I‘m going to have to go to confession to this one, but I was much intrigued by something Doug Ross’ said. After ironically noting that he had "sinned" against Randy Ewart, he announced that "As penance, I shall say 10 Hail Mary Rosh’s."
Well, that got me to thinking. If I decide I need to amend my new civility policy, that might be a suitable punishment for transgressors that would fall short of deletion or banishment. Say, if someone who uses his or her full name goes a bit too far in exercising the license that identification allows, we could assign 10 Mary Roshes as a penance, after which blogsolution would be granted.
As a serious Catholic myself, I’m not sure how awful it is to be publishing this. But the fact is, my brain started working on it right away at Doug "The Serpent" Ross’ prompting, and I did "entertain" the thought. So I suppose that sharing it here is my way of confessing to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, through what I have done, and what I have failed to do (my work). If my fellow Catholics out there think it’s just too awful (maybe somebody should run this by Andrew Sullivan), I’ll take it down.
Anyway, here is how I think one would say a "Hail Mary Rosh:"
Hail Mary, full of Rosh, the bile is with thee;
angry art thou among women (?),
and worthless is the fruit of thy rant, Venom.Pseudo Mary, mother of trolls,
prey on us retards now,
and call us garbage with thy breath,
Oh, men!
Related Posts
Me thinks you’re going to hell Brad. that little ditty surely was worth a first class ticket.
Wally
R. Catholic
I SAID I was going to go to confession…
I’m not sure confession would be enough to absolve you, Brad.
Oh well, at least it adds a bit of comic relief to the proceedings.
Ha ha, sounds like someone can’t stand it when people answer back!
It’s sad, but not surprising, that Warthen refers to my “rant” and “venom,” when he has ignored my repeated exhortations to try to achieve civility by personal example, namely, by refraining from characterizing his detractors as unpatriotic. No one who, having been utterly wrong about every aspect of a vital issue, exhorts those who criticize his viewpoint on the issue, and whose criticisms have been utterly vendicated, nevertheless exhorts his critics to “love your country enough to [agree with me]” is entitled to refer to anything anyone else says as “venom.”
Here’s something from someone whose intelligence, industry, knowledge, and willingness to investigate issues, integrity, and writing ability, make him a success as a journalist and as a human being:
From Keith Olbermann:
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence — indeed, the loyalty — of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants — our employees — with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s — questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience — needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute — and exclusive — in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today’s Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count — not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we — as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note — with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that — though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism – indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”
And so good night, and good luck.
The Brad’s Prayer
Our Blogger, who art called Warthen,
Chickenhawk be Thy name.
Let all immigrants come,
Bush’s will be done,
In Iraq as it is in Pelion.
Give us this day our daily Sanford bashing
And forgive us our incivilities,
As we forgive those who are incivil to us
(except Lee).
And lead us all into taxation,
But deliver us from vouchers.
For public schools are the Kingdom
and need the power and the money
forever, and ever.
Amen
Brad,
That was funny.
Mary,
That was bizarre, but at least not too venomous.
Doug,
That was really funny. If the righties have to say ten Mary Roshes as penance, then the lefties should have to say ten Brad’s prayers.
Mary, whenever I feel like I want to upchuck the last thing I ate that is talking back to me, all I need to do is turn on Olbergoof for a few minutes. I always wondered who in his entire audience of 3 was watching him nightly. I should have known it would be you and 2 others.. his mom and his wife. This guy is such a useless loser with pathetic ratings that even Bill O’Reilly refers to him as the idiot on some other channel. How about Olbergoof’s nazi salute recently which he tried to backpedal from? Like most of PMSMSNBC, other than Crowley and at times Scarborough, they should be off the air. And likely will soon at the rate they are going.
As my penance, I’ll leave Mary’s rant up — this time. I’m not going to READ it — I started to, got about halfway, then saw how much more there was — but I’ll leave it up.
I did read far enough to see the name “Keith Olbermann.” I’m not familiar with the gentleman. Dave seems to indicate he’s on television, while Mary seemed to imply he is a journalist. An apparent contradiction, although admittedly sometimes journalists do appear on the tube.
Paul — mine was “funny,” but Dave’s was “really funny?” His scansion wasn’t even right! Or the meter, or rhythm, or something. (I was always in honors English, where we read novels and argued about them and wrote essays rather than learning terminology.)
And I was SO careful to get my syllables right… OK, so you have to make “hour” into two syllables for it to work, but it still sounds right.
I thought his ending was good, though…
Brad, Olbermann is an MSNBC news/anchor/pundint/comic hybrid who has a show, Countdown, nightly at 8pm. He apparently is no fan of the conservatives and is especially disdainful of O’Reilly. He pokes fun at celebrities and athletes and does the top 3 worst persons of the world segment each night in which he calls out famous and infamous buffoons who act like butts.
He was also one of the big boys on ESPN Sportscenter with Dan Patrick. They had a great repoirte, but KO kept getting into hot water with the brass. He was once suspended for a month.
He’s a funny guy, but I don’t think Dave and company are setting their Tevos with him in mind.
I just have to shake my head at how Olbermann and Mary Rosh got all that out of this Rumsfeld speech:
[various intros, thanks and acknowledgements]…..
That year — 1919 — turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.
Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.
It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator’s reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:
“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”
I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today — another enemy, a different kind of enemy — has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.
We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:
* With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world’s troubles?
These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly.
We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds — possibly thousands — of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.
But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there’s more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats.
It’s a strange time:
* When a database search of America’s leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct — 10 times more — than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
* Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces — the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard — as a “mercenary army;”
* When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists; and the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief in Baghdad, he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein’s crimes when he was in charge there so that CNN could keep on reporting selective news;
* And it’s a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay — which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare — as “the gulag of our times.” It’s inexcusable. (Applause.)
Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what’s wrong with the world. (Applause.)
The struggle we are in — the consequences are too severe — the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First.”
One of the most important things the American Legion has done is not only to serve and assist and advocate, as you have done so superbly for so much of the past century, but also to educate and to speak the truth about our country and about the men and women in the military.
Not so long ago, an exhibit — Enola Gay at the Smithsonian during the 1990s — seemed to try to rewrite the history of World War II by portraying the United States as somewhat of an aggressor. Fortunately, the American Legion was there to lead the effort to set the record straight. (Applause.)
Your watchdog role is particularly important today in a war that is to a great extent fought in the media on a global stage, a role to not allow the distortions and myths be repeated without challenge so that at the least the second or third draft of history will be more accurate than the first quick allegations we see.
You know from experience personally that in every war there have been mistakes, setbacks, and casualties. War is, as Clemenceau said, “a series of catastrophes that result in victory.”
And in every army, there are occasional bad actors, the ones who dominate the headlines today, who don’t live up to the standards of the oath and of our country. But you also know that they are a very, very small percentage of the literally hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving our country with humanity, with decency, with professionalism, and with courage in the face of continuous provocation. (Applause.)
And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
Our enemies know this well. They frequently invoke the names of Beirut or Somalia — places they see as examples of American retreat and American weakness. And as we’ve seen — even this month — in Lebanon, they design attacks and manipulate the media to try to demoralize public opinion. They doctor photographs of casualties. They use civilians as human shields. And then they try to provoke an outcry when civilians are killed in their midst, which of course was their intent.
The good news is that most Americans, though understandably influenced by what they see and read, have good inner gyroscopes. They have good center of gravity. So, I’m confident that over time they will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions about it.
Iraq, a country that was brutalized by a cruel and dangerous dictatorship, is now traveling the slow, difficult, bumpy, uncertain path to a secure new future under a representative government that will be at peace with its neighbors, rather than a threat to their own people, to their neighbors, or to the world.
As the nature of the threat and the conflict in Iraq has changed over these past several years, so have the tactics and the deployments. But while military tactics have changed and adapted to the realities on the ground — as they must — the strategy has not changed, which is to empower the Iraqi people to be able to defend, and govern, and rebuild their own country.
The extremists themselves call Iraq the “epicenter” in the War on Terror. And our troops know how important their mission is.
A soldier who recently volunteered for a second tour in Iraq captured the feeling of many of his peers. In an e-mail to some friends, he wrote the following, and I quote:
“I ask that you never take advantage of the liberties guaranteed by the shedding of free blood, never take for granted the freedoms granted by our Constitution. For those liberties would be merely ink on paper were it not for the sacrifice of generations of Americans who heard the call of duty and responded heart, mind and soul with ‘Yes, I will.’”
Some day that young man very likely will be a member of the American Legion attending a convention like this. I certainly hope so. And I hope he does that and that we all have a chance to meet. And one day a future speaker may reflect back on the time of historic choice, remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, and dedication, and willingness to persevere in this fight until we prevail.
The question is not whether we can win; it’s whether we have the will to persevere to win. I’m convinced that Americans do have that determination and that we have learned the lessons of history, of the folly of trying to turn a blind eye to danger. These are lessons you know well, lessons that your heroism has helped to teach to generations of Americans.
May God bless each of you. May God bless the men and women in uniform, and their families. And may God continue to bless our wonderful country.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Brad, I think you are absolutely within your right to post this and I do not want you to take it down on my account (I just read the offer in the post), but I don’t particularly care for it. The Virgin Mary and our respect for her is a big deal.
I’m sure others will reply that I should lighten up. Every day in school, I make sure my seniors stand for the pledge out of respect. I don’t call my president names, even if I don’t care for the job he’s done. I don’t tell ethnic or fat jokes, even in private to close friends. There are some things that matter and are serious.
Make fun of my Red Sox getting smoked by the Stankees. Make fun of Clemson being a cow town. Make fun of the bald spot appearing on the side of my scalp. I’ll laugh then.
You might expect me to be one that would call you down, Randy, but you’d be wrong.
I respect the level of faith you obviously have. I also tend to believe that you’re not a sheep, as you previously identified yourself. I think if your church told you something you knew in your heart was wrong, you’d stand up against it, rather than follow blindly.
Forcing people to stand for the pledge.. well… as long as you don’t force them to say “under god” then I don’t have a problem with it. Respect for one’s country is a good thing, just as questioning the leadership of a country is a good thing.
The president, though, is only a man. He’s no better than any other man. Maybe if he realized that, he’d be a better person.
Students should stand for any country’s flag out of respect. They don’t have to say the pledge at all.
The position of president deserves respect just as students should respect the position of a teacher.
I follow the church’s teachings because there is a long tradition of very faithful and learned forefathers who have spent a great deal more time studying God’s word than I. BUT, if a priest suggested that I do something clearly against God’s word, I wouldn’t do it. I take it that’s your point.
The neo-cons constant harping on WW II is really hillarious. Here are the two points about that conflict that are valid:
(1) World War II is a totally bogus, nonsensical analogy to the conditions that exist today. The U.S. of 2006 is neither the Great Britain or Germany of 1938.
(2) But if you insist on learning a leason from that conflict this is the one that is far more valid than the one constantly blasted out by the neo-cons. There were two leaders at a crossroads in 1938. Each had choices to make. One choose dialog, diplomacy and made an effort to give peace a chance. The other chose pre-emptive invasion in an attempt to solve his nation’s problems by force. The nation whose side eventually prevailed was the one choosing dialog and diplomacy. The other was defeated, devastated and divided. In the end diplomacy did work better than pre-emptive invastion.
At what cost, Bud, at what cost? There is pretty much universal agreement among historians that Germany militarily was in no position to go to war in early 1938 when they seized the Sudetenland. Ditto later that year when they took over Austria and the rest of Czechoslovakia. Ditto in 1936 when they marched into the Rheinland. At any of those points firm opposition, even pre-emptive action, would have forced Hitler to back down, at very little cost to the Allies. Dillydallying around instead raised that cost to tens of millions of dead.
I would hardly consider that a success for spineless diplomacy. Do you?
Nonsense! It was Britain that was in no shape to go to war. Germany was far ahead in military development. The year+ that Chamberlain bought his country may have been the deciding factor in the Battle of Britain. Besides what was Britain going to do, launch and invasion of Germany? Was that really an option? Of course it wasn’t. I’ll give you this though, the 1936 Rheinland event was a bit more complicated. Had the French and British acted more decisively perhaps Hitler would have been detered. But, more likely, Hitler would have simply tried a new approach. Either way, the allies held the high moral ground and that, in the final analysis, proved to be the decisive factor.
But I repeat, none of this has anything to do with current events.
Since the terrorist are not the same threat as Nazi Germany it should be clear that analogies to WW II and the current situation the U.S. faces in it’s so-called war on terror are invalid. But what leasons can we draw from history that would help guide us in our quest to make Americans safer? Brad gave us some options in an earlier post about what year is it. One of the options was 1919. I think that year offers us some real insight.
It was during the post WW I treaty of Versailles discussion that a real opportunity was missed. The victorious allies had a great opportunity to sow the seeds of a lasting peace. But instead the near-sighted diplomats in the allied camp sought only revenge and reparation from their defeated foe. Hence the radicals in Germany were able to take control and the rest, as they say, is history.
Dave, so what you’re saying is that you and O’Reilly don’t like Olbermann.
So what? What does that prove?
I notice that you avoided addressing anything that he said, thus suggesting that you are avoiding the issue because you have no counterargument to make.
Brad says:
“If I decide I need to amend my new civility policy, that might be a suitable punishment for transgressors that would fall short of deletion or banishment. Say, if someone who uses his or her full name goes a bit too far in exercising the license that identification allows….”
Might I dare hope that reconsidering your “Civility Policy” could be more than tongue-in-cheek deep?
Is it possible that you will actually amend (or revoke, even) your double standard and once again level the “validity of comment playing field” for all your posters, anonymous and self-identified alike?
Mary, for Olbermann to equate Rumsfeld’s thinking and approach to Neville Chamberlain is dishonest and actually warped beyond belief. If anyone can lay claim to the virtues of a Churchill, it is Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld sees the Chamberlains among us better than most. The pacifist left never recognizes danger until it is too late and even after the world has seen hundreds of fanatical Islamic fascists attack free peoples everywhere, they rationalize that it must be the fault of the free people. Yes, Keith O would have fit right in with Chamberlain. Lets sign a piece of paper and everyone is safe and happy. The left would like us to do that with Iran now while the mullahs and the terrorists would sit and laugh at the stupidity and weak knees of the infidels. To them, Allah allows them to lie and deceive infidels if they must do it to win. Remember that from the religion of peace. Back to Olbermann, he is a nightly joke on a network that is in last place. And you are right, I didnt like him when he started on ESPN. His colleagues at ESPN were very happy to see him depart. Enough said.
Dave, all you are saying is that you like Rumsfeld and don’t like Olbermann. You still don’t address his remarks. The reason, of course, is that you have no counterargument to make, so you seek to exclude opposing viewpoints from consideration. The fact is, of course, that Rumsfeld, like Chamberlain, is seeking to marginalize the opposition – an opposition that has been right in every single respect. EVERYTHING opponents of the Iraq war has said has been proven right, and EVERYTHING you, Rumsfeld, Warthen, and other proponents of the Iraq war said in its support has been proven wrong.
You don’t have anything to say, so you throw out canards like “the left never recognizes danger until it is too late” and rationalizes attacks as being “the fault of a free people”.
The fact is that Bush attacked Iraq at a cost of tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, under false pretenses. None of the goals he set out have been achieved, and none of his predictions have come to pass.
It is you who are a coward. You are so terrified of the prospect of terrorism that you blindly support any course of action that is described as an effort to thwart or prevent terrorism. Your own cowardice and fear for your safety leads you to accept the deaths of over 2600 of our soldiers, and the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars of tax money, not one cent of which was contributed by you.
A real American examines the actions of the government and draws his own opinions about whether those actions are good or bad for America. A coward like you wets the bed whenever someone whispers “terrorist”.
“I did read far enough to see the name “Keith Olbermann.” I’m not familiar with the gentleman. Dave seems to indicate he’s on television, while Mary seemed to imply he is a journalist. An apparent contradiction, although admittedly sometimes journalists do appear on the tube.”
Yeah, I think we’re gaining more and more insight into why Warthen has failed as a journalist. The Oxford Dictionary of English defines “journalist” as follows:
a person who writes for newspapers or magazines or prepares news to be broadcast on radio or television”.
Olbermann is a twit. Nobody in his right mind would ever watch his show, probably why it’s dead last in its time slot. If you ever feel the need to check out his spoutings, there’s a website whose owner keeps up with Olbermann’s antics so you don’t have to.
Mary, in order to hold onto power, Saddam’s regime was killing Iraqis at the rate of 6000 per month. During this period of formation of their new democratic government 3000 a month have been dying, a 50% reduction, and less than what die on US highways. This is based on the fact that 2 million Iraqis died while he was ruling. He also waged war on Kuwait and Iran with designs for further expansion. It is you who ignores the facts and is consistently wrong. Speaking of wrong, where now is your apology to Karl Rove and Bush and Cheney for all of your ranting about how they outed the Plame spy/clerk? The silence from you and Bud is deafening at this stage. But the left has always practiced media driven character assassination. My only hope is the Bush pardon for Libby happens sooner rather than later. As for Olbermann, no wonder Brad wasn’t aware of him. KO’s ratings are so low Nielson has trouble getting reading on it.
“Mary, in order to hold onto power, Saddam’s regime was killing Iraqis at the rate of 6000 per month. During this period of formation of their new democratic government 3000 a month have been dying, a 50% reduction, and less than what die on US highways. This is based on the fact that 2 million Iraqis died while he was ruling.”
That’s nothing, the Russian regime killed Russians at a rate of over 25,000 per month, based on the fact that 20,000,000 Russians died during World War II. By that token, I guess you believe we should invade Russia. If we could do it at no cost to you, that is.
A more relevant question would be, how many Iraqis were killed by Hussein’s regime during the months of 2002-2003, leading up to Bush’s decision to start a war, and how many have died as a result of Bush losing the war.
“Speaking of wrong, where now is your apology to Karl Rove and Bush and Cheney for all of your ranting about how they outed the Plame spy/clerk?”
???
It is an undisputed fact that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper’s source for the information about Valerie Wilson’s identity, and that senior members of the Bush administration were spreading her name around to every journalist they could find. The fact that Armitage, a fellow member of the Bush administration, may have been in on the conspiracy, doesn’t change that.
Lex, what you’re saying is that you don’t like Olbermann. That’s just an argument from authority with yourself as the authority. But you have given no reason why we should accept you as an authority on this or any other matter – not even to the extent of being able to support yourself without depending on handouts taken from taxes collected from Keith Olbermann.
A “debate” between Mary and Lex should be interesting.
Mary hit on a very important point, routinely ignored by the right-wing echo chamber. That is, Saddam’s policies led to millions of Iraqis killed. But most of those occurred prior to 1991. Many Iraqi soldiers died in his war with Iran. A war supported by the Reagan administration. In the late 80s many Kurds were killed by Saddam’s thugs using chemical weapons largely furnished by the Reagan Administration.
In recent years the hapless Saddam had a very limited military capability and his widespread killing spree was largely over. (For sure a few still suffered and died brutal deaths but not nearly on the same scale as in the 80s). The war was based on an historical perspective that had long ago ceased to exist. In other words we went to war based on lies and distortions.
Yes Bud, Saddam became quite a nice fellow right after 91. The left longs for him to be back in power I know. He also became an environmentalist after he gave up burning and exploding Kuwait’s oil wells. What other nice things do you think about him? You make it sound like if Bush had just gone to Saddam, sat down and had a beer, all would have been fine. Sort of the French approach, surrender first, then negotiate. We can never let cowards run this nation again.
Yeah, the Iran-Iraq war resulted in the deaths of 1,000,000 Iraqis, and it was over more than 10 years before the invasion. You take just that out of Dave’s total, and you get a death rate of 3000 per month, which is equal to what Dave says that the death rate is today.
So, according to Dave’s computation, we have lost over 2600 soliders (not him, of course) and $300 billion (none contributed by him) to accomplish exactly nothing.
Dave, first of all, your argument is dishonest. It’s a false duality.
Second, and more important, being reluctant to send American soldiers into danger doesn’t make you a coward. What makes you a coward is a willingness to accept the deaths of thousands of American soldiers in order to provide yourself with a false sense of total security from all possible threats.
If you want to see a coward, look in a mirror.
Mary, you really dont understand economics do you? Have you ever heard of “cost avoidance”? The 9-11 tragedy cost this nation probably 2 trillion dollars. Whatever we have spent in Iraq is a bargain. And false sense of security, you have to be kidding. Have we been hit since 9-11 in the US? Count your lucky stars we dont have a coward running the nation. If we did, we would be getting hit over and over. Of course, no thanks to the cut and run crowd like yourself. As I have noted before, when it comes to national security, we just want the weaklings to stay out of the way.
Dave writes,
“Count your lucky stars we dont have a coward running the nation.”
The Decider and our VP are the Poster Boys for Cowards Monthly. Both coped out on Vietnam. Pure cowards plain and simple.
OK Bud, I will remember your new acid test. If the Dems run anyone who did not serve in the military or volunteer for Vietnam, they would be cowards by your standards. Let’s start the list now: Hillary, Edwards, Bayh, Warner, and the list will be endless I am sure.