has any one else read the murtha article

[barbtries]

on the huffington post, including the comments?



i read there all the time, and among the comments following the story of murtha's interview on meet the press, was this, from a right winger whose screen name is bubbabgone -
"Earlier today someone said the critics of the Iraq War have a lot invested in it's failure, which would include a mounting death toll.
Can anyone deny that?" (I added the bold)

that comment really got under my skin and i responded - but i don't know if i should post this response! the plain fact is that what this person appears to be suggesting is so outrageous and logically specious that - well, maybe i've misinterpreted? i mean, can it really be true that the opponents to the war would be suddenly portrayed somehow as proponents for "a mounting death toll"?

anyhow, i guess i feel safer here on DU so if anyone's awake i'd appreciate your take both on the comment that was made and the following response:


deny what?!? that those opposed to war are opposed to war because war almost by definition is associated with premature violent death and senseless destruction? is this like the most absurd twisted way of trying to make a counterpoint to the argument against war????? are you suggesting that those who oppose this gawdawful war that never should have happened are "counting on" or "anticipating" more casualties and deaths as a way of making their point?!

if i just don't get what you're saying please set me straight. but it is just fucking SICK to suggest that those of us who have known since before gw was even president that he would throw a war and that he would not need a good reason to do it - that he does not give a rat's ass about the lives that have been condemned during his reign - all of that - are somehow rooting for or encouraging more of the senseless destruction and death that are the only certain outcomes to war, that there is in any way shape or form pleasure validation what-have-you to observe that every dread prediction has been proven tragically correct - that is simply fucking sick.

why do you suppose any human being might ever find war distasteful at all?

i speak for myself and believe that many others feel the same way. it is the death and destruction that make war abhorrent. consequently your remark which seems to imply that citizens who have come out against this war somehow want or need for it to take more and more lives in order to prove their point is that it? - is twisted, insulting, and outrageous. the logic is specious as so much bushie bullshit is. insidious, bullshit wordplay.

do you think if, when gw stood up and said "we have prevailed" he had not been lying - if at that time the war and all of its attendant carnage and destruction had really ended, that there would to this day be huge and growing numbers of american citizens OPPOSING this war?! are you actually so cynical that you think that those of us who are against the war have simply chosen it as a position in a meaningless debate, and are in reality as hardened and inured to the real HUMAN cost as you appear to be? because if that is so you are so, so wrong.

if i am misinterpreting the remark, again please set me straight. if i am not, please get your head out of your ass and start making sense.
incidentally there should not be an apostrophe in "its" - if i read the post right.

amazing how that pissed me off...yet laid out so casually i am full of doubt over whether my reading of his words is accurate.

thanks to anyone out there. help.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

1. I don't get it.

:popcorn: