Are congressional families more likely to serve, or not serve in Iraq?

Question

"Let’s use Moore’s methodology, and ignore members of extended families (such as nephews) and also ignore service anywhere except Iraq (even though U.S. forces are currently fighting terrorists in many countries). And like Moore, let us also ignore the fact that some families (like Rep. Castle’s) have no children, or no children of military age.



We then see that of 535 Congressional families, there are two with a child who served in Iraq. How does this compare with American families in general? In the summer of 2003, U.S. troop levels in Iraq were raised to 145,000. If we factor in troop rotation, we could estimate that about 300,000 people have served in Iraq at some point. According to the Census Bureau, there were 104,705,000 households in the United States in 2000. (See Table 1 of the Census Report.) So the ratio of ordinary U.S. households to Iraqi service personnel is 104,705,000 to 300,000. This reduces to a ratio of 349:1."

In contrast the ratio of Congressional households to Iraqi service personnel is 535:2. This reduces to a ratio of 268:1.



Stated another way, a Congressional household is about 23 percent more likely than an ordinary household to be closely related to an Iraqi serviceman or servicewoman.

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#Saddam_Hussein_Never_Murdered_Americans

SO, FIRST THE LIBS SAY THAT CONGRESSIONAL FAMILIES DON'T HAVE TO GO TO IRAQ, NOW WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS THEM THEY DO, THEIR ANSWER IS, THEY DON'T HAVE DANGEROUS JOBS,...

KEEP MAKING CRAP UP LIBS!

PEACHES:::

At the ratio, the odds of a congressmans child getting killed in Iraq (using the ratio that 3000 soldiers have been killed), 196,261 soldiers would have to die to include a congressional child killed.

Answer 1

Nice, backed with facts. What more can anyone say? I served, and am in no way related to any congressman nor was anyone that I knew but you have the facts.
Yes, and to go along with the guy above, maybe I didn't know anyone from a congressional family because I was an artillerymen.

Answer 2

That's interesting but what does it have to do with anything?

I would rather see the proportion this way: members of congress who voted for the war, and who have family members who served or are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan (current go-round, not Gulf War I). Seems like that should be nigh on to 100% of those with sons/daughters and those who are themselves of military age, right?

Answer 3

I don't konw you never really hear about the Congressional families childern being killed in a roadside bombing etc. I think the jobs that they may have in the military are more of an elite status then the regular joe.

Answer 4

Because of the families status, they might not be in the front lines, they may have an office job in a secure FOB and never see real combat like a lot of brave Combat Arms members.

Answer 5

I'm tired and not going to read through your question, but I just want to attack Bill O'Reilly. "Typcical Liberal..." as you attack Michael Moore "Typical con..." In an interview with Micahel Moore, Michael asked him if he would let his hild go into iraq. Bill responded "... My nephew." Mike persisted io the child, and Bill kept dodging... What's the reasoning behind this , o wise one?

Answer 6

You don't get the point do you?
Why are you so dense?
The point was these people are the ones who ultimately made the decision to Invade Iraq...so it was a question of accountability...can Republicans say accountability?

Answer 7

the rich stay home the poor go off to war