Topic: 655,000 (Read 2779 times)

BizB · « **on:** May 26, 2007, 09:35:11 AM »

Rosie comment that 655K Iraqi citizens had died since the 2003 invasion - and subsequent implication that the US soldiers are the terrorists really pissed me off. I wonder if she understands that except for among the kooks, she's seen as a complete idiot.

Quote

O’DONNELL: …… I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look, we invaded –
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?
HASSELBECK: Are we killing their citizens or are their people also killing their citizens?
O’DONNELL: We’re invading a sovereign nation, occupying a country against the U.N.

Now, Rosie has the gall to claim that she didn't want you to infer from her rhetorical question that the US military are the terrorists. She... she... she... something errrr... I mean... clearly. Assuming that the rhetorical question wasn't meant to point the finger at the US military, we're left to wonder just whom does Rosie mean?
Does she believe that the insurgents (Iraqi citizens rising against the controlling force) are the terrorists?
Does she believe that the new Iraqi police departments are the terrorists?
Does she believe that there are terrorists being imported from other nations in order to secure chaos in the country?

The sad part is that she doesn't speak to any of those. On her blog, it claims that she was referring to the policy of the current administration. So she believes that the average Iraqi citizen views the soldier on the street as a great guy who's following the orders of a state sponsoring terrorism. Obviously, (assuming that they see anyone related to the forces on the street as terrorists) they wouldn't place their hate and mistrust on the soldier. He's just doing his job. Nope, the Iriqis see past that uniform and gun. They see... pause for dramatic effect ...GEORGE BUSH (dun DUN DUNNNNNNNN).

Of course, the number quoted by Rosie was provided in a study by Johns Hopkins University. There are many - myself included - who disagree with the results of this survey stating that the sample size was insufficient to extend and expect accurate results nationally. Here's a typical retort which is representative of those who make attempts to poke holes in the conclusions of the study. Even as long ago as 2004, the same types of studies were saying that nearly 100K had paid the ultimate price.

I suppose that, in reality, we'll never know how many people perished as a result of the battle in Iraq.

Quote

Sidebar:
Why does the Bush administration try to sell the Iraq invasion as part of the war on terror, yet still call it "The War in Iraq"? Shouldn't it be called a battle or a campaign if it's par of the bigger war?

I personally don't think the number is important. Nobody mourns like the people of the Middle East and they've done more than their share over the past 2000 years. At who's hand is the only part that changes. I just wish it would end.

Vespertine · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2007, 10:17:47 AM »

Believe me, I am no defender of Rosie O'Donnell, but I do think she was referring to the president and his yes men when she made the terrorists comment. From what I understand, she has a pretty strong track record of despising President Bush.

xolik · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2007, 01:01:16 PM »

Hey, if it makes amerikkka look bad, run with it, right?

Also: Rosie

Rico · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2007, 05:01:40 PM »

If she was talking about the President why didn't she say "who's the terrorist," rather than "who are the terrorists?" What I thought she was trying to do is suggest that the Iraqi civilians migth view our Soldiers as terrorists due to massive casualties they've suffered. Worth a thought at least, but of course it ignores the fact that most deaths had nothing to do with American troops.

Unfortunately BizB's right when he says nothing but the names have changed in that region's sad history. It's like the Balkans or Africa. We've stabilized the Balkans somewhat, but it's been years and the question about Kosovo is still up in the air. The Serbians still jump at every oportunity to kill an Albanian, and the Albs smuggle so many weapons, drugs, and girls across international boarders they make mexican cartels look like shriners. We haven't even done that much in Africa. Nothing we do seems to really help the folks we intend to save. Personally, I think we have a duty to try when we can, though.

Chris · « **Reply #4 on:** May 26, 2007, 07:24:10 PM »

I guess there's one good thing that can come out of all of this: She's leaving The View three weeks early. That's one less hour Americans will potentially have to listen to her on the air waves.

I'm with Rico on this one. I think she wanted to imply that the Iraqi people view the US soldiers as terrorists, but didn't realize that the vast majority of Iraqi causalities were not a direct cause of US troops, but rather from domestic quarrels.

12AX7 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 26, 2007, 08:02:47 PM »

Of course she meant the troops; although I suspect she wouldn't object to you including the Bush Administration and/or American presence anywhere. She's a perfect example of a cowardly bully. She ran and ran and ran her mouth unchallenged; when someone finally called her on it, she had no response ready, except to call names and try to throw insinuations SHE made back at Elizabeth. Seeing Elizabeth wasn't backing down this time, suddenly, she "wasn't going to argue because she would be portrayed as picking on poor, little, Christian, whatever other insult she could think of to imply on the spot Elizabeth". Since when did that ever quiet her loud mouth? Seems she always has plenty to say until someone asks her for proof or to justify / explain some insinuation she made. Why didn't she say "oh, I meant Bush; not the troops" on the air? Because she meant it; plain and simple. She didn't argue that she was misunderstood; she tried to wiggle and squirm her fat ass out of it by not answering the question and trying desperately to change the subject and point the finger at Elizabeth. I'm certain if she felt like Elizabeth was wrong, she'd have been all over that. She'd have beat that poor girl to a pulp with her misunderstanding and BEEN BACK THE NEXT DAY to bask in her alpha-dog glory. Though I'm glad she's gone, I'd rather have seen her get Imused off the air instead of quitting like the coward she is.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Forum Stats

Members

Stats

Author Topic: 655,000 (Read 2779 times)

BizB

655,000

Vespertine

Re: 655,000

xolik

Re: 655,000

Rico

Re: 655,000

Chris

Re: 655,000

12AX7

Re: 655,000