Monday, May 08, 2006

"STUPIDEST DEM ATTACK. EVER."

I tried to come up with a different post title but Michelle's just seemed to fit too perfectly. Read her full post here for the details.

You have to get up pretty early in the morning to come up with an attack plan this dumb. I'm just waiting for Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice next press conference.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

another diversion from the fact that the war is a disaster; morally, financially, politically. And now the administration wants to rough it up with Iran. Do you think that will keep Karl from being indicted? The new AP poll has 31% favorables for the prez and don't expect that to go up, even if they try a false flag as an excuse to nuke Iran. I guess you righties might be admired for going down with the ship, but really it's just plain stupidity, pure and simple.

May 09, 2006 5:28 a.m.  
Blogger Bic said...

Wow, such a well thought out and innovative argument, and a Rove reference to boot.

Up until today I was dedicated to idea that all humans were created equal and deserved the freedom to have some voice in their own governance, as well as have a legitimate right to disagree with their government without ending up in some unmarked mass grave, and that those of us who have the ability to help should do so whenever possible.

But now after reading your arguments to the contrary, I see the light and realise that if it should in any way lead to financial hardships (and even though the US economy is at an all time high according to most market indicators I'm sure the fall is coming, I've read Krugman in the NYT after all) that we should just let those people 'over there' suffer and die. Just like those people in the Sudan. In the words of that great giant of liberalism, the Kos himself, "Screw 'em", I want my Starbucks.

That way by applying a different definition as to what constitutes human rights to those of us in the West, as compared to those of them in the East or Mid-East I too can claim the moral high ground while at the same time condoning repressive regimes.

I guess under my new philosophy I can just take a pass on debating how best to help these newly freed people proceed and abandon all forms of constructive critisism and instead use this shield of 'moral relavitism' to merely cry foul from the sidelines. As an added bonus I get to also forgo being forced to introduce any real/viable solutions of my own.

Talk about a sweet deal!

May 09, 2006 1:06 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

31 percent favorables; slowly the people awaken, but will it be in time?

depleted uranium wafting over the earth

more bunker busters on the horizon

oh yeah, they been sufferin and dyin alright, we sure done helped with that haven't we?

guantanamo, abu graib, fallujah and on and on it goes

May 09, 2006 3:42 p.m.  
Blogger Bic said...

Can you give me the final numbers on those killed at GITMO? I can't seem to find them anywhere. I have seen reports of at least a dozen prisoners who have petitioned not to leave, but maybe they're just suffering from Stockholm or some such condition. And there were those two boys who were held there for a few months who miss the snorkeling and basketball games against their evil heartless guards.

Abu Gharib? Once again correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there several convictions for the treatement prisoners received at the hands of their guards? And while underwear on the head, threats of dog attacks (which never came), threats of electrocutions (in which wires were never connected to any power source) and the like are terrible ways to treat prisoners, if you go back just 3 years when it was run by the previous owners you may find much worse. Of course there were a lot less complaints filed back then as most that bothered to raise their voices found it very hard to talk once fed into the plastic shredders.

But I get your point, the humiliation suffered by some prisoners under the coalition forces (most of which was unsanctioned) is just as bad as the actual torture, rapes and murders commited by the previous regime. Got it.

Have you ever bothered to check the straight math. While still terrible, the estimated 35,000+ deaths in Iraq over the past 3 years (note: this number is not only civilian deaths) is still just a fraction of the number of deaths directly attributed to Saddam in any given year.

As for poll numbers, how about 70%? That's the number of Iraqis that consider their personal lives to be good or very good. It's also the number who believe things are improving. Both of those number have been pretty steady for the past couple years. Not that everything is cheery, but it's not quite as bleek as the MSM makes it appear.

But as most of these people do not live in the lobbies of the hotels in downtown Baghdad you're unlikely to see their stories on the evening news. To find them reporters, and there are some who have actually done this but those are few and far between, would have to leave their rooms. Or are you one of those people who never questioned the unusual number of reports filed from balconies in Baghdad (you see if they actually stay indoor while filing they can't claim 'field reporter' status).

May 09, 2006 4:59 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess it boils down to that you and I believe differrent things and get our information from different sources. But there is a real truth out there, and it may indeed have a liberal bias.

check this . http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

May 10, 2006 7:11 a.m.  
Blogger Bic said...

Just a quick point on sources, almost every point I made in my last post was taken from either the BBC or The Guardian (british magazine), neither of which are considered to be very Bush-friendly.

I actually made a point of excluding what would be considered right wing sources.

May 10, 2006 10:27 a.m.  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who Links Here