Sincere Apology Fetches Right Wing Forgiveness --- j/k ;) lol
Molly Ivins went overboard in a recent critique of the War in Iraq. She... well hell, I'll let her explain it:
CROW EATEN HERE: This is a horror. In a column written June 28, I asserted that more Iraqis (civilians) had now been killed in this war than had been killed by Saddam Hussein over his 24-year rule. WRONG. Really, really wrong.
...
Ha! I could hardly have been more wrong, no matter how you count Saddam's killing of civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens.
...
In 1991, following the first Gulf War, both the Kurds and the Shiites rebelled. The allied forces did not intervene, and Saddam brutally suppressed both uprisings and drained the southern marshes that had been home to a local population for more than 5,000 years.
Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more still being discovered. That figure alone was the source for my original mistaken estimate of 20,000. Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture, including rape, has been verified by the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and other human rights groups over the years.
...
There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, making my comparison to 20,000 civilian dead in this war pathetically wrong.
I was certainly under no illusions regarding Saddam Hussein, whom I have opposed through human rights work for decades. My sincere apologies. It is unforgivable of me not have checked. I am so sorry.
Nice. You don't see that kind of forthright apology often in today's editorialists -- although their errors are pointed out more and more frequently by internet opinion enthusiasts. Typically, today's partisans (perhaps taking their cue from good President Bush) refuse to back off from any statement or admit any error. So, cheers Ivins. Now get it right next time.
Ever wonder why more people don't just simply admit their mistakes, purify the dialogue of mis-stated facts, and move on? Here's your answer. Ah, the screeches of the right wing -- HEY, YOU'RE RIGHT... YOU WERE WRONG!! Featuring such crisp, choice articulations as:
What a complete idiot
The comparison is so ungodly stupid on its face
The comparison of this behaviour to our US military's itself is disgustingly inapposite
Read Ivins, then read CC's response and be warned. This is the bile you can expect from Bush loyalists if you admit a numerical mistake. Lesson two: if you're looking for civility from our good friends over at CC, you'll have to follow their hat tip to Sullivan. His response to Ivin's apology?
Good for her.
posted by Abe at 7/13/2005 05:02:00 PM
5 Comments:
As previously stated, any historical references to Hitler, Nazism, or the Third Reich, the debater automatically loses the debate. End of story. Sorry TOD.
It's a good policy for 2GL to follow as we should all learn from the Durbin Fallacy.
Here we go again. T, you may be the most easily, frequently, and hysterically outraged person I know. Interestingly, rather than being outraged at the fact that tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by our country in a war that is generally considered a tragic mistake, you are outraged that Ivins' research - yes, numerical research (did you even read her apology, or did you just leap with fangs bared?), was incredibly faulty.
Look, of COURSE she's biased. Just like Hannity, Coulter, you, and Brit Hume are biased. She's not a reporter, she's a columnist.
But for you to slander her by declaring that she wants Iraqi civilians to be killed is just bad for the dialogue. Really, brother. Stop pretending you even believe that, because it is beneath you.
Anyway, keep up the fake outrage. It seems less and less fake every day!! ha.
I, for one, am glad she finally took the trouble to do some research and get her facts straight. Maybe she'll learn from this and research facts BEFORE she publishes next time. A lot of opinion writers on both sides could do better on that. I don't exclude myself here. I've been wrong on occasion too. I still don't care much for Ms. Ivins, but I have a bit more respect for her now. That was the stand up thing to do.
Note to TOD: We have our own rules on 2GL. No Hitler analogies!! We've both already wasted time talking about it.
Silly analogies, tricks are for kids. CC, too, could have it's own rules if it only had a comments section. Darn that Blogger it's so difficult to comprehend!
In parting, if Saddam was Hitler, then the United States must've been mass supporters of Hitler since Iraq and the US were allies in the '80s. Remember the famous picture of Rummy shaking his hand in all the glamor. Well, insert a Hitler face. The man was shaking hands with the devil.
By the way, when Saddam was fumigating his own people, the Kurds, where do think he got those chemical weapons? Were they manufactured in his own mobile weapons lab? Errr. Wrong Answer. No, he got them from his chief ally, us. Doah!
So was the U.S. complicite in genocide? I don't know. I'll let you decide.
Here's an interesting (and fatuous) rhetorical device from TOD:
"A Bush-hater like Ivins makes this outlandish claim because deep down (in places she doesn't like to talk about at parties) she WANTS the casualty count in the 2-year Iraq War to be greater than the death count under Saddam and his henchmen over a 24-year period. I'm sorry if that sickens me. I can't help it."
Let's see how it works: 1) take a person's mistake and fabricate what that person believes "deep down." Just make it up -- doesn't matter how outlandish. 2) say you can't help it that it sickens you. What bullshit! You're the one who made it up!
[stamp] Credibility Denied. Return to Laputa.
Post a Comment
<< Home