The larger question for me is why do you, Macbeth, Sam, and so many others insist on jumping through such tortuous hoops to minimize Saddam's atrocities? couldn't we all just agree that it's terrible, and merits coverage, just as most of us do the abu ghraib atrocities? why do you insist on playing the rush limbaugh role in this instance?
So then riddle me this bass-man: Why wasn't this picked up by fox news and the rest of the right wing press and given the same treatment as the torture at Abu Graib Answer: because it's not news. We already knew Saddam was a killer and a torturer and a serial violator of human rights, we knew it when he was our ally 20 years ago , and we know it now. Is it terrible? Sure. Does it merit coverage? To an extent , though I have no need, voyeuristic or otherwise, to see people getting killed or tortured. I don't like viewing the torture photos, I didn't watch that beheading video, and I don't plan on watching this. I already know Saddam was a bad guy, I don't need to watch somebody getting tortured to affirm that. Can anything currently be done about it that hasn't been done already? No. Is it as newsworthy as the recent revelations of Americans doing the same thing to a country they were supposedly liberating? No, you know it, I know it, and Fox News knows it. I like you trying to distance yourself from frat house Rush, although you guys are singing the same song: "hey it wasn't as bad as saddam"
Basso, This post is a fabulous explanation of why Saddam's torture is not getting the press that our soldier's toture is.
Your ball is cracked. Let's see...he askes me, and I quote: And the portion I highlighted answers exactly those questions...when his worst atrocities were, and when we supported him. And you find this irrelevent. In an attempt to defelct, basso points out that a portion of the quote seems to argue against the idea that the war couldn't be justified on humanitarian basis, in spite of the fact that A) This wasn't what we were discussing, and B) It was in the context of an entire report citing exactly the opposite, but was merely refuting one aspect of it's counter. I am being as honest as I can here: if you believe what you just posted to be true, you really aren't that bright. I suspect you don't, or didn't really read it, because to anyone with any kind of intelligence, it was obvious that the quote directly refuted basso' s implied argument, and overtly answered his questions. It is equally argument that his insital rebuttle was not only a diversion, but wholly incorrect as to it's overall premise. I HOPE you are just playing mind games, here, T_J. That way, at least, I need only question your priorities and idea of what's fun. If you're serious...well...I don't know what to say to you, except I assumed you were smarter.
