Video: Michael Steele’s imported Philadelphia thugs brought in to screw up Maryland’s election:
Ben Cardin on Michael Steele’s dirty tricks: “”In all my years as a public official and candidate for office, I have never seen anything so deceitful, offensive and desperate. Michael Steele and the Republican Party are taking gutter politics to a new low. Since he can’t win on the issues, Michael Steele is taking a page from Karl Rove’s playbook and turning to the politics of deception. The people of Maryland deserve better.”"
Both O’Malley and Ehrlich are saying they’re not getting strong enough turnout in their key districts. Someboy must be gaming someone, I’d think.
The Maryland GOP party has bussed in homeless people from Pennsylvania, greeted by Ehrlich’s wife, and are handing out fraudulent fliers.
NOVEMBER SURPRISE: Britney files for divorce from K-Fed, gay marriage clearly to blame
Somehow I was able to avoid the racial link between me and Michael Steele and voted proudly for Ben Cardin, Martin O’Malley and anything with a (D) next to it on the ballot.
In 2002 I was despondent. In 2004 I was worried and superstitious. I feel good this year. Not fantastic. But 16 seats (at least) good. God, I hope.
All of a sudden the media is discovering that the Republican mantra that Democrats are bad for business is a lie. It’s not like the economy didn’t kick ass when we last had a Democratic president – it’s because of that success why people aren’t wild about Bush’s economy. Its not horrible, but it pales in comparison for the average person.
Now that this election is on its way out, how soon before this and a ton load like it start rolling out? What’s the over/under on when Hillary declares that she’s running? Here is one of the campaign ads she’s running for no apparent reason.
If we – God willing – win on Tuesday, I am watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh all day on Wednesday. (Somehow Fox has chosen to post a picture of Phil Angelides on their home page, the one Democratic gubernatorial almost guaranteed to lose this year – see here. Funny how that works out.)
As a reward for voting you should look at these pictures of Jeri Ryan. She looks better as a lawyer than as a cyborg, in my opinion.
Hotline: “So while the WH couldn’t get one statewide candidate to even show at their event — and wouldn’t let another grace the same stage with the president — in a red region of a red state, Democrats couldn’t keep people away from their rally in another red state.”
MARKET WATCH: Tradesports has the House at down to 19%. About as low as it’s ever been. The Senate looks to remain GOP but the contract took a dive to 61.5% (and has Cardin winning). Iowa markets say Dems get the House, but not the Senate.
What’s funny/weird is that with the exception of Tennessee, all the online gambling sites put the swing Senate seats as all going Dem… if that’s the case then the Senate will shift power. And yet The bets are higher for Republicans keeping it.
If the Republicans win even the smallest margin or can claim a moral victory – that will prove there is no god (just in case anybody still has doubts).
The Republicans will claim a moral victory no matter what happens. August mentioned yesterday that The Wicked Witch tried to claim that the only way the Dems can really win is if they win the senate and win like a million house seats so there.
“And of course 10s to 100s of thousands of Iraqis don’t count. ”
And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone. If we had done nothing, Saddam would still bethre and there would be more deaths.
And we have voted and officially cancelled out the votes of Jimmuh Carter and Hanoi Jane. And they thought they would gerrymander Gingrey’s district into a cheap Dem stronghold. Not on my watch, Bubba.
And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone. If we had done nothing, Saddam would still bethre and there would be more deaths.
That’s the stupidest comment I’ve seen, Dugger. Bad as Saddam was, there weren’t thousands of violent deaths per month. If you’ve got any evidence otherwise why don’t you cite it?
Iraq is the same as it was under Hussein at best. It’s only under new management.
“Hanoi Jane”. Jesus Christ on a toasted wheat cracker, what other fucking antiquated-sedition-poster-child are you going to pull from your empty Agent Orange canister?
And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone.
I still dont think you’ve satisfactorially proven this. The number you use before averages all the deaths Saddam is responsible for (including non-iraqis in wars he’s fought for control) and is not really a measure of the projectable “peace-time” civilian death rate for what has become the time of the Glorious War Everlasting. I really think, and I believe I’ve shown this, that given those numbers we cannot be shown to be any better than Saddam.
Actually, I can see where Dugger’s coming from. Is it not better to have the Shiites and Sunnis kill each other in a show of democratically determined massacre than to allow the people to be massacred by a single all-powerful tyrant?
Been through this before.if you take Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the Iran/Iraq war deaths, Saddams other murders, the per year rate under Saddam is much higher than the total post Iraq war death rate.
PD
Hanoi Jane is feted almost daily here in the AJC. She is a mega star – still receiving adoration from the power structure. They just had a big frappin’ hunky dorey roast of the b*tch. I’m sorry. I will never get over the juxtaposition of her rich Hollywood butt sitting on those NVA aaa guns and our skeleton POWs returning home. Never.
“And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone. If we had done nothing, Saddam would still bethre and there would be more deaths.”
Dugger clings to his baseless, fact-free assertions. They are the only salve for a conscience that has half a million dead Iraqis on it.
“Been through this before.if you take Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the Iran/Iraq war deaths, Saddams other murders, the per year rate under Saddam is much higher than the total post Iraq war death rate.”
Jane regrets her actions in those days – not the principle behind them, but the fact that she did and said a lot of things without thinking. She described the gun photo thing as one of the greatest lapses of judgement ever. It’s ancient history, no matter that the Australian Jockey Club can’t let it go.
Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the Iran/Iraq war deaths
Those, at least, even out to neutral, seeing as we helped him do it.
Been through this before.if you take Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the Iran/Iraq war deaths, Saddams other murders, the per year rate under Saddam is much higher than the total post Iraq war death rate.
And there again youre taking an average over all those years including these events with high casualties to be a rate which youre suggesting is comparable to the current rate of deaths. Its not. The rate of civilian deaths in Iraq currently shows no sign of dropping, and it is no better (quite likely worse in fact) than what it was in 2000. Ignoring the frankly vulgar fact that your argument for support has degraded to the point of having to say “well by this one measure we’re not as bad as Saddam” as though America should ever be compared to a brutal dictatorship (I leave the most obvious joke for someone else to make) the simple fact is that measurably it isnt. Unless you want to break out the whole LA thing again, and we both know you do, so I’ll just refute your principle before you even state it. More people are killed in LA county than are killed in Plane Crashes. Therefore its safer to be in a Plane Crash than in LA County. Have I got it about right?
ahhh yes, these are the liberals we know and love.
Willing to give up their freedom so that the killing can be well organized by a government buearacracy. Cause I mean, there is NO difference between a state run prison designed to torture children in their parents presence and a group of pan-arabist terrorists radomly attacking civilians to try to suppress any democratic urges…
Good to see you back, repack, and not challenging other people’s service to their country. I was disappointed that you did not follow up with our previous conservation when you challenged mine.
There is no exact number – either under Saddam or under Bush. Anybody that says they know an exact number is wrong IMO. And frankly, I could give a rats *ss whether you believe me or not. I’ve given you the broad basics (overall murders in and around Tehran, genocide of Kurds, Iran/Iraq war). If you are honest and you pick middle of the road sites counting both death tolls and you can count, you will see Saddam was quite a bit more deadly. And if you are getting all high and mighty about using death tolls as a measure, may I suggest a comment now and then about the repeated references to the death toll used almost daily on this site – as some kind of superior moral statement against Bush.
Is it a measure or not? You tell me. But if you use it , don’t whine when it is used logically back against you.
Nimmer
Sure she “regrets” her actions. She specifically regrets (she says) being photographed on the aaa gun. It was evidently OK to go over and be friends with the NVA while they were torturing our POWs, Ok to sit on the gun, OK to provide propaganda oppotunities against the POWs – just not Ok to be photographed on the godd*mned gun.
rex
No matter what. The overall average per year under Saddam over his total reign is higher than the present per year average. Bush is saving ‘brown’ lives. Don’t that p*ss you off? And if you think using death tolls is vulgar, I have yet to see one post laying in to OW who uses just about every Iraq death as a parisan political weapon against Bush. Again which is it? Death tolls are or are not a measure?
Firstly, Average’s are not the same as rates given the time span and the events that can skew such a figure. Rate is the measure by which we should compare, and Death tolls are not the important measure, yes. But the trick is that death tolls arent used to prove the point that things are by some twisted measure slightly better now than under saddam, theyre used to illustrate the point that, in spite of all of the corners we’ve turned, all of the claims of “well in six months we’ll really know how things are going,” all the claims that things have improved immeasurably in spite of the lack of working elecrtical and sewage systems, in spite of all the schools we’ve painted, dugger, people are still dying at a rate that does not look to be decreasing significantly any time soon, due almost entirely now to terrorist attacks, or our response to them.
Sure she “regrets” her actions. She specifically regrets (she says) being photographed on the aaa gun. It was evidently OK to go over and be friends with the NVA while they were torturing our POWs, Ok to sit on the gun, OK to provide propaganda oppotunities against the POWs – just not Ok to be photographed on the goddamned gun.
Not what I said, not what she said, not surprised.
Hey slick, you might want to take a trip in the Way-back Machine and have a looksie at who was providing the logistical and technological support for Hussein’s chemical excursions.
I’m waiting to see Dugger respond to the fact that the United States helped facilitate many of those murders that Saddam carry out. I agree that it doesn’t help make a case for how much better we are than he was based solely on body count.
Look, the only way to accurately measure the two is to allow the United States to occupy Iraq for as long as Saddam was in power, and then produce a final tally. Since the right would like us to stay in Iraq until terrorism finally goes away, surely we can manage that tenure.
“But if you use it , don’t whine when it is used logically back against you.”
I hate to break it to you Dugger but even if we take your bogus comparison as a measure of how great things are going in Iraq, time and the body count is not on your side. That’s thanks to Bush’s failed policies. Way to go idiot.
How does the death rate in Iraq compare to say, Iran, Palestine, Pakistan, Mexico, the US? How does the current death rate compare to the last 8 years of Husseins reign?
Bush has the highest average of AMericans killed by terrorism than any other president. Bad for national security.
Glad DrPedo could take time away from filling out absentee ballots to contribute today.
You are making a slightly different argument than typically made here. To paraphrase: we got into a war; all wars are costly and we should have known that; and if we have made no better progress in this war than a death rate that is just somewhat lower than Saddam’s very high death rate, then it hasn’t been successful; thats not enough to warrant the sacrifice we have made in men and material. Thats a harder argument to refute, but the Neocons would argue (I don’t) that we may bring long term peace to the entire region via perseverance in Iraq. I don’t think we change the region the way the Neos hope.
I probably would not have gone into Iraq without a more tangible benefit to this country. We may be saving lives, brown lives, but in other parts of the world all sorts of people are dying in droves daily – and we don’t go to war there.
frame,
Are you saying death count, a point OW ballyhoos daily here, is not A valid measure? Why don’t you ever call him on it???
“Are you saying death count, a point OW ballyhoos daily here, is not A valid measure? Why don’t you ever call him on it???”
Um, no. I’m saying your comparison between life under Hussein and life now is ridiculous on any number of levels. For you, as long as the death count of Iraqis now remains under the death count under Hussein, you consider our policy a success.
You haven’t given any actual numbers but I’m going to assume that you believe the number of Iraqis killed by Hussein numbers in the millions. By your own logic, one million Iraqis could die next week and you would still consider our policy a success.
That’s insane.
There are causes worth fighting for in which numbers of dead don’t matter. We make the sacrifice we have to make to preserve something greater.
This isn’t one of those fights. You yourself admit that this invasion has had no tangible benefits for this country. You also admit that this mission cannot be expected to achieve its long terms goals (granted that’s because you’re a racist fuck but we’ll leave that till later).
There are no grounds on which we can justify the cost in American or Iraqi lives that this mission has so far exacted. To prop up a failed policy by using Hussein as a benchmark is ridiculous.
It’s like suggesting that a modern day Jewish holocaust wouldn’t be really bad until 6.5 million Jews were killed.
Willing to give up their freedom so that the killing can be well organized by a government buearacracy.
What the fuck does that mean? What freedoms are liberals willing to give up? How is our freedom enhanced by our invasion / occupation of Iraq? Exactly what benefits to our liberty have we derived from Bush’s illegal war?
The funniest part is when you pretend like you give a shit about the Iraqi people. Makes me laugh every time.
A dead certain tangible benefit is elimination of a horrible dictator. Another is the Net savings of lives. Thats was two – very quickly. Try something that works.
frame, Child. You have just decided that the loss of lots brown lives is Ok as long as it gets Bush. That would seem make you unequivocally, undeniably a racist. A murderous nasty, brown-skin hating racist. You holler racism when you get called on your inability to debate.
Dugger has yet to reconcile his claim that there are “somewhat lower” deaths now than under Saddam with his claim not to know how many were killed before and after Saddam. Which is it?
You can’t demonstrate the net saving of lives. I would imagine if you looked at the last 5-10 years of Hussein’s dictatorship you would see comparatively small numbers which then trend upward after the US invasion.
Also, replacing a toothless dictator with a US soldier killing hole and what certainly looks like an Iran-friendly Islamic republic, is not something you probably approve of.
Looks like Steele has cooked something else up. Hire homeless folks from Philly, bus them into MD and have them pass out campaign literature proclaiming Steele as a Democrat.
From the GOP handbook of Maryland politics:
(1) Recruit homeless men in Philadelphia;
(2) Bus them into Maryland;
(3) Arrange for the Republican governor’s wife to greet them upon their arrival;
(4) Outfit them in hats and T-shirts for the governor’s re-election campaign;
(5) Have them pass out flyers in heavily Democratic areas that erroneously identify the GOP candidates for governor and U.S. senator as “Democrats.”
“You holler racism when you get called on your inability to debate.”
Whoa, touchy, touchy Mister The-Arabs-are-too-backward-to-govern themselves-in-a-civilized-Society.
You said that, Dugger. Not I.
All I’m saying is that invading Iraq was bad idea that was not and is not worth the cost of the Iraqi and American lives that have been lost as a result of it.
One of the things I don’t remember hearing in the lead up to the war was that we had to stop Hussein from killing hundreds of Iraqis every week. That wasn’t happening when we invaded. It is now and it’s a tragedy that lies entirely on our shoulders, not Hussein or his henchmen’s.
Again, I think it’s self evident that, based on your logic, if a million Iraqis were killed in the next seven days in Iraq, you would shrug it off: “Total dead still less than Sadaam.”
The kind of “logic” that underpins your comparison is crazy ass insane Dugger and it is the point, I’ll note, you refused to address at all.
Pedrugger most assuredly does NOT care about the deaths we have caused with our poorly conceived, dishonestly sold, and abysmally executed war. “Marginally better than Saddam” is fine for him. And even tho the evidence points to the contrary, that’s what he’ll stick with until his dying day.
As far as he’s concerned, he was right to be wrong and we were wrong to be right.
You can not convince these people that using a dishonest pretense to wage war is a bad idea, so long as their boy is the one doing the lying.
They wanted the outcome to be good, therefore the war itself is good, no matter WHAT the cost.
And the only thing he has at this point to keep reality from flooding in to his delicate little psyche are the heaps and heaps of bullshit he continues to throw around. What’s worse is he truly believes he’s making some kind of headway.
He literally thinks that coming in here and stinking up the joint somehow makes the war in Iraq worth the cost in American money and human life.
The whole world will be paying the consequences of this idiot administration for generations, and he will continue believing all is well, and if not, it’s the fault of those meddling libs.
Because to do anything, ANYTHING else might open the slightest crack in the bulwark, and the notion that maybe, just maybe, he was wrong will come seeping in.
And then it will all come crashing down around him like something out of Pink Floyd.
And he simply doesn’t have the strength of character to deal with that.
Dugger:
I think your comparison is a bit off. Even assuming (which I don’t) that your interpretation of the numbers is correct, we shouldn’t be comparing post-invasion deaths to the entirety of Saddam’s deadly career, but to hiss record post-1991.
None of the many alternatives to Bush’s precipitous invasion involed letting Saddam go back to his carefree kurd-gassing, Iran-bombing, Kuwait invading days.
People really have it out for Jane Fonda, still. It does not seem to have harmed her any, however. After all, what woman of consequence has not been branded a bitch? I’m sure she cries all the way to the bank.
But it does seem that angry nutwingers might try to find other targets.
And what does Jane Fonda have to do with today’s elections, pray tell, which I thought was what this thread was about?
I am so glad I live in a Blue State. So glad. Even though we do have a Republican Governor. We keep her for “balance.”
Let’s also remember that while the deaths under Saddam were atrocities, they were not the result of the decision of a man heading OUR elected government. The half-million Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s terrible misjudgment? Well, if you’re Dugger, you just wish them into the cornfield, don’t you? And then sleep soundly, after some nice, lingering back pats.
“Staffers arrived at Kean for Senate Headquarters in Mountainside early today, only to find that someone had padlocked the front doors and jammed other entrances to the building. Local police had the chains cut off, while locksmiths were dispatched to fix the other doors, according to Mountainside Police Chief James Debbie.
Kean’s people said the vandalism happened sometime after 11:30 p.m. Monday. Debbie said the fire doors were not affected so no one in the building was in danger. Collateral victims were employees at Dorf Feature Service, a freelance news agency that is the only other tenant in the building. Their doors were also vandalized.
The incident capped off a campaign that began with a prank. In June, a Kean press conference on Democrat Robert Menendez’s turf in Jersey City was disrupted when a crew of county corrections inmates on landscape duty insisted on firing up their lawn movers every time the Republican opened his mouth.”
Hedley’s sure got his priorities straight! Feel his searing white-hot outrage over campaign vandalism, and his stale, blase contempt for the half-million dead Iraqis!
More on the Kean Story
Think this is bogus. Kean’s Spokeswoman is saying its Menendez but can’t prove a damn bit. Says there were keys broken off in the locks, so how did Menendez’s people get keys that fit those locks then? Needed to be threaded the same way to even get them in the holes, or am I missing a part of that? Might have got a locksmith but fuck it, wouldnt chewing gum have been easier? This is like that time Rove found that bug in his office the day before a debate when working on Bill Clement’s campaign, turns out the bug had a battery life of an hour or two, making it impractical. It was a lie designed to make it look like the Democrats were playing dirty. So is this, I imagine.
I voted today in Georgia and my election official stated that there are no paper ballets and that “why would there be a problem?” My polling place was the most unorganized operation I have witnessed in awhile. Next time I am going to be “out of town” so I can write an absentee ballet.
Dugger,
As for Gingery looney ass, I would love to hear evidence of his campaign being railroaded. I have met him several times in personal settings(2 weddings and a couple of parties) and he is more of a moron than he appears on C-SPAN. Please enlighten me on how this ass-hat has helped Georgia in any way?
If you are going to make up numbers, why not “millions of Iraqi dead”…shoot, since you are using your imagination why not”millions of iraqi’s garrotted by GWB, Rummy and Condi with mint-flavored dental floss…” I mean, give it a little PIZAZZ…..
It comes from the Johns Hopkins survey, Pedro, the same way we estimate Darfur deaths, for example. Of course, you knew that, but you couldn’t pass up to argue dishonorably.
OK. Why post 1991? As opposed to his entire career as leader of Iraq (and the death average derived therefrom).
White Whale,
Do you know what gerrymandering means? Have no idea what you are talking about. I’m talking about this piece of crap district:http://gingrey.house.gov/District/
Here’s the real question Dugger. In another thread you wrote this:
The fact that Saddam’s death total per year is higher is only a rejoinder to the exploitation of war deaths on this site by the left.
So let me ask you, what happens to your support for the mission if and when the number tips the other way?
According to the logic of your rejoinder, as soon as the number of Iraqis killed since the invasion surpasses those killed under Saddam, the mission will no longer be supportable.
But Dugger, when we note the number of American and innocent Iraqi lives lost it is because every individual life counts and is precious. The death of a single American soldier or innocent Iraqi weighs heavily against its morality.
Your rejoinder, however, erases the value of an individual life. Its logic would allow you to smugly blow off the deaths of a million people as “still less than Saddam” because in your comparison, individual living, breathing human beings don’t matter. You just lumped them altogether, only to be acknowledged when their total deaths reaches some number you can’t actually provide.
The fact that you would willing support a mission right up until the number of dead Iraqis reaches some huge number plus one, is itself quite simply, nauseating.
But what you are really saying is that the lives of individual soldiers or Iraqis don’t have any value to you at all accept as part of some vast abstract aggregate which you yourself are unable to define.
What a moral, principled fellow you are Dugger. You’ve just asserted a rationale for mass murder.
Dugger says that the half-million Iraqi deaths since 2003 are meaningless; and he wishes that they don’t exist, so they don’t, regardless of what social science’s best guess tells us. However, deaths caused by Saddam, on the other hand, carry real moral weight, and should be thought about seriously by serious moral thinkers like Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds.
Hedley, get a moral compass. The decisions of our president have led directly to the death of over half a million Iraqis. Direct your anger where it’s deserved.
Rex, explain the padlocks. Regardless it just shows that the “pure as the driven snow” Democrats are hardly above “dirty tricks.”
What, are you fucking kidding me? How can you possibly be this dense without distorting gravity?
I’m saying that theres no evidence that the democrats did anything. Things were dont, sure, but by who. Hm, I wonder… Well lets say it were the democrats. How fucking stupid is that, to do something that has no actual benefit for them, and in fact can only do harm by casting suspicions on them in this election? I now you think all people on that side of the aisle have mental defects grander than your own, but lets consider another possibility, one I was insinuation with my Karl Rove example. Given the severe unlikelyhood that democrats had keys to fit those locks that they could then break off, and the impracticality of it given other more simple solutions, like krazy glue or even chewing gum, and that the people in the office are far more likely to have such keys (or more easily duplicate them or whatever) and how nothing else at the scene of the crime can tie things to anyone in particular, let alone the democrats (any hardware store would stock that crap, ditship) it seems like its more likely the republicans doing something to themselves and then blaming the democrats for it. Thats what I’m saying.
My question to you then is how, if all the “vandalism” there can be explained without incriminating the democrats (and again, there is no evidence that they were involved at all) how do you use that to demonstrate that the democrats pull dirty tricks regardless?
Rex, you’re right. It must have been the Republicans padlocking the door of a Republican Senatorial candidate.Yes. the same way it was Karl Rove who bugged Karl Rove’s office. Honestly are you just not seeing the case I’m making and how easy it would havebeen to pull off? They did something that did no real damage to the place in order to make it look like they were attacked by those vicious, rabid democrats. Explain to me how thats impossible, and in an election where the republicans are poised to lose large, out of the realm of possibility
Angry about a half-million Iraqis who are dead, who only died for George Bush’s idiotic roll of the dice? Yes, I am angry about that. Those of us who haven’t mortgaged our souls to GOP power are still allowed to have feelings about Iraqis who are dying.
Willing to give up their freedom so that the killing can be well organized by a government buearacracy.
The only people I’ve seen giving up their freedom recently are the Republican partisans who’ve tossed away rule of law, habeas corpus, freedom of assembly, the right to privacy and all checks and balances on the executive. They’ve cheered all these and want to toss freedom of speech along with it.
Progressives have been the only ones fighting for freedom.
Cause I mean, there is NO difference between a state run prison designed to torture children in their parents
Right, Abu Ghraib reopened under new management, but with all the same methods our president fighting for the right to torture. Maybe you’ve heard this exchange with the president’s former legal advisor:
Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
OK. Why post 1991? As opposed to his entire career as leader of Iraq (and the death average derived therefrom).
Becase even if we did nothing different in 2003 Saddam would presumably still be contained, monitored, no-flyed, air-striked, at least as much as he had been since 1991, so the rate of murders he commits betweeen 2003-2006 would most likely be closer to the rate between 1991 and 2003 than it would be to the time before 1991 in which he was not contained.
If the question is “would things have been as bad had Bush not invaded?” then that’s what you have to look at.
And of course, “doing nothing different” is not the only alternative to the Bush/Rumsfeld fiasco. Continued inspections, increased international pressure, even a competently planned and provisioned invasion might have reduced the 2003-2006 deaths (of both Iraqis and Americans) even further.
Padlocks. Certainly not the act of an organized party. Definitely the act of an idiot juvenile individual.
Compare that to pretending to be from the state election board and calling people up to tell them they are registered in another state and if they vote they will be criminally prosecuted. That’s organized.
That was a thought provoking post, Wilbur: a constrained Saddam would murder at a lower rate than the ‘old’ Saddam. Can’t disagree with the basic premise. But I would also doubt that, ultimately, the post Saddam death total would be as high as it is now – if we ’stayed’ the course for an equal number of years.
Rupert Murdoch (FOX News) says US troop deaths in Iraq are “minute”.
And of course 10s to 100s of thousands of Iraqis don’t count.
I hope Maryland voters don’t get too confused by Steele’s blatant attempts to cheat the votes.
Go Cardin – let’s move MD into the blue.
What’s funny/weird is that with the exception of Tennessee, all the online gambling sites put the swing Senate seats as all going Dem… if that’s the case then the Senate will shift power. And yet The bets are higher for Republicans keeping it.
I can’t vote in your elections, can I still see the pictures?
If the Republicans win even the smallest margin or can claim a moral victory – that will prove there is no god (just in case anybody still has doubts).
The Republicans will claim a moral victory no matter what happens. August mentioned yesterday that The Wicked Witch tried to claim that the only way the Dems can really win is if they win the senate and win like a million house seats so there.
Mike’s shallow argument.
“And of course 10s to 100s of thousands of Iraqis don’t count. ”
And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone. If we had done nothing, Saddam would still bethre and there would be more deaths.
And we have voted and officially cancelled out the votes of Jimmuh Carter and Hanoi Jane. And they thought they would gerrymander Gingrey’s district into a cheap Dem stronghold. Not on my watch, Bubba.
And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone. If we had done nothing, Saddam would still bethre and there would be more deaths.
That’s the stupidest comment I’ve seen, Dugger. Bad as Saddam was, there weren’t thousands of violent deaths per month. If you’ve got any evidence otherwise why don’t you cite it?
Dugger-
Iraq is the same as it was under Hussein at best. It’s only under new management.
“Hanoi Jane”. Jesus Christ on a toasted wheat cracker, what other fucking antiquated-sedition-poster-child are you going to pull from your empty Agent Orange canister?
Dugger:
I think America should set itself a higher standard than “better than Saddam,” don’t you?
And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone.
I still dont think you’ve satisfactorially proven this. The number you use before averages all the deaths Saddam is responsible for (including non-iraqis in wars he’s fought for control) and is not really a measure of the projectable “peace-time” civilian death rate for what has become the time of the Glorious War Everlasting. I really think, and I believe I’ve shown this, that given those numbers we cannot be shown to be any better than Saddam.
Enjoy today, pedrugger!
Actually, I can see where Dugger’s coming from. Is it not better to have the Shiites and Sunnis kill each other in a show of democratically determined massacre than to allow the people to be massacred by a single all-powerful tyrant?
Pax Americana!
Mike,
Been through this before.if you take Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the Iran/Iraq war deaths, Saddams other murders, the per year rate under Saddam is much higher than the total post Iraq war death rate.
PD
Hanoi Jane is feted almost daily here in the AJC. She is a mega star – still receiving adoration from the power structure. They just had a big frappin’ hunky dorey roast of the b*tch. I’m sorry. I will never get over the juxtaposition of her rich Hollywood butt sitting on those NVA aaa guns and our skeleton POWs returning home. Never.
Sorry to disagree, but that picture of Jeri Ryan is just way too photoshopped.
Assimilate me again Ms. Ryan!
“And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone. If we had done nothing, Saddam would still bethre and there would be more deaths.”
Dugger clings to his baseless, fact-free assertions. They are the only salve for a conscience that has half a million dead Iraqis on it.
“Been through this before.if you take Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the Iran/Iraq war deaths, Saddams other murders, the per year rate under Saddam is much higher than the total post Iraq war death rate.”
No evidence provided. Cite?
Jane regrets her actions in those days – not the principle behind them, but the fact that she did and said a lot of things without thinking. She described the gun photo thing as one of the greatest lapses of judgement ever. It’s ancient history, no matter that the Australian Jockey Club can’t let it go.
Those, at least, even out to neutral, seeing as we helped him do it.
Been through this before.if you take Saddam’s genocide of the Kurds, the Iran/Iraq war deaths, Saddams other murders, the per year rate under Saddam is much higher than the total post Iraq war death rate.
And there again youre taking an average over all those years including these events with high casualties to be a rate which youre suggesting is comparable to the current rate of deaths. Its not. The rate of civilian deaths in Iraq currently shows no sign of dropping, and it is no better (quite likely worse in fact) than what it was in 2000. Ignoring the frankly vulgar fact that your argument for support has degraded to the point of having to say “well by this one measure we’re not as bad as Saddam” as though America should ever be compared to a brutal dictatorship (I leave the most obvious joke for someone else to make) the simple fact is that measurably it isnt. Unless you want to break out the whole LA thing again, and we both know you do, so I’ll just refute your principle before you even state it. More people are killed in LA county than are killed in Plane Crashes. Therefore its safer to be in a Plane Crash than in LA County. Have I got it about right?
And of course there more deaths under Saddam, per year, than now with him gone.
Pleawe put a number on this so we know EXACTLY how much “better” we are than Saddam, since that is the standard you are applying.
How many under Saddam? How many since March 2003? Show your work.
Bush is killing our troops faster than the past 4 presidents. Combined. Bad for the US, deadly to our troops.
ahhh yes, these are the liberals we know and love.
Willing to give up their freedom so that the killing can be well organized by a government buearacracy. Cause I mean, there is NO difference between a state run prison designed to torture children in their parents presence and a group of pan-arabist terrorists radomly attacking civilians to try to suppress any democratic urges…
Nothing to see here, move along…
In my experience, that’s the conservatives, not the liberals. And I don’t know what point you’re making with that second paragraph.
Good news for Dems here in Pennsylvania.
I was talking to a prominent Philly Democrat a couple minutes ago and he said turnout was strong at all five places he’s voted so far today.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, those Dems and their vote-rigging scandals! Like when they stole the leadership of the free world back in 200! OH WAI
Good to see you back, repack, and not challenging other people’s service to their country. I was disappointed that you did not follow up with our previous conservation when you challenged mine.
There is no exact number – either under Saddam or under Bush. Anybody that says they know an exact number is wrong IMO. And frankly, I could give a rats *ss whether you believe me or not. I’ve given you the broad basics (overall murders in and around Tehran, genocide of Kurds, Iran/Iraq war). If you are honest and you pick middle of the road sites counting both death tolls and you can count, you will see Saddam was quite a bit more deadly. And if you are getting all high and mighty about using death tolls as a measure, may I suggest a comment now and then about the repeated references to the death toll used almost daily on this site – as some kind of superior moral statement against Bush.
Is it a measure or not? You tell me. But if you use it , don’t whine when it is used logically back against you.
Nimmer
Sure she “regrets” her actions. She specifically regrets (she says) being photographed on the aaa gun. It was evidently OK to go over and be friends with the NVA while they were torturing our POWs, Ok to sit on the gun, OK to provide propaganda oppotunities against the POWs – just not Ok to be photographed on the godd*mned gun.
rex
No matter what. The overall average per year under Saddam over his total reign is higher than the present per year average. Bush is saving ‘brown’ lives. Don’t that p*ss you off? And if you think using death tolls is vulgar, I have yet to see one post laying in to OW who uses just about every Iraq death as a parisan political weapon against Bush. Again which is it? Death tolls are or are not a measure?
Ha ha… because voting irregularities really benefit the democrats more than the republicans… so very much the funny you are you are.
Firstly, Average’s are not the same as rates given the time span and the events that can skew such a figure. Rate is the measure by which we should compare, and Death tolls are not the important measure, yes. But the trick is that death tolls arent used to prove the point that things are by some twisted measure slightly better now than under saddam, theyre used to illustrate the point that, in spite of all of the corners we’ve turned, all of the claims of “well in six months we’ll really know how things are going,” all the claims that things have improved immeasurably in spite of the lack of working elecrtical and sewage systems, in spite of all the schools we’ve painted, dugger, people are still dying at a rate that does not look to be decreasing significantly any time soon, due almost entirely now to terrorist attacks, or our response to them.
Not what I said, not what she said, not surprised.
Dugger -
Hey slick, you might want to take a trip in the Way-back Machine and have a looksie at who was providing the logistical and technological support for Hussein’s chemical excursions.
It might take a while. Pack an apple.
I’m waiting to see Dugger respond to the fact that the United States helped facilitate many of those murders that Saddam carry out. I agree that it doesn’t help make a case for how much better we are than he was based solely on body count.
Look, the only way to accurately measure the two is to allow the United States to occupy Iraq for as long as Saddam was in power, and then produce a final tally. Since the right would like us to stay in Iraq until terrorism finally goes away, surely we can manage that tenure.
“But if you use it , don’t whine when it is used logically back against you.”
I hate to break it to you Dugger but even if we take your bogus comparison as a measure of how great things are going in Iraq, time and the body count is not on your side. That’s thanks to Bush’s failed policies. Way to go idiot.
How does the death rate in Iraq compare to say, Iran, Palestine, Pakistan, Mexico, the US? How does the current death rate compare to the last 8 years of Husseins reign?
Bush has the highest average of AMericans killed by terrorism than any other president. Bad for national security.
Glad DrPedo could take time away from filling out absentee ballots to contribute today.
Rex
You are making a slightly different argument than typically made here. To paraphrase: we got into a war; all wars are costly and we should have known that; and if we have made no better progress in this war than a death rate that is just somewhat lower than Saddam’s very high death rate, then it hasn’t been successful; thats not enough to warrant the sacrifice we have made in men and material. Thats a harder argument to refute, but the Neocons would argue (I don’t) that we may bring long term peace to the entire region via perseverance in Iraq. I don’t think we change the region the way the Neos hope.
I probably would not have gone into Iraq without a more tangible benefit to this country. We may be saving lives, brown lives, but in other parts of the world all sorts of people are dying in droves daily – and we don’t go to war there.
frame,
Are you saying death count, a point OW ballyhoos daily here, is not A valid measure? Why don’t you ever call him on it???
There is no exact number – either under Saddam or under Bush. Anybody that says they know an exact number is wrong IMO.
So when you said that Saddam killed more people than we did, you had no way of knowing whether that was true, you were just making up your “facts.”
Thanks for clearing that up.
“Are you saying death count, a point OW ballyhoos daily here, is not A valid measure? Why don’t you ever call him on it???”
Um, no. I’m saying your comparison between life under Hussein and life now is ridiculous on any number of levels. For you, as long as the death count of Iraqis now remains under the death count under Hussein, you consider our policy a success.
You haven’t given any actual numbers but I’m going to assume that you believe the number of Iraqis killed by Hussein numbers in the millions. By your own logic, one million Iraqis could die next week and you would still consider our policy a success.
That’s insane.
There are causes worth fighting for in which numbers of dead don’t matter. We make the sacrifice we have to make to preserve something greater.
This isn’t one of those fights. You yourself admit that this invasion has had no tangible benefits for this country. You also admit that this mission cannot be expected to achieve its long terms goals (granted that’s because you’re a racist fuck but we’ll leave that till later).
There are no grounds on which we can justify the cost in American or Iraqi lives that this mission has so far exacted. To prop up a failed policy by using Hussein as a benchmark is ridiculous.
It’s like suggesting that a modern day Jewish holocaust wouldn’t be really bad until 6.5 million Jews were killed.
Pedro:
Willing to give up their freedom so that the killing can be well organized by a government buearacracy.
What the fuck does that mean? What freedoms are liberals willing to give up? How is our freedom enhanced by our invasion / occupation of Iraq? Exactly what benefits to our liberty have we derived from Bush’s illegal war?
The funniest part is when you pretend like you give a shit about the Iraqi people. Makes me laugh every time.
Dugger is looking for tangible benefits for the Iraq invasion. He can’t even name intangible benefits.
midder,
A dead certain tangible benefit is elimination of a horrible dictator. Another is the Net savings of lives. Thats was two – very quickly. Try something that works.
frame, Child. You have just decided that the loss of lots brown lives is Ok as long as it gets Bush. That would seem make you unequivocally, undeniably a racist. A murderous nasty, brown-skin hating racist. You holler racism when you get called on your inability to debate.
Dugger has yet to reconcile his claim that there are “somewhat lower” deaths now than under Saddam with his claim not to know how many were killed before and after Saddam. Which is it?
You can’t demonstrate the net saving of lives. I would imagine if you looked at the last 5-10 years of Hussein’s dictatorship you would see comparatively small numbers which then trend upward after the US invasion.
Also, replacing a toothless dictator with a US soldier killing hole and what certainly looks like an Iran-friendly Islamic republic, is not something you probably approve of.
What freedoms are liberals willing to give up?
In fact, there are freedoms I want back; like the 4th amendment.
Hey Oliver -
Looks like Steele has cooked something else up. Hire homeless folks from Philly, bus them into MD and have them pass out campaign literature proclaiming Steele as a Democrat.
From the GOP handbook of Maryland politics:
(1) Recruit homeless men in Philadelphia;
(2) Bus them into Maryland;
(3) Arrange for the Republican governor’s wife to greet them upon their arrival;
(4) Outfit them in hats and T-shirts for the governor’s re-election campaign;
(5) Have them pass out flyers in heavily Democratic areas that erroneously identify the GOP candidates for governor and U.S. senator as “Democrats.”
-Via talkingpointsmemo.com
What utter wankers.
“You holler racism when you get called on your inability to debate.”
Whoa, touchy, touchy Mister The-Arabs-are-too-backward-to-govern themselves-in-a-civilized-Society.
You said that, Dugger. Not I.
All I’m saying is that invading Iraq was bad idea that was not and is not worth the cost of the Iraqi and American lives that have been lost as a result of it.
One of the things I don’t remember hearing in the lead up to the war was that we had to stop Hussein from killing hundreds of Iraqis every week. That wasn’t happening when we invaded. It is now and it’s a tragedy that lies entirely on our shoulders, not Hussein or his henchmen’s.
Again, I think it’s self evident that, based on your logic, if a million Iraqis were killed in the next seven days in Iraq, you would shrug it off: “Total dead still less than Sadaam.”
The kind of “logic” that underpins your comparison is crazy ass insane Dugger and it is the point, I’ll note, you refused to address at all.
Pedrugger most assuredly does NOT care about the deaths we have caused with our poorly conceived, dishonestly sold, and abysmally executed war. “Marginally better than Saddam” is fine for him. And even tho the evidence points to the contrary, that’s what he’ll stick with until his dying day.
As far as he’s concerned, he was right to be wrong and we were wrong to be right.
You can not convince these people that using a dishonest pretense to wage war is a bad idea, so long as their boy is the one doing the lying.
They wanted the outcome to be good, therefore the war itself is good, no matter WHAT the cost.
And the only thing he has at this point to keep reality from flooding in to his delicate little psyche are the heaps and heaps of bullshit he continues to throw around. What’s worse is he truly believes he’s making some kind of headway.
He literally thinks that coming in here and stinking up the joint somehow makes the war in Iraq worth the cost in American money and human life.
The whole world will be paying the consequences of this idiot administration for generations, and he will continue believing all is well, and if not, it’s the fault of those meddling libs.
Because to do anything, ANYTHING else might open the slightest crack in the bulwark, and the notion that maybe, just maybe, he was wrong will come seeping in.
And then it will all come crashing down around him like something out of Pink Floyd.
And he simply doesn’t have the strength of character to deal with that.
Dugger:
I think your comparison is a bit off. Even assuming (which I don’t) that your interpretation of the numbers is correct, we shouldn’t be comparing post-invasion deaths to the entirety of Saddam’s deadly career, but to hiss record post-1991.
None of the many alternatives to Bush’s precipitous invasion involed letting Saddam go back to his carefree kurd-gassing, Iran-bombing, Kuwait invading days.
People really have it out for Jane Fonda, still. It does not seem to have harmed her any, however. After all, what woman of consequence has not been branded a bitch? I’m sure she cries all the way to the bank.
But it does seem that angry nutwingers might try to find other targets.
And what does Jane Fonda have to do with today’s elections, pray tell, which I thought was what this thread was about?
I am so glad I live in a Blue State. So glad. Even though we do have a Republican Governor. We keep her for “balance.”
Where?
Let’s also remember that while the deaths under Saddam were atrocities, they were not the result of the decision of a man heading OUR elected government. The half-million Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s terrible misjudgment? Well, if you’re Dugger, you just wish them into the cornfield, don’t you? And then sleep soundly, after some nice, lingering back pats.
“Staffers arrived at Kean for Senate Headquarters in Mountainside early today, only to find that someone had padlocked the front doors and jammed other entrances to the building. Local police had the chains cut off, while locksmiths were dispatched to fix the other doors, according to Mountainside Police Chief James Debbie.
Kean’s people said the vandalism happened sometime after 11:30 p.m. Monday. Debbie said the fire doors were not affected so no one in the building was in danger. Collateral victims were employees at Dorf Feature Service, a freelance news agency that is the only other tenant in the building. Their doors were also vandalized.
The incident capped off a campaign that began with a prank. In June, a Kean press conference on Democrat Robert Menendez’s turf in Jersey City was disrupted when a crew of county corrections inmates on landscape duty insisted on firing up their lawn movers every time the Republican opened his mouth.”
Hedley’s sure got his priorities straight! Feel his searing white-hot outrage over campaign vandalism, and his stale, blase contempt for the half-million dead Iraqis!
More on the Kean Story
Think this is bogus. Kean’s Spokeswoman is saying its Menendez but can’t prove a damn bit. Says there were keys broken off in the locks, so how did Menendez’s people get keys that fit those locks then? Needed to be threaded the same way to even get them in the holes, or am I missing a part of that? Might have got a locksmith but fuck it, wouldnt chewing gum have been easier? This is like that time Rove found that bug in his office the day before a debate when working on Bill Clement’s campaign, turns out the bug had a battery life of an hour or two, making it impractical. It was a lie designed to make it look like the Democrats were playing dirty. So is this, I imagine.
Wow. This thread should be the Iraq thread.
I voted today in Georgia and my election official stated that there are no paper ballets and that “why would there be a problem?” My polling place was the most unorganized operation I have witnessed in awhile. Next time I am going to be “out of town” so I can write an absentee ballet.
Dugger,
As for Gingery looney ass, I would love to hear evidence of his campaign being railroaded. I have met him several times in personal settings(2 weddings and a couple of parties) and he is more of a moron than he appears on C-SPAN. Please enlighten me on how this ass-hat has helped Georgia in any way?
hey “doc”,
If you are going to make up numbers, why not “millions of Iraqi dead”…shoot, since you are using your imagination why not”millions of iraqi’s garrotted by GWB, Rummy and Condi with mint-flavored dental floss…” I mean, give it a little PIZAZZ…..
Pedro, shut the fuck up.
It comes from the Johns Hopkins survey, Pedro, the same way we estimate Darfur deaths, for example. Of course, you knew that, but you couldn’t pass up to argue dishonorably.
the opportunity, that is.
Wilbur,
OK. Why post 1991? As opposed to his entire career as leader of Iraq (and the death average derived therefrom).
White Whale,
Do you know what gerrymandering means? Have no idea what you are talking about. I’m talking about this piece of crap district:http://gingrey.house.gov/District/
Rex, explain the padlocks. Regardless it just shows that the “pure as the driven snow” Democrats are hardly above “dirty tricks.”
Dr., that is some imagination you have. To think you can tell all that from one post. You must be a trip in Vegas.
“Why post 1991?”
Here’s the real question Dugger. In another thread you wrote this:
So let me ask you, what happens to your support for the mission if and when the number tips the other way?
According to the logic of your rejoinder, as soon as the number of Iraqis killed since the invasion surpasses those killed under Saddam, the mission will no longer be supportable.
But Dugger, when we note the number of American and innocent Iraqi lives lost it is because every individual life counts and is precious. The death of a single American soldier or innocent Iraqi weighs heavily against its morality.
Your rejoinder, however, erases the value of an individual life. Its logic would allow you to smugly blow off the deaths of a million people as “still less than Saddam” because in your comparison, individual living, breathing human beings don’t matter. You just lumped them altogether, only to be acknowledged when their total deaths reaches some number you can’t actually provide.
The fact that you would willing support a mission right up until the number of dead Iraqis reaches some huge number plus one, is itself quite simply, nauseating.
But what you are really saying is that the lives of individual soldiers or Iraqis don’t have any value to you at all accept as part of some vast abstract aggregate which you yourself are unable to define.
What a moral, principled fellow you are Dugger. You’ve just asserted a rationale for mass murder.
Dugger says that the half-million Iraqi deaths since 2003 are meaningless; and he wishes that they don’t exist, so they don’t, regardless of what social science’s best guess tells us. However, deaths caused by Saddam, on the other hand, carry real moral weight, and should be thought about seriously by serious moral thinkers like Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds.
Hedley, get a moral compass. The decisions of our president have led directly to the death of over half a million Iraqis. Direct your anger where it’s deserved.
Rex, explain the padlocks. Regardless it just shows that the “pure as the driven snow” Democrats are hardly above “dirty tricks.”
What, are you fucking kidding me? How can you possibly be this dense without distorting gravity?
I’m saying that theres no evidence that the democrats did anything. Things were dont, sure, but by who. Hm, I wonder… Well lets say it were the democrats. How fucking stupid is that, to do something that has no actual benefit for them, and in fact can only do harm by casting suspicions on them in this election? I now you think all people on that side of the aisle have mental defects grander than your own, but lets consider another possibility, one I was insinuation with my Karl Rove example. Given the severe unlikelyhood that democrats had keys to fit those locks that they could then break off, and the impracticality of it given other more simple solutions, like krazy glue or even chewing gum, and that the people in the office are far more likely to have such keys (or more easily duplicate them or whatever) and how nothing else at the scene of the crime can tie things to anyone in particular, let alone the democrats (any hardware store would stock that crap, ditship) it seems like its more likely the republicans doing something to themselves and then blaming the democrats for it. Thats what I’m saying.
My question to you then is how, if all the “vandalism” there can be explained without incriminating the democrats (and again, there is no evidence that they were involved at all) how do you use that to demonstrate that the democrats pull dirty tricks regardless?
Rex, you’re right. It must have been the Republicans padlocking the door of a Republican Senatorial candidate.
Dr, the only one who appears angry here is you. Of course, if the Democrats don’t take both houses of Congress, I would expect that to change.
Sometimes I wish exit polls weren’t all old bollock.
Now is one of those times.
Rex, you’re right. It must have been the Republicans padlocking the door of a Republican Senatorial candidate.Yes. the same way it was Karl Rove who bugged Karl Rove’s office. Honestly are you just not seeing the case I’m making and how easy it would havebeen to pull off? They did something that did no real damage to the place in order to make it look like they were attacked by those vicious, rabid democrats. Explain to me how thats impossible, and in an election where the republicans are poised to lose large, out of the realm of possibility
Angry about a half-million Iraqis who are dead, who only died for George Bush’s idiotic roll of the dice? Yes, I am angry about that. Those of us who haven’t mortgaged our souls to GOP power are still allowed to have feelings about Iraqis who are dying.
Willing to give up their freedom so that the killing can be well organized by a government buearacracy.
The only people I’ve seen giving up their freedom recently are the Republican partisans who’ve tossed away rule of law, habeas corpus, freedom of assembly, the right to privacy and all checks and balances on the executive. They’ve cheered all these and want to toss freedom of speech along with it.
Progressives have been the only ones fighting for freedom.
Cause I mean, there is NO difference between a state run prison designed to torture children in their parents
Right, Abu Ghraib reopened under new management, but with all the same methods our president fighting for the right to torture. Maybe you’ve heard this exchange with the president’s former legal advisor:
Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Wilbur,
OK. Why post 1991? As opposed to his entire career as leader of Iraq (and the death average derived therefrom).
Becase even if we did nothing different in 2003 Saddam would presumably still be contained, monitored, no-flyed, air-striked, at least as much as he had been since 1991, so the rate of murders he commits betweeen 2003-2006 would most likely be closer to the rate between 1991 and 2003 than it would be to the time before 1991 in which he was not contained.
If the question is “would things have been as bad had Bush not invaded?” then that’s what you have to look at.
And of course, “doing nothing different” is not the only alternative to the Bush/Rumsfeld fiasco. Continued inspections, increased international pressure, even a competently planned and provisioned invasion might have reduced the 2003-2006 deaths (of both Iraqis and Americans) even further.
Padlocks. Certainly not the act of an organized party. Definitely the act of an idiot juvenile individual.
Compare that to pretending to be from the state election board and calling people up to tell them they are registered in another state and if they vote they will be criminally prosecuted. That’s organized.
That was a thought provoking post, Wilbur: a constrained Saddam would murder at a lower rate than the ‘old’ Saddam. Can’t disagree with the basic premise. But I would also doubt that, ultimately, the post Saddam death total would be as high as it is now – if we ’stayed’ the course for an equal number of years.
But I would also doubt that, ultimately, the post Saddam death total would be as high as it is now..
And there it is. Your little boat has just run aground on the Shoals of Logic®.