It’s five years later, It’s hard to find new ways of saying it.
According to the Iraqi government, 3,438 civilians were killed in July, making it the bloodiest month since the invasion. The president was asked yesterday whether the failure of the U.S.-backed “unity” government to stem the orgy of sectarian carnage disappoints him, and he said that no, it didn’t. How, I wonder, is that possible? Does he believe it would be a sign of weakness to admit that the flowering of democracy in Iraq isn’t going exactly as planned? Does he believe saying everything’s just fine will make it so? Is he in denial? Or do 3,438 deaths really just roll off his back after he’s had his workout and a nice bike ride?
I think it’s pretty evident that we have a President who is definitely “stuck on stupid.” My only question is how can we make the clocks run faster so we can get to the part where his term is over and we can elect someone with enough intelligence (hopefully Democrat) to bring an end to this madness?
Vote Reality in ‘08!
Make common sense common again.
It’s not so much stupid as self defeating, with America filling the role of self. Regardless of what Bush really feels, his lack of reaction to these deaths kindles more hatred of us, and a greater chasm between America and pretty much everybody else.
If you never ever had to take responsibility for anything over the course of your entire life your standard reaction to anything, no matter how bad it is or how much it is the result of something you did, will be to have no reaction. You were never wrong before, so how could you be wrong now?
Let’s rebuild Spandau so he can take some responsibility.
Yes, it would be so much nicer if we had not deposed Saddam and today more would be dead under his reign , per historical trend data, than are dead today – even with the war.
Said it before; Classic addict behavior. No empathy or responsibility.
Yes, it would be so much nicer if we had not deposed Saddam and today more would be dead under his reign , per historical trend data, than are dead today – even with the war.
Blah, blah, blah.
It would be so much nicer if we had killed Bin Laden, who happened to kill 3000 Americans.
Dugger, in fact, I think it would be nicer if we hadn’t lost a war so that you could play self-righteous on a computer. I also think it would be nicer if we hadn’t pissed away our influence so that our interests weren’t weaker in EVERY REGION IN THE WORLD compared to 2002 as a result of this failed, lost war.
As for Saddam’s crimes: the most grotesque aspect of war supporters like you, Dugger, is your false humanitarianism, never used as a principle for it’s own sake. It’s only value, the only joy, or vitality you display with regard to humanitarianism is as a partisan club to beat Iraq War opponents. One recalls the Pharisee praying loudly so that others could hear him.
Simply vile.
Well, he did say it was hard on the American psyche, but he’s in an unwinnable situation where we are approaching a midterm election, any negative response on his part will ding the Republicans.
We know it’s a failure, he knows its a failure, Rove knows it’s a failure. They know that we know. Rove probably instructed him to make no negative reference to something everybody already knows.
“Well, he did say it was hard on the American psyche,…”
That’s what happens when he reads Camus.
Yeah, there’s a White Elephant standing in the room with Bush, but he’ll never acknowledge it on tha tee vee.
“Yes, it would be so much nicer if we had not deposed Saddam and today more would be dead under his reign , per historical trend data, than are dead today – even with the war.”
It would have been so much nicer if we had gone to Darfur, where, per historical trend data, more have died than have been “saved” by our action in deposing Hussein.
I’m sorry Dugger could you post that ‘historical trend’ data for us?
I can’t believe that Saddam Hussein was killing 3000+ of his citizens/month in the year or two previous to our invasion.
“… per historical trend data…”
Thank god, because otherwise I’d think that 3,000 dead Iraqis a month was, like, some kind of insane horrorshow. Now that Dugger has put it in the context of “historical trend data” I feel that I, and the Iraqi people, can live with it.
Dugs, you are by far the king of idiot trolls. By far. Congratulations.
mitter,
I did that recently here in another thread. The per month average of deaths under Saddam (since 1971 or 1970 till capture) is higher than the death rate after Saddam.
You may be foregetting the Iran/Iraq war and genocide of Kurds- lots of casualties.
Don’t have it on this computer (favorite).
Woo fricking hoo we’re not as bad as Saddam.