That 100,000 Estimate

Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998, and he says that estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians is credible. Therefore, proclamations by Bush supporters that it is not are almost certainly desperate attempts to refute something that offends their prejudices, rather than being well-considered opinions. Especially, Bush and his supporters have one important question to answer in their denial of the estimate: given that the American military meatgrinder has loudly proclaimed that it does not do body counts, how could it possibly know that the estimate is inaccurate as it claims?

The War on Iraq Has Made Moral Cowards of Us All
By Scott Ritter
The Guardian U.K.

Comments

I just spent a few minutes in your Lair and was unable to find any trace of your preoccupation (no pun intended) with Iraqi civilians before Bush II. If I have missed something please make mention.

Lowest estimates for civilian deaths at the hands of Saddam are now at 280,000. (Economist, pg. 47,10/23/2004) That’s nearly a 3:1 ratio of killing if we use your number of 100,000. Accepting your concern for Iraqi civilians began pre-Bush II, one would expect to find two or three “personal essays� comparing Saddam to Hitler for every King George reference. Your Lair offers no such ratio. Revealing if not condemning.

So what is it Fang, do these civilian casualties really tug upon your conscience or do they simply serve to prime your pump of crocodile tears?

Truth. If W was the psychopath you portend, there wouldn’t be mosques serving as armories. There wouldn’t be any “rules of engagement� that we Mericans like to tie our hands with when fighting. If we were hell-bent on destruction as you intimate, Abraham would recognize the place when finished. Put simply, a Pax Amerikana “torch and burn� policy would cause even that statesman, Hitler, that you attribute higher moral fiber than Bush, to grin with envy.

I don’t like civilian casualties any more than you or most decent people do. Provided these civilians aren’t revolutionary guard tired of olive green. But that goes for all civilians. I didn’t see any postcards from Sudan at the Lair either.

Unless I’ve overlooked a trove of similar protestations of these same unfortunates killed at a 3:1 rate by Saddam, assuming we share the same belief that all civilians are equal, your public chest beating per Iraq post-2001 should be considered nothing more than partisan rubbish.

Ah, yes. The standard Rethuglican tactic. If you can't refute what he says, smear his character. We'll just add Scott Ritter to the list of McCleland, McCain, and Kerry, then, shall we?

Saddam Hussein was an American puppet. You have been told this. The U.S.sold him the chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds. You have been told that as well. Your governments were the power behind his throne all the way.

And by the way, your crocodile tears about civilian casualties are obviously just that in light of your support of the Iraq genocide by Bush.

Here's a clue: just because you haven't yet killed as many as Saddam did, that does not automatically put you on the moral high ground when you perpetrate the same crimes he did.

Here's another clue: your argument is one used by neo-fascists to deny the Holocaust. (Oh, the Holocaust wasn't that bad; the Nazis couldn't have killed more than 600,000, and anyway it probably wasn't even that many.)

If Bush wasn't at least a pseudo-psychopath there wouldn't have been Abu Ghraib; your baby-killers would not have launched a thousand pounds of high explosives into a restaurant during lunch hour on the off chance of killing Saddam in a hidden bunker that might or might not have been under it; or maybe he would allow the public to see the coffins of dead American sons arriving at Dover and have attended at least one of the funerals of the men he ordered to their deaths and ensure that injured survivors would get the amount of treatment they really need.

As for Hitler, at the very least, Bush is every bit the megalomaniac Hitler was. If you want him to achieve the same level of bloodshed, don't worry, you'll have four more years to cheer him on.

Saddam Hussein was an American puppet. You have been told this. The U.S.sold him the chemical weapons he used to gas the Kurds. You have been told that as well. Your governments were the power behind his throne all the way.

And this justifies your reticence for making any mention of those killed pre 2001? If Uncle Sam's mitts were as bloody way back in the 80's as they are today, that lair of yours should have a compendium devoted to Iraqi dead.

You've just tripped over your own "logical thinking".

Ever heard of credibility? David Kay has been the only even-handed and intelligent inspector to date.

You've just tripped over your own "logical thinking".

Well you've just hanged yourself with your illogical thinking. By your own standards, you are an abject hypocrite because you do not post every last bloody image of an aborted fetus at your blog.

Your attempt to "debunk" my position by saying that I do not carry eveything possible is patently stupid and childish. However, if you think that someone can post every last piece of information that supports their position feel free to set the example. Not that you would even if you could, because you don't have clue one about principles of leadership such as: you cannot ask others to do what you yourself will not or cannot do.

Ever heard of credibility?

Yes, and Scott Ritter has credibility while Bush -- and those who defame Ritter because he won't kiss Bush's ass and lie about the non-existent NBC Weapons -- do not.

a majority of the vote, an increase in the House and the Senate = credibility

4 more years baby