CNN just aired an interview with a human shield who’s just left Iraq. This guy’s a drooling fucktard if I ever saw one. Here’s some of the things he said
And when asked if he thought that the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam he said, emphasizing his words heavily
WTF??? I don’t think I’ve heard anyone who’s anti-war say anything so stupid! Saddam’s not a dictator? Iraq is better under Saddam than without him?
In fact, the human shield seemed to think prison rape in the US was a far more serious crime than any Saddam committed! Tell that to the folks who’ve been tortured and killed by Saddam’s henchmen! Sheesh! It’s one thing to be anti-war, it’s another thing to be a flaming idiot!
Wasn’t there a story about a man who went over to be a human shield and came back, horrified, at the atrocities over there, and ended up changing his mind about the war?
ivylass, I assume you’re talking about one of thesetwo people.
And as for Iraq “not being a dictatorship”- that’s a new one on me. Although I guess if said dictator is dead*, you’re technically no longer a dictatorship.
*[sub]my guess is that he is dead but Iraqi scientists are currently busy trying to clone him from the remaining pieces of leftover nose.[/sub]
I’m in the “This war stinks” camp myself, and I have to agree-- what an idiot. He seemed like an extremely unkind caricature of the Berkley Loony Left, beard-and-all.
I’m not sure what makes a better sound-bite, the simple “I don’t know anything about Saddam Hussein,” or his brilliant parry against Wolf’s mention of Ba’ath Party human rights abuses, which was a bit of hysterical raving about the “sexual torture” in “America’s Gulags.”
You’d think that someone who was in the presence of professional state handlers 24 hours a day would be skeptical of the first hand accounts he receives…
First off, let me say flat out I’m in favor of the war, a not-popular position here. And no, I’m not going to hide behind euphemism and say I ‘support our troops’. I do, but I also think we’re doing the right thing by going over there in the first place. (Note: I will not respond to debate on this topic in this thread. I’m providing my bias/perspective, not seeking to hijack, or ‘prove’ I’m right)
Having said that, this is just sad to me. It’s a shame that someone didn’t come out and say “well, I found that a lot of it’s exaggerated. I’m not saying Iraq is the Ritz, but I didn’t see anything as awful as what’s being played out over here in the slightly hysterical media reports – especially on FOX.” THAT, at least, would have been credible. That, at least, would have provided a reasonable counterpoint to the human shields who came out horrified and “converted.” That, at least, I would enjoy slamming on…
This, as gobear points out, simply degrades the position of the anti-war group. And while I don’t agree with them, I take no pleasure in seeing someone’s position undercut by sheer boneheaded stupidity rather than by reasoned debate and facts. I certainly don’t feel like this has “proved the point.” It’s rather like winning because the other team’s bus broke down and they defaulted – it’s not what you want to do and you feel kind of ashamed even putting it in your team’s “win” column. This, in fact, just degrades the whole debate. It smacks of idiocy.
Unless of course it’s all a subtle conpiracy, and this fellow was put up to it BY the “hawks” knowing it would reflect poorly on the anti-war crowd… Yeah, and the trilateral commission secretly controls the world through the illuminati too (hey fellow travelers, CODE 23…). I think we’re just dealing with a bonehead here and I’m not surprised that pretty much anyone on any side of the debate is dealing with this as a “duh…!”
It reminds me of Sean Penn going and seeing all the poor children dying in the hospital from the economic embargo. When Frontline/World went there the reporter got a word in with the attending physician and it turns out that none of the children in the ward that was shone to that reporter were actually there due to lack of food/medicine. They all had garden variety illnesses that will fill a hospital ward in any city of millions.
The guy sounds so gullible that I wouldn’t be suprised if, next time a comet comes around, he cuts his own balls off and drinks hemlock.
That’s not entirely fair, gobear. You can’t very well punish the well-read, intelligent members of a particular opinion for what the less-educated, downright stupid people think. Unless you have no use for the baby in that bathwater, in which case I’d be happy to take care of it for you;)
I find it interesting (not to mention surprising,) that the transcript omits his reference to “American Gulags.”
Why replace “gulags” with a simple, value-free descriptor like “prison system?”
The guy implied that every incarcerated murderer, rapist, burglar, kiddie-diddler, embezzler, mugger, dealer, vandal, etc., in the U.S. is a political prisoner, and CNN took it upon themselves to provide him with a free editorial service that makes him look marginally less stark-staring-mad.
True, but my point is that the human shields are the sort of people who the antiwar crowd have let be their public voice. There are a lot of sensible arguments against the war, but all one ever hears is “Bush is a war criminal, " No blood for oil,” or “Iraq is not a dictatorship.” When you let professional crankypants like the antiquated hippie in the linked article set your PR, you have to expect to be treated in like manner.
Just in case anyone thinks I’m being a language-nazi by interpreting his use of “gulag” in the most literal sense, and are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he merely meant “prison system,” look this up on the internet:
He knows what the word means.
Does this mean that you’re “letting” folks like this handle your ‘PR?’ An ignorant opinion is an ignorant opinion, regardless of which side of the fence it’s on.
