Yesterday I posted a long screed about why I just don’t trust Democrats. Today, Howard Dean, the Democrat I have repeatedly predicted will win the nomination, confimrs it:
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean wasn’t exactly jumping for joy over the news that Saddam Hussein’s sons Uday and Qusay had been killed by U.S. forces in Iraq.
“It’s a victory for the Iraqi people,” he told reporters, “but it doesn’t have any effect on whether we should or shouldn’t have had a war.”
In comments covered by the Associated Press, the disgruntled Democrat added, “I think in general the ends do not justify the means.”
Despite the good news for America, Dean tried to stick to his sour-grapes message, complaining that his Democratic rivals shouldn’t have supported the war.
What an asshole- and exactly the person who is representing the seething anger, conspiracy mongering, and general lunacy that is reflected by the majority of Democrats and the left. Hell, go read their websites- the links are to the right.
Meanwhile, the consipiracy seems to be fizzling out, and the Democrat message has changed. I have heard the “One soldier a day” mantra from every Democrat interviewed on a talk show today (Wexler on Crossfire, Fatah on Hardball), and the message is now morphing into a general “We should not be in Iraq.” They already lost this debate- they seem to want to have it again after WINNING the war. An amusing group, these Democrats.
*** Update ***
Even though Dean may not care about Hussein’s sons, here is a Time report that should put things into perspective.
*** Update #2 ***
Wow. Lambert (one of the Atriettes) and Steve Gilliard are competeing for the dumbest post about Hussein’s sons. It might be a tie.
M. Scott Eiland
Poor little Howie is in a bad mood, since GWB shows no signs of paying attention to his waving around those sixteen questions in a rather pathetic Tail-Gunner Joe imitation (I think that Pauly Shore would look just perfect as his Roy Cohn, don’t you?). On the bright side for the Democrats, the spectacle of Howie’s little hissy fit might knock enough sanity into them to convince them that McGovern Part II is not ready for general release.
S-Train
Maybe it is just me, JC but all I see the Democrats doing is the same that the Republicans did to Bill Clinton. There was plenty of seething anger and general lunacy displayed by Republicans then. I look at it as getting even. Something that is American as apple pie.
John Cole
S-Train- They are doing the same thing and more so- Clinton actually lied.
And the funny thing is, they don;t recognize they are doing the saame thing- I have told them over and over again, but they just dismiss it.
Barney Gumble
Up to 1.26 / day.
John Cole
That includes accidents and all the other various fatalities. I understand that someone is just as dead if they drown or fall off a roof as if they were shot, but certainly you are not trying to appropriate the accidental deaths of soldiers for political gain, are you?
Of course you are.
HH
I will be going on vacation soon, traveling a major interstate to do so. If we’re going to go just by those statistics, I would be better off as a US soldier in Baghdad.
cs
HH: I had to check you claim about Baghdad being safer than the interstate. The highway death rate is about 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles. Source: http://www.onwheelsinc.com/SafeDrive/02_may16_content.asp
100 Million is 150 thousand times 666 2/3, so if the 150 thousand soldiers in Iraq each drove 666 miles per day every day on US highways, they would expect about 1.5 deaths per day, which is just slightly higher than the fatality rate in Iraq.
I wonder if anyone knows the typical fatality rate for US soldiers who are not involved in combat?