Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar killed in Iraq

Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar, the Marine recruiter that appeared in Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb.

A Marine and one-time recruiter who appeared in Michael Moore’s documentary film “Fahrenheit 9/11” has died in a roadside bombing in Iraq.

Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar, 30, died Monday of wounds suffered while conducting combat operations in Iraq’s volatile Anbar province, the Defense Department said Tuesday.

For those that don’t know, Plouhar is the Marine recruiter that said “It’s better to get them when they’re in ones and twos and work on them that way,” as he and a fellow recruiter cruised the parking lot of a mall for potential recruits.

Plouhar grew up in Lake Orion, about 30 miles north of Detroit.

He is survived by a wife and two children, ages 5 and 9. They live in Arizona.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar killed in Iraq

  1. Donnie

    Thanks for posting this. Very sad news. Time to bring them home.

  2. Pamela, it is sad and beyond time to bring them home.

    BTW have you even seen a Louisiana Chicken Hawk ? Scroll down to the picture for “Picnic at the White House” and look at two of the biggest Dork’s you can imagine!

  3. Arthur C. Adler says:

    ***EDITED BY MODERATOR***

    Arthur C. Adler
    Satellite Beach, FL

  4. Arthur,

    Pehaps God is saving Moore to fall on your head and crush it with his “fat ugly Treasonist a**”?

    I think we can both agree that would be something very special for God to use him for and would make this a better world.

  5. Donnie,

    God works in mysterious ways. 😉

  6. Bill from San Diego says:

    Arthur,

    Wrong AGAIN, MORON, Moore did have his permission to be in the movie. Do you radical far right wing lock-step idiots who don’t have a brain so you use Bill O’Reilly’s lies because you can’t think of one yourselves ever get ONE fact right, EVER!

    It’s stupid pukes like you that are still in that 25% American minority that think there was something valid to this Iraqui occupation. I served 9 years in the Army and it sickens me that there are idiots like you wasting my oxygen on this earth. The information is out there in black & white to read for yourself and understand that my brothers and sisters have been dying for no good reason. If you can read, start with the “Downing Street Memo”. And when you complete that assignment then you can report back to me.

    Use your head for something other than a hat rack and start getting a fact right for the first time in your life!

  7. I like Bill from San Diego 🙂

  8. Robert says:

    You are correct – Moore did have his permission to be in the movie. However, you, just like the Liberal Spin Masters purposely leave out is that Michael Moore Manupilated the taping of of Staff Sgt. Raymond J. Plouhar so that it was intionally taken out of context. In essence for you small mided Liberal Morons – Moore took advantace of the taping to have it appear something completely different than what Plouhar intended. Michael Moore USED Plouhar for his own Liberal Agenda.

  9. Robert

    Let’s talk about how many times the Bush administration has USED the troops. Photo-ops are just a drop in the bucket, compared to putting all their lives on the line for a war based on lies.

    Talk about spin masters, take yours somewhere elese.

  10. Ron Chusid says:

    “Moore took advantace of the taping to have it appear something completely different than what Plouhar intended.”

    Even if true, Michael Moore is a film maker. He is not a Democratic leader, regardless of how hard the right wing tries to make it appear he is.

    In contrast, most likely the most common propaganda tool used by the Bush White House is to distort what opponents have said to make it appear they are saying something completely different from what was actually said, to push their far right agenda.

  11. Richard Haag says:

    **EDITED BY MODERATOR***, I need to know where can we can donate to Plouhar’s children..

  12. Richard Haag

    I suggest you look online for the newspaper in Arizona that had his obiturary.

  13. Kelly says:

    In any case people this is not about Moore right now, it’s about a fallen soldier, show some respects and take the nasty commnts some place else.

  14. Kelly

    Point well taken around here – our moderator just edited one of the earlier nasty comments.

    Thank you.

  15. WOW looks like a moderator had my back while I was at work. Thanks!

    Kelly, just the mention of Moore gets the righties going. Silly lil apes just can’t help themselves. My post had nothing to do with him, just mentioned that he was in the movie. Goes to show you how evil they can be.

  16. Lynne says:

    God Bless You Ray
    A Stand UP Marine!
    Semper FI

  17. Robert says:

    For Pamela Leavey regarding her comments. Do you only read and spew out the talking points of the Liberal Agenda? With regards to your comments about Bush’s Lies and Photo Ops. First off, it is obvious that you do not know your history well. So, I’ll attempt to explain it for you simply. Clinton, as well as every polition uses Photo’ Ops, or other opportune moments. ie: kissing babies or Standing with the troops? or whatever to bolster their appearance with the masses. That is nothing new. It’s been done throughout history. Lies? Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and ‘hic’ Kennedy, said that we had to take out Saddam because , to quote Edwards, “He is an immenint threat”. There was even a resolution passed into law in 1996, signed by Kerry, and pushed by Clinton that stated we had to take Saddam out of power by ANY means possible, including force. Bush Lied? oh, please. Kerry said “If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” The main difference between Bush and Clinton is that you, and your liberals as well as the liberal media give Clinton a free pass. How quickly you (conveniently) forget what he did.

  18. Ron Chusid says:

    Robert,

    You are distorting history and previous statements by several people with regards to Iraq.

    Clinton rejected recommendations from neocons to attack Iraq when he was President. This sure alters your claim that Clinton supported taking out Saddam by any means possible.

    Kerry was saying that Saddam would be a threat if he had nuclear weapons, which is why he flet continuing the inspections was important. He also argumed before the war that no evidence was obtained showing we wree actually threatened by WMD and advised Bush against going to war. Kerry has repeatedly given examples of Bush misleading Congress and the American people about the war.

    Edwards did support going to war initially but later repudiated that position as it was based upon dishonest information supplied by the Bush administration. In other words, Bush lied.

    Nobody is giving Clinton a free ride. We’ve had plenty of criticism of Clinton here.

  19. Robert says:

    No, this does not alter my claim that Clinton supported taking out Saddam by any means possible – as you stated. According to the Washington Post, “During a hurried debate Saturday morning, with less than an hour remaining before the first wave of an assault the Pentagon had estimated could
    result in 10,000 Iraqi dead, Clinton was told that uniquely favorable
    conditions favored U.S. military action. As time ran out, Clinton’s
    decision hinged on whether to seize the moment, and perhaps be blamed for
    willfully ignoring a peace overture, or trust sketchy reports that Iraq
    was on the verge of giving in.” “In the pre-dawn hours of Sunday, after Iraq had made clear it would resume
    cooperation with U.N. weapons inspections unconditionally, Clinton
    canceled the attack again.” Saadam, repeatedly delayed, hindered, and mislead the Weapons inspectors. Even having a sign put on a building that read “Baby Milk Factory.” Oh, please. Printed only in English? Clinton had his chance, but blinked even though he made this statement “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton 1998

    Kerry and his examples? Kerry, like most appeasers will say anything to anyone for the given moment. Then say something else later.

    Bush didn’t lie. Saddam’s attack using chemical weapons and cluster bombs on the Kurdish city of Halabja (population estimated at 70,000) on March 17, 1988. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. The attack, said to have involved mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide, killed an estimated 5,000 of the town’s inhabitants. The attack on Halabja took place amidst the infamous al-Anfal campaign, in which Saddam brutally repressed yet another of the Kurdish revolts during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam is also said to have used chemical weapons in attacking up to 24 villages in Kurdish areas in April 1987. At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that up to 12,000 people in all died during the course of those three days.

    Now, what part of WMD in all of this are you not understanding?

  20. Ron Chusid says:

    Robert,

    You are being as dishonest as Bush in your distortion of the facts.

    Clinton never invadeed Iraq and any statements he made in 1998 do not justify Bush’s actions.

    Kerry has been extremely detailed and consistent in his comments on Iraq. Right wingers typically distort his comments to avoid responding to what he actually said.

    The example you provide has nothing to do with the claims of WMD made by Bush to justify the war. This was in 1988. We knew about those WMD, but they had been destroyed by the time Bush asttacked. The presence of WMD in the past, or WMD which did not threaten the United States, does not offer justification for going to war. Neither does it change the fact that Bush was lying about the situation in effect at the time he invaded.

    As Colin Powell himself has admited, Saddam was well contained at the time of the war. We should have concentrated on the real problem, al Qaeda, as opposed to bothering with Saddam at the time.

  21. Robert says:

    Your comment. “The presence of WMD in the past, or WMD which did not threaten the United States, does not offer justification for going to war.”

    So, with your statement – we should not have entered WWII? That Hitler should have been left alone as we were not directly threatened?

    “Neither does it change the fact that Bush was lying about the situation in effect at the time he invaded.”

    You have no proof that Bush was lying.

    And your comment about Colin Powel is also incorrect.

    WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

    Powell, speaking at a news conference at the State Department, stressed that he was still certain that Iraq had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force, and he sharply disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States.

    “I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,” he said.

  22. Robert

    You show a clear lack of disrespect here for the topic of this thread and the members of this blog. If you want to discuss other topics on this blog, discuss them in the threads they are posted in – not in off topic threads.

    And let it be noted that we could ask you if you only spew conservative talking points.

  23. Robert says:

    Pamela,
    My specific initial entry was regarding the topic. YOU YOURSELF replied to me with “Let’s talk about how many times the Bush administration has USED the troops. Photo-ops are just a drop in the bucket, compared to putting all their lives on the line for a war based on lies. ”

    You changed the topic. You can’t even get your OWN facts straight.

  24. Robert

    A request was made here to show respect and keep the discussion on topic.

    Thanks for sharing. If you can’t stay on topic the thread will be closed. Your discussion is NOT on topic.

  25. Robert says:

    Then don’t reply to my initial statment with your OFF TOPIC comments. Follow your own rules your trying to lay down..

  26. Robert

    Note comments 15 & 16 that were posted after my response to you. A request was made by a reader to respect the topic of the thread – a fallen soldier and I responded that the point was well taken and other comments would be moderated.

    You can respect that and not comment again off topic for any reason, including to be argumentative with me, or I will see to it that your comments from here on are moderated.

    GOT IT?

  27. Ron Chusid says:

    Robert,

    “So, with your statement – we should not have entered WWII? That Hitler should have been left alone as we were not directly threatened?”

    You miss the point. Saddam did not pose any where near the threat to the US or rest of the world which Hitler obviously did. The fact that Saddam was a potential threat (but not one at the time of the war) is a poor justification to go to war.

    There were many more significant threats which have worsened due to Bush’s misguided policy in Iraq. The war led to an increased nuclear threat from North Korea nand Iran, and has strengthened al Qaeda. Saddam, while definately a bad guy, did not pose the same threat as theese other groups.

    Saddam also did not posess the WMD claimed by Bush at the time of the war. Nor was he involved with al Qaeda as the Bush administration falsely claimed in order to justify the war. The war was contrary to the national security interests of the United States, and Bush did deceive the country in order to get support for the war. You clearly have bought the lies spread by Bush and his supporters.

  28. Ron Chusid says:

    Looking above I see Pamela’s request to avoid off topic comments here. Besides, it is rather futile to attempt to debate the entire war here. This has already been argued many times.