Burnt Orange Report

I don't think that Instapundit should be targeted.

After all, this is a well off guy, a tenured law professor who could well afford to do his blog if he gets no outside funds.

However, I do think that Glenn Reynolds should be examined to see if he upholds the standards that he insists on in others.

That would include Instapundit, but errors and omissions mean little for the reasons stated above.

I would also suggest that his professional works be examined with an eye toward improper sourcing, plagiarism, and other errors. /Even for a tenured professor, those things matter.

Good God, Byron... Could you act any more dismissive about the horrible thing Kos said? You make it seem as if he said something silly and wrong, not not all that offensive. In reality, he said something remarkably cruel and inhuman. He saw the images of charred American corpses being defiled by a vicious mob, and he said "Screw them." To call that 'stupid' is a gross understatement.

He wasn't offering conjecture about anonymous people, nor was he using hyperbole for the sake of some misguided humor. Those I might call stupid, but this? This was horrendous. It places Kos in the same category as Savage and all the rest of the fringe loons. I'm frankly shocked that the Burnt Orange Report would try to downplay this.

As for your argument about advertisers pulling their content, I think you're missing the point. Advertisers aren't being held responsible for all Kos's views, but they are being told not to patronize anyone who would say such horrible things. The left did the same thing when Michael Savage got his own show, and I didn't cry 'witch hunt' because I knew they had a point. Certain views are so unacceptable that they should be shunned from even the most tangental connection. This is why you don't see politicans advertising with the KKK or the Black Panthers, and that's why Kos deserves to be repudiated by everyone.

Oh, and BTW... As I see it, Parker's column wasn't advocating 'the nuking of the Sunni triangle.' In fact, it appears to introduce that as a reaction bourne of anger, and then says that that would lower us to the level of those who committed the massacre in Fallujah to begin with.

"I suppose it would be considered lacking in nuance to nuke the Sunni Triangle.

But so goes the unanimous vote around my household - and I'm betting millions of others - in the aftermath of what forevermore will be remembered simply as "Fallujah."

Wouldn't it be lovely were justice so available and so simple? If we were but creatures like those zoo animals we witnessed gleefully jumping up and down after stomping, dragging, dismembering and hanging the charred remains of American civilians whose only crime was to try to help them."

If you're reading this another way, I'd love to hear about it. As for Coulter, she was fired from the National Review for what she said. In any case, though, what has happened to Coulter has nothing whatsoever to do with Kos.

I wouldn't say Instapundit "harshly attacked" Kos. See here:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014877.php

and here:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014860.php

I'd say he called it like he saw it and never was out to get Kos. Kos was the one who a) made the remark, and b) pulled the remark, saying: 'There's been much ado about my indifference to the Mercenary deaths in Falluja a couple days ago. I wrote in some diary comments somewhere that "I felt nothing" and "screw them".' As someone who used to be in print media, I wouldn't call Kos's latter statement a retraction. I'd call it ducking the issue.

Kos brought this on himself. As someone who's making it big in new media, he should have known better. That said, a call to de-link him is insane and immature. (Something Instapundit doesn't support.) I think a de-linking campaign is the equivalent of Kos removing the original post. It's pretending something never existed or happened. Individually, blogs can choose who they want to link to or not, but calls to de-link someone cross over into just bad taste.

Owen-

You are an idiot and a tool.

TEX

Owen,
Lets try this again. Kos posted that comment on a DIARY in his blog.

He didnt write and article about it, it was a comment. He quickly said that his comment was dumb and he added a lot of background and explanation for the comment. What happened in Fallujah was horrible, but they signed up for the 1000 a day salary, they knew what they were doing (actually, apparantly they didnt).

Were the comments insensitive? Yes. Worthy of all the "outrage"? No.

BTW, what WERE those 4 "contractors" doing in Fallujah? The "guarding a humanitarian food convoy" line has now been dropped. Read this excellent article on "civilian contractors" is in the March issue of Esquire magazine (http://www.keepmedia.com/IssueHome.do;jsessionid=a2ahP5rZtEza).

(Short version: the group the journalist was with are very professional and competent, but they have to bad things and there are plenty of other contractor groups that are much, much worse)

Xerixes,

Lets try this again. Kos posted that comment on a DIARY in his blog. He didnt write and article about it, it was a comment.

So? What difference does this make? He both wrote and titled it, and put it there for everyone to see on his own website.

He quickly said that his comment was dumb and he added a lot of background and explanation for the comment. What happened in Fallujah was horrible, but they signed up for the 1000 a day salary, they knew what they were doing (actually, apparantly they didnt).

No he didn't. His supposed 'retraction' was actually nothing of the sort. He simply put up another post slandering the murdered men as 'mercenaries' (an improper term for them under both international law and accepted English), and then presumed to outline how angry he was at them for simply being there. Instead of "feeling nothing" he said he felt anger at the men who died. What kind of sick weirdo actually thinks that way?

And his argument was nonsense. There are lots of high-risk professions that people go into. That doesn't make it "their fault" if they die. If a fireman dies running up the twin towers, I don't say something like this: "Why should I feel bad? He knew the risks. What a heartless fool he was to become a fireman and put his family through this!"

Were the comments insensitive? Yes. Worthy of all the "outrage"? No.

His comments were beyond insensitive. They were montrous.

BTW, what WERE those 4 "contractors" doing in Fallujah? The "guarding a humanitarian food convoy" line has now been dropped.

Source? It's my understanding that they were guarding a food convoy. Whether it was humanitarian aid or for some other purpose, I don't know, but they were merely a security detail. If you're trying to go for some 'black helicopter' nonsense, try it with someone else.

Read this excellent article on "civilian contractors" is in the March issue of Esquire magazine (http://www.keepmedia.com/IssueHome.do;jsessionid=a2ahP5rZtEza). (Short version: the group the journalist was with are very professional and competent, but they have to bad things and there are plenty of other contractor groups that are much, much worse)

Well, your link is dead, but let me say this -- It's bad form to intimate that these men who died were anything but honorable without evidence to the contrary. They were mostly ex-special forces and all loyal Americans.

Oh, Owen, take a pill and settle down. Why are the deaths of four mercenaries so "brutal and outrageous" as opposed to the hundreds of uniformed soldiers who have simply been "killed in action"? Are the deaths of the mercenaries more outrageous because their bodies were descecrated? That's primitive and gruesome, but it doesn't make their deaths any more brutal. You're probably too young to remember American GIs coming back from Vietnam with human ears--and worse. I'm not. War is a brutal, dehumanizing experience, sparing neither soldier nor civilian. Is it less brutal to drop a smart bomb on the wrong house killing all its inhabitants than for muhajadeen to attack with hand grenades and automatic weapons a vehicle with four heavily armed invaders? Why is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi's? Were you as outraged, Owen, when the wingnuts on the Right celebrated the death of Rachel Corrie? Your selective outrage here is as predictable as it is pathetic. Dry your crocodile tears and go learn the next Rightwing meme.

Wherever he posted it, it was a stupid and insensitive thing for Kos to write.
Kos runs a wonderful blog, but he flirts just a bit too often with fringe lefty types; though he normally stops before going off the deep end.

Probably a lot of our service people and a lot of the contractors are in Iraq because the economic policies of the administration have made it impossible for them to earn a living in the States.
If Kos doesn't want Americans working in Iraq, he should start a fund to give grants to poor people so they don't have to go there.

R. Houston Bridges,

Oh, Owen, take a pill and settle down. Why are the deaths of four mercenaries so "brutal and outrageous" as opposed to the hundreds of uniformed soldiers who have simply been "killed in action"?

#1 - They weren't mercenaries. Period. Stop saying that they were. Look up 'mercenary' in the dictionary. Read Article 47 of the revised Geneva Convention, where 'mercenary' is defined. It doesn't fit, so quit insulting them by saying that they were.

#2 - I never said that the deaths of American soldiers were less meaningful than those of these security contractors. Never.

Are the deaths of the mercenaries more outrageous because their bodies were descecrated? That's primitive and gruesome, but it doesn't make their deaths any more brutal.

The fact that they were both shot, burned, and then hung from a bridge before cheering crowds does tend to make their deaths seem more brutal, yes. That's why it became more newsworthy, because of the grisly and public nature of their deaths. But did they experience more pain or suffering? Probably not.

You're probably too young to remember American GIs coming back from Vietnam with human ears--and worse. I'm not. War is a brutal, dehumanizing experience, sparing neither soldier nor civilian.

Oh, come on. Be honest: How many Vietnam GI's do you know who came home with collections of human ears?

Is it less brutal to drop a smart bomb on the wrong house killing all its inhabitants than for muhajadeen to attack with hand grenades and automatic weapons a vehicle with four heavily armed invaders? Why is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi's?

I don't believe an American life is worth more than an Iraqi's, although I see very good reasons why Americans would be more concerned with their own. It's the same reason I care more about family than total strangers -- I have a greater connection with the former.

Have we indiscriminently killed innocent Iraqis? No. Absolutely not. We faught a war to liberate them. They killed these men in a spirit of hatred an fanaticism. If you can't see the distinction, then you just might be hopeless.

Were you as outraged, Owen, when the wingnuts on the Right celebrated the death of Rachel Corrie? Your selective outrage here is as predictable as it is pathetic. Dry your crocodile tears and go learn the next Rightwing meme.

I didn't think it was appropriate to celebrate Corrie's death, although it appeared that she essentially committed suicide by standing in front of a bulldozer (the driver still claims he couldn't see her from his vantage). Still, I didn't see people 'celebrating' Corrie's demise, although I saw many people exploiting it, and I did speak out against that.

These men, conversely, were intentionally killed in a brutal fashion, and they did absolutely nothing wrong. For that, fools call them 'mercenaries' and express indifference over their deaths. It's sick.

Owen:

Ok, I did:
mer·ce·nar·y adj.
1) Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2) Hired for service in a foreign army.

Looks like those 4 "contractors" fit number 1. Would you consider the Chilean and S. African ex spec. forces soldiers who are being recruited for the same jobs mercenaries? If you still disagree with the term, how about "hired guns". Maybe that has less baggage than mercenaries.

About the food convoy idea, here's a link from TIME magazine. (Just copy and paste into your browser, it works, as does the other one.)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040412-607775,00.html
BTW, I got this from Daily Kos. Telling paragraph:

"Even representatives for the private security company that employed the men, Blackwater USA, could not say what exactly they were up to on that fateful morning. "All the details of the attack at this point are haphazard at best," says Chris Bertelli, a spokesman for Blackwater. "We don't know what they were doing on the road at the time."

Hmm. Own company doesnt know what they are doing.
3 ex Spec. Forces, one we know speaks Arabic. Blackwater charges 1k a day, per person, to the govt for these people to guard a food convoy? In unarmored SUVs? And what happened to that convoy?
Not conspiracy theory stuff, Owen, just genuinely curious what they were doing.

Anyway, this is beside the point. No one deserves to be desecrated like they were. Barbaric treatment, absolutely. But what Kos said in his explanation is that he does not feel as much about the deaths of highly paid mercenaries, who knew what they were getting into as OPPOSED to our soldiers over there who have no choice and are getting 8-10 times less pay.

PS. took the grammar test and got Grammar God!

A few more choic pieces from the end of teh article:

A Pentagon official says is quoted:

"These firms are hiring anyone they can get. Sure, some of them are special forces, but some of them are good, and some are not. Some are too old for this work, and some are too young. But they are not on the U.S. payroll. And so they are not our responsibility."

and again (not clear in article if is the same official)

"A Pentagon official who opposes their use nonetheless detects an obvious if unsentimental virtue: "The American public doesn't get quite as concerned when contractors are killed."

Dang unpatriotic Pentagon officials. Why weren't they fired?

Seriously. Read the Harpers article, read the Time article. It certainly doesnt make you want to say "screw them", but it should leave you with no illusions either.
Xerixes

I probably should just turn my back, but when some punk starts to spout shit, someone needs to call him on it. My first scary encounter with a Vietnam Vet was the year that Bobby Kennedy got killed. I was in summer school at the University of Houston. Two guys renting rooms in a house from a third guy. Common. The other guy was just back from a double tour with some sort of ranger company. That dude saw some bad shit, cause he was still seeing it. He had a real neat little pouch though that he wore around his neck. He told me that it was the ball sack of a Viet Cong whose throat he had cut. You know what? I believed him. Then and now.

I got drafted in 1971 and for the next two years, most of the men with whom I was serving in the army, had been in Vietnam for a previous tour of duty. I've known quite a few Vietnam vets. There are stories coming out soon that are going to blow your puny little mind about how we fought the war in southeast Asia.

Yes, punk, I've seen ears.

The bigger issue is that we have turned this war over, in part, to mercenaries and the corporations that hire them. (Ultimatelt, the true mercenaries are the coroporations themselves that stand to make the lion's share of the profit from waging war).

This means that there is a PROFIT MOTIVE to go to war. The Halliburton's of the world do not go into Iraq because of their philanthropy & altruism - they go to MAKE MONEY. If war becomes a profit motive, then one must ask, who decides to go to war? As the popular Republican President Eisenhauer said, "beware the industrial-military complex."

It seems that this industrial-military complex has found an all new profit motive. Not just to prepare for war, but to wage it as well.

Of course what happened to these mercenaries was horrific and they cannot be personally blamed. However, the larger question is why did we employ mercenaries in the first place?

xerixes,

Ok, I did:
mer·ce·nar·y adj.
1) Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2) Hired for service in a foreign army.

Looks like those 4 "contractors" fit number 1.

How so? Can you get into their minds and find out whether or not they are motivated solely by a desire for financial gain? Heck, by your twisted thinking, I could call anybody a mercenary just by assuming what their motives are. I could assume that all American soldiers just want to get that pension after 40 years, and so the US has a mercenary army. What's to stop me? Apparently, I can read peoples' minds!

Oh, and plumbers? They're mercenaries too. Who else but a person completely motivated by money would work on toilets for a living? Sure, the work is valuable, and sure, they want to provide a good life for their family, maybe put the kids through college, but NO! I'm Mister I-Can-Read-Everybody's-Mind. The rules of logic apparently don't apply to ME.

Please. This was a dumb response, xerxies. Try again.

About the food convoy idea, here's a link from TIME magazine...

...Hmm. Own company doesnt know what they are doing. 3 ex Spec. Forces, one we know speaks Arabic. Blackwater charges 1k a day, per person, to the govt for these people to guard a food convoy? In unarmored SUVs? And what happened to that convoy?

Not conspiracy theory stuff, Owen, just genuinely curious what they were doing.

Well, the Time article is the first I've heard of there being any major dispute over what the convoy was doing. Blackwater's own official news release, which Time oddly neglects to mention, said that it was, in fact, a food convoy being escorted. News stories are still saying without reservation that it was a food convoy. Now I'm not saying Time Magazine is biased or wrong; I'm just genuinely curious as to why they don't give more detailed information for other news outlets to follow.

Dang unpatriotic Pentagon officials. Why weren't they fired? Seriously. Read the Harpers article, read the Time article.

The Time article I read, and as I said, it doesn't answer much. As for Harper's, I don't trust them as a source so I'm not going to bother reading them (if I cited some looney right mag, you'd say the same -- trust me).

As for the Pentagon official, he wasn't necessarily being rude. He was simply pointing out that people tend to more attached to men in our military than security forces. I suppose that one could see it as insensitive, but I wouldn't. It certainly bares no comparison whatsoever to Kos's comments.

R. Houston Bridges,

I probably should just turn my back, but when some punk starts to spout shit, someone needs to call him on it.

(Rolls eyes). Ok, Dirty Harry... Let's hear it.

My first scary encounter with a Vietnam Vet was the year that Bobby Kennedy got killed. I was in summer school at the University of Houston. Two guys renting rooms in a house from a third guy. Common. The other guy was just back from a double tour with some sort of ranger company. That dude saw some bad shit, cause he was still seeing it. He had a real neat little pouch though that he wore around his neck. He told me that it was the ball sack of a Viet Cong whose throat he had cut. You know what? I believed him. Then and now.

If you haven't already, read 'Stolen Valor.' You'll understand why I don't take peoples' words on being Vietnam vets. A great many people were lying about their service back then, and the lies continue to this day. You know Brian Dennehy, the actor? He went around telling crazy war stories about Vietnam being like 'Apocalypse Now,' and then later it was shown that he never served in Vietnam at all. He just liked being able to say he was. Sadly, he was not alone -- not by a long shot.

But maybe the guy you knew was some kind of psychopath. If that's the case, it wasn't awfully common. Vietnam Vets don't have higher rates of unemployment or incarceration, although you'd expect they would if a substantial number were going around like madmen chopping off ears. And I've chatted with other Vietnam Vets who likewise say that this that's a load.

I got drafted in 1971 and for the next two years, most of the men with whom I was serving in the army, had been in Vietnam for a previous tour of duty. I've known quite a few Vietnam vets. There are stories coming out soon that are going to blow your puny little mind about how we fought the war in southeast Asia.

Yes, punk, I've seen ears.

Did you actually see combat in Vietnam? I mean, my father was in the military during the Vietnam War as well, and knew other veterans, but he wasn't hearing bizarre stories the likes of which you are claiming. But you know what? I guess it doesn't matter to you. You've clearly created your own reality concerning this.

And don't call me a 'punk.' You're the one who was recklessly throwing around the term 'mercenary' to denigrate those four dead men. I didn't notice you apologizing for that.

R. Houston Bridges,

Oh, and I also noticed you trying to draw a moral equivalency between a mistargeted missile and the intentional murder of four American 'invaders' (nice way to cheapen their lives, punk). Needless to say, that was pretty inflammatory and stupid. It almost sinks to Kos's standards.

I can see why you and your ilk defend him.

Owen;
Give it up. They were mercenaries, probably fiddle-fucking around looking for liquor, let down their guard and got killed. The Iraqi desecration of the bodies only serves to highlight how little most Americans know about this country and many cultures we supposedly "liberated". The fact is - they are dead, which sucks, but they did know, were paid, and took the risk. If they had families, then they willfully disregarded their concerns when they took that job and that trip.
Our Army (and other services) are 'professional' but not mercenary. Soldiers take an oath to defend the country and to follow the orders of the President. They don't select their own theaters of war and negotiate separate pay rates for missions. It is now up to the polity to decide if the President used them correctly. I think this incident serves to show that he did not.
Islam aside, the Iraqis struck me as a mostly ammoral people who take advantage of Islam to maintain tribal customs that mostly involve the domination of women. In all other dealings, they are cut-throat and will hammer any advantage over another person they can get. A kid will wave happily at the front of a convoy, throw a baseball sized rock at a driver in the middle and then wave again at the end. To him - its entertainment.
When our government launches a 2,000 pound into a residential neighborhood to take out a single person in a restaurant, knowing that dozens of innocent people live within its blast radius or start shooting 120mmDU rounds through mud houses to pick up a single attacker, we become little better than an Iraqi killing an occupier of his country. When we violate the Geneva Conventions, publicize the victimization and humiliation of the occupied country, and violate our own Law of Land Warfare, we should expect little better.

Well, I tried.

Owen.
You asked me to look up mercenary in the dictionary; I posted the definition. I offered a different phrase; you ignore it.

I show quotes from a Blackwater rep. about the contractors' activities; you mention a "press release" with no link. I ask legitimate, serious questions about the "food convoy" (where is the convoy? why "guard" it in unarmored SUVs? Do we {the people paying for this} need Spec Forces people costing us at least $4000 a day to do this?); you ignore them.

I link to two articles raising questions, you dismiss the one and dont bother reading the other.
BTW, it was in Esquire magazine, not Harpers. The original post was correct, in my follow up I mistakenly put Harpers. The article was by a journalist who travelled with the "contracting" group into Iraq and worked/lived with them for a while there. The leader of the group (Kelly McCann, who also works as an analyst for CNN and was friendly with the journalist for a few years before this.) Not interested? Fine.

Mind reading? Let me play devil's advocate. "All those civilian contractors are there for patriotic reasons and are great people. The fact that they can make 250k a year has nothing to do with anything. They just want to help out Iraq, and some have left the military to do that in a way that they can also raise a family! They are under the same laws, restrictions as the US military, because the security companies' and US Govt and Iraqi people's goals are all the same!"

If you agree with the above, well, I think that shows some naivete. If you think the above sounds a bit silly, well so do I. The only things that most of us about these people are: 1) they made a lot of money 2) they have specialized military training 3) they are in Iraq working for a private company 4) what they were doing on that day was, shall we say, debateable. We dont know if they were nice guys, heroes, chumps, sadistic killers or anything. Based on the info we have, is it unfair to call them mercenaries (i.e. motivated by profit)? Yes.

My point of putting up the 2 paras about the Pentagon official was to show that they (US Military) doesnt claim responsibility for the contractors and that the US public doesnt "have as much concern" for contractors. Why is that? Is the US public a bunch of callous, insensitive goons? No, but the motives for being in a war zone matter. This was the point of Kos comment and apparantly he is not alone in that sentiment.

Xerixes,

Here are some bios of the men who died. Read them. They were good men.

As for the Blackwater news release, I didn't supply a link because I thought it was common knowledge. I can't find the original link I read about it in, but here's another that says the same thing. Blackwater claims it was a security detail for a food convoy.

We also know more about these men than you presume. Read the statements of their families in the links above. Read what other security contractors have to say. I reiterate -- by your logic we could assume bad motives on behalf of anyone. There are a great many high-risk jobs that men do in part for higher pay. That doesn't justify saying 'screw them' or assuming that they are selfish people, not by a long shot. It's even worse when you're assuming it about distinguished veterans like these.

I'm sure that they believed their work was good and valuable, and I'd also wager that they wouldn't have been doing it if they hadn't felt that way. And can you argue with them? They were security contractors helping to get Iraq back on its feet. They were very well paid for the risk, but they were doing good work. Heck, doctors are often paid even more, and with a great deal less risk, but we don't claim that they don't want to help people.

Kos said something horrific. You're trying to spin it, but it still sounds shrill and barbaric to my ears. He didn't apologize for it; he just made it worse and insulted these men more. There's nothing to spin.

xerixes,

I tried to tell you...Owen is an idiot and a tool.

Tex, I will try once more;

Owen.
What do you think the families are going to say? "Oh, he was a total jerk and a bad husband"?

Look, the point is not whether they were good to their dog, or a loving husband, or went to the PTA on a regular basis. The point is that as a hired gun, who volunteered to go over to Iraq and sign on as a private contractor there is a differnt standard. A hired gun who is not responsible to to the US, to the CPA, to anyone except their own company. Wait, as a matter of fact, they are not even responsible to their own company, because over a week has passed and Blackwater is still "investigating" what these 4 were doing.. .

The point is that when they get hurt and/or killed some people (or most people, as the Pentagon official said) feel less than when our own regular soldiers or nat. guard soldiers, who didnt volunteer for this duty, DONT get $250,000 a year and dont get to stay in hotels or cancel their contract when they want to, get hurt or killed.

Next point
Ok, a company press release over a week old or a recent statement from a company official once questions have been raised about the contractors activity. Hmmm. Who to believe... who to believe..

Risk to pay ratio is really not the question. Again, our soldiers are taking more risks with less options for FAR less pay and comfort.

Xerixes

Xerixes,

The point is that as a hired gun, who volunteered to go over to Iraq and sign on as a private contractor there is a differnt standard. A hired gun who is not responsible to to the US, to the CPA, to anyone except their own company. Wait, as a matter of fact, they are not even responsible to their own company, because over a week has passed and Blackwater is still "investigating" what these 4 were doing.

What do you mean 'different standard?' How does this mitigate anything Kos said? How does this make their deaths any less significant? Just what are you trying to say?

You're dodging the issue, and frankly, I'd like to know why.

The point is that when they get hurt and/or killed some people (or most people, as the Pentagon official said) feel less than when our own regular soldiers or nat. guard soldiers, who didnt volunteer for this duty, DONT get $250,000 a year and dont get to stay in hotels or cancel their contract when they want to, get hurt or killed.

So? That's not what Kos said. What he said was "screw them" and then went on to explain that these "mercenaries" had done wrong by their families and were analagous to the rampaging savages of third-world nations. Face facts: Kos said something horrible, and you won't own up to it. Feeling a tad less bad about soldiers dying as opposed to contractors is one thing -- spitting on the graves of dead contractors and imputing bad motives to them is quite another.

Risk to pay ratio is really not the question. Again, our soldiers are taking more risks with less options for FAR less pay and comfort.

Apparently not... The military wasn't in Fallujah when these contractors were killed. In many cases, I'd say that security contractors such as Blackwater are taking on even greater risks than the army. They get better pay, yes, but many of their people are ex-special forces, and elite personnel get paid more. They're more in demand. You make that sound unseemly.

What I find unseemly is stuggling to find a way to consider their deaths less tragic. They died in a truly horrible and very public way, and most people felt for them. Those who didn't should look into their own souls, rather than frantically trying to explain their callous disregard.

None of the US troops or civilians should be there in the first place. Why does that right wing Owen guy visit here anyway?

Out Now,

Well, I visit here because I like the Burnt Orange Report. I link to it and its posts. I don't keep myself in an echo chamber where I never go to liberal blogs, and so I find the more intelligent ones and keep tabs on them.