While I have had many disagreements with Senator Cantwell's position on Iraq, I can not ever recall a time when the senator ever suggested, as McGavick has, that the loss of innocent Iraqi lives is a small price to pay for American security. Earlier this month I posted on a forum between McGavick and Senator Cantwell in which Mike! declared, ""...And by the way, fighting "them" there (Iraq) rather than waiting for "them" to come here is good for the safety and well being of Americans."" When pressed to explain how such a response might look to the Iraqi people (some 80% already wanting us to leave their country), he said, ""Iraq was a disaster before we got there; of oppressed people and violence so to say Iraqis are worse off or better off is too early to tell until this war is settled."" It must be noted that these statements come out on the heels of the Lancet estimate of 655,000 Iraqis dead as a result of our invasion and occupation. The ease with which McGavick minimizes the worth of Iraqi lives places him on the same level as Dick (Vice-President of Torture) Cheney on the "compassion chart". Of course I don't know what else we should expect from an insurance company executive who rates a person's worth using an actuarial chart.
We are at the point in the election where the "split the vote to win" tactic is the only viable option Mini-Slade has left. For those Democrats who might be considering this as a time to cast that final "protest vote" against Maria Cantwell please ask yourself this question: would a vote that may even remotely result in a McGavick win on Tuesday be worth the risk that a "Senator McGavick" would pose to our troops or countless more innocent Iraqi women and children?
Chad (The Left) Shue