Ryan, you dropped the ball on this one. The whole show is irrelevant.
Gotta agree w/Ryan Mc. to a large degree here. Why two basically uninformed chicks (one ugly as sin and the other a total vix) get so much air time for their opinions is beyond me.
But I sure share your sentiments, Ryan S. 
Yeah, I don't usually look to the View for insightful political debate...however, with the volume down, I'd much rather listen to what Ms. Hasselbeck has to say . And yes, I'm kidding before I get slammed with the "sexist" lable...
Hey, Hasselbec is hot, cant deny it; but she won that tussel either way, happy trails rosie
Does it matter that Rosie is right?
Hmmm, guess not.
The show itself is irrelevant, except when you consider that it does occasionally get outside news coverage, and people may watch it to get an opinion on various matters. I put it in the same category as The Daily Show.
I just give Mrs. Hasselbeck a lot of credit for having spent a year going into work with Rosie. I'm not sure I would have held up as well.
"Does it matter that Rosie is right?"
Actually, I think anyone who acts in such a rude and obnoxious manner is pretty hackish, regardless of their opinion. So I guess not.
Rosie wasnt right. She said: 655000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?"
If you use the numbers from the Lancet study- the study with the highest number- it estimates the number at 100,000. Of course that estimate comes from a 95% CI of between 8,000 and 195,000; a pretty weak correlation for statistical analysis. The Iraq Body Count puts it between 65 and 70,000. (that may have been what she was trying to cite..) And Icasualties has an estimate of about 4 Iraq civilians killed by Coalition forces every week, which works out to be about 800+ dead in 4 years of war from direct Coalition action.
655,000?
Keep in mind most civilian casualties are caused by AQI bombings and kidnappings, militia repirsals, indiscriminante insurgent gunfire and indirect fire (mortars, rockets). Is the US invasion a causal factor of this death? Yes. But is it the proximate cause? In almost all situtations, No.
As rosie likes to say- those are the facts.
The 655,000 is a very rough figure, yes.
Keep in mind most civilian casualties are caused by AQI bombings and kidnappings, militia repirsals, indiscriminante insurgent gunfire and indirect fire (mortars, rockets).
All caused by the destabilizing of removing Saddam from leadership. Now, you may respond with "Well, it's better that we got him out than having him mass murdering his own people." Now I'd respond with some truth by saying, he wasn't mass murdering his own people when we went in there. In fact, he hadn't done that in quite some time - since mass murdering is rather counter-productive even for megalomaniac dictators. It tends to stir up revolutions, y'know.
No, no, he did most of his killing before 1989, while the Bush Sr. was president and still calling Saddam an ally of the US. Rather, Iraq was concerned that this mass genocide might sour relationships with the west. Senator Claiborne D. Pell, a Democrat, urged sanctions against Iraq as a result of this with a bill that passed both Houses of Congress.
It was votoed by George H. W. Bush.
Further, Bush gave Saddam another loan of a billion dollars.
After Saddam had killed almost half a million Kurds since 1974. He should've been removed back then.
Why talk about Saddam's death chambers only now?
Whether the number is 100,000 or 655,000 dead, that is a number of people dead that most likely would still be alive had Bush not made the decision to go into Iraq.
Actions have consequences and while coalition forces did not kill those people, and Rosie is not saying that (and you or anyone is a despicable for implying that), the truth is you have to accept all responsibility for your decisions. Bush's own intelligence experts warned him sternly against taking action in Iraq, as apparently did his own father. Yet he went ahead anyway. His decision to lead us into Iraq destabilized a country, and every one of those 100,000 to 655,000 lives should be on his conscience.
The interesting thing is how you people who voted for Bush deal with that? I mean, there was every indication imaginable that this guy was mentally-retarded, a sociopath, and a liar but geez, this administration takes every republican screwup in the Reagan and Nixon administration further than even I could've imagined.
Doesn't America stand for truth and justice?
Your diagnosis of Bush seems about as accurate as Frist's of Terri Schaivo.
Funny you should bring up former republican Majority Leader Bill Frist, another sociopath who admitted in his biography to have regularly adopted cats to keep around for a while, then kill for medical experiments when he was a medical student.
I guess it's even more revealing that he would voluntarily reveal that in a book because it suggests to most people a serious character flaw. Or maybe republican voters don't care about character flaws, as much as they claim they're Christian. *shrug*
As for my analysis of Bush, I guess the difference is that Terry Schiavo was comatose. I can actually base my conclusion on what Bush does and says. Here's a professional psychiatrist's perspective on Bush.
In fact, the very first time George W. Bush's name ever appeared in the New York Times, was for supporting torture. Except this was back in 1967 when as a Yale student, his Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity generated controversy for using red-hot coathangers to burn pledges. This is fact.
The famous writer Hunter S. Thompson even tracked down one of these former fratmates for an article in Rolling Stone, who showed him the still remaining scars that Bush put there.
He lifted his shirt and showed me a scar on his back put there by young George. "He burned this into my flesh with a red-hot poker," he said solemnly, "and I have hated him ever since. That jackass was born cruel. He burned me in the back while I was blindfolded. This scar will be with me forever."
Nice thing about facts is that they never contradict themselves like lies do. Being a republican, how do you deal with all your contradictions?
Funny how I said I was a supporter of Bill Frist. Because I didn't.
I also enjoy your assumptions that my support for the GOP or GWB is that strong.
Funny you would assume that I assumed you were a supporter of Bill Frist. I merely point it out because it's the people like Frist, Santorum, Delay, Cheney, Bush, Lott, and Gingrich who seem to occupy the most prominent leadership positions in your party. Every one of them either morally corrupt, compulsively dishonest, or outright insane.
Why??
Why aren't republicans like Chuck Hagel, Wayne Gilchrest and Ron Paul the ones leading your party? Now you have Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo, three republican presidential candidates who have admitted they do not believe in science and reason by admitting to not believe in evolution. Heaven help us if any of those three neanderthals become the next president.
Im glad somebody else knows about Frist's cats! He is no better then Michael Vick. Herding cats by Trent Lott should have been written by Frist lol.
Commenting by HaloScan
