More Leftist Hypocrisy on Iraq

Published on December 30, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

I have noticed an interesting trend among apologists for the left lately. When referring to the Iraqi dead, they will often use the number of 1.5 million, rather than the 30,000 acknowledged by even LIBERAL estimates to have died since our invasion of Iraq. When pressed, they will acknowledge that the 1.5 million number includes those estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions.

Why is this ironic? Well, all it requires is a memory span of just over three years to understand this. You see, it was just about three years ago when the debate on invading Iraq began to gain serious momentum that the left argued that continued sanctions against Iraq were preferable to the invasion. Yet, by their own admission, sanctions have cost 50 TIMES the number of lives as the invasion has. Now granted, sanctions have been in place longer than the amount of time we've been in Iraq, but still, when you consider 12 years of sanctions, the body count in Iraq averaged over 100,000 per year by the UN's own estimates, vs. the 10,000 per year since we invaded Iraq in this conflict. That means over 90,000 Iraqi lives were SAVED by our intervention. I believe if you were one of the more than a quarter million Iraqis who owed their lives to our intervention, you'd be the least bit grateful.

In attemtping to mount their argument AGAINST the war, then, ironically the left has mounted probably the strongest argument FOR the war. The fact is, the authors of these talking points HAVE to have seen it. My guess is, they were hoping to shock us with the 1.5 million number without having us ask questions. Congratulations to those who were smart enough to ask.

Comments (Page 1)

Dr Guy

on Dec 30, 2005

I wsa a math major (double with Econ) and took some pretty fancy math. But any High School graduate can easily follow your numbers and see the worth of the war! It may have been a mistake to go in, but the end results cannot be argued with except by complete and utter morons. Or those who say one American is worth more than 10,000 Iraqis

Deference

on Dec 30, 2005

davad70

on Dec 30, 2005

I haven't noticed this "trend" you speak of. I frequent many "leftist" sites and read several liberal publications and have not seen anyone use the figure of 1.5 Mill that you speak of.

JeremyG

on Dec 30, 2005

How many troops were in Saddam's army when we entered Iraq? 30,000? I think it was numbered at 300,000. '

Where are they now? I dont think that 270,000 of them are in Cuba.

How about all those initial reports of the USA, "softening up the forces around Baghdad". I wonder if when they said "softening the forces" they meant talking to them nicely and disabling their vehicles....or droping heavy ordinance on tens of thousands.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 30, 2005

I'm not sure about he trend, but I agree that it's interesting that people try to argue that the deaths resulting from the sanctions were the fault of the U.S..

Hussein was bringing in plenty of money to feed and care for his people. He chose to build palaces and kill his people instead. If it is a mistake to take a monster out of power, then I guess we made a mistake. Anyone who would say we shouldn't have enforced our own ceasefire should go live under Hussein for awhile, for that is what they are condemning on others.

Dr Guy

on Dec 30, 2005

haven't noticed this "trend" you speak of. I frequent many "leftist" sites and read several liberal publications and have not seen anyone use the figure of 1.5 Mill that you speak of.

Yea, but they like 100k dont they? With no basis in reality, here or abroad.

Gideon MacLeish

on Dec 31, 2005

Where are they now? I dont think that 270,000 of them are in Cuba.

Well, since they were conscripted in the first place, it's reasonable to assume they've gone about their lives. If there were 270,000 active insurgents in Iraq fighting a guerilla war, our fatalities would number in the TENS of thousands instead of just the thousands.

Nobody, but NOBODY has alleged that the US has killed a quarter million Iraqis in the conflict.

I haven't noticed this "trend" you speak of. I frequent many "leftist" sites and read several liberal publications and have not seen anyone use the figure of 1.5 Mill that you speak of.

Absolutely EVERY leftist pundit that has agreed to appear on right wing talk radio shows lately has used that figure. As I said in the article, when pressed for the source of the number, they will state that their number combines the number the UN estimates died from sanctions with the number who have died in the war...ignoring the fact that THEIR side was the one that supported sanctions.

davad70

on Dec 31, 2005

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but I think you are seriously exaggerating this. I'm not ruling out the possibility that "someone" may have said it, but one or two people do not constitute a "trend". I read lot sof blogs, listen to lots of radio and read lots of magazines and haven't heard it once.

cactoblasta

on Jan 01, 2006

You also have to consider the kind of people who accept the role of token left-winger on a known right-wing program. They know nooone is going to agree with them and they're going to be targets for endless derision. If they don't know that they're nutjobs.

It ends up funnelling a very specific kind of left-winger into agreeing to participate rather than getting a broad perspective. I don't think you can trust them as being entirely representative of, well, anything save the media source's preferred stereotype of a left-winger.

stevendedalus

on Jan 01, 2006

Another example of fuzzy math to suit the right's outlandish apology for entering a war that was supposed to be in our own national defense, not to liberate foreign soil.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 01, 2006

Another example of fuzzy math to suit the right's outlandish apology for entering a war that was supposed to be in our own national defense, not to liberate foreign soil.

and another example of fuzzy memory to suit an outlandish leftist who insists there was only 1 reason given for returning to hostilities with Hussein.

Rightwinger

on Jan 01, 2006

not to liberate foreign soil.

---steved

Said a fiery proponent of human rights and freedom. It would have been better in any case to leave the Iraqi people to suffer under the boot, and too frequently die at the hands of, an insanely paranoid, greedy, self-aggrandizing, homicidal tyrant, right?
How many times have I heard that "we created Saddam, man!"? Very true. That being the case, he was our monster to destroy, then.

stevendedalus

on Jan 02, 2006

and another example of fuzzy memory to suit an outlandish leftist who insists there was only 1 reason given for returning to hostilities with Hussein.

National defense was in terms of routing WMD that was a imminent threat. There are none, so the next best thing was to remove the regime--we've done that now let's send our troops home for a job well done.

How many times have I heard that "we created Saddam, man!"? Very true. That being the case, he was our monster to destroy, then.

Well, we have done that, so why loiter? Bush should shit and get off the pot.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 02, 2006

Stevendedalus, once again you show that you're not above a lie if it suits your purpose.

Prs. Bush DIDN'T claim Hussein was an imminent threat, he said that we shouldn't wait for him to become one.

Only a lazy piece of crap would suggest that we take down a government then leave the mess for the people of Iraq to worry about. I'm glad you're not a paramedic or firefighter, apparently you would treat the patient then leave them onscene, or put out the fire and leave without ensuring the threat was dowsed.

A job left half done is no better than a job not done at all.

davad70

on Jan 02, 2006

Prs. Bush DIDN'T claim Hussein was an imminent threat, he said that we shouldn't wait for him to become one.

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!