O’Hanlon: Soldiers Of The 82nd Airborne ‘May Have Been Taking A Slight Poke’ At Me
O’Hanlon: Soldiers Of The 82nd Airborne ‘May Have Been Taking A Slight Poke’ At Me
In his New York Times op-ed, co-authored with Ken Pollack, Michael O’Hanlon wrote in support of the escalation:
Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
This weekend, seven soldiers of the 82nd Airborne responded in kind:
Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. … As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.
This morning, O’Hanlon appeared on The Diane Rehm Show to discuss the situation in Iraq. Asked to comment on the op-ed written by the soldiers, O’Hanlon said, “They may have even been taking a slight poke at us as we used a similar term in an op-ed three weeks earlier.” Indeed.
O’Hanlon went on to argue that, while he “read that op-ed very carefully” and has “great respect” for the soldiers, he had to “get a few simple facts on the table” that suggested the soldiers didn’t understand the full picture. O’Hanlon claimed “civilian fatalities are down by a third,” and “we’re on the tactical offensive.”
Listen to a portion of the interview here:
Here’s a “simple fact” O’Hanlon neglected. Statistics compiled by O’Hanlon’s Brookings Institution Iraq index (see p. 18) demonstrate this summer is the bloodiest summer of the entire Iraq war:
June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed so far
Center for American Progress military analyst Lawrence Korb — who also appeared on the Rehm show — cautioned O’Hanlon against dismissing the soldiers’ arguments. “Let me tell you something,” he said. “From my own days in the military, pay attention to the enlisted people. The officers — and I was an officer and I went through Vietnam — would always try to put out a rosy scenario to please the political masses. What these young people are saying is look, you can’t win no matter what you do.”
UPDATE: McClatchy reported recently that its statistics don’t support the claim that Iraqi civilian casualties have fallen dramatically.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
73 Responses to “O’Hanlon: Soldiers Of The 82nd Airborne ‘May Have Been Taking A Slight Poke’ At Me”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think they wanted to use a kbar. He should consider himself lucky.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pmO'Hanlon believes he's more important than he is.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:14 pmKev has righty egomania - thinks anyone gives a rat's ass what he says, or would bother to go out of their way to discredit him.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:15 pmYeah O'Handbag
August 21st, 2007 at 2:18 pmThose being shot at and needing to dodge/elude IED's have nothing better to do than write an OpEd just to get a dig in at you ........
What a self-aggrandizing douchebag.....
The argument that civilian casualties is down is suspicious.
For one thing, there are significantly less civilians left in the country this year compared to last year. Millions have fled the country!
Besides, I thought they didn't track civilian deaths?
And then there's this quote I found in an article about civilians getting killed at U.S. checkpoints:
"The statistics don't include instances of American soldiers killing civilians during raids, arrests or in the midst of battle with armed groups, and it remains unclear how the U.S. military tracks such information. Often rotating units use their own systems, and there have been several incidents of soldiers not reporting the deaths of civilians, most notably the November 2005 shooting of 24 civilians in the northern Iraqi town of Haditha."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/nancy_youssef/story/17836.html
My point being that civilian deaths may not be the best gauge of progress.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:19 pmActually Ohanlon should turn around.
I think thats Ted Haggard trying to take a "small poke" at him.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pmI'll listen to the boots on the ground WAAAAAAAAAAYYY before listening to the pundits in the Green Zone...
August 21st, 2007 at 2:27 pmMe, me, me, me, me, meeeeee!
It's always about me!!!
God gawd man, for once, can't it be about the soldiers there, and what they are witnessing?
Nahh, forget it. It's always about meeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!
August 21st, 2007 at 2:29 pmAt this point, I'm almost glad that O'Hanlon is at least talking about the war. That's not the case at Fox News:
Fox Buries Iraq War News
Fox has about half the coverage of its cable competitors.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:30 pmThe Iraq war as we see it - Seven U.S. soldiers speak
BAGHDAD: Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is surreal.
A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: Had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/opinion/ediraq.php
August 21st, 2007 at 2:34 pmThe increase in civilian casualties in Iraq does not affect everyone's job there. Especially those working in the funeral industry.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pmTo be fair, I wouldn't necessarily believe the opinions of soldiers as it applies to the entire war effort. They see but a small sampling of what's going on & may or may not have an accurate overall feel for what's going on. I might know more about the strength of a baseball team by watching film and analyzing stats then a team member. Mind you, in this case O'Hanlon knows only what the GWB team wanted him to know. Couple that with his predisposition to support Bush & his opinion is virtually worthless.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmbear in mind 4% of the population is now DEAD
August 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmTime to shut up, O'Hanlon. What a pompous idiot. He fits right in with all the other bought-and-paid-for Neocon scum. Is the guy trying out to be the next Bill Kristol?
August 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmThese guys were poking at all of the idiots who feel they can travel to Iraq, stay in the green zone, and have a perfectly good idea of what is going on in that country. That includes Both Democrats, and republicans. O'Hanlon has a very high opinion of himself, if he thinks the article was targeted to him specifically.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pmLowered civilian death tolls seem to bother margaret.....as do the numbers of dead at US checkpoints. Those suicide bomber types have a way of getting themselves killed (hooray!!) and UNFORTUNATELY others along with them.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm"Tactical offensive"...!?!??!?!?! Um, over 4 years since Baghdad fell? We were in WWII for less amount of time than this! And this guy is saying that our military is on the tactical offensive? Against a rag tag bunch of kids toting machine guns? WTF?!?!?!
What is happening to our country! Have we lost ALL COMMON SENSE??
We are truly in a decline. As with all empires, they rise and fall.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pmO'Hanlon is the dirty little secret that libtards and progressives are both frustrated by and discomforted by, since he exercised intellectual honesty (a rare feature among leftards) and actually told the truth about what was occurring with Bush's surge in Iraq. It's hilarious to see leftards and progressives now eat their own, going after O'Hanlon because he dared to overstep the leftarded school of thought which espoused that Iraq was lost no matter what, surge or no surge. Casualty-O'Hanlon joins the long list of leftards who are eaten by their own when they dare trespass against libtard orthodoxy, everyone from Lieberman to the scientists under Clinton who deny global warming. O'Hanlon is proof that Bush's surge is working because he is from the extremely leftarded Brookings Institute, a center whose folks have been relentless in defaming the management of the war. O'Hanlon USED to support the war initially, but he turned against it when, he alleges, Bush mismanaged it.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pmCASUALTIES STARTING AUGUST 1st ( 21 days)
Wednesday: 6 GIs, 1 Brit, 178 Iraqis Killed; 188 Iraqis Wounded
Thursday: 3 GIs, 116 Iraqis Killed; 76 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 3 GIs, 22 Iraqis Killed; 13 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday: 1 Marine, 38 Iraqis Killed; 26 Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 4 GIs, 116 Iraqis Killed; 49 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 8 GIs, 123 Iraqis Killed; 131 Iraqis Wounded
Tuesday: 3 GIs, 1 Briton, 63 Iraqis Killed; 50 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 93 Iraqis, 1 Briton Killed; 63 Iraqis Wounded
Thursday: 3 GIs, 2 Britons, 46 Iraqis Killed; 21 Iraqis Wounded
Friday: 81 Iraqis Killed, 89 Wounded
Saturday: 1 GI, 81 Iraqis Killed; 34 Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 5 GIs, 1 Fiji Soldier, 57 Iraqis Killed; 37 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 4 GIs, 41 Iraqis Killed; 20 Iraqis Wounded
Tuesday: 6 GIs Kille, 322 Iraqis, 412 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 87 Iraqis Killed, 44 Wounded
Thursday: 3 GIs, 64 Iraqis Killed; 40 Wounded
Friday: 4 GIs, 34 Iraqis Killed; 65 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday: 32 Iraqis Killed, 46 Iraqis Wounded
Sunday: 125 Iraqis Killed, 78 Wounded
Monday: 1 GI, 60 Iraqis Killed; 67 Iraqis Wounded
Totals
August 21st, 2007 at 2:43 pm55 GIs Deaths reported this month
5 Coalition Trrop deaths
1779 Iraqi Deaths reported this month
1549 Iraqis wounded
#16 needs to back off and refuse the second free lobotomy at the republo idiot factory parties.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:45 pmO'Hanlon on the left....RIIIIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTTTTT
August 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pmTotals
55 GIs Deaths reported this month
5 Coalition Trrop deaths
1779 Iraqi Deaths reported this month
1549 Iraqis wounded
Comment by Tobey Tall — August 21, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Yes, the surge is sure working great!
August 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pmI'll have two cups of extra heavy duty Surge, please!
Why, I've never seen my sheets so white, since I started using Surge!
1,017,086 Total Iraqi Deaths
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html
JUST SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND
equivalent of 339 twin towers
or 4% of the Iraqi population dead
August 21st, 2007 at 2:47 pmI bet he typed that all in one breath, too
August 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pmTotals
55 GIs Deaths reported this month
5 Coalition Trrop deaths
1779 Iraqi Deaths reported this month
1549 Iraqis wounded
thats in 21 days
August 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pmO'Hanlon takes a page out of the Giuliani camp. Claims he has seen more, and knows the facts on the ground better than our troops do. How many minutes was he in Iraq?
August 21st, 2007 at 2:48 pm#16, too afraid to call O'Hanlon one of his/it's own. Sounds like this poster had a 2nd helping of stupid soup today.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:49 pm1,017,086 Total Iraqi Deaths
Sure, but how many in the last hour? For some, progress is measured minute by minute.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:49 pmComment by Tobey Tall — August 21, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Don't mean to split hairs, Tobey, but Monday was the 20th.It is inconceivable that there have been none today.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:49 pmComment by O'Hanlonisnowexiledbylibtardsandprogressives — August 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Since when is O'Hanlon a liberal? Despite his being carefully marketed as a "war critic" so his puff piece about how well things are going in Iraq would get some credibility, he has championed this war from the beginning.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pmWaltTheMan - I get my figures from http://www.antiwar.com
Tomorrow I will add Todays resultswhich stands at
Tuesday: 29 Iraqis Killed, 27 Wounded
SO FAR .........by Tomorrow morning I will get more correct figures
August 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pmWhat strikes me most is the incredible divorcedness from reality of guys like O'Hanlon. Somehow, they remind me of some of my former colleagues. They were so hot on being important, because as HR people they were part of the "Management" they started the weirdest things. One girl, who was really a very junior clerical administrator on a quite low salary, started to go to the shops and scratch little holes in designer clothes she couldn't afford to get a discount, because as "part of the management" she had to dress accordingly.
O'Hanlon seems to want to be part of the "Washington Elite" and to be that you have to be noticed. I'd bet that the soldiers who wrote their op-ed didn't give a flying (insert your favourite obscene word) about this (insert another obscenity). And the guys who have clout in Washington may well look at O'Hanlon with a mixture of pity and disgust. (I did use this look on my junior colleague).
Moreover, did you notice that the trolls are way below standard nowadays? They're not even unintentionally funny anymore. Sad bunch.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm#28 Since when is O’Hanlon a liberal?
The problem is, when someone falls on our side of a few of the artificial wedge issues the righties concoct, the right calls them a "liberal" - the overall political ideology of the person in question is never considered.
This is why they get all upset at us for "kicking out the liberal Joe Lieberman for one issue". Lieberman was never a liberal - he just happens to side with us on a very few issues, but those are big make-or-break issues for the right.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pmThey must not be feeding this site very well, it keeps eating my posts and nulling me out!
August 21st, 2007 at 2:56 pmwhere are you #16 - come on back for more shit soup....troll asswipe
August 21st, 2007 at 2:58 pmWhat a narcissistic *ass... it's all about you, huh, O'Hanlon?
August 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pmO'Hanlon is suggesting that the soldiers aren't getting the "full picture" but somehow HE is??? And why does he think he is somehow more enlightened than somebody who's been fighting this war for the past 15 months? This would be like me telling Brett Favre that he's not getting the "full picture" of the game he's playing against the Chicago Bears and I need to give him some "facts" I've been spoonfed from some PR department somewhere.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:01 pmWhat an amazingly arrogant piece of s*it this guy thinks he is if he honestly believes the soldiers of the 82d Airborne have nothing better to do than try to "jab"him.
Just another slimey piece of crap cut from the Neocon Mold.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pmIn the wake of the controversial O'Hanlon/Pollack op-ed endorsing the progress of the surge in Iraq, the liberal blogosphere has been awash in commentary about the mainstream media's narrow reliance on the pro-surge viewpoints of "very serious people" constituting the "foreign policy clerisy." As it turns out, not so much. A new joint report from Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress suggests America's leading foreign policy experts see President Bush's Iraq surge as a failure.
For the details, see:
August 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm"Report: Foreign Policy 'Experts' Reject the Iraq Surge."
This tit-for-tat about the amount of deaths accumulated is really tiresome given the fact that whatever "victory" is in Iraq will not come from a military solution. It's amazing how supporters of this occupation have the same memory lapse as Cheney, Gonzo and other cons for past statements and assumptions. I distinctly remember the plea from Bush to "give the surge a chance" so that the political process in Iraq can move forward. This "lull" in troop deaths mean nothing if the Iraqi parliment isn't willing to come together to unite Iraqi's. I hear nothing from supporters concerning this point. A convenient omission.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pmUnder questioning from Duncan Hunter in recent congressional testimony Larry Korb had to admit "Im not a military expert". He's paid $180,00 by Center for American Regress a year to say whatever CAP wants him to say and go on tv claiming to be a military expert. A total misrepresentation of his credentials, even according to him.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pmOuch...
"A dismal 6% believe the U.S. is winning the war on terror, versus 84% who believe the struggle against Al Qaeda is being lost."
For the details, see:
August 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm“Report: Foreign Policy ‘Experts’ Reject the Iraq Surge.â€
Trizza,
To the Bush is My God supporters it's not about the deaths of soldiers or Iraqis, it's all about giving Bush enough cover to get to 2009.
They think they are doing the Lord's work by excusing the inadequate little man in the White House.
The 25%ers "believe" that Jebus told Bush to invade Iraq, and how could Jebus be wrong?
And facts and reality don't matter much to these worthless f*cks. It's all in the belief.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pmSo how come these young people have it right and these old specialists have it wrong all the way?
August 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pmO’Hanlon: Soldiers Of The 82nd Airborne ‘May Have Been Taking A Slight Poke’ At Me
If any of the Soldiers of the 82nd took a poke at you, the nurse will tell you about it next week when you wake up. =D
-------------------------------------------------
August 21st, 2007 at 3:27 pmRanger motto: "Rangers lead the way!"
82 Airborne : "All the Way!!"
It's all about you O'Hanlon.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:38 pmThe point that you are all missing is that Baghdad is safer than Washington DC. I know that because I got an e-mail telling me so. You'll probably tell me to go to snopes.com and that the math is defective and the numbers cited are wrong, but what do you know? I got an anonymous e-mail. So there!
August 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pmTraitor.How many silver pieces did you get in exchange, judas.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pmLowered civilian death tolls seem to bother margaret…..as do the numbers of dead at US checkpoints. Those suicide bomber types have a way of getting themselves killed (hooray!!) and UNFORTUNATELY others along with them.
Comment by mighty virus — August 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Are you talking to me virus? Let me slow it down for you - considering you seem to have comprehension issues along with the laundry list of other issues you seem to possess.
I am BOTHERED by mis-respresentations. How about you? Do you enjoy being deceived?
I do not like being LIED to. How about you? Do you enjoy being lied to? If they at least tell you what you want to hear? If they tell you a lie that fits into your comfortable view of things then is that okay with you?
And yes, you are correct about one thing at least, I do care about innocent civilians being killed...by anyone, and that includes American soldiers. Are you alright with innocent civilians being killed? What does that make you?
Are you aware that not everyone in Iraq speaks English? And that when an American soldier is yelling instructions at them to stay back or come forward or whatever that they just possibly do not understand what the soldiers are saying? You are such a tool.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pmI would not trust the "official" statistics coming out of Iraq---either from an Iraqi ministry or the Pentagon. They lie in order to make themselves look better than they really are. Doctors, morgue workers, and other local civilians are a lot less likely to lie.
Tobey Tall's source at #21 is good methodology. Even the British Defense Ministry had to admit it.
During Vietnam, the Pentagon had the enemy's numbers so small and the number we were killing so high---that we were killing more than existed!!!
August 21st, 2007 at 3:48 pmI wonder where the idea civilian deaths in Iraq are down? The Pentagon says they don't keep track of civilians, and other than large suicide bombings, where are the numbers coming from? There are no roving reporters (U.S. or anyone else),no national companies scouring the country (they'd be kidnapped or shot). Here, in the relatively safe U.S., about 900,000 people disappear every year (FBI statistics-just Google it).So where does this info come from?
August 21st, 2007 at 3:52 pm#31 - That artificial line is created because the 25%'ers move in absolute lockstep. They can't believe that someone who is generally a progressive or a liberal could actually make up his own mind.
Therefore, if a *quote* liberal *unquote* like Pollack or O'Hanlon declares that the surge is a success, all liberals must believe it's a success--except the crazy ones, of course. Their only point of reference is their own experience, where, if Fox News tells them to think something, they are duty bound to think it and regurgitate it.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:53 pmThank you Ken! Watch out or you may get exposed to a particularly virulent virus accusing you of being upset with the notion that "civilian death are down". The virus is so stupid it doesn't understand that our point is that even if they ARE down (how can we even tell) perhaps it's not even due to the so-called surge! There are less people in Iraq now and many civilians have fled the country.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:57 pmAnd don't accuse me of wanting deaths, because my wishes would have resulted in over one million fewer Iraqi deaths and over 4,000 fewer coalition deaths.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:04 pmAnd saved us $2.2 TRILLION. And made us more secure.
I'm normally a ver easy-going person, but this O'Hanlon guy is beginning to make me violently angry. If he wants to support the surge, then fine, let him go enlist. But to lie about the number of casualties - he's crossed the line.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pmEven if civilian casualities are down by a third, it is still chaos in the country. Even if civilian casualties are down by 75%, it is still chaos. Hell, it could go down by 100%, and if there is no functioning government, electricity, running water, and law enforcement, it is still chaos. When will these idiots understand?
August 21st, 2007 at 4:30 pmWhere does O'Hanlon get his figures from? He may think that "civilian fatalities are down by a third", but that's not what the Iraqi health, defence and interior ministries told AFP about July - which was that they'd risen 33% month-on-month to at least 1,652.
Where does he get his numbers from?
August 21st, 2007 at 4:31 pmDiane Rehm is the best interviewer on radio.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:56 pmAmazing. The biggest terrorist attack since 9/11 destroys a whole Iraqi village and O'Hanlon thinks the casualty rate is going down? He truly is nuts. Luckily for him, the establishment press has agreed to lowball Iraqi casualties. Absurdly, the Washington Post Iraq stories end with a column toting up "facts" about Iraq. One of the facts is that the maximum estimate of Iraqi casualties is 78,000. In fact, it is 650,000 via the Lancet survey. They well know this, but why spread such depressing news to the public?
August 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pmImagine if every Iraqi civilian either fled the country or was killed. The Reps would spin this as proof that the surge was working because civilian Iraqi deaths were now zero. But, but, but who would be there to welcome the U.S. as liberators? Damn small party.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:48 pmDave C - that kind of logic will certainly get you in trouble! : )
August 21st, 2007 at 5:55 pmIf only someone in the 82nd Airborne would take a poke at him -- with their bayonet.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pmTime to shut up, O’Hanlon. What a pompous idiot. He fits right in with all the other bought-and-paid-for Neocon scum. Is the guy trying out to be the next Bill Kristol?
Comment by VerbalKint — August 21, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
couldn't agree more,verbal - o'hanlon and people like him from these so-called think tanks need to STFU and stop making predictions as well - to quote bill maher,"....there's a name for people who are wrong about everything all the time - husbands..."
August 21st, 2007 at 8:15 pmSince when is O’Hanlon a liberal?
He became a liberal when it was better for the GOP Noise Machine to cast him as one.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:19 pmHmm...lets see now. O'Hanlon a Liberal? Thats about as funny as O'Hanlon thinking he has the credibility to co-author that piece of crap Op-Ed.
August 21st, 2007 at 9:22 pmWhat amazes me is how so many veterans give credence to these hypocrites. O'Hanlon has too many important things to do other than put on a uniform and go to Iraq. Hell, the GI's who wrote that op-ed piece write much better than this clown. The information they put into that, and the way the words flowed were great.
And even though I do not want to go there, I am a veteran, 1965-70, and I was out there.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:18 pm"They may have even been taking a slight poke at us "
Sure, the only explaination for soldiers writing that the war is going badly is to "take a poke" at some blow-in who says it's going dandy.
Unless... Isn't it possible that they, um, actually meant what they said?
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 amWhich intelligence agency does he work for, come on this guy is not a journalist , is this some kind of open joke . He knows the goal is to squash the resistance to U.S. occupation ,ensure OIL laws favor U.S. corporations, then SOME troops will with drawled,
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:29 amand then they can plan the next invasion .
He's escorted by U.S. military , he's protected by U.S. military, he gets all his info from U.S. military, and talked to a few Iraqis hand picked by ..drum roll...U.S. militaRY, or more like military intelligence.
Of course he won't mention the thousands of troops who have died in HOSPITALS around the country, from Iraq wounds or the hundreds of mercenaries who have died with no reporting and continue to die.
How does he measure your common street crime that sky rocketed after bush's invasion , that continues to devour Iraqi civilians daily.
Kahoneez
O'Hanlon is basically a nut. He believes that freedom has a short term benefit in battle, while ignoring the capabilities of societies which most certainly weren't free (Such as Sparta, or Germany) against societies which were (Such as Athens, or Poland.)
Further, he credits the virtue of freedom as being a deciding factor in certain battles when it was more of a case of survival
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 amIt's stunning that O'Hanlon thinks he knows more about what's happening on the ground in Iraq than soldiers who were there for 15 months compared to his 8 days.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 amChickenhawk - chickensh1t.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 amHey, O'Hanlan that wasn't a slight poke. That was a slap-down. You not only don't know what war looks like, but you are also clueless as to when you are being dissed.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pmfootsore
little orphan o'hanlon...
the sun will come out tomorrow!
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 ambet your bottom dollar that tomorrow
there's be sun!