Good grief: what about the Iraqi dead?
In my recent post about how poorly our own Civil War had been going for the North even as late as the spring of 1864, I mentioned the incredibly high casualties in that war compared to what we’ve suffered so far in Iraq.
A commenter named Global Citizen wrote:
Good grief, what about the Iraqi dead?
A timely observation; Global’s comment was written on Monday, and it was on Tuesday (yesterday) that two pieces of news came through the wires almost simultaneously: an especially blood-curdling bombing that killed at least sixty people at a university in Baghdad (yes, a graphic demonstration of how the terrorists eat their own young); and the announcement by the UN that, by their calculations, more than 34,000 Iraqi civilians died in violence last year.
The UN figures are disputed by the Iraqi government:
Death tolls in Iraq are controversial because they vary so widely and because there is no uniform, transparent system of tabulating killings throughout the country. The 2006 civilian death toll of 34,452 provided by the UN — drawn from the Health Ministry, hospital reports and the Medico-Legal Institute of Baghdad — exceeded official government figures.
Iraq’s ministries of defense, health, and interior said in early January that there were 13,896 violent deaths of civilians, police officers, and soldiers last year. An Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul Kareem al-Kinani, said yesterday’s UN figures were “incorrect, unsuccessful, and very exaggerated.”
The truth is we don’t know the truth, and probably will never know. Both the Iraqi government and the UN are suspect as reporters, and those giving them the data on which any such figures would be based probably have agendas, as well. The expression “the fog of war” covers civilian casualties in a chaotic and violent country in which many sides have a powerful motivation to distort the truth.
But one thing I do know: the murderers are relying on our reporting of the carnage to help their cause by inflaming US public opinion against our mission there.
So, what’s the MSM to do? Ignore such a big story? Of course not.
And the killers know that. They also know if they kill enough innocent people with a big enough bang, it will become ever more likely that America will get fed up with our intervention there and leave them alone to do the rest of their dirty work in peace (ironic word, that).
And therein lies the rub for people such as Global–if, that is, they bother to think about what would happen after we leave. I’m afraid that, to many who espouse such an argument, the only Iraqi deaths that really matter are the ones that take place on our watch.
The truth is that Iraq has been a bloody killing field for decades. Back in the years when Saddam and his boys were murdering and torturing Iraqis for fun and profit, did we see the daily death toll printed on the front pages of our newspapers? No, of course not; those deaths slid into the general background noise, the hum of all the other third-world deaths perpetrated by murderous dictators against their own people. Non-Western killers against non-Western victims? For the most part, to the MSM–not our problem, not our news. Relegated to the back pages.
And now, every tally of Iraqi deaths that’s published would do well to include a comparison to the deaths under Saddam (which would most likely have continued, unabated, had we not invaded)–or the deaths that are predicted to occur if we leave prematurely. But, of course, they don’t. And the left doesn’t talk much about these things, either.
It’s a bit like the aftermath of the Vietnam War. The suffering perpetrated on the South by the North during that lengthy conflict; the re-education camps and with torture and murder afterwards; and the boat people, so many of whom died in their efforts to escape the regime after we abandoned them–there was hardly so much as a whisper of sorrow from the Left on that score.
Global uses the phrase “good grief” to begin his comment. He/she means it merely as an exclamation of astonishment. But it seemed an apt one to me. Because, to much of the Left, the only good grief to feel is about casualties caused by the US.
The deaths caused by regimes the US is trying to topple? The grief over them isn’t nearly as good. And the deaths caused by our abandonment, at the urging of the Left, of a country we had pledged to defend? That’s really un-good grief.
In the present conflict in Iraq, the US military has cared more about the number of dead civilians, and tried harder to avoid causing any such deaths, than any fighting force ever has before. And the “surge” policy is meant to flush out and kill the killers of such people.
That, of course, is not enough for the Left. Their remedy for the murders going on now is to leave. And, were we to listen to them, and the aftermath was a huge increase in the number of dead, would the Left ever take any responsibility for that particular bloodbath?
[NOTE: I’m well aware that the far Left often ascribes all casualties, before or after US intervention, as being caused by the US and/or the West in general. According to the Left, damaged third-world countries with murderous dictators are really the result of Western colonialism. Saddam’s crimes are on our hands since we supported him now and then because of realpolitik (against the greater threat of Iran, for example). And of course any killings after we leave are our fault as well, because we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.
There is always at least a kernel of truth in these accusations, although they are simplistic and ridiculously reductionist. The US, like all nations, is an imperfect player in an imperfect world. Most of the time we face, as I’ve written before, “choices among crazinesses.”
The validity of the causes for our intervention in Iraq has been rehashed ad nauseum: in a nutshell, I still consider them valid, although our execution has been faulty. The topic of this post, however, is how the MSM shortsightedly picks and chooses which casualties in Iraq to pay attention to, and how the Left uses that information to suggest actions likely to cause more of those innocent Iraqi casualties it purports to care so much about.]
Woah. And when I was subsequently asked …
Do you really think the “Iraqi dead” will stop because the U.S. leaves?
… I replied:
Hardly. Nor do I think my point is lost by your attempt at misdirection.
My point was that the Iraqi dead were conspicuously absent from your post.
And Neo’s point was, what was the point of your post, then? Faux concern for people you really care nothing about? Because, when the US leaves, the “Iraqi dead” will still be dying, but you won’t be complaining or holding radical Islamists to task for their wanton murder. You’ll have turned to some other “vitally important” cause, like Global Warming. Because in the final analysis, like all left-liberals, it’s all about YOU feeling good because you CARE, not about really DOING anything.
If the anti-war folks quit using the Iraqi dead as fodder, the value of Iraqi dead would drop and the utility of terrorists killing Iraqi civilians would drop.
And there would be fewer dead Iraqi civilians.
But that would leave the anti-war folks with an empty bag.
The anti-war folks and the terrorists have the same goal and the same technique.
Incidentally, I think you’re lumping American Democrats in with people opposed to the war all over the globe. We’re not one homogenous group, for crying out loud!
I’ve noticed you don’t participate much in your comment forum. Why not publish one less article a week and spend some quality time down in the cheap seats with your regular readers?
Because, GC, Neo has far better things to do than to wallow here with the likes of you. That’s up to the rest of us in the “cheap seats.”
Although I’d love to participate more in the comments section, I actually have other things to do than write this blog. Writing the posts takes an enormous amount of time and effort–effort I give gladly, by they way–but enough is enough. Comments are mostly for everyone else. I rarely venture in, pro or con. It just would take way too much time.
But while I’m here for a moment, I will point out, Global, that in this post I don’t believe I even mention Democrats. I’m rather careful to use the word “Left,” I believe.
Speaking of time, I don’t even have time to reread the post and check that out–I’ll leave it to others. I’m due somewhere else.
Talk amongst yourselves, as Linda Richman would say.
When did I ever say the US should leave? The US really can’t leave, can it? (Maybe the only way it could leave is if it paid the neighbouring Arab countries a fortune to take over the policing, or asked Israel to give up some land in return for Arab countries policing. I don’t know. It’s a mess. Why are liberals supposed to know what to do, anyway? Conservatives kicked over the anthill! Call an ant specialist.)
Because in the final analysis, like all left-liberals, it’s all about YOU feeling good because you CARE, not about really DOING anything.
Maybe it’s different in your country, but I don’t know any (adult) liberals who are as shallow as you all seem to portray them as being. The caring trades are underpaid and, from my experience, the big majority of employees are liberals. Lifelong liberals make lifelong sacrifices.
“Lifelong liberals make lifelong sacrifices.”
Yes, like taxing the people who REALLY contribute to human civilization to pay for those who don’t.
Please. You’re good because you CARE? You’re underpaid? The market decides the worth of labor. It’s unfortunate that the market seems to think basketball players are worth more than teachers, but that’s just the way things are. In this respect, I agree with you totally.
And if liberals don’t know what to do, then why don’t they just shut up and let the people who WANT to do something do it?
See, it’s this endless litany of “things are awful, neoconservatives have ruined everything, they’ve been incompetent and deceptive the whole time” coupled with “Why are liberals supposed to know what to do, anyway?” that makes it so difficult to take anything you say seriously. Because if you believe that the handling of Iraq has been “incompetent”, then by definition you think you “know what to do”. If you don’t, then you don’t have a dog in this fight, and you should stay out of it.
“Why are liberals supposed to know what to do, anyway?”
This illustrates how poorly the Republicans managed the country (or the MSM managed political communication, take your pick) – the Dems actually won in 2006 with this platform. Though they did lose in 2004. 1-1 with this message isn’t too bad. I tip my hat to the Dems and the MSM. If the Republicans came out with the same message their support would be at libertarian levels.
I favor the James Cameron solution:
“I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”
-“Aliens” 1986
Why, Global Citizen, you aren’t trying to avoid the subject AGAIN, are you?
You are going to complain that neo doesn’t interact with you and respond to you after she just devoted an entire POST to your inane comment?
So, what about HER point in the original post, Global? If you can’t manage that, how about responding to her point in THIS post, Global?
Neo-neocon summed it up nicely for you:
“how the MSM shortsightedly picks and chooses which casualties in Iraq to pay attention to, and how the Left uses that information to suggest actions likely to cause more of those innocent Iraqi casualties it purports to care so much about.”
That should make it easier for you to stay on topic…
The deaths caused by regimes the US is trying to topple? The grief over them isn’t nearly as good. And the deaths caused by our abandonment, at the urging of the Left, of a country we had pledged to defend? That’s really un-good grief.
Do I detect a small bit of ire, Neo?
That, of course, is not enough for the Left.
It never is,Neo, it never is.
There is always at least a kernel[..] The US, like all nations, is an imperfect player in an imperfect world.
But that is the rub you see. When you are on the defense against propaganda attacks Neo, you must be perfect in defense while the attackers only need to strike once now and again.
To win, you must go on the offense. If you are imperfect, then you must attack so that your enemies do not avail themselves of your imperfections and weaknesses.
Most of the time we face, as I’ve written before, “choices among crazinesses.”
We need an Orchestrator of Chaos. A conductor of death and destruction. The Hurricane of Belief.
Incidentally, I think you’re lumping American Democrats in with people opposed to the war all over the globe. We’re not one homogenous group, for crying out loud!
The Shia and the Sunnis don’t need to be a homogenous group to be allied with each other. Perception of geo-politicsl and Byzantine politics is very poor amongst the Left. Probably why they are so easy to sucker.
I’ve noticed you don’t participate much in your comment forum. Why not publish one less article a week and spend some quality time down in the cheap seats with your regular readers?
Because I would probably take up so much of Neo’s time, by talking to Neo, that she wouldn’t have any time to write any posts. Then there would be hell to pay. So best we avoid that scenario.
I wrote this before reading Neo’s comment here, so there you have it.
Great post, Neo. The Left has been using this spurious argument for some time now and this post is a wonderful refutation.
Global Citizen:
You wrote:”Maybe it’s different in your country, but I don’t know any (adult) liberals who are as shallow as you all seem to portray them as being. The caring trades are underpaid and, from my experience, the big majority of employees are liberals. Lifelong liberals make lifelong sacrifices.”
TYaking this point by point…
First – curiosity reigns. What IS you country? Care to state (no pun) it?
Second – shallow liberals. Just off hand I can name two, possibly three. First example: a female who thinks the world loves her, sexual and otherwise. T’aint true, she’s a mess and ugly. Which might explain a lot. Second, A Lady Gracious who haunts Good Causes. A worker (she’s what I call a real liberal: gets out and works at good) in the caring field hates her with a burning hate.
Haven’t met any “Life Long Liberals”. No one I know is pure liberal by your lights. My philosophically leftmost friend hates Asian-American with a passion: I keep waiting for The Yellow Menace to surface when we talk together. It usually does ten minutes into the conversation.
Doesn’t pay to make unsupported generalizations unless you’re writing for the Associated Press…heh.
Everyone in the world knows that the U.N. more than doubles everything, including the money in their bank accounts.
Organization of criminals, rapist, and liars.
Between his various wars of conquest, civil wars, and usual day-to-day police state butality Saddam is generally held responsible for about 2 million deaths, or about 83,000 per year on average. That compares to a 60,000 total for going on four years from the left-wing anti-war Iraq Body Count group, or less than 20,000 per year.
So Iraq has been about four times safer since liberation. Think that fact will make the NYT?
RALLY AND MARCH TO END THE WAR ON IRAQ
SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2007, 12 NOON
POWELL AND MARKET STREETS,
San Francisco
Troops out of Iraq NOW!
It’s time to get the anti-war movement back in the streets!
On January 27, hundreds of thousands of people will march
in Washington, DC to demand an end to the war.
Bringing the same message to the streets of San Francisco,
make your own signs and banners and march with your friends,
family, co-workers, class-mates, church, union or organization.
Show Bush and the new Democratic Congress that the anti-war movement is back.
ORGANIZING MEETING SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 2:00 P.M.
110 CAPP STREET, SAN FRANCISCO
For more information, call 510-484-5242 or email
j27committee@gmail.com
or check out
http://www.myspace.com/januarytwentyseventh
The topic of this post, however, is how the MSM shortsightedly picks and chooses which casualties in Iraq to pay attention to, and how the Left uses that information to suggest actions likely to cause more of those innocent Iraqi casualties it purports to care so much about.
Are you arguing that it’s ok if the US practically created Saddam and supported him throughout much of his reign of terror, and eventually had to spend billions and sacrifice thousands to undo the damage, because we are, after all, but mere “imperfect players in an imperfect world.”
Yet for the MSM to have not provided daily reports on the [unknowable] number of bodies dumped from his torture chambers, and after we invade to report on the security situation there, is somehow unforgiveably shortsighted.
Or did I somehow misread you?
neo:
“And of course any killings after we leave are our fault as well, because we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.”
Its nice to be a liberal. Your hands are always clean.
Oh, and you gotta love the liberals who have a bumper-sticker that reads “War Solves Nothing” next to the one that says “Free Tibet”.
Counting the Iraqis killed by terrorists against the U.S. war effort is somewhat like counting the Europeans killed by the Nazis against the Allied war effort in WWII. If the Allies had withdrawn from that war, the concentration camps would have kept on killing. And if the U.S. were to withdraw from Iraq, the sectarian violence would either (1)increase or (2)give way to an effective dictatorship in which the violence would be rationalized at industrial levels.
“And of course any killings after we leave are our fault as well, because we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.”
Of course.
Before we went there, there was no civil war.
After we went there, civil war started, and hundreds of thousands of civilians died.
Oh, and you gotta love the liberals who have a bumper-sticker that reads “War Solves Nothing” next to the one that says “Free Tibet”.
Free Tibet by stopping the US doing business with China until China leaves Tibet.
We have an embargo against Cuba for 40+ years. Why do we keep doing business with China, a far more repressive state than Cuba?
It is hypocrisy and the world laughs at our hypocrisy.
But while I’m here for a moment, I will point out, Global, that in this post I don’t believe I even mention Democrats. I’m rather careful to use the word “Left,” I believe.
You could have asked me my views on a pull out before writing about them.
Please. You’re good because you CARE? You’re underpaid? The market decides the worth of labor.
I didn’t mean to offend your religion.
I’m Canadian. Canada is a country north of the USA.
If you’re curious about Canadians, you can check out the Rick Mercer video archive. Mercer’s a popular satirist, though you’ll probably find a lot of the laughs are inside jokes.
This is a funny interview with the leader of the opposition (and our likely next prime minister):
Rick, Stéphane Dion and Kyoto enjoy the new winter (scroll down to Jan 9)
Anonymous, you might want to check out the interview with Bob Rae (minutes 3:00 – 4:00).
GC:
Glad to see the canucks are running true to form. Such a lovely country with so many fools.
We have an embargo against Cuba for 40+ years. Why do we keep doing business with China, a far more repressive state than Cuba?
So you expect an embargo against Cuba to get China out of Tibet like it got Castro out of Cuba…
Neo, I love the fact that you continually bring up Vietnam, but I think you miss the key connection.
Vietnam was a Limited War.
Iraq is a Limited War.
Limited Wars end when the loser decides to lose — the Dem Party Leftists want to have the decision power in the war. But neither they nor Bush nor any pro-freedom alliance can “decide to win”. They can only decide to keep fighting until the surviving terrorists, and there will ALWAYS be surviving terrorists, decide to stop fighting and lose.
The purpose of GC’s idea: “My point was that the Iraqi dead were conspicuously absent from your post.” is to require constant discussion about Iraqi dead — in every post.
But, VERY conspicuously absent from GC is a) discussion of Darfur, where Bush tried to lead the world in calling it Genocide — which requires a UN military respons. The UN, Amnesty, HRW etc do NOT call it genocide, so the death toll is 200 000 and counting, but not counting very publically. When was the last update? Isn’t it 201k or 205k or 220k yet?
Does GC even care about the slo-mo genocide in Darfur? Far more death there in the last 3 years than in Iraq, plus less hope for a better future.
(Not to mention 4 mil. dead in Congo, where UN peacekeepers are also child rapists.)
I actually think Bush should be constantly talking about Darfur, as the real world real alternative to US action in Iraq.
So Saddam and his thugs killing a couple of hundred thousand Shi’ites doesn’t count as “civil war”, but Sunnis killing Shi’ites and Shi’ites killing Sunnis does? How does that works? *scratches head*
I guess the difference is that Saddam’s sectarian genocide was done out of the MSM spotlight so it doesn’t count?
And what if that doesn’t work? What if millions of Chinese die of starvation due to the trade embargo, which would count as an act of war? If sanctions against Iraq were wrong, why are sanctions against China right?
Hi –
There is no civil war in Iraq, not the classic definition.
What we have is the fighting over a the failed state of Iraq. And the failure of Iraq is a failure of the UN, which without the US would’ve been condemned to irrelevancy.
Now for a shameless plug: I’ve commented on exactly this topic on my blog:
http://21stcenturyschizoidman.blogspot.com/2007/01/civil-war-vs-failed-state.html
Are you arguing that it’s ok if the US practically created Saddam and supported him throughout much of his reign of terror, and eventually had to spend billions and sacrifice thousands to undo the damage, because we are, after all, but mere “imperfect players in an imperfect world.”
We’ve all seen this phenomenon before: A despot is being discussed. It could be Stalin, Hitler, Mao or some other murderer. Suddenly someone pops up and claims that the US “created” them. Hyperbole.
These folks don’t understand the concept of shifting alliances, an ordinary and normal part of ANY great world power’s foreign policy history. And they forget that for the US to have had ANY allies in the Middle East a despot would necessarily HAVE to have been supported – since before Afghanistan and Iraq(with only the exception of Turkey and Israel), ALL Middle Eastern countries were ruled by despots with murder on their hands. In the past, if you dealt with anyone in the ME you were dealing with an unsavory despot. That’s exactly one of the doleful paradigms that Bush is trying to change for the better.
The US supported Iraq during the Iraq/Iran War. So what? Iran, after all, had captured the US embassy and held US embassy employees hostage in what can only be called an act of war. Soon after, when Iraq and Iran started warring, Reagan jumped at the chance to help another country strike at the enemy. I would’ve done the same. My only regret is that Saddam was never able to inflict any lasting damage on Iran. Too bad.
But just because the Reagan administration supported Saddam before he was a threat to the US does not mean that the US “created” Saddam at all. Iraq is only one of a myriad of shifting alliances with a variety of different entities in US foreign policy history. A variety of unsavory leaders and their nations are supported and have been “supported” by China, Russia, Britain and large players on the diplomatic scene.
Furthermore, don’t these despots possess minds and wills of their own? Are they forced to become murderers simply because the US may have supported them at some point in history? Do these commentors believe the US practiced mind control on Saddam, Stalin and Castro – FORCING them to become cruel assholes? Hypnotized them, perhaps? Were these despots nice, peaceful types who were turned into murderers because of diplomatic contact with the US? Is the US responsible FOREVER for any perfidy committed by these creatures simply because the US may have had alliances with them at some point? I find this basic assumption, which is at the bottom of ALL such accusations, to be way too hard to swallow.
Um…I said “practically” created, hoping to avoid just this sort of rant.
My point, should you wish to address it, is that Neo excuses our alliance with Saddam, which led us to where we are today, as being just the result of our “choices among crazinessess,” whereas media reporting on security conditions in Iraq, while generally confirmed as accurate by pretty much everybody who matters, is “shortsighted.”
Well said Grackle. Some on the left hold impossible standards for the US. Taken to its logical conclusion, the unknown blogger would have us take no alliances (after all no one is perfect, and if they don’t live up to perfection, we can’t have them as an ally), and if a current ally does somethng bad, they can’t be our ally any more. Saddam was our ally (not friend) at the time because we needed to ally with someone in the ME other than Israel. We chose between bad (Iraq) and worse (Iran). This wsn’t too long after the Shah was kicked out of Iran. Would Iran willingly become our ally after our support of the Shah? Seriously, at the time it was better to ally with Iraq than ally with Iran OR have no allies in the conflict. As neo said, we’re an imperfect player in an imperfect world.
Please wake up unknown blogger. The world is the way it is, not the way you want it to be. It’s a lot easier to think of the big bad US doing all the harm (we’ve done some bad things no doubt, but we’re not the source of the world’s ills) and that everyone else are robots controlled by the US.
I was against Saddam when he was murdering people. I am against the terrorists who continue to kill Iraqis. I’m even in favor in minimizing civilian casualties. I’m against leaving Iraq because it would cause more civilian casualties, plus make the world more dangerous for us and the world.
What are your positions? If you were against Saddam murdering, are you against the terrorists essentially doing the same thing, only with one less terrorist sponsor? If you’re against the terrorists killing civilians, are you against leaving when there will no doubt be more killing of civilians by terrorists? And finally, if we are on the same page here, except for that you believe Bush and co. have bungled things in Iraq, then what is the alternative plan? All I hear is crickets chirping. Actually, all I hear are PR stunts and hypocrisy of the leftists in Congress. While we kept current levels of troops, we didn’t have enough, but now that we are increasing troops, it won’t do any good. All I want is for a leftist to be semi-consistent in their positions.
Unknown blogger,
The only factor in this isn’t US support for Iraq. Many people agree/know that Iran is meddling in Iraqi affairs and that Iraq would be much more stable if it weren’t for that. Who is allied with Iran (or secretly giving aide or support)? Did Russia and China help get us to this point today? How about Syria? It’s not just US actions that lead us to points in history. It is a number of factors.
Security conditions in Iraq are shortsighted because we are given no context. I refer you to Victor Davis Hanson’s article about if California was reported on like Iraq is. We are not given context for deaths, either civilian or military, nor for anything else going on. How long do counterinsurgencies usually take? How about comparisons in fomring Iraq’s government to that of the US in the 1700’s? No context whatsoever. Very shortsighted.
Neo excuses our alliance with Saddam, which led us to where we are today]
The commentor issues the above statement and yet the commentor thinks I didn’t address his point. A lot of these folks have a tendency to deny they are saying something even as they say it. Very odd, no? A strange rhetoric blindness which we all get a chance to observe firsthand with the above statement.
For the reader: MY point was that Saddam’s crimes are blamed on the US by shortsighted observers, of which you are one, simply because the US once had an alliance with him – a ridiculous assertion once it’s examined closely and in it’s full context. The statement above only confirms that I was correct.
The article I was referring to can be found here:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041206.html
Ill take responsibility for any “bloodbath” after we leave if you’ll take responsibility for the bloodbath up till now and the continuing bloodbath caused by the surge.
Notice that Troutsky thinks the surge will cause the bloodbath, not the terrorists and insurgents trying to defeat the Iraqi government. Notice also that Iran and Syria play no part in this bloodbath in his statment (if this is incorrect, please forgive me as I could not draw that conclusion from your post).
This is what those on the left seem to not understand (or perfectly understand and are just being deceptive). The bloodbath (right now and if we leave) is due to the terrorists and insurgents, not us. What you also do not understand is that some of the blood will be on your hands for actively (either consciously or subconsciously) helping them to achieve their goal by pulling out too soon thereby leaving Iraq into their hands, just like we left Vietnam.
What you also don’t seem to understand is that we don’t actively target civilians (as a policy we don’t, but I am sure there are some lowlifes who do) and if they are deliberately targeted, we prosecute them (i.e. Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Haditha – if found to be true, etc.). So even thought technically the blood of the civilians who have died because of this war is on our hands, we are already morally superior (as if moral superiority ever won a war, but just for argument’s sake) to our foes, who wantonly murder innocent civilians with no regard, while we try to minimize them on the other side.
As an American (if you’re not American then ignore this), your loyalty should be to America first. You should want America to win. Do many leftists want that? Many of them see Iraq as Bush’s war rather than America’s war and have even reversed themselves 180 degrees on past positions (like WMD and troop surge) just to oppose him, regardless of the message it sends to the enemy. It doesn’t matter that America as a whole will be damaged by losing in Iraq. The way the left gains more power is by America losing in Iraq. Isn’t that sad?
Ill take responsibility for any “bloodbath” after we leave if you’ll take responsibility for the bloodbath up till now and the continuing bloodbath caused by the surge.
troutsky | Homepage | 01.18.07 – 2:26 pm | #
The whole point of going into Iraq was to cause a bloodbath. This ain’t no tea party.
What you also don’t seem to understand is that we don’t actively target civilians
he does understand that Mike. He just doesn’t care. Now that’s a kind of thinking that may seem foreign to you, but I assure you that all too often people are able to hold two contradictory ideas in their heads. The smarter they are, the more contradictory ideas they may hold at once.