Oh, for heaven’s sake.
Remember that Iraqi children’s prison? It was a big deal. It was proof that we were right to go into Iraq. It was a noble, shining moment.
It was an orphanage. A really bad one, but not a prison, and not someplace kids were sent for refusing to join the Ba’ath Party.
And hey — if we’re in the business of liberating facilities which treat children horribly, maybe we should start here. It’s run out of Utah. We can start at home.
4 Comments
I see nothing much has changed around here.
Former UN weapons inspector and Saddamite mouthpiece Scot Ritter describes what he saw:
The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I’m not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.
So, the NYT says that the Iraqi General Security Service was running an orphanage and that it was only mistaken for a prison. OK, as if that would make it any better.
You claim this as proof yet again that Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t as bad as it was made to seem (Oh, for heaven’s sake…It was proof that we were right to go into Iraq. It was a noble, shining moment.) and are incredulous that anyone might confuse your principled anti-war position with being, shall we say, less than enthused about Saddam being forceably removed from power by the US.
Parting question: How do you suppose those children of political dissidents came to be orphans? Hint: It wasn’t from depleted uranium.
Ah, Larry. Still can’t read the slightest disagreement without immediately assuming I’m a member of ANSWER, huh?
No, I didn’t claim it as proof that Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t as bad as it was made to seem. Saddam’s Iraq was horrible.
What bugs me the most about crap like this is the reflexive lying and exaggeration. There’s plenty of evidence that Saddam’s Iraq sucked; more than enough to reach conclusions without making stuff up. Yet people make stuff up anyhow. You seem incapable of approaching the evidence with a clear mind.
One day it’s orphanages. The next day it’s yellowcake. Sad.
This last is not addressed to you, because I know there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell you’d actually listen.
If you read the article Larry cites above, you’ll notice that it was written before we invaded Iraq. Ritter isn’t talking about the orphanage — Larry just made the logical leap from “there are children’s prisons in Iraq” to “the orphanage we’re talking about must have been a prison!” This, despite the fact that the Ritter quote is in no way associated with the institution under examination and despite the fact that the New York Times article addresses that institution directly.
See, it’s that jumping to conclusions again. I don’t mind discovering that Saddam’s Iraq was a horrendous place. I do mind being sloppy. I guess Larry doesn’t.
What bugs me the most about crap like this is the reflexive lying and exaggeration.
That pretty well sums up your style exactly, Langston.
You’re clearly a waste of my time, so I won’t bother responding to your comment above. In fact, I don’t intend to ever again interrupt the echo you like to read in your comment section.
You know, there’s gotta be some kind of subtext to the use of my middle name, but I’m not sure what it is. Congratulations, I suppose.
You’re absolutely correct that I’m a waste of your time, in that I’m not ever likely to be convinced by weak rhetoric. I do tend to dismiss people who use neologisms like “Saddamite” and “idiotarian” as a substitute for logic. Life’s too short.
And hey — at least give me credit for providing a comments section. If I was so fond of quashing opposing views, I wouldn’t have a comments section at all. (Cough.)