Megan McArdle, giving a bad name to libertarians everywhere, writes that really the anti-war crowd likes big numbers of Iraqi dead because it helps the anti-war cause. No, really, she's so fucking stupid she actually wrote that. Badly, and like she was wrestling the english language to the ground and forcing a tranquilizer down its throat, but she wrote it:
Witness the Johns Hopkins team's critics, who triumphantly waved the WHO results at their opponents. But even if "only" 150,000 people have been killed by violence in Iraq, that's a damn high price. Conversely, few of the study's supporters expressed much pleasure at the news that an extra 450,000 people might be walking around in Iraq. After a year and a half of bitter argument, all that anyone seemed interested in was proving they had been right.Yeah, I didn't take any pleasure in that idea, any more than I take pleasure in the idea of a flat earth, or global cooling: because I don't think they're true. If I honestly thought that in the charnel-house that is Iraq, "only" 150,000 people had died, I'd be elated. But it's absurd to dignify the number with a response.
Then there's this other thing: the anti-war people don't want dead Iraqis. We don't want more dead Iraqis or less dead Iraqis for any kind of political posturing. We never wanted there to be a fucking war in the first place, you absolute tool. Understand?
We desperately need a Truth and Reconciliation commission for these people. Even alleged "critics" of the Bush administration love nothing more than to prove how the dirty fucking hippies are the real enemy.