Actually I read both via links from (what you might describe as) a conservative blogger (Roger Simon). Regarding your original post:

"That said, I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. they aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Obviously this post was born out of spontaneous anger. But seriously, how much of the anger that you feel should really be directed at the "mercenaries," and how much stems from your disagreement with the policies of the Bush administration regarding the war? And is it really a humane reaction to prioritize the emotion of anger that is centered around strong political convictions or feelings of derision towards the pay of private contractors over the sadness and horror that most people feel after these gruesome deaths?

In the second post you clarified:

"I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition."

Once again, I completely disagree with you about whether this is a worthy cause, but I can fathom why someone who does not agree with that basic concept would be very angry that lives are being wasted. But I've got to point out how you crossed the line of what I consider gravely offensive and baffling commentary:

You throw out a salary figure of $30,000 per month for the men who were killed and devalue their sacrifice because you consider them war profiteers. Assuming that these salary statistics are independently verifiable, the concept that these men were not serving a noble task is misguided and offensive; they were security consultants charged with protecting convoys that deliver food aid. Just as the individuals that are delivering lifesaving food and medical supplies are serving a worthy cause, so are the men that protect them. The choice for them to leave their families behind to serve this purpose isn't all that different than an engineer charged with restarting water purification facilities, with the primary factor that draws your scorn being the fact that they were well-compensated. It's morally bankrupt to use this distinction to devalue their deaths.

But even embracing your point, let's ask: why is the Pentagon using private contractors to provide security? Does it have something to do with insufficient force allocation? That we don't have enough active military to provide for the security requirements of the civilian contractors that are trying to rebuild the country? Would this even be a fair criticism? If you examined these points in another context, it's possible that you may have a legitimate issue regarding the policies of the Pentagon and the post-war force structure that was pushed by the Bush Administration. Whatever. But immediately channeling your personal anger over politics into such callous comments over the shocking deaths of these men is a reaction that's something less than human. Can you understand this point of view?

The paragraph is littered with references to the actions of the Bush Administration. I'm sorry, but my most objective analysis finds something telling about the fact that your anger at these men is so closely intertwined with your anger at Bush.

Also, you make the point that you are angry that the previous sacrifices of active military personnel have been overlooked by the media, and that America is not being accurately exposed to the full horrors of war. Once again, this is a legitimate point in a larger context, but can you not rationally admit that the uproar and focus on the death of these men is a direct result of the horrific way their bodies were mutilated and displayed? You are correct in expressing that the sacrifices of all servicemen should merit attention, but this ignores the reality of a media environment that is not unique to this conflict. If active military personnel had been burned and dismembered, the focus would have been just as sharp and the public outcry just as real.

As I mentioned before, I wrote you in an attempt to really understand your motivations for making these comments. The crticism that I and many others have is that we are vehemently angry that your reaction to such horrible events could be expressed in such callous terms and be motivated by political belief and scorn for pay grade. It's a bizarre prioritization.

You've admitted that your comments were "stupid," and that there are "more civil ways to make a point," but all I can do is offer a piece of advice: what is needed for you to regain any legitimacy among a huge swath of readers that do not generally agree with you is a direct, non-rationalized apology. No distinction about mercenaries vs. soldiers, no larger points about the Bush Administration that seek to validate or provide cover for your initial words. Rather, an apology. Whatever the analysis or explanation for your motivations, I'm not sure that you fully realize how big of a line that you've crossed.

I personally will likely never hold your opinion in high esteem because of your initial reaction to this situation, but I also acknowledge that we all make mistakes in anger. Your only shot at rejoining a legitimate constructive left-right debate is to grasp exactly what was so infuriating and wrong about your initial reaction, and take responsibility for it.

Take it for what it's worth, and I would be very interested to hear your reaction to any of these points or questions.

Regards,