Posted on 02/04/2005 9:49:38 AM PST by bikepacker67
Well, at least she remembers to implicate the Clinton crew.
Otherwise, of course, this is bilge supporting a con artist. She needs to read up a little more on Mr. Churchill.
This "fact" is the mark of the uninformed Bush hater. The "source" for this "fact" is that ugly associate of Saddams whose name escapes me. In sworn testimony, Glaspie explicitly said this was not true. However, the ignorant perpetuate this urban myth.
As soon as I see this mentioned in an article, I bail.
Remember May 12, 1996, when Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 Minutes about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Her answer was, “...we think the price is worth it.”
We know know those supposed 500,000 deaths are due not to the U.S. but to corruption in the U.N., France and other supporters of Saddam Hussein, who allowed him to divert the oil for food money to his own use.
I got my bucket. It's amazing the Left will continue to support this academic, moral and actual fraud. You would expect them to use their resources on things that can actually succeed and not waste them on this low life. But hey, be my guest.
...who is suffering from craniam-rectal insertion syndrome.
Has anyone read or heard ANYONE claim this, from any political persuasion?
As I said on another thread, the thing leftists tend to intentionally overlook is that ordinary Joe and Jane citizen have every bit as much right to voice our opinions over Churchill's tripe as he has to spew it. Our demands that he be fired, that he just sit down and shut up, are not tantamount to restricting his freedom of speech. Only the government can violate that. When we, as citizens, point out that Churchill is a fraud, a huckster, and shouldn't be listened to, that isn't violating his rights in any way. No one is saying he cannot say these things. We're simply pointing out we don't wish to hear them, and are practicing our own rights to free speech by pointing out how wrong of him it is to have said what he said. Freedom of speech includes the right to say "enough is enough", or simply, "no". Leftists ignore that. It's critical that we continue to call their attention to that little fact.
Good ol' Rosie Jackoffski sure knows how to live up to her name!
A little tip on confronting Churhcill:
Churchill describes World Trade Center 9-11 victims as "Little Eichmanns." This is not a reciprocal term for rhetoric such as "collateral damage" used by American war planners. American war planners do not utilize language designed to impugn the motives of non-combatant victims of military attacks. Churchill's language clearly associates even the small children in the twin towers as participants comparable to Adolf Eichmann's extensive involvement in the genocide of Jews under Hitler. Churchill describes Eichmann as a "technocrat"-- substantially divorced from the literal force of violence used against the Jews. In contrast to Churchill's characterization, Eichmann was in fact an SS Lieutenant Colonel and Chief of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo. Eichmann visited Auschwitz in 1941 as part of his development of the "Final solution." In March of 1944 Eichmann refused an order by Himmler to stop gassing the Jews. In August of 1944 Eichmann was able to report that he had killed 4 million Jews in death camps and 2 million more in mobile death camps. Eichmann's intimate involvement with the slaughter of the Jews profoundly differentiates him from the passive "technocrat" that Churchill seeks to represent him as. Churchill's words demean not only victims of the 9-11 tragedy but trivialize the holocaust by reducing the profound actions of Eichmann to mere motion. Consequently, the discernible social activity that leads to ethnic exterminations like the holocaust are rendered as symbolic social passivity and therefore indiscernible to an individual action. By thoroughly trivializing Eichmann's role in the genocide, Churchill provides a symbolic transfer for making all genocides meaningless (I doubt this is his intention but I do hold him accountable for the effect). Individual accountability for decisions to kill others become a blur of muted rationalizations in Churchill's rendering. Eichmann was nothing like the technocrat that Churchill sees him as. This was why Churchill told me Thursday night that, "You probably don't know who Eichmann was." Indeed, I still have no idea who Churchill was talking about on Thursday night, because Adolf Eichmann was a principal, active, and responsible agent who without hesitation directed his intentions and actions to the accomplishment of genocide against the Jewish people. I see absolutely no relationship between the ACTIONS of this man and the human beings lost at the World Trade center. I am still waiting for someone to explain it to me. Until such time, I will continue to stand in absolute defiance of this claim. In the absence of a convincing proof, I will continue to maintain that, rhetorically, Professor Churchill is facilitating genocide against the weaker members of global humanity.
The people are not fooled anymore after 911. Hating-America can no longer be called "patriotism" by the left because it is not and never was.
Has this supposed 500000 child deaths been verified? How?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.