Reply #10: It's not only true that she said it, the (often misinterpreted) context makes it (imho) more damning

[TahitiNut]

As her remark is often cited, it leaves us with the impression that she's arguing that actual deaths are 'irrelevant' when, in fact, she's claiming that the various predicted levels of death and dismemberment resulting from a choice to invade Iraq are irrelevant. This is stunning hypocrisy for a cabal that paints itself as 'realistic' and 'pragmatic' - at the same time it extols the ideological principles of conservatism. After all, it is fundamental to a consequentialist point of view that any act must be judged ethically on the (foreseeable?) consequences. When, however, those potential (foreseen) consequences are proclaimed 'irrelevant' then the abject ethical and moral bankruptcy of the adherent is laid bare.

It wasn't merely stunning in the Marie Antoinette sense, it was even more nakedly hypocritical from a purely posturing standpoint - paramount to a total confession of amorality and complete absence of ethics.

The Bush Klan compares to the absolute WORST in history ... worse than the House of Borgia of the 15th and 16th centuries.