I’m ashamed to share a Union with these guys

Dan Savage at drhrealitycheck.org tell us (via dougJ at Balloon Juice – well, we all cut and paste, don’t we):

A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor’s signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage…. In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by “reckless” behavior. Using the legal standard of “reckless behavior” all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn’t intend to lose the pregnancy.

Miscarriages occur in 15-20% of pregnancies.

UPDATE: It’s interesting to note that in the comment thread for this post, the entire conversation is between me and four men.

93 responses to “I’m ashamed to share a Union with these guys

  1. make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by “reckless” behavior.

    Do you agree that a mother should be legally responsible for death to children caused by “reckless” behavior?

    Why do you think that a child in the womb is different than a child out of the womb? Why is an arbitrary event like moving from womb to out of womb the delineation for life to you?

    Like

    • So what constitutes reckless behavior pino? Who decides what that is?

      Is a pregnant woman jogging reckless? Is a mother who raises her kids on junk food reckless? Negligent?

      A fetus is not a child. After ‘quickening’ a moral case can be made, but as far as I’m concerned before that time, it’s only a medical event. (And there is never ever a place for the State in decisions about abortion.)

      But unlike abortion, this Utah bill sounds like they intend to actually prosecute the woman.

      That, my friend, is totalitarian.

      Like

      • Ah Moe, as I perused through your site, it becomes apparent that one gets a whiff of the smugness of the answers – though here, your status quo, down the line Planned Parenthood in the pursuit.

        But just for grins, have you ever looked at the etymology of the word “fetus” as you attempt to describe the unborn child?

        Because if you are going to use the word “fetus” as the descriptor for the cause, then you would be better to use the word infanticide instead. See, there’s this little problem of “fetus” meaning suckling mammal and all. And best I can deduce, if something suckles, it’s difficult to identify the “thing” as a medical event.

        I’ll bet you were one of the ones telling us back in ’73 about how legalized abortion would guarantee all children would be wanted, right? How has that worked out for you?

        Like

        • [down the line Planned Parenthood ]

          I’ve never belonged or even read their literature, but if I understand their mission – availability of contraceptives and family planning, then I’m with them. Before the state abortion laws started tightening up – in the 80’s – Planned Parenthood really didn’t get involved much in abortions because the procedure was widely available within the medical community.

          And Tex – I didn’t tell you or anyone anything in ’73. I was pretty busy working.

          What I do think about Roe, however, is that it hurt the cause of choice. And that’s because the states were moving rapidly toward legalized abortion on their own, and it had become legal in many states. The Supreme Court decision, which imposed legality on all the states, was not welcome and the backlash began.

          Like

          • But that is not the whole of Planned Parenthood’s mission Moe. They are also the largest abortion provider in America – unless you consider abortion contraception and from your opinions, it would appear you do.

            However, you still didn’t address the purpose of my real question. How is it that you can consider “fetus” as something other living? Is that a ruse to dehumanize and sanitize the procedure to make it more palatable, or just an oversight? If the left excels at anything, it’s in the battle of semantics. Guess it depends on what the word is, is?

            Like

            • For me, the moral question doesn’t begin to have any merit until the fetus begins moving, or as our ancestors called it, until the ‘quickening’ . This happens typically around 20 weeks which is about five months. Even then, a live birth is quite rare.

              And I’m sure this will disturb you Tex, but until a fetus is viable outside the womb, it is not a suckling. It is in fact parasitic. “Fetal” life, as opposed to embyonic status, begins when the fetus is about an inch long. Sorry, that’s not a baby to me.

              Like

              • Your lack of knowledge of embryology is disturbing if you are going to form you conclusions based on scientific fact. What you have based your position on is convenience and popular fluff bandied about in the pro infanticide community, not medical science. They would have booted you first day from my medical school for a statement like that. But facts never bothered the left when it doesn’t fit the narrative, so it is to be expected. A blog is opinion, after all.

                You obviously have no idea what the word fetus means, unless you also think a suckling mammal is also parasitic. But I’ve found most feminists believe just that.

                Don’t fret, as about half the nation still confused as you are. Of course, minus the crowd making a living of abortion mills who know better, the misled were the same ones assured abortion would take care of a multitude of problems. Unfortunate that as we now have 37 years of “legalized” data, the results say just the opposite. 😉

                opposed to embyonic status, begins when the fetus is about an inch long.

                You mean the “fetus” with all organs formed? One question? Does an embryo, or even that mass of cells called a zygote, carry any value with you, or is that just a product of conception? Kind of like a wart to be discarded, if need be?

                Like

                • [You obviously have no idea what the word fetus means, unless you also think a suckling mammal is also parasitic.]

                  A fetus is defined as from the 9th week up to birth. That’s what fetus means. And quickening begins around the 20th week, or eleven weeks after the change from embryo to fetus.

                  And no, neither an embryo nor a zygote carries any value for me.

                  As for suckling, I’m sorry Tex. A fetus is not suckling. That doesn’t happen until after birth. At that point, just like all animals, the infant becomes a suckling mammal, to use your phrase.

                  Like

                • Here is your new fun fact for the day Moe.

                  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetus

                  It’s a strange situation one finds themselves in to be lectured by an old hippie about medical facts, while one finds themselves in medical school. Enlightening, even.

                  Here’s what steams me about the hypocrites from the Left, being they fail to recognize they too were once a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, a baby. You’re never around to witness the aftermath of your convictions. Absolutely no accountability whatsoever in the damage you’ve caused.

                  For instance, a woman is convinced by Moe that, “Hey, no worries – there’s no value and no harm in aborting that growth. It’s nothing but a product of conception, a mass, a lifeless ball of goo.” About a year later, the same young gal sees a baby that would be about the same age as the one, had she chosen to carry to term. Innately, she knows the evil she has done and absolutely crumbles. Moe is no where to be found, removed from the task of counseling the woman, who may or may not recover from her guilt. But to Moe, it’s a non issue and not important.

                  Like

                • [Innately, she knows the evil she has done and absolutely crumbles. ]

                  Given the generation I come from – before abortion was legal (and safe) – most girls who got ‘knocked up’ as we said then, had abortions. Most of them. Back room stuff. Motel rooms. Ugly stufff. But the shame, the disgrace would have been too much to bear.

                  Many of those women are still my friends, Tex. They’re just fine thank you very much. They’ve had families and most are now grandmothers.

                  [lectured by an old hippie ]

                  Hey Tex, I may be old, but I was never a hippie.

                  Like

                • most girls who got ‘knocked up’ as we said then, had abortions. Most of them. Back room stuff. Motel rooms. Ugly stufff.

                  Without knowing anything about the time and circumstances–I call bullshit.

                  Like

                • @pino:
                  How can you call bullshit while saying you know nothing about whether it’s true or not??!!

                  Like

              • This happens typically around 20 weeks which is about five months.

                This is a start. While I tend to agree with Tex on this, I am satisfied that we have the beginnings of the outline of a valid debate.

                If I am reading this correctly, Moe is saying that life begins at [about] 20 weeks. Tex is saying something much earlier and is basing that argument on science. I am claiming, from the “invalid*” standpoint, that life begins at conception and am willing to cede to Tex’s case based on a more common ground of science.

                Seriously, this is the first case I have encountered where I have gotten someone from the Left to even BEGIN to establish the beginning of “life”.

                *I say invalid not to diminish my faith but because faith based arguments seem to be silly when debating someone who doesn’t share your faith; I recognize that.

                Like

                • So I wrote this long reply – it was of course intelligent, witty, utter poetry – and I lost it.

                  Pino, when it comes to establishing when ‘life begins’, that is WAY above my pay grade. I’m in no position to add to that discussion except to repeat that I don’t believe it’s the State’s business ever.

                  My views on abortion come from my own experiences – I twice accompanied friends to illegal abortions (the ‘lucky’ girls went to private ‘clinics’). When the girls in my family came of age, I was comforted that we didn’t have to worry about them going through anything like that.

                  Also I was young at a time when being a woman was to be discriminated against. Culturally that was changing, but when I was 20 the newspapers advertising jobs under headings called HELP WANTED – MEN and HELP WANTED – WOMEN. So choice was a powerful concept to us.

                  By the way, I know that there are some people who consider contraception immoral – the Catholic Church for instance. Is there ever any discussion of the morality of vasectomies?

                  Like

  2. I woul dno tbelieve anything they said..I woul dhave to read it myself

    Like

  3. I smell a rat. The law sounds vague enough that, if it is passed, could be used against mothers at the State’s discretion. There is also the issue that this being passed into law could set a legal precedent that could in the future, possibly threaten a woman’s right to choose. When will people stop trying to control the female body? Under the table abortions are already illegal, and I can see no reason for this law to be passed, other than for people to try and terrorize pregnant mothers. Surely it will not pass…

    Like

  4. When will people stop trying to control the female body?

    No one is trying to control a woman’s body. They are trying to extend the Liberty of Life to a child.

    Like

    • If it’s all about the ‘child’ then grow babies in test tubes. As long as a living human who has established legal human rights is the carrier, it is her decision.

      Like

      • If it’s all about the ‘child’ then grow babies in test tubes.

        I’ve thought about that some. What is and what isn’t life? I suspect for folks with a religious view, the question is easier. However, for those who don’t, it is harder. Trying to satisfy both “groups” I try to understand what is defined as human life.

        It’s hard. There is a valid argument that until a baby can survive on it’s own, it’s not really life*. On the other hand, there are many many cases where premature babies are brought into the world and survive only with the assistance of machines and life support.

        On the other side, an argument can be made that when the chromosomes are combined in a manner that identify that life as human, we have a life. And as long as there is life, there is the obligation to extend the Liberties that we are guaranteed.

        This has case law in it’s favor. An individual can be charged with double homicide in the case of a pregnant mother being the victim.

        Again, I agree it’s tough. But if you were to remove the implication to the abortion debate it seems very very clear that life begins much much earlier than the pro-choice advocate will argue.

        *I make the argument that most Democrats I know can’t survive on their own as well, so I usually don’t buy this particular argument. 😉

        Like

  5. And God breathed the Breath of Life into Adam. And He became a living being. (Genesis chapter 1) Life=Breath 🙂

    Like

    • And God breathed the Breath of Life into Adam. And He became a living being. (Genesis chapter 1) Life=Breath

      I think that you are snickering a little; in that case I appreciate the humor.

      But if not, as a Christian, I have never really bought the whole “God created Adam” thing. I believe in evolution.

      Like

      • Where would we be without our metaphors.

        Like

      • Perhaps as a fellow Christian, if you don’t believe God created Adam as He created Eve, can you give me a heads up as to what else I can cast off? It would make it so much easier to abide by the rules if I could just pick and choose what to believe, when required.

        Like

        • Perhaps as a fellow Christian, if you don’t believe God created Adam as He created Eve

          I believe that God created Adam and Eve, and everything else, in the same way a carpenter [heh heh, carpenter–get it?] builds a house; step by step, evolving as it goes.

          Do you believe in evolution or do you strictly believe the words of the Bible?

          Like

          • I believe in some aspects of evolution – certainly not to the extent you believe and can shoot holes in the theory without leaving the context of mammalian biology. Genomics has shown so much of your theory of evolution to be bunk, it’s now down to sheer speculation.

            But I think you fail to understand something. Adam and Eve weren’t conceived – they were created. Yes, I believe the Bible – all of it. However, some of it is obviously allegory, some metaphor, some just simply good advice.

            Like

  6. Moe,

    We would be down to one word lines if continued further – hence, the new post and I’ll leave you alone to blather of like mind.

    Given the generation I come from – before abortion was legal (and safe) – most girls who got ‘knocked up’ as we said then, had abortions. Most of them. Back room stuff. Motel rooms. Ugly stufff. But the shame, the disgrace would have been too much to bear.

    Of course you are aware that the father of the supposed “back alley abortion” you will recall said and I quote:

    Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, said, “I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible.” So this supposed fact of hotel rooms and the like certainly the exception to the rule; I guess your friends were just the unlucky ones, hey? Of course, everything provided about the truth of abortion has been twisted for allowance…including here.

    Many of those women are still my friends, Tex. They’re just fine thank you very much. They’ve had families and most are now grandmothers.

    Perhaps, and I hope you’re right. But if they had once ounce of humanity, they were much scarred for it. I believe even you, the garden variety feminist, have come sense of right and wrong. 😉

    Like

    • I never heard of Bernard Nathanson until now. I just wiki’ed him and see he was an important figure leading up to Roe, so I may have heard of him at the time. It would make sense. Bu the couldn’t have made too much of an impression.

      You and Pino are perfectly free to say I am lying to you, but you have absolutely no basis to think that.

      And yes, I have a strong sense of right and wrong. But we do not all think in lockstep and definitions get blurry.

      Like

  7. Oops… some sense.

    Like

  8. I’m just curious. If there is a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want a child. Why would a pro-life advocate want to bring a child into a world where they aren’t wanted?

    How many more abused and neglected children does America really need? I’m just often confused on the logic vs reality of the debate.

    And as just a personal anecdote, most of the pro-lifers I know are hard core right and generally against most welfare programs. Just seems odd we’re so concerned about the unborn and yet could care less about the born in need.

    I am the son of a woman who didn’t want to be a parent. Who didn’t want a child. I can honestly say I had a pretty crappy childhood that scars me today because of it. I was fortunate enough that my mother at least made a decent income so she could pay someone else to raise the child she didnt want. I’m not sure why she just didnt put me up for adoption. I’m not sure if that would have been better or worse. But I do know what its like to exist when your mother wises you didnt…. and I wouldnt wish that on anyone.

    We make people fill out forms and have background checks to work for the government. We have to have a license to drive and fish, permits to own a gun and open a store. But we’ll let any fool become a parent.

    Like

    • Would you have preferred your mother aborted you? If you can honestly answer yes, then by all means who are we to argue.

      If you answer no, then I question your analogy.

      Like

      • I knew that question would follow up. If my mother didn’t want to be a mother, then yes I would have preferred she aborted me. I’ve had a barrel of a gun in my mouth to do what she wanted to do and couldnt pull the trigger. Not sure why. Chickenshit I suppose. Then I just tried to get myself killed indirectly with drugs, alcohol, and such.

        Like

    • Why would a pro-life advocate want to bring a child into a world where they aren’t wanted?

      Let’s say that I don’t want YOU to exist. Same question.

      Different answer?

      The child has the right of Individual Liberty.

      Like

      • [Let’s say that I don’t want YOU to exist. Same question]

        A very provocative point. But given my own beliefs, not apples to apples.

        Like

      • Sorry, I’m a little too dim to get your question. A child having a right to liberty. Sounds good on paper. Shame it doesn’t work really work out that way in practice.

        Like

      • [The child has the right of Individual Liberty.]

        I will agree that a child once born has the right to life. However pino, you can’t be serious about a child having a right to liberty? Liberty to do what? Starve? Freeze? Drown? A child has no liberty.

        Like

  9. [But we’ll let any fool become a parent.] So true and so sad. The world is full of unwanted kids and I’m sad to hear you had to go through that.

    I visited your place today and I think you came out just fine, uncaring mother not withstanding!

    Also – too many pro lifers seem very very concerned about the unborn – they’re not so interested once a kid is born and needs some help. Like food, or shelter or medical care or an education or . . . well, I think you get it.

    Like

    • Also – too many pro lifers seem very very concerned about the unborn – they’re not so interested once a kid is born and needs some help. Like food, or shelter or medical care or an education or . . . well, I think you get it.

      You’re obviously completely misinformed, or just a bald faced liar spouting pro-abortion propaganda. Do you know how much both Catholic charities and crisis pregnancy centers do for not only newborns but infants and toddlers?

      You need an education. Why don’t you volunteer to work one so you won’t sound so uninformed?

      Like

      • I do Tex. I am a volunteer – an active one. Where do you do your volunteer?

        Like

        • Let me guess. Planned Parenthood? Handing out Obama election packets? 🙂

          To answer your question, a crisis pregnancy center (where you desperately need to volunteer so you won’t be so clueless), and I volunteer at the emergency room. But not as active as I once was. My help is now much more specific and discrete to those I want to help. I’m afraid you and “your ilk” wouldn’t be one of those people. 🙂

          If this really is to be a war on everything I believe, then there is no longer reason for me to have allegiance to another citizen who would be diametrically opposed to what I believe. Simply calling yourself an American holds little weight or loyalty in my book anymore.

          For example, I hold no more allegiance to the Leftists of America than I do Hamas or Hezbollah. If I hear of some Progressive commune being overrun by raging Taliban – San Fran, Vermont, Cambridge, large parts of Manhattan, I’ll be forced to turn off the news and change the channel to the ballgame.

          Like

          • [Planned Parenthood? ] Nope. But thanks for the idea! (heh)

            I sit on a Trust that fosters community identity and an arts board that award scholarships to kids from 8-18.

            Like

            • Fosters community identity, huh? Well, I’m sure that there is benefit to that. 😆 Kind of like your “church”, hey?

              But I’m glad you’re are involved. Seriously, everybody has something to offer for betterment.

              You know what I wish you would do? And I mean this? Why don’t you attend a first trimester abortion, hooked up to a sonagram, and simply watch the response of the “lifeless” embryo.

              Like

      • Tex, in deference to your point:

        Nicholas Kristoff in this morning’s New York Times addresses the very subject.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28kristof.html?ref=opinion

        From it:
        “If secular liberals can give up some of their snootiness, and if evangelicals can retire some of their sanctimony, then we all might succeed together in making greater progress against common enemies of humanity, like illiteracy, human trafficking and maternal mortality.”

        Like

        • First Moe, you will have to forgive me for a weakness I have. If it says NYT, I don’t read it.

          What I would like to ask Kristof, an incredibly weak journalist, Bible dolt, and uninformed Christian bigot, how will this deal with the problem of secular liberals who won’t retire their own sanctimony?

          Like

          • Read the column and you’ll see he made exactly your earlier point. But I assume you’d rather believe that liberals can’t share you viewpoint on anything?

            Like

            • Okay, I read it. It’s full of factual errors concerning Evangelical involvement in numbers, the typical ignorant references to the importance of service while ignoring the premise, etc…

              That is about as close as the NYT gets to getting anything of Christianity half right. I guess even the secular Jews are having to admit the value of good works derived from the Evangelical community provides some worth.

              I’m just wondering when Kristof is going to grab a shovel instead of a pen. You have no idea how hypocritical I find these folks.

              Like

              • C’mon, Kristoff spends more time with a shovel in has hands than any columnist I ever heard of. He travels Africa, Asia, the Pacific countries – he travels all over the world reporting on children, slavery, education. That is his beat. So you have him wrong.

                Here’s a column from Congo, where he has been reporting on child trafficking for years.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31kristof.html

                Like

                • So what? Lending a hand is one thing. Simply reporting on the carnage? Voyeurism…for his adoring public. His service of reporting is like Larry Flynt reporting on sexuality transmitted diseases.

                  Too late to make nice as Kristof has spent a lifetime of bad-mouthing Christians.

                  Like

                • You define people in quite a narrow way. Must be hard to live up to your standards Tex.

                  Like

                • You define narrow as I define as accurate.

                  Reading the New York Times as source may not make you narrow, but it does tend to make your definition quite skewed. Rich, Kristof, Dowd, Krugman all leftist buffoons not interested in truth but pushing their agenda. The Old Gray Mule has become almost irrelevant other than to be used as a source and example of distrust and impending failure of the MSM. Dinosaur media…

                  Like

                • Tex – you just listed columnists. Opinion stuff. Does that mean you won’t trust the NY Times as a news source because their editorials are liberal?

                  If that made any sense, I’d never trust the news pages of the Wall Street Journal because their editorial page is conservative. W-a-a-a-y conservative. But I do trust their news pages.

                  Like

  10. Moe,

    The problem with the New York Times is their “opinion stuff” is the news. I don’t trust a thing coming out of the New York Times which is agenda driven with a Marxist bent, many times bordering on treason. Best, most recent example is Abu Ghraib literally appear for 44 straight days on page 1.

    Here’s a fine synopsis of the traitorous history of the NY Slimes literally endangering national security.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1543348/posts

    Like

  11. [I don’t trust a thing coming out of the New York Times which is agenda driven with a Marxist bent, many times bordering on treason.]

    The NY Times was the loudest voice in the media to take us to war in Iraq. (Can you say Judith Miller?)

    The NY Times was the paper that first brought the stories of Whitewater, Troopergate etc. They went after Bill Clinton with a vengeance, especially Dowd and Rich.

    Abu Ghraib was one of the biggest news stories of my lifetime. It forever changed who we are; just as big as Watergate. It belonged on the front page. (got a link for hte 44 straight days?)

    As for the Freep link, the six or so points of their indictment cover appoximately a century! Sorry, if that’s their case, I find it downright silly as evidence of the premise.

    From the Free Republic link:
    [It (the Constitution) delegates no authority whatsoever to a fourth estate, much less a fifth column.]
    In making freedom of speech and press the very FIRST AMENDMENT the founders reinforced their belief in the essential need for a free press. It is in fact the Fourth Estate and plays a critical role in a free society.

    I wish I could remember which of them (Franklin?) said if given the choice between a free press and a republican form of gov’t, he’d choose the free press. Something like that.

    Like

  12. The New York Times was a proponent of removing Saddam? Now was that before or after their charges of falsifying WMD, accusing George Bush of illegal wire taps, and demanding sympathy for Khalid Sheik Mohammad? Ask me, between Baghdad Bob and the NYT, I’m not sure who is amusing in their war commentary.

    Abu Ghraib was one of the biggest news stories of my lifetime.

    You do live a sheltered life Moe. I’ll bet your favorite movie was Redacted too, right? A couple of rogue soldiers terrorizing a couple of suspected Saddam minions in a naked pyramid and a dog collar, and that is one of the biggest stories of your life? It was ammunition for peace activists such as yourself to make a mountain out of a molehill in hopes of destroying George Bush and Co. 🙄

    The NY Times was the paper that first brought the stories of Whitewater, Troopergate etc.

    You need to get out of Soho, Greenwich Village and wherever you reside in the sheltered community gate in Florida. Actually, the Arkansas Gazette broke those stories before Bill Clinton even a candidate for President. The NY Times may have advertised as much thereafter, but that was long after the fact.

    I would argue our MSM press mostly corrupt and leftist, but why argue now? They’ve become almost irrelevant, other than a few circles of those believing themselves superior in intellect (cough, cough). Your friends are dying a slow death. The NY Times will be printed exclusively in Spanish soon. And that will be a glorious day. 😉

    I have a question for you Moe as a frame of reference. After we were hit on 9/11, was there any justification for seeking out those who committed the heinous acts? Exactly what would you have recommended had you been sitting President, God forbid?

    Like

    • [The New York Times was a proponent of removing Saddam? Now was that before or after their charges of falsifying WMD]

      It was before. And they banged the drum. Some of their later coverage was informed by thier complicity in leading the country to war in Iraq. They undertook the most massive examination in their history of how it happened. (History of what, 160 years?). Because the ‘facts’ in the prewar stories were later proven to be misleading and in many cases outright wrong.

      I remember Dick Cheney going on the Sunday shows and pointing to the NYT stories as ‘proof’ of Saddam’s WMD.

      [I’ll bet your favorite movie was Redacted too, right? ]

      Sorry Tex, never heard of that one. My favorite movie at present is the newest Star Trek.

      I don’t believe in miracles. I do believe in gut instincts and respect that people feel personal guidance from their god as they go about their lives. God doesn’t tell my next door neighbor to go to war against a sovereign country and kill a ew hundred thousand men, women and children and thousands of our own. Sorry.

      Like

      • It didn’t take me too awfully long to figure that you don’t believe in miracles. I think you believe in Moe and her goodness and wisdom. You will eventually be disappointed on that as a fallback.

        A few things about the Iraq War. First its legitimacy has yet to be completely written. The effectiveness of war is not written when the surrender papers are signed, but years after when the results can be measured against the costs.

        I can name ten legitimate reasons for removing Saddam, and not one will touch on either WMD or oil. How about something simple like Saddam an his henchmen purposely thumbing his nose at 16 U.N. mandates for ten years after he got his butt kicked? I assume you are a big fan of the U.N.? At least you read as much to the casual observer.

        You ask me, our mistake wasn’t the Iraq War. The mistake was not removing Saddam immediately after the Gulf War, when a gutless and ignorant politician named Colin Powell convinced Bush Sr. it would be a mistake.

        Now I’m not here to convince you otherwise, as that a fruitless effort with the hate G.W. Bush crowd. Since you seem to be a pacifist of some sort, so be it. I won’t feel guilty if you’re ever placed in a burka and frog marched to Medina, as I’ll just assumed you believe there is no legitimate reason for defense and were willing to either have you head lopped or a crawl to Mecca. Unlike evil Christians, you will find sharia law doesn’t provide much of a choice for women. And those crimes of submission you’ve accused Christian men of enforcing upon their poor, defenseless wives? Well, if by chance those Christians which make up a large part of our military decide to let you hang to dry and decide they too will become pacifists, you may get your chance to see what submission really is. 😉

        Now, let us review about WMD, which appears to be your biggest beef as is typical of those with no argument. Do we really need to go down the list again of both Democrats and world leaders who also thought Saddam had WMD? Shall I go find what Hillary Rotten, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and the rest of the rotten ilk said before the Iraq war? Oh, the list is quite comprehensive and quite damning of the cowards and hypocrites.

        But then, if we had left it up to you the feminist, Afghan women would still be covered from head to toe, condemned to their house, and only allowed to enter the street accompanied by their betters (anyone with a penis) whip in hand. Of course, that is mere child’s play to the rape rooms of Saddam’s swell sons.

        Yes, that George Bush and Dick Cheney are truly the most evil men the 21st century will ever see.

        Like

        • Whew. Too full of attacks, personal ones at that, for me to respond with anything more than a caution to watch your manners when you’re here.

          Like

          • I most certainly will. But I am betting without further conversation, my “personal” assumptions weren’t far from the bullseye either? However, it never been my intent to stay. Patience is virtue Moe (or the banning button). Just a brief exchange of diametrically opposed thoughts.

            But let’s not let the feigned demand in manners get in the way of facts either…

            I think the baby blue burka would be more comfortable than the all black in summer.

            Perhaps one day you can answer my question to exactly what you would have done after 9/11 if you were President. I’m sure in the 8 1/2 years, you’ve had plenty of time to consider a process. 😉

            See you Moe.

            Like

            • [what you would have done after 9/11 if you were President.]

              I would have done exactly as Bush did. I would have sent troops to Afghanistan to take out the Talilban and get Bin Ladin. Or try to.

              Not sure I understand your point?

              (Black is actually my color.)

              Like

              • I think black is your color too. In looking at your pic, I just couldn’t imagine you in the baby blue head to toe.

                Okay, so we went after Bin Laden, who personally I believed died some ignominious death holed up in some lice infested cave a number of years back, but I could be wrong. I base this on the belief Bin Laden a self-serving megalomaniac who would find it impossible to stay off the stage, and the fact the last known picture of him at Tora Bora he was looking like the grim reaper, still defiant as ever.

                I was just wondering why you keep posting about the Afghanistan war + time spent each day. Is it that you disagree we should still be there, or just a running commentary? We’re still taking out Taliban, though I’m not terribly sure anymore it would make a difference in that cesspool, as Taliban appear to be replaced with equally corrupt idiots.

                I take it your pretty pacifistic?

                Like

                • [I was just wondering why you keep posting about the Afghanistan war + time spent each day. ]

                  Probably because of Vietnam. It’s so similar and I’m hearing politicians and generals say the exact same things they said then.

                  I’m bearing witness because I”m terrified we’ll be there (and Iraq) for at least another decade. No matter what we say about ‘withdrawing combat forces’ etc. (We can always send them back in to protect embassies etc.)

                  And after another decade of occupying two countries we will no longer be the country we are. Or were. Or hope to be.

                  We will be the empire we revolted against in 1776.

                  Like

  13. I’ll see if I can find the Abu Ghraib, NYT link to prove my point later.

    Like

  14. Moe, I lied, or more likely my old memory is failing me. Make it 32 straight days of Page 1 New York Times featuring Abu Ghraib.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1145998/posts

    Now if you think this isn’t lefty propaganda in action, and personal agenda of group think, I don’t know what more I could provide as proof of the NY Times bias.

    Like

    • Can’t find the huge series of multi page articles in which the NYTimes examined its behavior leading up to the war, but here’s a link to their public editor’s first column on the subject. In it he says:

      “To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/weekinreview/the-public-editor-weapons-of-mass-destruction-or-mass-distraction.html?pagewanted=1

      Abu Ghraid, as a story, besides being about what happened, was about what it did to our standing in the world and about how it disregarded who we are .At the itme, Adm Mullen ordered his own service to disregard any orders that went against the Military Code. Good for him.

      Like

    • Tex, I just went to your Freep link – your conclusion of bias is ridiculous. The stories all run April 29 through end of May. During that month everyone was reporting on it constantly. That is the period during which the story was unfolding, bit by bit, and it was front page news – around the world by the way. And it was big around the world not becaase there had been torture but because it was the US who had done it. And that stunned people.

      It was a low point for our country.

      Like

      • It was a tempest in a teapot, meant by hypocrites from the Left to inflict as much damage as possible to the previous administration and nothing more and led by the NYT/Tijuana Times.

        What humors me is that as an Obama lackey I’m sure, your belief that THE ONE would restore America’s reputation. “Dialogue” wearing flowers in our hair would solve the world’s problems and restore our image with Europe (so what?).

        Well, Obama hadn’t been in office for six months before the Brits, in order to show their respect for the world’s new founded leader Obama, decided to set Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, back to Libya with celebration.

        Vladimir Putin has been so impressed with Obama’s courage and leadership, he promised THE ONE, that hey Russia will now be good that you’ve removed “Dubya” and Obama stiffed our only real allies in Europe by removing their missile defense shield. Unfortunately, Vladimir had a change of heart soon thereafter about his promises and Obama is still scratching his head trying to determine, “what happened?”

        But my favorite Obama promise is how he would conduct “dialogue” with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and smooth things over, restoring our ‘image’ in the middle east. I’m not sure what happened but last I looked Mahmoud was giving THE ONE the finger. I guess we’ll just have to wait for Obama to win them over?

        I saw a poll not too long ago that said Israelis have such faith in THE ONE, that 94% of them wish George W. Bush were still U.S. president. Of course, Hamas and Hezbollah adamantly disagree.

        And who can’t be happy with our decision to parade the Dalia Lama out through the trash while visiting the White House so as not to offend the Chinese?

        Outstanding Leadership and Image!

        Like

        • And all this has what to do with Abu Gahraib? And the coverage by the NY Times?

          Like

          • And all this has what to do with Abu Gahraib? And the coverage by the NY Times?

            😆 I see your point.

            I was just skipping ahead to further questioning. It’s so much fun to point to the non sequitur of Obamania, that I get caught up in the moment. I haven’t had that much enjoyment since they hanged Saddam.

            No, the tempest in the teapot was in reference to Abu Ghraib. That was and still is the most egregious example of Leftyism at work concerning Iraq.

            Like

  15. If I remember correctly, G.H. Bush talked about why he didn’t take out Saddam out after Desert Storm in his book(admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve read it so I don’t remember all of the reasons). But the ones I do recall have come to proven themselves as true currently. A big one was Saddam kept Iran in check. Now look who the new boy is that is thumbing his nose up at the world instead of Saddam.

    You argue that the legitimacy of war cant be argued till further down the road when it can be properly measured. I would counter that with you can’t see the real damage of the war either until that time.

    But by that time we’ll surely be wrapped around the axle with other issues over there that no one will be able to tell. I expect things with Iran to get worse. I’d expect one side will claim removing Saddam accelerated that issue while others will claim there is no connection between the two. It’s an endless debate and doesn’t change the fact that we’re over there now.

    As far as Obama making promises to have dialogues and smooth things over with Iran. He made a promise to have dialogues, but he never promised things would smooth over. It was more a matter of stating diplomacy before action. And what was America’s other option? Oh that’s right — that little cute jingle McCain had set to the Beach Boys of “Bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb bomb Iran.” Such a love choice Americans had in the foreign relations department.

    Ahmadinejad is crazy and is flipping off the world… but there was one guy that he was scared of… but we took him out of the equation. Traded one evil bastard for another evil bastard but this one is far more dangerous.

    Like

    • You have a few problems with argument Antonio. Whether Saddam was in power or not, it would not have prevented Iran from developing the nuclear bomb. The Iraq War neither slowed the process nor speed the development of the bomb.

      This is simply wrong:

      He made a promise to have dialogues, but he never promised things would smooth over.

      Obama’s assertion was that negotiation with Iran would prove more effective than the threat of preemptive war.

      Your disagreement with my assessment only supports my assessment, as like I said, the future of Iraq is still to be determined whether success or failure.

      But here is one point that is irrefutable. We now have a base neighbored with Mahmoud’s residence. And that may come in very handy before long. I suspect that Benjamin Netanyahu will deal with Iran, since Obama too gutless and cowardly to do so.

      So I can’t see where you have accomplished refuting anything that I originally stated.

      Like

      • You have no magic crystal ball that can allow you any certainty of Saddam’s influence on Iran’s progression towards nuclear weaponry. No more than I can/can’t. You’re opinion on their progress with or without his existence is simply that — your opinion.

        I didn’t disagree with your assessment on the Iraq War. Perhaps I read your post wrong, but you seemed to implied that the Iraq war was a success and that it will take more time for those of us who don’t posses your magic crystal ball to see it’s success. But based on your response it seems I misinterpreted you. My mistake. I understand now that you have no determination of success or failure of the Iraq war yet. So in that regard I agree with you.

        You say Obama’s tactics with Iran are wrong, but where is any proof a threat of preemptive war would make anything better with Iran? More magic crystal ball? Maybe you should share that with the GOP.

        Like

        • Antonio,

          This may be my last post on this blog, so I’ll try to clear a couple of things up. I think you have the burden of proof backwards on at least two occasions.

          I said that I think the Iraq War had no causal/correlation bearing on the speed in which Iran would develop a nuclear weapon. It would be up to you to prove me wrong if you are to disagree. Either provide a reason for or against. That is the essence of debate as my opinion neutral. Neutral opinions don’t require a crystal ball.

          Saddam had been little threat to Iran since 1988 when the Iran/Iraq war declared a draw. Both countries were decimated in head count of dead.

          Most of Saddam’s military was destroyed as I’m sure you aware during Desert Storm. Yet you insinuate that it was Saddam that was the balancing regional factor. Actually, you have it backwards. One reason the U.S. remained military ready in the area after Desert Storm was the fear that Iran would overrun Iraq in their weakness.

          Believe as you must as this will soon become an irrelevant point Iran nuclear capable as Israel will see to that, but if Iraq does indeed show signs of becoming a Democracy as even the shill, leftist rag Newsweek hints this week, then let us make sure which regime the credit should go to. You Lefties like to take credit where none is due, and if that fails rewrite history.

          That is, unless you find a Democracy in the Middle East irrelevant?

          Like

          • [the Iran/Iraq ]

            That would be the Iraq/Iran war, since Iraq started it.

            [Yet you insinuate that it was Saddam that was the balancing regional factor. Actually, you have it backwards.]

            The Sunni countries to the west and southwest of Iraq indeed have always counted on Iraq as their buffer against their greatest fear – the rise of Shia Persia, thier traditional enemy.

            Like

          • [the shill, leftist rag Newsweek]

            Tex – you guys always love to trash publicaitons like Newsweek – but here’s some news for you – that’s what America reads. That’s what America pays good money for. They’re surely not paying for pubs like Spectator or National Review, both of which have pathetic subscription numbers.

            Like

            • You mean this Newsweak?

              http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122896472309497261.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

              Moe, you know what is great about libs? Their own little media dominated world is disappearing and they don’t even recognize it. 😈

              And since I referenced WSJ, which you hate and that brings me great delight, do you happen to know the only newspaper of name in America that didn’t lose massive circulation numbers over the last 10 years?

              I’ll bet you don’t even need a hint…

              P.S. – I have never even seen an American Spectator… 😆 I thought you were still bitching about FOX News and talk radio.

              Like

              • The Wall Street Journal is a national treasure – except for its Editorial pages. I do not hate it; I depend on it. Some of the very best reporting being done in this country today.

                Like

                • Well then, you’ll be happy to see this, because your dependency will be growing on it as the others fade…

                  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122896472309497261.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

                  Like

                • Tex: I know perfectly well, as does the rest of the world, that print is dying. Craigslist, vehix.com were the death blow for newspapers. And the move of advertising budgets to other media (digital media) combined with iterenet news sources is hurting many magazines big time.

                  WSJ, New York Times – while shrinking – and a few European papers are surviving because of the quality of their content and because TV and internet depend on their reporting.

                  Even given all that, mainstream magazines like Newsweek are leaving niche magazines like Nat’l Review in the dust.

                  Like

                • No, the WSJ is actually expanding its readership. You’ll have to learn to cope with the editorials.

                  It’s libbie newspapers like the NYT and WaPo, and feckless rags like Newsweak, and Time that are actually sinking. The nightly news, and MSNBC, and CNN are going to go the way of T-Rex to. All have been marginalized and many will be relegated to the dustbin of info history.

                  The clear indication Moe is that when the playing is level, Conservatism trumps paganism/liberalism every time. The days of controlling the dissemination of information are over and Uncle Walty is dead. Doesn’t matter where. Radio, TV, cable.

                  This is good. 🙂 Your example of National Review is irrelevant because it was never a major player to begin with. I’m a Conservative and don’t know one person who ever read it.

                  Like

          • I don’t find Democracy irrelevant in the Middle East at all. As soon as Iraq proves itself to be one I’ll be happy to give credit to Little Bush.

            My insinuation about Iraq keeping Iran in check was, as I stated previously, from reading Big Bush’s book in which he addresses why he didn’t take Saddam out, since he was harshly criticized for it. I’m not such a foreign relations expert such as yourself, so perhaps I was mistaken by taking the opinion of the man who no doubt knows a lot more than I do in that regard, but also was surrounded by a team that did. Unless you find the opinion of the President irrelevant?

            Like

            • Papa Bush had some very very savvy people around him. Snowcroft and Baker – sound thinkers and they were realists as well. I know both of them tried to talk Little Bush out of doing Iraq (proxies for Dad I think). But they failed.

              They knew Iraq needed a ‘strong man’ to be stable and they knew Saddam was going to be a problem, but they felt time was on their side on that. There were Iraqi assassins everywhere and eventually . . .

              I think Papa Bush will be treated more kindly by history – mostly he’s dismissed now. But when he broke his ‘no new taxes’ campaign promise, he did it knowing it would sink him politically. Like when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act in ’64 or ’65. He said, on behalf of the Democratic Party – ‘well, there goes the South for 25 years.” And indeed the Dems lost the South. And it’s been much more than 25 years.

              Both men doing the right thing no matter the cost.

              Like

  16. Just want to state for the record I served over in Kuwait for Desert Storm and Shield. I agreed with our reasons and operations there. Saddam was an evil man, and under different circumstances his removal from power would probably not be questioned. I’ve always voted Republican up until 2004. I voted for Bush/Cheney in 2000, and make no apologies about it. I do not like Al Gore one bit. But I was opposed to going into Iraq. I protested. I wrote my senator and because of one reason: Iran. I wish neither existed, but I saw Saddam as the lesser of two evils.

    Like

    • You’re right Antonio. It’s why we supported Saddam with money and materials for the entire eight years of his war on Iran. It’s why Dick Cheney counseled against going to Baghdad after Dessert Storm.

      Tex and others will continue to talk on and on about ‘dealing with Iran’. I wonder what that means? Do we go to war with the most powerful military in the middle east?

      Right now, the Iranian people are stirring and that country is going to be going through some big changes. If we, or Israel, attacked them now, they would – as would any people – immediately close ranks around their present government. Because people hate invaders even more. And the democracy movement in Iran would be set back another 50 years.

      Like

      • Moe,

        Like so many lefties I meet, you don’t seem to understand the concepts of proximity, land mass and population density. Israel will not allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb.

        Unlike America, Israel doesn’t have a choice of the fear of mutual destruction because their only choice is shoot first or don’t get the chance to shoot. And since Iranian leaders have made it loud and clear that their own intent is the destruction of “Zion”, I’m afraid Israel has been given little choice in the matter.

        I think you are misreading the “goodness” of the Green party of Iran if that is what you are insinuating.

        Like

        • That’s not at all what I’m insinuating. The green party and all Iranians are, I believe, proud of their nuclear capacity and would continue developing it. And most of the protesters are mostly okay with a big role for Islam in their civic life.

          [And since Iranian leaders have made it loud and clear that their own intent is the destruction of “Zion]

          And that’s where the importance of the Green Party comes in – they want to change that leadership and are far more moderate. They don’t love Israel, but going to war is a whole other thing.

          Like

          • Moe, I wished I shared your confidence but I think it naive to believe if the Green Party were somehow able to defeat or remove Ahmadinejad, it would change the hearts of the ruling members.

            I certainly don’t claim to claim to be an expert on Iranian politics, but I understand Islam pretty well. I understand Jewish sentiment. And I don’t see a situation no matter who in charge in Iran that Israel will let Iran complete a nuclear bomb.

            I think it a given that someone soon will remove that burden, and if I were to guess, the remover will be Israel. And then you can count on this:

            Just like Israel was attacked by the demagogues in 1982 for destroying Saddam’s nuclear reactor (thank you France), history will repeat itself and they again will be unfairly attacked for doing the world a favor.

            Like

  17. Oops…to/too.

    Mother would never forgive me.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s