July 13, 2005, You're Soaking In It (II)
I realize many of you may disagree with me on this, but I consider the blood of dozens of Iraqi children today who were blown up and killed by evil fucks in Baghdad who launched a suicide bomber at them while American military personnel were dispensing candy to be on the President's hands. Period. Argument not to the contrary not accepted, this time.
There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind -- none-- that every single child murdered today would still be alive right now if Saddam Hussein were still in power. And would that mean the world in general would be a better place because of it? You know what? Yes it does.
Think about all of that as the President squirms to defend the honor of Karl Rove, a man who knowingly tried to get at least one American covert operative (if not many) killed just to advance a political smear campaign to destroy a man who had the audacity to point out that one of the key contentions for our invading Iraq in the first place, the purported threat of Saddam Hussein's Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, was complete and total crap.
Think about dozens of kids, splattered over a Baghdad pavement while they waited for American military men and women to hand them candy. I wish the American people writ large a good night's sleep, not that I need to. Since nothing else bothers you'all... why should this?
Comments
That is offensively stupid.
If the blood is on anyone's hands in America, it's racist american puppets like yourself.
Posted by a reader at July 14, 2005 12:57 AM
If you truly believe this, I question your sanity. What world do you live in? Is your hatred for America in general and Bush in particular so great that you must bend over backwards to find a way to blame American soldiers? What a fool!
Posted by VA Gamer at July 14, 2005 10:18 AM
...see, this is the fundamental problem we face, TD. Nothing that you said even implies racism, nor did anything in your little screed suggest a hatred for America, and I noticed that you didn't in any way suggest that American Troops were at fault. All your points were clear and concise, but we will always be stuck with folks like those above who either can't or won't understand plain English or simple concepts...
...George Bush invaded; George Bush blew off the critical post-invasion planning; George Bush SAID this was where he wanted to fight the terrorists. George Bush and his minions worked HARD to bludgeon opponents into silence and making sure that anyone legitimately wishing to debate the wisdom of this invasion would be called an America-hater and a traitor. He's getting his wish, and little kids are getting blown up...
Posted by Jack K. at July 14, 2005 11:20 AM
The military command shares the blame. American troops on patrol in Iraq are targets. Allowing kids to congregate around said targets is criminally stupid. Handing out candy is nothing more than a cheap public relations gesture anyway. There's plenty of blame here to go around.
Posted by Markg at July 14, 2005 5:01 PM
If a butterfly flaps its wings, and more people are killed in Iraq. Is the butterfly responsible?
Eh, Grasshopper?
Posted by The Master at July 14, 2005 9:59 PM
OK, I'm confused. Assume that the military shouldn't have let the kids hang around them. How does that excuse the terrorist who attacks, knowing that the kids are in the way? Couldn't he wait until the kids leave? Doesn't he have at least SOME responsibility for killing 24 of (presumably) his own people?
Posted by another reader at July 15, 2005 12:07 PM
Sadly, the blood is on all of our hands.
Posted by Thomas Ware at July 15, 2005 2:26 PM
Amen. No war; no dead kids. Pres. GWB must have war. Kids dead.
Pretty clear.
Posted by janinsanfran at July 15, 2005 11:51 PM
As someone said, there's enough responsibility in this to go round the table at least once. I mean, jeez, if people are dedicated enough to die for their cause, what makes you think that they'll let a thing like the potential death of a few children stop them.
However, Bush has plausible deniability in this. He can (and does) point to the actions of the individual bomber as being the cause, as if that action existed in a vacuum.
What you're really saying is that such actions DON'T exist in a vacuum. Anyone with any brains who actually thinks about it will realize this. Much as the rah-rah right would like to forget, Bush and his cronies deserve at least some of the blame for this.
Posted by Dean at July 16, 2005 9:36 AM
How does that excuse the terrorist who attacks, knowing that the kids are in the way? Couldn't he wait until the kids leave? Doesn't he have at least SOME responsibility for killing 24 of (presumably) his own people?
"He did it too, Miss" never worked for me as a 7 year old schoolkid. What kind of retard adult uses it?
Big guys can fight "clean". (well, ignoring Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Bhagram etc.) They can press buttons, make things happen at a distance and call any collateral damage "unfortunate and unintended". To even the odds, little guys have to resort to being deliberately murderous rather than recklessly murderous.
Citizens' militias asserting 2nd Amendment type rights. Sauce for the US goose but not the Iraqi gander?
Posted by AlanDownunder at July 17, 2005 1:54 AM
Dean: "I mean, jeez, if people are dedicated enough to die for their cause, what makes you think that they'll let a thing like the potential death of a few children stop them."
Those who want to kill for their cause will also not let a few children stop them. Bush sure didn't. Does anyone else remember "Shock and Awe"? "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official to CBS news. Of course the official line was that this was meant to terrorize Iraqi troops. But imagine 400 missiles a day being fired into, say, Washington, DC. And that the thug who directed that attack blamed Bush for hiding behind civilians.
And what's the Iraqi suicide bombers' cause? There's a rebellion going on in Iraq because the US invaded and occupied. The invasion was illegal, but I doubt the Iraqi people would care if the UN had approved it. The cause can be taken away by getting the occupying forces out. That won't make everything all hunky-dory right away -- the US has done its best to destroy Iraqi society. Massive reparations would be in order, not that they'd be forthcoming. The US doesn't pay reparations. (Vietnam is still waiting, for example.) The current plan is to let Iraqi oil pay for the damage we did. Aren't we civilized?
Some will respond to this with babble about "hating America." I must confess, there are times when I look at the excuses Americans will make for the horrors committed in our names, and I don't even feel like denying the charge. But fuck that. Stop killing, maiming, torturing, and my "hate" will magically go away.
Posted by Fletcher at July 17, 2005 11:46 AM
How does that excuse the terrorist who attacks, knowing that the kids are in the way?
Okay, I want people tested for moral cretinism. And on that test I want to see the following question:
X commits Y crime; it wouldn't have happened if Z had done his job properly. If V says the crime is on Z's hands, which of the following statements is true?
a) V is saying X is innocent!
b) No, actually V is saying X is guilty, and it's on X's hands even more than on Z's.
If you answered a), congratulations, you are a moral cretin. Responsibility isn't a frigging pizza, you don't cut it up into slices and distribute it out like that.
Posted by derek at July 18, 2005 7:32 AM
What??? Lets blame BUSH for the Bombings in London. After all its his fault they happened????
What about 9/11??/ Lets blame Bush for that one as well????
Right. The Terrorists,just are not to blame here. We are.
Posted by Ridge at July 23, 2005 7:16 AM