Equating Dead In Iraq To Traffic Fatalities -- Another GOP Canard

[Knockwurst]

Is anyone else bothered by the GOP's despicable attempts to belittle 943 dead American soldiers in Iraq by saying the body count is less than the amount of traffic deaths on a given weekend?

First of all, traffic deaths are for the most part due to negligence. When they are due to negligence the negligent party is civilly liable. When they are intentional or reckless the party is criminally liable.

So are the Republicans suggesting we hold Bush and his administration to the same standard?

But beyond that, there is something offensive about comparing deaths from accidents, which unfortunately happen every day, to the grave and momentous decision to send soldiers into battle for what turned out to be dubious ends.

While I rarely listen to him, this one has the reek of Rush Limbaugh all over it. Can we put an end to this canard?

[cardcounter0]

"First of all, traffic deaths are for the most part due to negligence. When they are due to negligence the negligent party is civilly liable. When they are intentional or reckless the party is criminally liable."

Could this be why Republicans hate Civil Lawsuit Lawyers so much? Don't they try their best to limit civil and criminal liabilities, and even try to take away the right for people to sue for certain things and certain parties?

[Wake up CALL]

Before you get off your soapbox, are you saying that there are not more US traffic fatalaties than soldiers killed in Iraq? If not you should use the word canard correctly or substitute a word which gets your point across more effectively.

[ddollevoet]

[ QUOTE ]
So are the Republicans suggesting we hold Bush and his administration to the same standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure that that is exactly what they are suggesting.

And Maybe when Tom Brokaw says Good Night after the evening news, we should all go to bed. Isn't that what he is suggesting?

[MMMMMM]

There is a difference between belittling something, and putting it into proper perspective.

How's this, just for the sake of argument: I will GIVE you two points in your favor, then we will make another comparison, OK?


1. We will presume that the Iraq war was entirely needless and negligent (not that I necessarily believe that, but for the sake of argument).

2. We will not count any auto accident deaths except those clearly involving drunk driving, so that we are comparing only needless deaths due to negligent actions with the same.


The number of drunk driving deaths is still way higher than the number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

So which is the bigger problem for Americans, which costs more American lives? Which is worthy of the bigger protest and outcry?


Now, regarding responsibility: that depends on myriad factors. I am only showing why I do not think that the GOP or the administration has belittled the loss of American life in Iraq--only put it in perspective.

[Taxman]

First off, I appreciate your perspective...But, I have a feeling that it is much more likely for a soldier to die in Iraq than in the US, while say driving home from the grocery store. Thus the comparison is not really valid, regardless of the total numbers killed or not killed. Of course there also are several groups who quite vociferously protest drunk driving, at least. I think the main problem with this comparison is that the deaths in Iraq were without a doubt preventable (assuming the troops were never sent), while curbing drunk (or otherwise reckless) driving is much more difficult. Of course I am of the opinion that our drunk driving laws should be much harsher.

PS As a disclaimer, I am not trying to imply any support or lack of support for the Iraq war (although I'll admit I am not a fan), I just wanted to discuss this particular caveat.

[Senor Choppy]

Traffic accident fatalities are largely preventable, as well. Lower all speed limits to 15 mph and you could save thousands of lives every year. Our country has sacrificed human life for convenience, money, freedom, etc. in the past, and this is just another example.

I think this really is a cop out by the GOP, since they don't really buy into what they're saying, but I think the words themselves are reasonable.

[MMMMMM]

I agree with your points.

I was not trying to claim an ideal comparison...only to show that lives lost when looked at in perspective appears quite different than lives lost when looked at in isolation. This is not to try to diminish the importance of even one life lost, nor the grief that loved ones have.

[cardcounter0]

Yes, that is why I like to compare it to number of US Troops lives lost under Clinton.