"It's a number"

Re: "Its's a number"

Is there any point to bringing up the fact that this was not the reason, or even one of the reasons, on the basis of which this shambles got sold to the people whose sons are dying?
Saddam bad. Saddam bad. Rape rooms. Torture chambers. Marsh Arabs.
WMD's?
No.
Connection to 9/11 or its sponsoring entities?
No.
Bullshit from the White House Iraq Group?
Yes.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Hey, Lymon...

Hate to muck up your talking points, but...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060618/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

So you think maybe the folks in the bakery are thanking their lucky stars they weren't "dragged from their beds in the middle of the night and shot between the eyes?"

Think maybe the folks in the blown up mosque are thanking their lucky stars that Saddam's rape rooms are closed?

I'd close with a witty adhominem attack, patterned after yours, but I'll just stick with the facts on the ground. They're all I need to prove how ridiculous you Bushies are.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Repeated denial of the self-evident is a terrible thing.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Feh. Not worth wasting my time on.

I would note, though, that the military geniuses in the Democratic party predicted that thousands and thousands of U.S. troops would die in the first week in Iraq. They were wrong about that, and they've been wrong on every fundamental point since.

God only knows what the world would be like today if most of you had been in positions of influence during the Civil War, or World War II.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

And you have the links to back that up? You owe us a legitimate (i.e.. non-Newsmax) story that states that . . .

Democratic geniuses (plural, meaning you better find more than one) who said there would be "thousands and thousands" (that's MANY thousands) of U.S. deaths IN THE FIRST WEEK.

There is your assignment. Complete it IN FULL --- meeting all the criteria you put forth --- or say you were wrong. There is no third option.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Bullshit. Bullshit. I call bullshit a thousand times.

Provide one link, just one fucking link, to multiple, high-profile Democrats predicting "thousands and thousands of U.S. troops would die in the first week in Iraq."

Of all the critiques leading up to the war in 2003, there were very few -- if any at all -- people on the left saying we shouldn't go into Iraq because we wouldn't overthrow Saddam or that Iraqi forces would be too much for our military. I do recall a few saying, though, that there were likely no WMD, no ties to Al Qaeda, the place would be turned into a hornet's nest for terrorists and civil war would likely arise.

Ding, ding, ding and ding.

And I got Dick Cheney on record as saying the war would take "weeks, not months" and that the "insurgency is in its last throes." Rumsfeld on record saying "we know where the WMD are." Wolfowitz saying the oil revenues would virtually ensure that the war pay for itself.

Some military geniuses they are, eh? Seriously, this is your yardstick for accuracy?

And yes, thank God no Democrats were in positions of influence during World War II.

Jesus, do people not have a thought before they post anymore? A half a thought?

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Much to their everlasting shame, not enough Democrats stood up and listened to Shinseki and the people at the State Department's Iraq project, and the other people who actually knew what they were talking about to stop this clusterfuck when they had the chance. And, even presuming that HH can find a link, is there some moral triumph to be had in stretching the casualities out over a decade?

 

Re: "Its's a number"

I generally try to be non-partisan in my posts and will again in the future, but the following point really burns me up.

Henry's assinine statement reminds me of the same misconception some Republicans - not most, but some, including Karl Rove - have been spreading: That after 9/11 the Democrats were "peace, peace, peace!" and didn't want to go into Afghanistan. Bullshit, of course. That war had about 90 percent support - in the Democratic party alone.

But the Karl Roves of the world have become very good at unfairly painting the Democrats as weak on national security. Even decorated veterans like John Kerry and John Murtha.

It's just about the echo chamber: Say something enough, whether it's true or not, and people will lap it up. The question for Democrats is whether they need to adopt the same strategy, because even if it isn't good for the sake of accuracy it works as a political trick.

 

Joe Goebbels demonstrated that the Big Lie works -- at least, in terms of conning the people.

It's sad that some moderns have decided that the lesson was worthy of exhuming.

 

Re: "Its's a number"

Sorry, I forgot Iraq was a kite-flying paradise before we got there. That objective piece of journalism, "Fahrenheit 9-11," told me so.

 

You see, Lyman, nobody said it was.

But you need to say something outrageous like that in a feeble attempt to make a point.

Iraq before we invaded was . . .

. . . not a great place to live and was run by a terrible dictator who, at times, would do evil things to people he suspected of being his enemies. Just like Saudi Arabia or any number of Middle East hellholes. And the same things happen (just a little less violently) in democracies, too. The CIA has been involved in more nefarious shit than any of us will ever know. Power corrupts EVERYWHERE.

HOWEVER, Iraq was also a place where the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people went their entire lives without ever even seeing Saddam. They simply went to work, got married, cared for their family and lived a regular, uneventful life without the fear of being abducted of blown up or beheaded every time they went out for groceries.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/world/middleeast/14refugees.html