that about 25 out of every 100 pregnancy is aborted. That makes the death rate for unborn babies 250 for every 1,000—25,000 for every 100,000.
Are you paying attention? An unborn baby in America is 125 times more likely to be murdered by its own mother than a US soldier has of being killed by an insurgent in Iraq! If our soldiers died at the rate we slaughter unborn children, in the 3 years and 9 months of the Iraq war we'd now have 140,625 dead, not just 2,415.
Democrats certainly have a problem with numbers.
Posted by Danny Carlton at January 9, 2007 7:57 AM