Subject: Who's a dove?
There are plenty of people out there who want
to get the bastards responsible, but who don't happen
to think that bombing Afghanistan is a wise or prudent way to go about doing that. They simply have
differing views on how this "war" should be fought. Would you label all these people "doves" and
accuse them of not wanting to fight back? It seems you've been doing a lot of that lately.
In fact, people who accuse you of bloodlust and
of wanting to kill innocents are using your own
rhetorical technique against you. Doesn't feel very good, does it?
Still a fan despite your being VERY VERY MISGUIDED AND WRONG, (just kidding)
Ben, good e-mail, I'll try to answer.
Would you label all these people "doves"?
Well, in this particular case, yes.
If their answer is "Plan A is bad," and they have no Plan B, it sounds to me like a surrender.
...reminding everyone that Plan A is strongly
felt by a huge majority of Americans.
This isn't a 50-50 like the Florida elections.
This is an 80-20, so the "dunnos," are at a disadvantage.
As far as people using my techiniques against
me - surprise - I disagree.
My whole deal, (besides a little humor) ...the fun I get out of politics,
...is haggling over where to draw the line. How much is OK? How much is too much?
Pretend you're looking at a yardstick.
At marker '36' is the NRA with their "All guns, all the time, for everyone" crap.
At marker '0' is a New York or Boston liberal who says, "guns = dead families."
Me? I'm maybe a 15.
I'm a left-of-center (which is 18 on the yardstick) gun owner.
I don't need a dozen AK-47's with armor-piercing bullets,
I just need a Glock where I can reach it.
On abortion, I'm a rock-solid 16.
On civil rights for blacks and gays and minorities I'm a goddamn 0.
That's the one social issue where I'd put every chip I can afford.
On the military I'm maybe a 24 - that's causing
me lots of troubles right now,
but I'm not gonna move left if I think someone else might not be pleased about it.
If you think you can move me left - take your best shot.
If somebody moves me on a subject that matters I'll write extensively about it.
You can have your own column and everything.
Sorry, ...back on point, ...I WANT people to use
my tactics against me.
I WANT to be forced into a box.
I WANT to be forced to answer tough questions.
I WANT to be presented with an argument so compelling that my thinking changes.
Koresh, I'm getting excited just writing about how fun that'd be.
I've often said my life's goal is to be deposed
or cross-examined by a real pro.
I want Larry Klayman (snicker) to get in my face and try to make me say something that I don't wanna say.
I'd give anything to have that prick Kenneth Starr ask me what went thru my head when I heard
that Bill Clinton had, in fact, been impeached by a bought-and-paid-for ditto-monkey congress.
If there was a God, He could make this happen.
If I was single, I'd give my house for that - assuming I could play the tapes of it here on bartcop.com...
...and why do people get upset at the term "dove?"
I'd think the "let's-not-fight crowd would embrace the term.
So yes, ...in a way, ...you're right.
Maybe I'm more blood-thirsty than a dove.
Hey - that's sounds like a breakthru...
Allow me to say something that I always think about in the car,
but I always forget to say this when I can write it:
Swear to Koresh, thank you people
for not being Bart-worshipping ditto-heads.
I would either quit doing this or shoot myself if I was your role model, your hero or your idol.
Almost every day, Rush gets a call
from an absolute ass-licker.
"Oh, Rush, I tried to call and tell you about some breaking news story but while I was on hold,
I heard you talk about that story and I'm thrilled at how ahead of the curve your genius mind is."
And then Rush always says, "Which
part of my genius mind do you think is the greatest?"
and the caller would start babbling horseshit ditto-worship to the ultra-rich Republican fraud.
I'd much rather have a sassy crowd
who will fight back when they disagree with the host.
When I talk serious, I mean every damn word that I write, but this isn't the gospel.
Sure, I think I have all the answers, ...but everybody does, right?
So, keep coming with your objections.
Don't let me get away with anything.
From: Tim/Basket Case
Subject: WTC syndrome
You may have something there with what you call the WTC syndrome. We are all more than a little bit wired, confused, searching, angry, afraid. Yet I see something else: It seems to me that many of us in the liberal/progressive wing of American political opinion are so antipathetic to President Shrub that we feel we must oppose his every action even if that means putting ourselves (and our friends and neighbors and fellow Americans) directly in the Kalashnikov sights of that noted mass murderer Osama bin Laden. This IMHO is a serious mistake in reasoning, to put it mildly. We should realize that we have a mad dog in our house as well as an illegitimate head of household. They arenít mutually exclusive, and the mad dog must be dealt with first, as that is the more immediately dangerous threat.
I donít like violence. I donít like war. I donít like bombing. Hell, I donít like siding with conservative geeks. Yet the mass murder Osama bin Laden and his murderous and dangerous Al Qaeda organization is hiding in Afghanistan, protected by that countryís Taliban government. We, as Americans, have to "get" those bastards before they get us. It is as relentlessly simple and horrible as that. This is the ugly reality of the situation. It isnít pretty and I donít like it yet I accept the reality of it. Neither do I like the fact that Shrub stands to gain from all this, yet I accept the reality of that, too. There will be time for him later. There will be time to address our foreign policy sins later. There will be time for many things later, but first we must get the mad dog out of the house. This is what as known as a clear and present danger, as you know. It disturbs me that some liberal/progressives cannot see that danger. This, to me, is roughly analogous to right-wingers attempting to drag Clinton into the debate; it is, primarily, irrelevant. Letís get the mad dog out of the house first and THEN we'll fight among ourselves. It would be wise to remember that the mass murderer bin Laden would kill us all if given the opportunity. The bastard declared war on ALL of us Ė liberal, moderate, conservative Ė in 1998 when he declared that ALL Americans, military or civilian, must be killed wherever his minions may find us, if they are able to kill us.
The proof is there. The mass murderer bin Laden did it. He says he will do it again. He, al Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan are so inextricably intertwined it is difficult to tell them apart, so they must be treated in kind. If this is not evident to ALL of us after the events of September 11 then Ö. Well, it is just very sad. This bastard attacked the United States of America Ė not Shrub -- on September 11, on American soil, killing 5,000 plus innocent people. We are one.
Hang in there. Many of us are learning that we can be both liberal and hawkish, yet not blindly hawkish. Itís uncomfortable, but we must deal with it.
You have many supporters left,
Tim (another BC)
Subject: WTC Syndrome = Crap
There is no WTC Syndrome, at least not concerning how we treat each other...but...there is a failure to understand and respect the ideas and opinions of others...I think maybe you do have a way of giving people the feeling you are calling them cowards without using that word specifically...If WTC Syndrome does exist, it is more in causing a mob mentality that wishes to deal out death indiscriminately for the sake of retribution.
Perhaps I was unclear.
I think WTC Syndrome is the general uneasiness and frustration that has grabbed the country.
A good friend that I lost to WTC Syndrome - Jack at democraticalliance.com, went so far to deny
the idea of WTC Syndrome saying, "I wasn't affected by the towers collapse at all," which is ...unlikely.
If you're not feeling any of that, can
I come to live with you for a few weeks?
I have read many of the emails you consider to
be from 'doves' and I would not use that word to describe them at all...
they seem to be on the side of restraint and reason to me...I think they want the people responsible for WTC to be
settled with, but not at the expense of killing thousands of innocents...I guess it may be possible that there is no other
way to go about it, but, I am not going to take Smirk's word for that...He wants a blank check to do whatever,
no questions asked...That is too far to trust him.
"killing thousands of innocents?"
My opponents are restrained and reasonable and don't want to kill thousands of innocents,
implying that I'm unrestrained, unreasonable and ready to murder.
Yes, this subject needs to be retired while there's still a web page to defend.
Also, just because I don't have an immediate alternative
to your ideas (that is for people smarter than me), doesn't mean
that you are right...this is a tough issue and will not go away even if they blow Afghanistan off the map and get OBL.
I'll go along with this much for you: If
you have to react in all possible haste, no matter the consequenses,
this bombing is probably the best thing...I mean, I guess there is always at least a chance that a bomb will land
close enough to OBL... that is probably more likely than going in on foot and locating him, which would require
intelligence and if you know where he is, why not just take him out with a smart bomb or two anyway.
This is from someone who reads you regularly and
agrees with nearly everything you say about Smirk...
While I may not agree with your position on this one, I won't be saying goodbye.
I need a drink...