Article by Robert Steinbeck. I agree with most of it.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
Many good points in there, many that I have made myself in the past.
Steinbeck overlooks a few facts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, most of the deaths in Iraq have been caused not by US and allied troops, but by Ba'athist and Islamist terrorists - the people we are fighting. So the statement is wrong to begin with.
Second, Saddam Hussein killed an average of 30,000 of his people per year. He used nerve gas to wipe out entire villages. Now he's in jail.
Third, torture is illegal. Torture has always been illegal. The statement is false.
Fourth, it still has not been shown that anyone on the president's - or the vice-president's - staff did in fact "out" Plame (leaving aside the question of whether she was even under cover at the time).
Fifth, Joe Wilson was not a mere critic, but a liar. He was sent to Niger by the CIA, returned, and lied in the press about the whole exercise.
Sixth, whatever "law against domestic propaganda" Steinbeck might be imagining, by definition it would not apply in Iraq.
Seventh, even critics of the operation to place paid news items in the Iraqi free press (something that didn't exist under you-know-who) have noted that the items in question were true.
Eighth, Congressman Murtha was proposing to abandon the Iraqi people. Cut and run. Of course he was ridiculed. He didn't "question U.S. military policy"; he called for an unconditional surrender by U.S. forces.
Zero good points there, many that I have refuted myself in the past.
Pixy has been drinking the Koolaid and listening a little too hard to FAUX news and the Dear Leader..may I reccomend a few other ACCURATE sources of data: The Guardian and Truthout and Alternet all have many fine articles from International Writers about the Condition of Iraq and our country as well. And 30,000 doesn't even Touch the study that was done by Hopkins Doctors and was in Lancet over a year about the real number , well over 100,000. I guess she is proud of the Torture and Rendition Flights too. Wake up Folks....Hitler didn't rise to power in a day either...
ReplyDeleteEnigma4ever - The Lancet study, states the CI (confidence interval) in its statistical analysis determined the range of deaths could have been as low as 5000 and as high as 100000. Not very accurate, but then again maybe that was not the intent of the study. While Pixy did not have any comment on torture or rendition, I thought her other points were accurate. (PS) What is the relevance to Hitler in this discussion?
ReplyDeleteenigma, if you think the Guardian is accurate, you might like to read Scott Burgess from The Daily Ablution who is probably the biggest expert on Guradian accurateness in the world. You might me shocked at how inaccurate they actually are.
ReplyDeleteAs I meant to state- you might be shocked...
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Ablution:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/
LOL....
ReplyDeleteAblution: ( definition Oxford Dictionary) Ceremonial washing of sacred vessels and or the body.
Well, Interesting title, but not interested. I am a loyal reader of The Guardian, have been for many years and have even done a little research for some of the writers.
I don't think I could read something called the "Daily Ceremonial Washing of the Body"..it sounds like a journal for OCD or maybe something more wicked....sorry, but you do make me laugh...