Frequent liar and Republican ‘strategist’ Gary Abernathy, who took the trouble to delete the entire Aug. 8 edition of the Republican Gazette after he was caught in a blatant lie, still doesn’t get it when it comes to casualties of the Iraq war.
Today Abernathy, the former executive director of the WV GOP, wrote in response to my earlier blog posts:
And while we’re on the subject of casualties…
A reader sends in a reminder that not only have the casualties in Iraq been far fewer than any other major U.S. war, but many individual battles have cost more lives than the entire Iraq war. For example:
Okinawa: 5,000 US Navy dead, 8,000 Army and Marines; Iwo Jima: 6,800 US dead; Battle of the Bulge: 80,000 US dead, wounded, captured; Anzio: Allied VI Corps suffered 4,400 dead.
The Civil War also resulted in high casualty battles, (www.civilwarhome.com), including:
Wilderness 17,666; Spotsylvania 10,920; Gettysburg 23,079; Second Manassas/Bull Run: 16,054; Stone’s River: 24,645. And Valley Forge winter deaths alone killed over 2,500.
(Incidentally, a couple of far left websites have become obsessed with drawing a response from me on this issue. I have little interest in engaging in a silly blog war, and no interest at all in responding to bloggers who can hurl insults at me by name because I identify myself, while they do not have the courage to do the same.)
I guess there must have been a straw sale because he built a bunch of straw men to knock down.
You see, what Abernathy doesn’t get is it’s not the number of casualties that have troubled the American people. It’s the fact that the deaths were completely unnecessary.
Incidentally, when it comes to courage, I tried to enlist in the Army and Marines after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I was too old. Did Abernathy? Did he encourage fellow chickenhawks who are still young enough to enlist like Vic Sprouse and Chris Stirewalt to sign up? If the chickenhawks think the Iraq war is important enough for others to die for, why haven’t they put their lives on the line?
(As a brief aside, I want to point out Abernathy adds hypocrite to his other titles since he whines about being insulted when he throws insults at others with great frequency. We’d insult him even if he was just a blog handle.)
By the way, I’m taking the trouble to quote his post since he might get mad and delete AGAIN an entire edition of the Republican Gazette to try to hide from his own words.
We’re not obsessed with drawing him into a blog fight. We’re serious about the truth and calling liars on their lies.
For those who haven’t followed the earlier posts, here’s a summary.
On Aug. 7, Abernathy wrote:
Did you know there were more military deaths under Clinton than under Bush?
Facts are a disturbing thing sometimes, but they do help to separate reality from fiction. While the media breathlessly reports every death in Iraq, statistics from the Department of Defense help put things in perspective.
As we all know, more than 3,600 soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. But the total number of active duty deaths during the Clinton years, from 1993 through 2000, totaled 7,514, an average of 939 per year, even without a major extended war. Even adding up all active military deaths under President Bush, the total so far is just over 7,000.
When I read it, I knew that couldn’t be true and only the most gullible would believe it (they’re out there. They’re called ‘Bush’s base.’).
A quick google search showed this was a rightwing talking point that he had used (see details here.) So I followed the link to his source and saw it was a 2005 Federation of American Scientists report using 2004 numbers. Now that certainly didn’t seem right to use such out of date numbers. So I added up the numbers of total deaths in combat and noncombat under President Clinton and the number he used was the same. But when I added up the numbers under Bush, they were not the “just over 7,000” Abernathy claimed. They were actually lower, 5,194. So either he added wrongly or he just made up a number or he got it from another source than the source he credited for the information. But why would someone use an out of date report when it took three seconds to find a current report from the Department of Defense’s own web site.
The numbers for the eight years Clinton was in office 7,500 total military deaths from combat, accidents, illnesses, etc. But the number under Bush by the end of 2006 was significantly higher, 8,712. So even adding in all military deaths for 2007 and 2008 The number under Bush was already significantly higher. Keep in mind what Abernathy claimed:
Did you know there were more military deaths under Clinton than under Bush?
Facts are a disturbing thing sometimes, but they do help to separate reality from fiction.
I separated reality from his fiction, described other flaws in his thinking (you can read all of it here) and that could have been the end of that.
But instead of dropping the issue, Abernathy compounded his lie on Aug. 8 when he wrote this:
As a follow up to yesterday’s item about the fact that the number of active duty military casualties under President Bush has not been that different than under President Clinton (Larry Messina has more up to date numbers on his blog), the chart at left serves as a reminder that Iraq is no Vietnam, or even Korea. (emphasis mine)
Now it’s plain to see, that’s not what he wrote originally. He had never claimed total military deaths “has not been that different.” He had claimed they were higher under Clinton. He “breathlessly” made a big deal that the numbers under Clinton were higher.
So he lied about his original lie. After I called him on it here and here, the Aug. 8 edition of the Republican Gazette disappeared from his web site, purged into the memory hole.
So why is this important? There are many reasons, but I’ll name just a few (I do have to sleep sometimes).
1. Truth is important. It was Bush and Cheney’s lies that got us into the
Iraq debacle, but they were enabled by those willing to repeat their lies, and also those not willing to speak out enough for the truth.
2. Gary Abernathy himself. As I wrote the other day:
From an American standpoint, the most important one, I hope Abernathy wises up that the Iraq war is a losing proposition for all of us and that he would put the nation’s interests ahead of blind loyalty to Bush and that shrinking segment of his political party.
Elsewhere on his site, Abernathy posts, “What would Jesus do?”
Jesus would tell the truth. Also he’d tell you to work for peace not a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of his children. Then he’d tell you to go help the widows and the needy, to care for the poor and the sick, and for all of us to love one another.
As a Christian and a liberal I love Gary Abernathy. That doesn’t mean the s.o.b. doesn’t disappoint me as a human being though.
.
Abernathy complains he’s insulted because his name is known. Rubbish! We’d insult him if he were just known by an online handle. He’s the one who chose to blog under his name to give his blog the cachet of coming from the former executive director of the West Virginia GOP. That is similar to all of the Michael O’Hanlons and Ken Pollacks and Bill Kristols who are well-known names who are able to spout inanities and some people believe them because they are well known people. But many of us choose to blog anonymously because not only is there a proud tradition of writing political views under assumed names (Ben Franklin being the most famous and best), but also because when we write anonymously our work has to be judged not by who we are, but on the strength of our own writing and research. Anonymity allows garbage collectors to compete with academics on an equal footing in the marketplace of ideas and have their work judged on its own merits and not by the fanciness of the titles possessed. As so many inhabitants of think tanks have shown, titles and academic degrees do not guarantee intelligence nor wisdom.
3. The most important point is this: the numbers are not merely numbers. There are actual human beings behind them. Abernathy touts the low number of deaths from the Iraq war compared to those killed in other wars and other battles as if the dead are merely points on a scorecard.
But Abernathy is comparing the number of casualties from World War II and the Civil War as if that is relevant to the Iraq debacle. He is completely wrong for doing that. The American people did not turn against World War II despite the high number of casualties because the people determined the cost was worth it. The American people turned against the Iraq debacle not just because of the casualty figures, but because they have come to the conclusion that all of the deaths have been so unnecessary. I am convinced that if the nation was suffering the same level of casualties in Afghanistan going after Osama bin Laden, the American people would still be supporting Bush. But he invaded Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, did not possess WMDs and diverted valuable resources from the hunt for bin Laden.
It is not just a question of the numbers by themselves. It is the context in which the deaths occurred. While I do not mean to be too “insulting,” I find it hard to believe Abernathy is that stupid not to realize that which leads me to believe his motive is to deceive his own readers.
But they are not just statistics. He may call me “obsessed,” but I will not allow the honored dead to be turned into points on his war scorecard. These are human beings. They are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, even grandfathers being lost. They are neighbors and best friends.
Perhaps if Abernathy spent more time reading about their lives and less time trying to defend the indefensible, he would realize that. Perhaps he would take a step like many decent Republicans like decorated Vietnam War Army veteran Rep. Wayne Gilchrest have taken and oppose the endless occupation.
You see, Abernathy would like to think this is about a blog war. No, it’s about a real war where real lives are lost.
Their lives are remembered each night on one of those “far left sites” (that happen to holds the same view on issues from reproductive rights to the Iraq war as the majority of the American people).
On Aug. 7, when Abernathy wrote about the total military deaths, here were the soldiers featured by my “far left” blog mate monkeybiz:
Look at this face. When I look at Pfc. Jaron Holliday, I see some mother’s son, and what he might have looked like through years of pictures taken at Christmas and birthday parties. A paratrooper, yes, but also a brother and a friend:
(Alec Atchison) got the news of Holliday’s death in an e-mail over the weekend. And ever since he says, snippets of memories of mission trips with the church have been popping into his mind, a conversation here or a practical joke there.
(snip)
“I’m sure the biggest way he’d want to be remembered, first and foremost as far as the type of person he was, is how much he cared about his family and loved his family. He was really great with his little brothers and sister,” Atchison said.
For those who weep tonight for the fallen — Tech. Sgt. Joey D. Link; Lance Cpl. Cristian Vasquez; Sgt. Dustin S. Wakeman; Cpl. Jason K. Lafleur; and Pfc. Jaron D. Holliday – may there be some measure of healing and peace, soon. May they see the memories of their loved ones clearly through their tears. May we all remember.
Abernathy made his point not just about the war dead, but total military deaths, those who die in accidents and from illness.
Yesterday, Jeff Latas wrote about his hero, his son on another “far left” site.
I first wrote about Jesse 22 months ago in a diary, My Hero is Coming Home.
Nearly a week has passed since the funeral and nearly two weeks since Jesse’s death. I know what people mean when they say that they can’t imagine losing a child, but it happened to me. The door to Jesse’s physical life has now been shut, forever. The door to Jesse’s emotional life I choose to keep slightly open. I keep it open because I know part of him is with me and part of me died with him. I know he will never be here with me physically. Emotionally, it is another story
Jesse was just starting to develop his outlook as an adult on the world. He was very courageous fighting off leukemia as a 17-year-old, building his health to achieve his young adult goal of joining the Army. He had to join the Reserve because the regular military services would not allow him to join until after five years of remission. He joined the 208th Transportation Company only one year after he had completed his chemotherapy. Our then-18-year-old son assured us that the recruiter had promised that as long as Jesse attended college, he would not be deployed. I knew better. After over twenty years in the military, and seeing the condition in which this administration had left our forces, I knew that Jesse was “red meat” for deployment after he completed training. And that’s exactly what happened. Jesse shipped out the summer of 2005 for Iraq and three months later, after enduring the stresses of combat, heat, poor nutrition, and bad water, he relapsed.
Because he had no white blood cells and was susceptible to infection, his doctors had wanted him to be flown out by himself. But that morning, a convoy came under attack, and Jesse shared the med-evac flight to Germany with 52 severely wounded American soldiers.
When he got to Germany, I was able to speak with him for the first time, and I asked him how he felt, and he said, “Lucky. Those other guys are a lot worse off than I am.”
snip
His wonderful doctors could never completely fix this problem, and were about to reverse the transplant when Jesse succumbed to pneumonia 21 months after his relapse and 16 months after the transplant. He was put in intensive care, heavily sedated and never recovered after three weeks of fighting infections that attacked his lungs, liver, bone marrow, and kidneys. Salette, our daughter, Virginia, and I were with him when he died.
I keep looking through that emotional door that remains ajar. I see a rich life experience that many of our fellow countrymen have never had and will never have. Not many can have the same outlook on our foreign policy in the Middle East as he had. Jesse was never in favor of the actions taken by Bush in invading Iraq and after he witnessed the carnage, he knew there was something drastically wrong. He was with me during my campaign for U.S. Congress and when he could join us on the trail, he would. He loved the debates and forums and always gave me feedback from a point of view of a young war veteran.
Through this door I can see the special love Jesse had. He never complained about his personal pain and suffering. He never asked, “Why me?” Through his experience, he made me a better person. He showed unbelievable courage through this test of his life. But he showed much more compassion, something I didn’t see until near the end. He loved life, but he loved others more.
Abernathy is treating them like points on a war scorecard. They are not. They are the honored dead.
May they rest in peace and may God bless their families and hold them close while we fight like hell for those still living.
