The Deaths of American Soldiers Mean Nothing to Me, Says Glenn Reynolds
From the Instacracker:
ONE OF ANDREW SULLIVAN’S GUESTBLOGGERS is, ironically, enough, slagging people for being too pro-war in 2003. Yeah, not like Andrew was back then. At any rate, according to a comment in the linked post, I was off by 39 for the casualty [sic - fatality] toll of the invasion through "mission accomplished." I'm willing to admit the error. That's better than Ted Kennedy, who predicted we'd lose "battalions a day."
Reynolds is referring to a comment which identified US deaths in Iraq before "Mission Accomplished" as 139, whereas Reynolds offered "100" in response to the question asked. But the question which was asked of the 'Cracker was this:
If we go into Iraq, how many casualties do you expect to see (on the side of the US and our allies)
The question says nothing about the period of "the invasion through 'mission accomplished,'" an event of epic meaninglessness even apart from its absence in the question. If your son or daughter or husband or wife or father or mother died after the flight-suit prance photo-op, Reynolds couldn't give a shit. He's only concerned with rewriting the question (and history) so it looks as if he was merely off by 39, and more prescient than Teddy K. The thousands of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen who died later, and those from other countries who died, don't matter to Reynolds.
In fact, Glenn is pissed that people have forgotten his greatest sacrifice when the speak of the war.
And I didn't take a post-invasion "mission accomplished" vacation, either.
Some gave Dollywood.
Magnificent beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your
site, how can i subscribe for a blog site?
The account aided me a applicable deal. I had been a little bit
familiar of this your broadcast provided shiny transparent idea
Feel free to visit my web-site website - -
Post a Comment