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 3)

stevendedalus

on Jan 03, 2006

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.

Indeed, this statement is a "lazy piece of crap." If we are winning then why the mess? Moreover, the "mess" is due to Iraqis not taking on responsibility other than to vote--do they really know what they're voting for? They should find their balls and rebel against the insurgents.

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

Aye, and a very good reason not to have messed with it to begin with.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 03, 2006

Davad & Stevendedalus:

So "serious danger" and "grave danger" are now the same as "imminent threat"? Ok, I'll play your silly little game.

Everyone with AIDS is in serious danger, yea even grave danger of dying from complications of that dreaded threat. So, in your little world, I guess that means that death is imminent for people with AIDS. They don't have years, or months, but they will die really soon (whether they have any of the peripheral conditions (such as pneumonia) that are the actual cause of death.

Now, since I don't want this to get caught up in the example, let me explain. "imminent" doesn't mean "grave" or even "serious", it means "about to occur". So, unless you think that you can't be in serious or grave danger in the long term (which, of course, is rediculous), you have to admit that "serious" "grave" and "imminent" aren't the same thing. ((((Yes, you are in imminent danger of, having to admit you're wrong))) But it is neither serious, nor grave. ;~D

btw, no reason to apologize, I wouldn't take it seriously anyway. ;~D

ParaTed2k

on Jan 03, 2006

We are winning, but that doesn't mean we have won (once again, you fail to realize the difference in the meanings of words). The "mess" is due to the fact that a murderous monster ran roughshod over his country for 12 years. Sorry to have to break the wind of reality over your naive little heart, but when people have no rights, they also have no ability to "clean up their own messes".

Your myopic idea that everyone has the same rights you do is admirable in its idealism, but pathetic in it lack of understanding of the world.

If you think they haven't been fighting back agaisnt the bacteria then you are a bigger dupe of the press than even I imagined.

Millions fought back when they challenged the bacteria to stop the elections. The bacteria failed.

Almost daily there are reports (ignored by fools and the press) of Iraqis turning in bacteria, or leading Coalition forces to weapon caches or other bacteria assets.

Aye, and a very good reason not to have messed with it to begin with.

I realize that you shy away from anything that might last longer than 30 minutes (with time out for station identification), but in the real world, freedom for the oppressed sometimes hurts, and hurts badly.

Apparenly you don't feel like the people who fought and worked for your freedom wasted their blood and time. How pathetically arrogant of you.

drmiler

on Jan 03, 2006

you bloody poofter!

poofter??? Ouch! That one cuts me so deep.

It might if you were actually smart enough to know what it meant! Let me help ya!

1. poofter
another word for a homosexualyou fucking poofter!
Source: UnKnown, Feb 13, 2003

2. Poofter
A passive or emasculated male.Stop babying him like that! You're going to turn him into a poofter!
Source: Reed, Feb 17, 2004

3. poofter
A male homosexual, often one who is also effeminite in his mannerisms. Used exclusively in a negative sense by heterosexuals. Word variant: poof

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 03, 2006

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".

It was WAY more than just a "someone". At least three different guests on the Michael Medved show, for one have made the assertion.

COL Gene

on Jan 03, 2006

Saddam was not a Serious, Grave or Imminent threat to the United States in March 2003. Bush wanted to attack Iraq and that was that. Face it and do not let the facts get in the way!

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 03, 2006

Saddam was not a Serious, Grave or Imminent threat to the United States in March 2003. Bush wanted to attack Iraq and that was that. Face it and do not let the facts get in the way!

(yawn!) off topic, col dude. How many copies of that book have you sold using this tactic anyway?

Rightwinger

on Jan 03, 2006

Saddam was not a Serious, Grave or Imminent threat to the United States in March 2003.

--Col. Green ("Star Trek '66-'69" villain)

How many times are you going to ignore people (like me) who point out that the Iraqi threat was agreed upon by virtually all involved, virtually all during the 90s?
You remember the 90s, don't you? That was when the Left spent 8 years selling us down the river to the UN.
That was when Iraq was percieved as a threat, and much hand-wringing was done, wishing someone would make a move against Saddam.
Well, someone finally did; Bush, in 2003.
In the course of making that move, the reason was uncovered as why no one did anything to Saddam back in the 90s.
Can anyone say "Oil for Food"?

The Col can't; it sticks in his throat.

davad70

on Jan 03, 2006

It might if you were actually smart enough to know what it meant! Let me help ya!

1. poofter
another word for a homosexualyou fucking poofter!
Source: UnKnown, Feb 13, 2003

2. Poofter
A passive or emasculated male.Stop babying him like that! You're going to turn him into a poofter!
Source: Reed, Feb 17, 2004

3. poofter
A male homosexual, often one who is also effeminite in his mannerisms. Used exclusively in a negative sense by heterosexuals. Word variant: poof

I'm sorry that I'm not up on the latest in hate speech. I generally spend my time researching things other than the latest derogatory terms for homosexuals.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 03, 2006

Colon Bin Gangrene:

Saddam was not a Serious, Grave or Imminent threat to the United States in March 2003. Bush wanted to attack Iraq and that was that. Face it and do not let the facts get in the way!

I know a slime like you doesn't give a crap about anyone but your pathetic self, but he was KILLING PEOPLE, He did attempt to assassinate the U.S. president and his Air Defense Artillery batteries WERE shooting at Americans. He also had a Chemical and Biological weapons program that he was planning to use against the U.S.

Yes, he was a threat, he was planning to be a bigger threat, and only a total idiot like you would diminish that threat.

Rightwinger:

How many times are you going to ignore people (like me) who point out that the Iraqi threat was agreed upon by virtually all involved, virtually all during the 90s?
You remember the 90s, don't you? That was when the Left spent 8 years selling us down the river to the UN.

The pro terrorist Colon doesn't want to remember the 90s. He doesn't want to remember when his lover was killing Iraqis and shooting at Americans. All he wants to remember is the fun he had sharing needles with Hussein and torturing Iraqis.

cappyoak

on Jan 03, 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

Let start by taking 9 of these right out of here since they were "not" said by President Bush. And that was the statement you were parrying. "Prs. Bush DIDN'T claim Hussein was an imminent threat, he said that we shouldn't wait for him to become one."
And on "top" of ALL that no where in "any" of your quotes did President Bush use the statement "imminent threat"! Now please try again.

Get over yourself, Please! The man has stepped up to the plate and wacked your argument out of the park. GWB made us all believe that Hussein was a serious threat to the United States, by using Bull Shit Intellegence that he knew was false, in order to get our support. I fell for it you fel for it. When Colin Powell said that RVs were driving around bagdad enriching uranium and mixing biological warhead cocktails, I bought it hook Line and sinker. Thing is when I stood up tall and thought for myself I began to realize that GWB is a passionate man, of little intellegence, that surrounded himself with ambittious people who wanted to invade Iraq since the original Bush was in office and felt they failed to do the job then. As it turned out Iraq was not a threat, and Iraq or Isreal could have invaded and conqured Iraq with very little problem.

Your probably one of those wack jobs that think all the WMD got ferretd away in the dead of night to Syria. Which would have been impossible since we had the border under heavy satalite observationfor months before and after the war started. Don't forget that this is the age of satalites where google world can pinpoint a spot on the boarder. I can tell you with absolute certainty that no convoy that left Iraq on any boarder went unmolested or untracked. In this day and age a suspicious truck that shows up on the boarder can be traced via satalite to its origination and then to its destination cataloged and refrenced later. I know there were people whose job it was to cross refrence satalite imagry against places in Iraq
of interest, empty warehouses, burned and bombed out labs, to verify traffic to and from these locations.

But beyond that, lets use simple logic. If there were WMD and they were taken to Syria, then the insurgents would have access to them. If the insurgence had chemical or biological weapons at their disposal they would have used them by now instead of car bombs, roadside bombs and suicide bombers. One such bomb during the elections would have meant the end of the democratic system in Iraq for years to come. I know people that were over there, they said the insurgents were being taught how to build these bombs, the complexity of their weapons were growing exponentially. If they had access to anything they used it. So if they had access to WMD they would have been used by now.

And before you label me as a liberal wacko keep in mind I am a conservitive, a Patriot, probably more conservitive than you, just with out the religious overtones. I don't believe in Abortion, I don't believe in big government, and I dont think a tax cut is always a bad idea. I think the government should stay out of our pockets, build roads and defend out liberty. I also believe in the give a man a fish and hes feed for a day, teach a man to fish and he can sustain himself for life ideology No wealfare, just education please in massive doses! With better education in this country we wouldn't have leaders like George Bush - a liar, a cheater, (and a poor one at that on both accounts) getting elected to two terms.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 03, 2006

Crappyoak:

He has admitted the intel was wrong, get over it. Hussein had a weapons program though, or do governments have Chemical Weapons specialists in their ranks just because they smell nice?

Every Iraqi that voted in this last election is a slap in the face of all you who despise freedom for anyone but your pathetic, childish selves. And here and now, I slap your face for being such an inhuman monster.

stevendedalus

on Jan 04, 2006

I slap your face for being such an inhuman monster.

Is it true that it takes one to know one? One thing I do know indisputably you are a menace to blogging.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 04, 2006

Stevendedalus, I'm wounded... and we could have been such good friends. ;~D After all, you are blogmarked on my blog.

cactoblasta

on Jan 04, 2006

1. poofter
another word for a homosexualyou fucking poofter!

Vilification on the basis of sexual persuasion/choice/whatever is currently the PC term for it is against the TOS you know - careful Dr!

Hussein had a weapons program though, or do governments have Chemical Weapons specialists in their ranks just because they smell nice?

Australia has Chemical Weapons specialists in our military. It's not a role that's exclusively offensive, unless of course you believe those vicious rumours about the real reason for the existence of the platypus.

Whilst I'm inclined to believe that Iraq had most of them for 'research purposes', it seems unlikely though that in the face of numerous foes with chemical capacity (Iran, Israel, the US, etc) all of their experts would be offensive.

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!