MRC Unhappy Climate Deniers Are Accurately Labeled Topic: Media Research Center
Mike Ciandella complains in a Jan. 14 Media Research Center item:
A group of climate change alarmists has demanded that the media stop being so nice to those with different viewpoints on climate. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry petitioned the media to drop the term “skeptic” in favor of “denier,” when referring to anyone who questions their views on climate change.
The petition ignored more than 400 scientists who have publicly questioned the extent of mankind’s influence when it comes to climate change.
According to the Orwellian-sounding Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, “Public discussion of scientific topics such as global warming is confused by misuse of the term ‘skeptic.’” The Committee’s petition called for journalists to only use the term “denier,” and never “skeptic,” when referring to anyone not convinced that humans are responsible for climate change. CSI is a project of the Center for Inquiry, a group which, among other things, campaigns to prevent religious groups from being allowed to own hospitals.
CSI also relies heavily on the word of “experts” like Bill Nye (whose career depends on people not realizing that “science guy” doesn’t mean “scientist”) and Neil deGrasse Tyson (who has been criticized for fabricating quotes to make a point). Despite this, The Washington Post hyped this petition, and even used Nye’s name in the headline for credibility.
At no point does Ciandella dispute the accuracy of the label. While he tries to blur the issue by claiming that deniers merely have "different viewpoints on climate," he merely bashes those who support its (accurate) use.
Ciandella's complaining that Nye isn't a real scientist is rather rich considering that many of the leading lights on the denier side are even less qualified. For instance, Marc Morano, who leads the denier site Climate Depot, has a bachelor's degree in political science and spent much of his pre-denier career in media working for both Rush Limbaugh and the MRC-owned CNSNews.com.
Similarly, "Lord" Christopher Monckton also has no formal training in science; his degrees are in journalism and the classics. But Ciandella doesn't mention their purported lack of training in the subject in which they speak publicly on the most.
And it's quite rich of Ciandella to complain about the word "denier" when he uses the word "alarmist" to describe anyone who agrees with the demonstrated science of global warming.
WND's Unruh Dutifully Repeats Lies About Fired Atlanta Fire Chief Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh is in stenographer mode yet again in a Jan. 14 WorldNetDaily article about fired Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran. Unruh uncritically repeats the claims of right-wing groups that the city "fired him for nothing other than his faith" and that the city had granted Cochran permission to publish his "Christian book" that smeared homosexuals.
In fact, as we've pointed out, a city investigation into Cochran's firing found that Cochran was fired for his behavior, not his faith, and that he never sought the proper permission to self-publish his book.
Even though that investigation came out five days before Unruh's article appeared, Unruh makes no mention of it. In fact, Unruh made no apparent effort whatsoever to talk to anyone who would have told him the facts about Cochran's firing -- he simply regurgitates the factually deficient claims of right-wing activists who are trying to turn Cochran's firing into a cause celebre.
CNS Bases 'News' Article On Right-Wing Website's Rant Topic: CNSNews.com
We have previously praised CNSNews.com's writer Patrick Goodenough for being an unusually fair and balanced writer for the ConWeb. But it appears he has been fully assimilated into the borg.
In a Jan. 14 CNS article, Goodenough fretted about Israeli "media bias" because the purported cause of "Reports claiming that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu angered French President Francois Hollande by taking part in Sunday’s mass rally in Paris":
Israeli media also charged that the prime minister had unceremoniously shoved his way to the front row, where he joined the leaders of France, Germany, Mali, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and others.
The left-wing daily Ha’aretz cited an unnamed Israeli source as saying France had privately asked Netanyahu not to attend; that Netanyahu had agreed but changed his mind after learning that two political rivals were planning to go; and that France had then retaliated by inviting P.A. chairman Mahmoud Abbas to take part.
By contrast, a review of French media reporting on the rally finds no French officials – named or otherwise – cited as confirming tensions between Hollande and Netanyahu.
In an op-ed in the conservative Israel Hayom daily on Tuesday, Haim Shine, a member of board of governors of Jewish Agency, said the anti-Netanyahu media’s coverage of the Paris visit “shows the degree to which they resent Netanyahu and the Israel he represents.”
Note the pejorative labeling of Ha'aretz as "left-wing" while Israel Hayom is benignly described as "conservative." Actually, Israel Hayom appears to be as right-wing as Goodenough claims Ha'aretz is to the left.
This is the kind of pseudo-news CNS usually provides -- Goodenough offers no particular demonstrated expertise on "media bias" in Israel, and even CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, does next to nothing on the subject. Then he cuts to where he apparently got the idea for his article:
Writing on the Frontpage magazine site, Freedom Center fellow Daniel Greenfield said the sources of the reporting were “a major reason to be skeptical of the claims” about the Hollande-Netanyahu spat, adding that “the lack of French reports confirming it are suspicious.”
“While it’s entirely possible that Hollande really did not want Netanyahu to come, the sourcing on this story is from Ha’aretz,” he said. “Ha’aretz is a left-wing Israeli publication that will print absolutely anything negative about Netanyahu that it can.”
“Israel is in an election season now, and one of the domestic political attacks against him is that he alienated Obama and Europe. So this particular line plays all too well into the attack campaign by Ha’aretz’s favorite candidates.”
Strange that in an article that's supposed to be about biased news outlets, Goodenough doesn't identify the political Leanings of FrontPageMag. It's the digital platform for far-right activist David Horowitz and is not interested in actual "news" or unbiased research, as Greenfield's completely unsupported claim that Ha'aretz will "will print absolutely anything negative about Netanyahu that it can" amply demonstrates.
Greenfield goes on to sneer that "Haaretz is an untrustworthy source in general and a particularly untrustworthy source for anything involving Netanyahu," again without providing any evidence to back it up.
Horowitz and his FrontPageMag are so far out of the political mainstream that the last time we wrote about them, it was because a Greenfield rant about "the leftist hijacking of black identity" contained a doctored image of Hillary Clinton in blackface.
That's the level of discourse that takes place there. Why did Goodenough think this screed needed to be sanitized and elevated?
WND's Unruh Censors Evidence of Fraud In Houston Anti-Gay Petitions Topic: WorldNetDaily
As a lazyreporter and a homophobe, WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh enjoys spreading lies about Houston mayor Annise Parker (whom Unruh is unusually eager to have us know is a lesbian) and that city's anti-discrimination ordinance.
Unruh carries water for anti-gay forces once again in a Jan. 15 WND article about the court fight over the ordinance. After injecting in the very first paragraph that Parker is a lesbian, Unruh plays stenographer to the anti-gay forces, this time ranting about how petitions attempting to overturn the ordinance were thrown out by city officials: "But the city attorney, David Feldman, then stepped in and disqualified most of the signatures that had been collected, and the city has been fighting efforts to overturn the ordinance ever since."
What Unruh won't tell you: there's ample evidence of fraud in those petitions.
While collecting manymore signatures than needed to force a citywide vote on the anti-discrimination ordinance, many signature pages were invalid because some of the circulators who collected stacks of signatures were not qualified Houston voters, as required by law, while some of those signatures themselves were not from valid Houston voters.
There's also evidence that signatures purportedly from different people apparently share the same handwriting -- also evidence of fraud.
Unruh is utterly silent about the clear evidence of fraud in the petition process. Apparently, he -- like the Houston pastors for whom he's serving as stenographer -- doesn't think there should be any validation process and that the fact that a signature exists automatically means it's valid.
Unruh also uncritically quotes local anti-gay pastors complaining that the city was trying to "assault on the right to trial by jury" by having the pastors' case over the petitions heard by a judge instead of a jury. But as one blogger points out, Houston's charter determines that this type of issue is settled by a district judge. So it is the pastors who are circumventing the established rule of law by changing the procedure. Unruh mentions nothing about that.
So, we have a reporter censoring information that contradicts the political agenda of his employer. Anyone surprised?
NewsBusters Publishes Tony Perkins' Falsehoods About Fired Atlanta Fire Chief Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center is getting as bad about peddling falsehoods as WorldNetDaily is.
On Jan. 14, the MRC's NewsBusters published a post by Family Research Council chief Tony Perkins on the case of fired Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran. Perkins ranted about a New Yorkk Times editorial about Cochran, which noted that Cochran did not have permission from city authorities to publish his self-published book that includes homophobic rants. RetortsPerkins: "Not only did Cochran have permission from the city’s ethics office to publish his book, but he only distributed it in his personal capacity at church -- where a handful of his coworkers attend."
Perkins is lying. A city investigation into the Cochran case, released five days before Perkin's post was published, confirms that Cochran never had city permission to publish the book:
At the outset of the investigation, Chief Cochran admitted that he did not inform Mayor Reed that he was publishing the book and did not have the Mayor’s permission. The only indication there was any mention of the book to anyone in the Mayor’s Office is the Chief Operating Officer at the time of publication remembering that Chief Cochran had talked about writing a book on leadership.
Chief Cochran insists Ethics Officer Hickson authorized both the publication of the book and the reference in the book to his position as AFRD Chief. His recollection is that he first contacted Ms. Hickson to determine if it was permissible to publish the book and that he later asked if it was appropriate to identify himself in the book as AFRD Chief. Ms. Hickson indicated that she did not approve publication of the book and had no authority to grant such approval. She said she told him that he would need to get the Mayor’s permission as well as a formal opinion from the Board of Ethics.
Further, contrary to Perkins' claim, Cochran did in fact distribute his book at the workplace. From the investigation:
Chief Cochran stated that he provided the book to certain members of his command staff as a personal gift. He originally stated that he did not provide it to anyone who did not request a copy. The investigation disclosed that the book was distributed in the workplace to at least nine (9) individuals. Three (3) of these officers stated that the book was given to them without a request on their part.
Perkins insisted that "At no point did Kelvin Cochran 'foist' his views on anyone." But if Cochran is giving his book to employees who did not request one, he is in fact foisting his views on people.
Perkins asserted that the city of Atlanta, in firing Cochran, is engaging in a "campaign of discrimination against Christians." In fact, Cochran was not fired because of his Christianity but, rather, because of his unprofessional behavior. As the city investigation points out, Cochran was fired because he failed to obtain proper approval for his book and because of his insubordination by speaking publicly about his ordeal.
Does the MRC not vet the blog entries it posts? Apparently not.
WND Shockingly Covers Teacher-Student Sex Story That Isn't About A Female Teacher Topic: WorldNetDaily
For years, WorldNetDaily has been pruriently fixated on female (but not male) teachers who have affairs with students, for reasons it has never explained.
But WND is finally expanding beyond that narrow, disturbing focus. A Jan. 13 WND article by Joe Kovacs surprisingly focuses on a male teacher who had sex with a student.
Kovacs doesn't explain this new coverage strategy or why a male teacher having an affair with a student is suddenly newsworthy to him after years of ignoring it. But this may be an aberration; the article includes a link to WND's lovingly detailed "big list" of "Female teachers with students."
Of course, Kovacs will never publicly admit one real reason for obsessing about such things: Sex sells, and writing about sex draws readers. WND may profess to operate on Christian principles (even though its founder and editor is an inveterateliar), but it knows what attracts eyeballs.
MRC: Fox News Dispute With Dish Network Is A Democratic Conspiracy Topic: Media Research Center
The last time we saw Media Research Center videographer Dan Joseph, he was embarrassing himself by pathetically pretending to be transgender to mock the idea that transgendered people have rights. Now he's on the conspiracy bandwagon in a Jan. 13 blog post (boldface his):
Dish Network dropped Fox News and its sister network Fox Business Channel at the end of last year and the network still remains blacked out for Dish’s 14 million subscribers. Dish Network claims that they dropped the nation’s number one cable news network because of a contract dispute.
However in recent days Fox News has begun to suggest that Dish Network is engaged in an effort to censor the network's content.
While it’s not entirely clear who’s in the right in this matter, digging into the background of Dish Network’s founder and chairman Charles Ergen may help to illuminate why animosity between Dish and FNC has reached such epic proportions.
As it turns out, Charles Ergen is a big-time donor to the Democratic Party. According to Open Secrets, Ergen donated a total of $64,000 to the Democratic Senatorial campaign Committee in 2014.
The whole censorship conspiracy Joseph is pushing had one big hole in it: as a substitute for Fox News, Dish Network made available another right-wing "news" channel, The Blaze, to its subscribers. Joseph didn't mention that.
Joseph then tries to back down, claiming that such a donation "does not necessarily mean that he is targeting Fox News due to a disagreement with the network’s content." Then he negates it by bringing out the boldface again:
But, Ergen may have a history of abusing his position of power to promote his political preferences.
In 2012, a federal complaint was filed against Ergen in which several company executives alleged that he had intimidated them into making contributions to specific candidates, the majority of which were Democrats.
The claim was filed by an unnamed company insider who accused Ergen of "forcing" Dish Network’s Chief Operating Officer Bernard Han to donate to a Democratic Party candidate in the 2009/2010 election cycle.
The complaint also claimed that Han was “encouraged" to attend Democratic functions and fundraisers and that other Dish employees were strong-armed by Ergen in a similar way.
Curiously, a couple days later when noting that Fox and Dish Network had reached an agreement to return the channels to the service, Joseph mentioned nothing about his big Democrat censorship conspiracy.
WND Tries To Sell Discredited Book In Middle of Article Admitting It's Discredited Topic: WorldNetDaily
You can't make this stuff up, folks.
A Jan. 15 WorldNetDaily article steals a Washington Post article on a Christian book publisher recalling the book “The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven” after the boy and his mother recanted the book's central claim by admitting he did not go to heaven and said so because "I thought it would get me attention."
But what's that in the middle of WND's stolen excerpt? A plug to buy the book from WND's online store. No, really:
That's right -- WND is trying to sell you a book through an article that admits the book is a lie.
If that wasn't insulting enough, WND isn't even offering you much of a deal on this discredited book. As of this writing, it's available for the "discount price" of $19.99, a mere $5 off the cover price.
Wouldn't be easier for WND to simply return those books to the publisher instead of cynically trying to sell a book it knows is false?
Then again, WND has no problem selling discredited books, as demonstrated by its selling of David Barton's book on Thomas Jefferson, also recalled by its publisher for its numerous falsehoods.
CNS' Hunter Still Obsessing Over Money Spent on LGBT Issues Topic: CNSNews.com
Last month, CNSNews.com deputy managing editor Melanie Hunter tried to start the ball rolling again on the website's crusade to portray any money spent on LGBT issues as wasteful. She does it again this week:
Of the five articles Hunter has written over the past month highlighting government spending , all five have singled out LGBT issues. She has not explained why she apparently finds such spending so offensive.
It may also be that Hunter is simply providing catnip to CNS readers. Each of her articles include dozens, if not hundreds, of comments from CNS readers that can only be described as virulently homophobic. CNS has not explained why it feels the need to perform such a service to let its readers vent their hatred.
Why Won't WND's Klein Identify Key Figure Named In Sex Scandal? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Aaron Klein writes in a Jan. 11 WorldNetDaily article:
One largely unasked question surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein affair is whether any current or former U.S. political figures were videoed frolicking with the financier’s alleged ring of underage “sex slaves.”
There is evidence Epstein kept cameras hidden in the bedrooms of his various homes. Damaging videos of sitting U.S. politicians abusing schoolgirls could constitute a national security threat, providing sources of blackmail for foreign countries.
Prince Andrew is the only currently serving political figure alleged to have participated in Epstein’s underage activities. In court filings, Jane Doe No. 3, identified as 31-year-old Virginia Roberts, says that when she was 17 she was forced by Epstein to have repeated “sexual relations” with the Duke of York in London, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Klein is lying when he writes that Prince Andrew is the only political figure who has been named in the case. He makes no mention of the fact that lawyer Alan Dershowitz has also been implicated in the scandal (he has vociferously denied any involvement).
Why would Klein not report Dershowitz's alleged links to this scandal, even though he's a brand-name political figure? Perhaps because he's a buddy of Klein and WND.
In 2012, Dershowitz appeared on Klein's radio show to rail against Media Matters (disclosure: my former employer) for employing a blogger who had been critical of Israel. WND haspromotedDershowitz'sviews when they align with WND's right-wing political agenda (which seems to be increasingly often).
It appears that Klein is trying to protect Dershowitz by not naming him in the Epstein scandal -- after all, it can't be because the accusation may not be true, since WND hasnoproblem publishing falsehoods.
MRC Defends The Honor of France's Far-Right National Front Topic: Media Research Center
It's nice to know that the Media Research Center is running to the defense of the National Front, the far-right French political group.
In a Jan. 7 item, Scott Whitlock took offense at the "false equivalence" of right-wing extremists in Europe like the National Front being likened to extremist Muslims, making sure to tell us: "Militant non-Muslims are not beheading and shooting Muslims in Europe. In general, they are calling for changes in immigration laws."
Whitlock doesn't mention that those "changes in immigration laws" he presents as so benign actually involve a complete moratorium on immigration, or that National Front leader Marine Le Pen has likened Muslims in France to a Nazi occupation.
Two days later, Curtis Houck took offense at a pundit on MSNBC claiming that the National Front has "no business" taking part in Parliament, disdainfully noting how the pundit "drew a moral equivalency between the murdering Islamic jihadists who committed the attacks and caused so much angst since Wednesday and a French political party."
And a Jan. 8 NewsBusters post by Tom Blumer sneer at the New York Times highlighting the anti-immigrant sentiments of far-right nationalists like the National Front, snarkily adding: "Yeah, those are Europe's biggest problems, not Islamic terrorism."
We'd say something about strange bedfellows, but the right-wing MRC defending other right-wingers is not strange at all.
NEW ARTICLE: Joseph Farah's Year of Lies About Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily editor spent 2014 spreading falsehoods about him -- and lying about previous lies he has spread. Read more >>
The MRC's 'No True Scotsman' Theory of Christian Violence Topic: Media Research Center
"No true Scotsman" is the informal name of a logical fallacy that seeks to exclude a person from a group for certain behavior by claiming that through engaging in that behavior, they aren't a "real" member of that group.
Or, as the Media Rsearch Center interprets it: If a Christian committed an act of violence or terror, he or she is not a Christian. The point, of course, is to drive home the point that Muslims who commit terroristic acts, i.e. the Charlie Hebdo attack, are acting in accordance with their group.
In a Jan. 7 MRC item, Kristine Marsh took offense when someone brought up an incident of a Christian who beheaded someone last year. Marsh insisted that the perpetrator was "heavily drugged man with fanatical 'Christian' beliefs," then huffed: "While this man was rightly described as a “religious zealot,” if there’s a beheading revival sweeping Christian denominations, we’re unaware of it. It takes an awful lot of magical thinking to seriously compare one random psychotic event to a the near-weekly decapitations by ISIS – not to mention al Qaeda’s fondness for sawing off infidels’ heads on video – and other common atrocities committed explicitly in the name of Islam."
When another person on TV pointed out that Anders Breivik, who massacred dozens in Norway, was a Christian, Matthew Balan denied it in a Jan. 12 item, claiming that Breivik "considered himself to be a 'cultural Christian,' and condemned then-Pope Benedict XVI, as well as Protestant churches. So, just as in the case of the Lord's Resistance Army, Breivik isn't a serious Christian."
Yet all Muslims are somehow responsible when someone claims to kill in the name of Islam. Interesting.
'Good Guy' Jailed In Gun Incident Not As Good As WND Columnist Thinks Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jeff Knox does his best to create an unfortunate victim in his Jan. 8 WorldNetDaily column:
Just days after the horror at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a 23-year-old college student in Connecticut was a victim of another gun-related tragedy. No guns were fired, no one was physically injured, but even so, a life was ruined. William Dong was licensed in Connecticut to carry a concealed handgun. He worked for an armored-car company and, along with being a good student and hard worker, he was a budding firearm enthusiast. Unable to afford an expensive gun safe, Dong secured his small collection of firearms and ammunition in his locked bedroom in his parents’ home.
Being human, Dong was deeply disturbed by the atrocity in Newtown and the subsequent media hype surrounding that tragic event. Like many people, especially those near the event, he developed a fear of something like that happening again and being helpless to do anything about it. He was reassured by his own ability to carry and effectively use a handgun, but also wanted to have a good personal-defense carbine. That’s when William Dong made his first mistake; on a trip to Pennsylvania he purchased a Bushmaster AR-style rifle from a private seller. It’s not illegal to purchase a long gun in another state in a face-to-face transaction, but out-of-state purchases should be made through a licensed dealer. Since the rifle he purchased had a collapsible stock and other “military” features, it was subsequently banned in Connecticut, compounding Dong’s mistake.
Dong’s third mistake was deciding he was going to take a trip to the range after class one day. He put his rifle and some ammo in his car in preparation for that range session. He parked the car off campus and made a point of placing the rifle out of view behind the driver’s seat before walking to class.
A homeless woman saw the rifle when Dong transferred it to the back seat of his SUV. She then noted that he was headed toward the university campus and, with visions of Sandy Hook dancing in her head, she called the police to report a man with a gun headed toward the campus of UNH. Police and SWAT teams mobilized as Dong hurried to biology class, where he was in the middle of a test when the school went into lockdown. Dong was peacefully taken into custody a few minutes later.
There was never any indication that William Dong planned to harm anyone. He made no threats, had no history of any sort of mental illness, or even reports of odd behavior. By all indications, William Dong was just a guy who enjoyed guns and shooting who had the misfortune of living in the wrong part of the country.
Certainly William Dong made mistakes. His biggest mistake was believing that because he was a “good guy” and had no malicious intent, others would recognize that as well. Being a “good guy” is no defense against public panic.
Actually, Dong is not quite the "good guy" Knox wants you to believe he is. As the Hartford Courant reported -- and Knox failed to mention -- Dong's behavior was highly suspicious, and he made no effort to clarify it at his sentencing:
Standing before the judge, shackled and dressed in an ill-fitting orange prison jumpsuit with a gallery of onlookers listening, Dong did not solve the mystery.
"I have nothing for the court, your honor," Dong, 23, replied minutes before Judge Frank A. Iannotti sent him to prison for two years for illegally purchasing an assault weapon banned in Connecticut and other weapons charges stemming from the December 2013 scare that prompted a four-hour lockdown on the UNH campus and at schools near the university in West Haven.
It was an answer that the prosecutor, Kevin D. Lawlor, appeared to have anticipated. Before Dong spoke at the hearing at Superior Court in Milford, Lawlor called Dong "an enigma" who gave police contradictory statements as to why he had the firearms that day.
Lawlor said police discovered that Dong had repeatedly researched Connecticut's gun laws on his iPad in the weeks leading up to the incident and looked to purchase a so-called bump fire device that can turn a regular rifle into a machine gun. Two days before the lockdown, he was researching the Sandy Hook massacre, Lawlor said. Police also found newspaper clippings of the Colorado theater shooting at his home.
When questioned by police, Dong gave "conflicting" reasons for having the guns, answers that failed to tell investigators whether it was a misunderstanding or if they had just averted a major tragedy, Lawlor said.
"Those glimpses into his state of mind at the time concern me to this day and have never really been clarified," Lawlor said.
Still, Knox wants you to think Dong is a victim of anti-gun hysteria:
Media, prosecutors, and politicians went into a frenzy, declaring that a tragedy had been averted and referring to Dong as a “gunman,” with blazing headlines calling him a “Gun-Wielding UNH Student,” even though he never “wielded” a gun in the incident. Press accounts made much of the fact that police found 2,700 rounds of ammunition in Dong’s bedroom (which isn’t a lot to an avid shooter) along with newspaper clippings about the Batman movie massacre in Colorado, even pointing to the lock on his bedroom door as an indication of evil intent. Gov. Dannel Malloy quickly claimed Dong’s arrest was proof that the new firearm restrictions he had helped push through the state legislature – on top of laws that were already among the most restrictive in the nation – had worked, never mind that the new laws had little bearing on Dong’s case.
Gun control laws don’t stop lunatic killers, but tragically, they do ruin people’s lives.
While admitting he doesn't "know what was in William Dong’s heart" -- and refusing to admit Dong's own behavior and shifting statements to authorities could very well be an indication of what was in his heart -- Knox somehow knows Dong is a victim. Funny, that.
CNS Afghan Body Count Obsession Watch Topic: CNSNews.com
We've documented how, in contrast to touting how U.S. troop casualities declined under President Bush (which involved ignoring how they also increased under Bush), CNSNews.com is dedicated to telling us how many U.S. casualities there have been in Afghanistan. CNS does it again in a Jan. 7 article by Ali Meyer:
Fifty-five U.S. servicemen were killed in Afghanistan in 2014, bringing the total number of American fatalities in the 13-year war to 2,232, according to a CNSNews.com database.
Of those 2,232 deaths, 1,663 – 74.5 percent – occurred since President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. The deadliest years for U.S. personnel were 2010, when 495 were killed; 2011, when there were 404 casualties; and 2009 when the death toll was 306.
Those three years combined accounted for more than half, or 54 percent, of the total U.S. casualties in the war.
As is usual, two words you won't find in Meyer's article are "Iraq" and "Bush," even though the casualty rate in Afghanistan (not to mention the total casualty rate ) has been much lower than it was at its peak in Iraq.