Right

The following is a transcript of email correspondences I've had with someone I'll call "Mr. Right" (obviously not his real name), snippets of which I use in my 2008 digital video Right. In the text below I've replaced his name throughout, but it's otherwise unedited.

Mr. Right initially contacted me after a letter to the editor I wrote was published on the Austin (Texas) American-Statesman's website. My letter was in response to two letters published on January 31, 2008 criticizing former president Bill Clinton for "not wearing a tie," and for shamelessly campaigning on his wife's behalf.

You can add your own comment here. Or send me a direct comment here.

Scott Stark

Letter to the (Austin American-Statesman) Editor (February 2, 2008)

Dear Editor,

It's laughable to see the desperation some of your conservative readers display when trying to ignore or shift the blame of the misdeeds of our current and past Republican presidents. In one day (Letters, January 31, 2008) we saw one reader stating former President Bill Clinton's current high crime is shamelessly campaigning on behalf of his wife, and for not wearing a tie; and another claiming that liberals everywhere are ecstatic that the economy is going into a recession and the war in Iraq is a failure. Regarding the latter, it's true that Democrats are capitalizing on the lies, misdeeds and failures of the current administration; that's what politicians (on both sides) do. But let's not forget who committed the aforementioned lies, misdeeds and failures.

Scott Stark

Email from Mr. Right to Scott (February 19, 2008)

From: Mr. Right
Subject: Your letter today...

Most curious, I have to say ... can you please enlighten me on what these lies, misdeeds and failures of the Bush Administration are? Are you referring to the decision to depose Saddam Hussein, who broke his 16 provisions of the 1991 Cease Fire? Who gassed and killed 100,000 kurds and countless thousands of his own people? Who banned weapons inspectors and played, and lost, a game of WMD "chicken."? Who admitted to his interrogators, covered in 60 Minutes, of his intent to rebuild his weapons programs? Tell me again, Scott, what are these lies I keep hearing about? Or can it be that your political agenda is clouding your abilities for independent reasoning and rationality? Mr. Right

Email from Scott to Mr. Right (February 19, 2008)

From: Scott

Hi Mr. Right, thanks for your email. Well, for starters, it would be hard to
characterize the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as anything but failures --
billions down the drain, tens of thousands of lives lost, political and
military chaos, a huge rise in terrorism, a huge growth in anti-American
sentiment from other Arab countries (read: more terrorists), and no end in
sight, for perhaps decades. Nobody's saying Saddam wasn't an evil thug, but
there are dozens of them around the world (many of whom have had U.S.
backing by the way, but I won't go there now). Are we supposed to invade
every country with a dictator? (Side note, after the first Iraq war where
we bombed out their infrastructure and cut Iraqi off from any kind of aid,
it's estimated that some 500,000 Iraqi children died from infected water
and not having access to medical supplies. How does that stack up against
100,000 gassed Kurds? Believe me I'm not condoning either, but let's look
at facts.)

Fact: the Bush administration discussed invading Iraq on September 12,
2001, though there was never any connection between Iraq and 9/11. Fact:
Cheney, Rumsfeld and other conservatives wanted to invade Iraq years
before, but acknowledged it wouldn't be politically viable without some
cataclysmic event. Guess what happened. Fact: The U.N. weapons inspectors
were ordered out by Saddam, but by the Bush administration prior to the
invasion. If they had been allowed to do their job they would have very
likely found out the same thing we found out after the invasion, that there
were no wmds. Fact: The rationale for the invasion was based on
cherry-picked intelligence and outright fabrications; if you looked close
enough there was probably more rationale to invade Delaware than Iraq. Ok
I'm kidding, but what about Saudi Arabia, another dictatorship where a
majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from? Anyway these exaggerations and
outright lies have all been exposed in the last few years, so why is it a
surprise?

Other misdeeds? Well take your pick. Warrantless illegal wiretapping,
condoning and encouraging torture, secret meetings with Enron executives to
determine energy policy, throwing out habeas corpus/imprisoning suspects
without trial or access to lawyers, no-bid multi-billion dollar contracts
to Cheney buddies Haliburton and Bechtel, running up the largest federal
defecit in U.S. history, failed economic policy, tax cuts for the rich,
sabatoging environmental restrictions, No Child Left Behind, vetoing health
care for children, on and on -- I'm not making it up, just read the news.
Frankly I can't think of anything the Bush administration has done that
hasn't directly benefited -- to the detriment of everyone else -- its power
base: the wealthy and the corporate. Oh and the extreme religious right.

Anyway I'm happy to have an intelligent discussion about this, but please
save the insults. And for the record I'm not happy that Congress --
including a spineless Democratic majority -- hasn't stood up against all this.

Scott

Email from Scott to Mr. Right (February 19, 2008)

To: Mr. Right

correction: U.N. weapons inspectors were NOT ordered out by Saddam...

Scott

Email from Mr. Right to Scott (February 20, 2008)

With all due respect Scott, I think you're smoking some serious hooch. Let's look at what matters ... are the Taliban gone? Check! Is Saddam gone? Check! Are democracies on the rise in both countries? Check!

It's a wacked-out philosophy that you have, if you don't mind me critiquing, that basically has at its premise to let terror regimes flourish unfettered, engage in support of terrorist or economic programs that cut against America's autonomy, all because engaging them in combat for the purpose of deposing their totalitarianism might result in lives lost. Because, as we know, lives are already being lost. Freedoms are already being suppressed. Brutality rules the day -- certainly you don't pine for the days of Saddam or the Taliban? In the fight for freedom it's a sad reality that lives have been lost -- but at whose hands, Scott, at whose hands? I hope you're bright enough to see that it's not the U.S. that's responsible for casualties, and that there are these people that we call insurgents and terrorists who are responsible for the death, chaos and destruction, not the U.S.

And, er, check your facts, Scott... terrorism has been dealt a crippling blow. Al Qaeda is in chaos, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3346386.ece) with so much of their organization, while not destroyed, they've certainly been put on the defensive. Anti-Americanism is a product of leftist propaganda and media -- they're manipulating you! -- not a credible issue on the table. Just like this argument I hear so often from you people -- "ooh, people don't like us anymore ... we need to be liked!!!" ... first, not true, and second, if it is, who what??? Why is being liked important? Pursuit of legitimate goals is all that matters -- but I know you liberals are all about FEELINGS not results anyway. It could easily go away if those of you in this country understood the world stage better and held firm the the legitimate interests of this country for political and economic sovereignty and peace and stability in the world's most deathly chaotic regions. Hardly a point of digress...Most people understand what America's goals are because they're plain to see: oppose the threats to our sovereigncy, promote democracies and stability and freedom. Anti-American propagandists in our own country -- even those in control of our very houses of Congress -- only serve to work against the country's own self interests in this regard. Isn't that just despicable to you, to watch Pelosi, Dingy Harry and others promote our own self defeat all because they believe that people like you are gullible to their lies (blood for oil?? where's our oil then??), no WMD (hah! proven wrong, of course...see 60 Mins)...etc. etc.

As to your other points, in steadfast pursuit of your dogma I think you've missed the bigger picture. First, no, you don't invade every country w/ a dictator. The goal is to look out for the country's best foreign policy interests toward economic stability, freedom and sovereignty. Iraq and the Taliban were clear violators of both of these tenants. Even Clinton made speeches about the threat of Saddam, too bad he never enforced the cease fire agreement or aggressively went after Bin Laden or the rise of Al Qaeda under his watch -- he let the camps build, fester and thrive, leading to 9/11. Bush had to live in the aftermath, and clearly his policies have been a success -- hence the dramatic fall off of terrorism. Can they rev up again? Sure, if we roll back our efforts to stop them, turn a blind eye to the problem, and pull out of countries who need the help of the world's only remaining Super Power to help mold a better world for not only its own citizens but create an environment of stability and democracy in regions where perpetual chaos has ruled for centuries. Bottom line, you have to start the process some time, some way, otherwise you have continuing chaos. Is somehow your old style policy of let the chaos and brutality continue any better than deposing the thug dictators/rulers and fighting the insurgents who seek to undermine that progress toward peace any better? If so, that's a curious stance to take, because it shows that you have no end game or solution -- just a furtherance of long-term misery, death and brutality.

If these wars were failures there would be consensus on this issue; whereas, in fact, it's such a notable success that it's not even an issue in the presidential debates!! Billions down the drain? What? The Constitution, correct me if I'm wrong here, defines the role of the Federal govt to provide for the common defense, and last I checked were pretty defenseless on 9-11. So, down the drain? How can engaging in deposing those who seek your destruction anything that matches with money "down the drain?" One might start to question whose side you're on here. That's crazy talk. And as for weapons inspectors ... they were removed during the Clinton years, and he let it happen. Only briefly did Saddam engage in a PR shell game in 2002. Did you see the 60 Minutes report? He confirmed he had every intention of restarting his programs, so let's end that discussion now shall we? Point is: he violated his cease fire terms, by removing our enforcement programs he didn't allow for transparency of his programs, so we had to rely on what intelligence we had from ourselves, Britain, Russia, etc. He played chicken and lost. His fault, not ours. That's a pretty reasoned assessment there.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp

Now, you're other "issues" ... seriously off the deep end. Where are the massive round ups of individuals who have been corralled into prisons under wiretapping? Funny, there haven't been any reports to suggest this is happening, have there? Can you show me evidence that people have been harmed? You can't, can you? Good timing, given yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court to toss out the ACLU's case .... why? FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE OF HARM which, last time I studied Law, is kinda an important thing to prove.

So, let me get this straight? Bush shouldn't consult with people in the energy field -- who happen to be the experts in the field that they're in -- but somehow we can accept the ideas of so-called "expert" scientists who believe in global warming? My head is now spinning on this backwards hypocrisy!!

Failed economy? Oh, boy. Here we go ... let's see? Record low unemployement? Yes! Record Federal Treasury revenue? Check!That's no failure. Low interest rates? Check! (all this with the backdrop of the Tech Bubble Burst (Clinton), 9-11 (Clinton), Enron (Clinton) and WorldCom, etc....) Rising wages? Check! That's no failure -- so much wealth created in the past, really 25 years since Reagan's initial lowering of broad based taxation policies. It's all there for you to see plain and simple. Can't we agree that the purpose of tax policies is to identify the best means to produce GDP wealth, provide revenues to the treasury while minimizing the negative impact to the citizens? With this basic framework in place -- a framework that makes such obvious sense but isn't embraced by people, like you, who instead see tax systems as a means to reward and punish citizens based on social outcomes?! A social tool rather than an economic tool? Really, that's how we should make tax policy???? Again, that's just lunacy that cuts against the grain of the ideals of the American system of freedom of economic pursuits -- think of it this way, if it helps you... what is the revenue to the the government if an individual who makes $200,000 is taxed at 10% compared to an individual who makes $100,000 but is taxed at 20%? The answer? Do the math, the federal govt gets $20,000 either way. So is not a better plan to find a way to help individuals obtain more wealth while lowering their taxable rate? The incoming revenue remains the same, but the individual then of course has more wealth, more purchasing power, leading to a rise in GDP, job creation, spending, saving, no reliance on social services for support -- isn't that why we ask people to go to school for? To be successful? Oh, sorry, in the Democrat party parlay, we don't want them to achieve, because then they'll be evil, and then we'll target them for increased taxation? Why? Because you'd rather give their money away to bureaucrats and elitists to do what THEY want rather than what the free market encourages.

Read this...!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

Vetoing health care? Uh, Scott... you see ... oh my god, this is embarrassing to have to spell this out for you ... there's a Federal program that already covers health insurance for needy kids. The Democrats tried to expand that to include middle class and wealthy families with high incomes (over $80,000!!!) and for "kids" up to 25 years old. Can you tell me what needy kids are going w/o health care today -- that are being denied service?

Further, Scott ... on health care ... before you reach into my pocket to force me to pay for other people's health needs ... what assurances can you give me that those who can't afford health care insurance today truly can't afford health care? What other spending "priorities" do they have -- eating out? Cable/satellite TV? Liquor? Drugs? Porn? Season tickets? parties? ..." We can all agree these are lesser priorities in life than one's medical needs ... how can you truly tell me these 40 million people or whatever number you've concocted truly can't afford health care? How do you know? If I say I can't afford it, while I certainly can, will you go on TV too and prop me up as an example of how only government can solve problems (problems that they themselves often create and then exploit for their own power building objectives...)?

Seriously, Scott, your positions while all too common ... they disappoint. They show that you've been manipulated, whether by the dark forces of the media or our failed schools or your own accord. Bottom line, is that you have allowed this to happen to yourself, and you must begin to make amends to see the world in a different light where INDIVDIDUAL LIBERTY becomes the cornerstone of your philosophy. That is the only way to true salvation and becoming a better citizen and to help restore the country on a path of greatness in which we're in danger of losing, because of your very own self efforts of destruction.

Email from Mr. Right to Scott (February 20, 2008)

To: Scott

See my other detailed reply noting your error. They were removed in, I believe, 1998. So it was 3-5 years where no monitoring was taking place. There was no transparency, as dictated by the terms of the Cease Fire Agreement, which he signed. Again, to repeat, Saddam gambled and lost. End of story. Why you choose to defend brutal tyrants against our own legitimate foreign policy interests is a mystery to millions of us rational folk.

Email from Mr. Right to Scott (February 22, 2008)

Have you speechless, don't I? ; )

Don't take it too hard -- I'm really good at what I do. I have what I call a casual conversion process. I'm not an in your face nut or anything, but wherever I encounter liberals casually in life, and as they're amendable to discussion -- I engage with them on the issues. I think I converted about 7 last year, who at the very least acknowledge their double talk on key issues ... eg. they think they're against the so-called tax break for the rich, but then they don't understand that the top 25% of wage earners pay 86.6% of all taxes and are responsible for economic growth by and large (along with lower cap gains rates and business friendly policies that encourage reinvestment), and so when you confront them with the idea that taxing others higher doesn't help them in any way, doesn't help the economy and in fact may hurt the economy, doesn't lead to GDP growth and in fact may lead to lower federal Treasury revenue ... well, they don't have an answer because they're just not very knowledgeable. They've just been taught that our tax code is there as a social rewards/punishment tool. Having said that, the tax code has to go ... fair tax all the way makes much, much more sense.

Anyway, have a great weekend.

Email from Scott to Mr. Right (March 3, 2008)

Since you're probably wondering why I haven't responded, I'll give you a brief explanation, which will be my last communication to you. Basically I don't feel like wading through all the insults, condescension, putting words in my mouth and criticizing me for things I didn't say -- it's all too tedious and boring, and I suspect that even if I scraped off all the muck and waded through what I see as confused reasoning and avoidance of inconvenient facts, and came up with a cogent response, it wouldn't make any difference. Your mind is made up; you only choose to look at facts which fit your beliefs. One small example (of many), and then I will say no more: you ignored the word "secret" in my comment about the Cheney meetings with Enron. If you'd said "you're right, that's public policy and it shouldn't have been secret," or even come up with some far-fetched reason public policy should be decided behind closed doors, you might have opened a small window of credibility in my eyes; instead, you changed the meaning of what I said and then acted like I was an idiot. I'm perfectly capable of defending my statements and positions, but I have no interest in wasting my time defending things I didn't even say. Fare well, and keep thinking.

Scott

Email from Mr. Right to Scott (March 3, 2008)

With all due respect, Scott, and I mean that sincerely... your positions as stated leave you open to ridicule, so if my criticisms sting it's probably because they exposed you all too well. Again, don't take it too hard, it's happened to a lot of good liberals that I've met before you who, when stripped down out of their talking points and then taken to their logical conclusions, are left threadbear as a result.

As I've stated, you have curious positions where you cite phantom proceedings as your "proof" of wrong doing, and you see wrong doing in the most benign of acts, all the while ignoring the innumerous unarguable positives that have come during the past 8 years, some of which I illuminated, some of which I shall save for future discussions, even in the midst of a global terror assault and corporate financial shenanigans and a post Clinton tech bubble. You ignore the state of chaos in our worst enemies (Al Qaeda) while you rush to the aid of enemy combatants, who plotted with their brethren who killed my grandmother in 9-11. Oh, didn't know about that, did you? I'll let you stew on it for a while.

You ignore the evidence I provided on economics, probably because it's too inconvenient to acknowledge. Then again, I know how you must feel after my comments. They are rough indeed -- people who like to shout out their kooky ideas often don't like to have the light of truth shone upon them. It's a sign of a society that long ago cast aside rationality in favor of adherence to anti-American dogma at the expense of adhering to the principles and values that made America great to begin with and has helped us to remain a Super Power.

I, for one, refuse to sit by and let the Scotts of the world tear down our principles of individual liberty and freedoms to push an agenda of hatred. I just wish that you for once take a side for what's best for all Americans, not just the segments of society that Democrat politicians deem part of their coalition for the purpose of tyranny by the majority ("use my brand of cooking oil or die!!").

Note to readers:

[At this point I decided it was a waste of my time responding; the discussion was clearly getting to the point where we were both just trying to provoke each other, a kind of electronic chest bumping. However, to get the questions out of my system, I composed replies to most of Mr. Right's points, partly as an exercise of focusing my own thoughts and arguments; I had no intention of sending the replies. For several months the reply sat unsent in my outbox. I mostly forgot about it, but once in a while some nagging idea would come up in my head, or I'd see something in the news that further supported some argument of mine, or some new horror revealed itself, or some new evidence about the criminality I'd first referenced came into sharper focus; also, though most of my friends told me not to waste my time with him, one friend mentioned in passing that maybe I could get some material for a film out of it. The idea grew on me, and in July, on returning from a trip to San Francisco, I decided to send the email, as well as begin working some of the text into a short video sketch I'd made with American flags, called Right.]

Scott

Email from Scott to Mr. Right (June 20, 2008)

Hi Mr. Right,

You're no doubt surprised to hear from me after all this time. I actually wrote most of the following response to you at the time of our first tete-a-tete, but decided there was not much point in sending it, since you seemed to have made up your mind about everything and it would probably fall on deaf ears. That may still be true, but I see these ideas are still floating around in the world. A new election is upon us, and already the right-wing lies machine is revving up (Obama's a Muslim, his wife's a terrorist, Hillary's a lesbian, etc. -- all the usual phobic smearing designed to produce victory at any cost). And well, I've got to admit, I'm human, and feel compelled to speak, to respond to the many things you've said, even if, as I say, my comments fall on deaf ears. I realize these days there's not much in the way of real discussion in the public realm. The cable "news" shows usually have two people at opposite extremes shouting insults at each other for 10 minutes; nothing gets really discussed in depth; viewers line up behind their team of choice and hope their side "wins." That may be true of our "discussion" as well -- winning seems more important these days than the exchange of ideas, and I'm probably as inclined toward ranting as much as the next guy -- but I tried, at the time, to at least lay down some indisputable facts in response to your comments. Perhaps you won't want to waste your time with responding, but at least I'll say what needs to be said. I care too much about this stuff to keep my mouth shut. And, well, it's mostly written, so why waste it?

So, forthwith, here's what I wrote back then:

===================================

Dear Mr. Right, well, your last email confirmed everything I'd said about you in my previous one.

1) insults and condescension: check.
2) avoiding inconvenient facts: check. You seem to have a blind spot for that word "secret"; or else you just can't come up with a response to it.
3) putting words in my mouth: check. I see that now I'm supporting the terrorists. Next you'll have me confessing to be the 20th hijacker.
4) reasonable response to anything I said: strangely absent.

One thing that's been puzzling me though, ever since your first email to me. In that email, you asked "what are these lies I keep hearing about?" Are you telling me you've never heard about the lies of the Bush administration? I'm the first person to mention it to you? I mean seriously, they've been discussed at length in all the mainstream media over the last four years, lies that are well documented and incontrovertible. In fact, to make it easier for those who don't want to dig through a lot of old newspapers, the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity recently published a list of 935 times the administration lied between September 2001 and March 2003 to justify its invasion of Iraq. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?source=home&context=overview&id=945). Make no mistake: this was not "reliance on faulty intelligence," as they've tried to spin it in their attempt to shift the blame. These were outright lies: statements they knew not to be true, along with statements they had no reason to believe were true, and ignoring facts that contradicted their rationale for war.

One other thing I can't figure out. Clinton got impeached for telling one little lie about his sex life. Disgusting, yes, but nobody got hurt. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, have told hundreds of lies, and as a result tens of thousands have died in a needless, illegal war, with many more injured and permanently disfigured; people have lost their homes, their familes, their livelihood and their lives; the invasion triggered a civil war that may take decades to resolve; and billions are spent every month, with no end in sight. Why aren't Bush and Cheney being impeached for their lies? I know about the complicit Republicans and spineless Democrats in Congress, but why the outrage over one little lie that nobody cared about and so little about the many hundreds with such tragic, devastating effects? I see it as a sign of the times that the discourse has gone so far to the extreme right that even liberal politicians are afraid to speak out against such criminality.

Well, that said, here we go, responses to your previous email:

At 10:45 AM 02/20/2008 -0600, you wrote:
With all due respect Scott, I think you're smoking some serious hooch. Let's look at what matters ... are the Taliban gone? Check! Is Saddam gone? Check! Are democracies on the rise in both countries? Check!

I'd think one key measure of "success" of any war would be that it was over, and that we'd won. Saddam is dead, so I suppose he, individually, is no longer a threat, but 5 years after "mission accomplished," the bodies continue to pile up, near daily bombings continue to claim civilian lives, people are afraid to leave their houses just to go to the market or to work. There's a civil war raging, with no end in sight. John McCain envisions us being there another 100 years. Our goal has changed from "spreading democracy" to just getting the heck out of there without the whole thing collapsing.

As for the Taliban, they're certainly not gone. Read the news. They control much of southern Afghanistan and are putting up a strong fight in other parts of the country.

Most pundits and military strategists agree that if we'd stayed in Afghanistan and eradicated the Taliban and Al Qaeda, things would be different; instead we've been distracted with an unnecessary war in Iraq which has syphoned off resources and allowed bin Laden and company to sneak off somewhere else (probably Pakistan, another growing disaster). I'll speak more on this in a moment.

Iraq was not a "terror regime," and although the Bush team often tried to imply a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and many misinformed people still believe that to this day, there never was any connection. Further, there weren't terrorists in Iraq before we invaded. We've allowed a new generation of them to spawn and flourish in a country where there previously was none.

And while Saddam certainly was a brutal ruler, the Iraqi people didn't ask us to invade and save them. They were given no choice in the matter, and now they're the ones suffering the worst of the consequences. So no, I don't pine for the days of Saddam, but did anyone ask the Iraqis what they wanted?

Hm, somehow you managed to ignore this rather significant statement in that article: "US intelligence officials cautioned, however, that the documents were snapshots of two small areas and that al-Qaeda was far from a spent force." Perhaps "crippling blow" and "chaos" are a bit of overstatement, and there's nothing in this article that indicates anything happening as a result of the invasion; in fact, as stated before, AQ never had a presence in Iraq before we invaded. The daily body count seems to indicate there's little real progress, and even if some "crippling blow" has been dealt (what's your evidence of that?), AQ has proven itself to be deathly patient and able to regroup. And of course you don't need a well-defined organization to be a terrorist -- all you have to do is strap on a bomb and walk into a shopping mall.

But this article does bring up something interesting: Iraqis themselves rejecting Al Qaeda and its methods. These are the sorts of people we need to be working with to solve problems, instead of encouraging them to become terrorists and inviting more terrorists into their countries. I believe in addressing the problems that cause people to turn to terrorism, before they do so: poverty, oppression, people having their homes and lands forcibly taken away from them, etc. I won't go into this further at the moment, but I'd be happy to talk more about it, if you care to respond (and can do so without a lot of insults).

Finally -- and I have to keep saying this or I'm sure you'll miss it -- there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we invaded. It's as if we let them get away in Afghanistan, and then opened the door in Iraq and said "hey guys, come on in." Bush himself said as much: "Bring 'em on."

Anti-Americanism is a product of leftist propaganda and media -- they're manipulating you! -- not a credible issue on the table.

Actually me and my fellow liberals regularly fly over to the middle east and stir up anti-Americanism, so I know it's real. Pullease, you're saying there is no such thing as anti-Americanism?

Anti-americanism has flourished in other countries because those countries see us as invading and conquering their governments, their religion, their culture and their countries, not to mention -- in the case of Arab countries -- our blind support of Israel.

To put it simply, we used to be the most respected and admired country in the world. After 9/11 there was almost universal sympathy and support for us. Now we're widely distrusted and even hated. I think that's sad, but on a practical level it makes it darned easy for terrorists to find new recruits and makes it harder for us to push forward our own interests.

Just like this argument I hear so often from you people -- "ooh, people don't like us anymore ... we need to be liked!!!" ... first, not true, and second, if it is, who what??? Why is being liked important? Pursuit of legitimate goals is all that matters -- but I know you liberals are all about FEELINGS not results anyway.
It could easily go away if those of you in this country understood the world stage better and held firm the the legitimate interests of this country for political and economic sovereignty and peace and stability in the world's most deathly chaotic regions. Hardly a point of digress...Most people understand what America's goals are because they're plain to see: oppose the threats to our sovereigncy, promote democracies and stability and freedom.

The problem arises when we only pay attention to our own interests and trample the interests of the countries we're invading. I happen to think that's not right; but it also doesn't set a shining example of democracy for the countries we're trampling/invading/occupying. And if all you're interested in is your own selfish interests, be practical: it's easier to go into a country and pursue your own interests if the locals trust you and don't hate you. But of course you also have to be willing to back down if your interests and theirs don't match up; it is, after all, their country.

Anti-American propagandists in our own country -- even those in control of our very houses of Congress -- only serve to work against the country's own self interests in this regard. Isn't that just despicable to you, to watch Pelosi, Dingy Harry and others promote our own self defeat all because they believe that people like you are gullible to their lies (blood for oil?? where's our oil then??)

Why is anyone who disagrees with Bush's criminal policies and lies an "anti-American propagandist?" You don't seem to understand the difference between dissent and anti-americanism.; dissent is seeing something wrong with your government and speaking out against it, with the intent of trying to fix it. Anti-americanism is just plain hating America, which I don't, and nothing I've said implies that.

That aside, you're putting words in my mouth again; I never used the phrase "blood for oil." But I'll answer anyway. I hope you know where the blood is; it's spilling all over the middle east. Though I won't pretend to understand BushCo's reasons for wanting to invade Iraq in the first place, I don't think it's any coincidence that Iraq sits on the second largest reserve of oil in the world; otherwise why haven't we invaded Burma, Indonesia, North Korea, any number of African countries, and other brutal, totalitarian regimes. However pure our intentions were, the fact is if we control Iraq we control the oil. Where's the oil? Come on. Gas prices are now pushing $5/gallon; Exxon, Mobil etc. are seeing obscene profits; Bush and Cheney are both oilmen. And now, Exxon, Shell, BP and other big oil companies are moving in to take over the Iraqi oil industry. We're also building permanent military bases so we can maintain control in the future. Blood for oil: need I say more? Mission accomplished!

no WMD (hah! proven wrong, of course...see 60 Mins)...etc. etc.

Excuse me, did you find some WMDs that even our president hasn't been able to find? Let's alert the press.

Actually both countries were sovereign nations. Just because we don't like them doesn't mean we have a right to invade them. In fact let's not forget who helped both Saddam and the Taliban into power: Ronald Reagan (Saddam) and Bush the elder and Clinton (Taliban). Or didn't you see that photo from the 80s with a smiling Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand as if they were best buddies? (And I won't even go into my shpiel about all the brutal totalitarian regimes our government has supported over the years, about democracies we've toppled... it'll send you into a fit of denial...)

Iraq and the Taliban were clear violators of both of these tenants. Even Clinton made speeches about the threat of Saddam, too bad he never enforced the cease fire agreement or aggressively went after Bin Laden or the rise of Al Qaeda under his watch -- he let the camps build, fester and thrive, leading to 9/11.

In point of fact, Al Qaeda and bin Laden became something of an obsession in Clinton's final years as president. In fact members of his staff made several attempts to relay intelligence information to the incoming Bush administration -- specifically Rice and Rumsfeld -- in the early months of 2001, including strong evidence that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on American soil in the fall of 2001; unfortunately they were routinely ignored, no doubt due to the Bush team's utter disdain of anything Clinton and their already growing and inexplicable obsession with Iraq. While I'm not a conspiracy theorist, that sort of tragic negligence is like sweet honey to "the government was in on it" crackpots.

(While we're at it, you might ponder why, in the days immediately following September 11, when no flights were allowed to fly at all anywhere in the country, the Bush administration arranged for several members of bin Laden's family to be flown out of the country...)

Bush had to live in the aftermath, and clearly his policies have been a success -- hence the dramatic fall off of terrorism.

Where is that dropoff happening? Tell that to the daily victims of bombings in Bagdhad, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Can they rev up again? Sure, if we roll back our efforts to stop them, turn a blind eye to the problem, and pull out of countries who need the help of the world's only remaining Super Power to help mold a better world for not only its own citizens but create an environment of stability and democracy in regions where perpetual chaos has ruled for centuries.

That's a great idea, but again, somehow military invasions don't seem like the friendliest way to spread freedom. Maybe we should invade Saudi Arabia, another oppressive dictatorship (where, as I mentioned earlier, most of the 9/11 hijackers came from, but hey they're our friends. Or at least they give us a lot of oil.). And of course let's remember that there was no chaos in Iraq before we invaded, although there certainly was brutality.

Bottom line, you have to start the process some time, some way, otherwise you have continuing chaos. Is somehow your old style policy of let the chaos and brutality continue any better than deposing the thug dictators/rulers and fighting the insurgents who seek to undermine that progress toward peace any better? If so, that's a curious stance to take, because it shows that you have no end game or solution -- just a furtherance of long-term misery, death and brutality.

So I guess you are saying we SHOULD keep invading countries to spread democracy, even though it hasn't worked yet. I just hope "end game" also means "exit strategy" next time.

By the way, I'm not saying there is never a time when we should intervene. But the invasion of Iraq was based on lies, clearly unnecessary, and the result has been catastrophic. That's inarguable.

If these wars were failures there would be consensus on this issue; whereas, in fact, it's such a notable success that it's not even an issue in the presidential debates!!

Huh? Which debates are you watching? In every one I've seen, Republican and Democratic, the war has been the #1 hot topic, with candidates on all sides discussing how they'd get out of the mess in Iraq and who's the best person to do so. And nobody, on either side, is siding with Bush that we should have invaded to begin with. I'd say that's a form of de facto consensus. McCain's the only one wanting to "stay the course," even it it "takes 100 years." How's that for a success story? Even the Repubs are afraid to mention Bush's name. Remember the 2006 elections? The main reason the Democrats won so many seats in Congress was Americans' displeasure with Bush's handling of the war, with many by then agreeing we never should have invaded to begin with. Bush's approval ratings are at a historic low, only surpassed by the current low ratings of a spineless Democratic-led Congress for not stopping him. Turn off Rush and Fox and watch some real news!

"Notable success?" I almost think you're pulling my leg here. There are only three people who would call the Iraq war a success: Bush, Cheney and you, and the first two don't really believe it. Even the war's staunchest supporters haven't used the word "success." Again, I don't know what your criteria is for success, but I'd think at least one would be that it's over. Another might be that we'd "won."

Billions down the drain? What? The Constitution, correct me if I'm wrong here, defines the role of the Federal govt to provide for the common defense, and last I checked were pretty defenseless on 9-11. So, down the drain? How can engaging in deposing those who seek your destruction anything that matches with money "down the drain?"

If we hadn't invaded Iraq for no reason we wouldn't be spending billions every month on an endless war. Duh. And Iraq was not actively seeking our destruction.

One might start to question whose side you're on here. That's crazy talk. And as for weapons inspectors ... they were removed during the Clinton years, and he let it happen. Only briefly did Saddam engage in a PR shell game in 2002.

Ok I'll clarify, once upon a time Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. But in 2002, which we're discussing as a prelude to the CURRENT INVASION OF IRAQ, they were prevented from doing their job, not by Clinton, not by Saddam, but by George W. Bush.

Did you see the 60 Minutes report? He confirmed he had every intention of restarting his programs, so let's end that discussion now shall we? Point is: he violated his cease fire terms, by removing our enforcement programs he didn't allow for transparency of his programs, so we had to rely on what intelligence we had from ourselves, Britain, Russia, etc. He played chicken and lost. His fault, not ours. That's a pretty reasoned assessment there.

Mr. Right, this seems to be the very weak crux of your entire argument. You're justifying the entire invasion on one 60 minutes episode where Saddam said he *intended* to restart his programs. Sorry, but that's not empirical evidence of the actual existence of WMDs. Saddam was a petty thug who said a lot of BS to make himself look big and tough. That doesn't mean he was a real threat to us. I'd rather look at real evidence than listen to the rants of a petty thug.

Let me reiterate so you don't twist my words: Saddam was a bad guy, and he did some horrible things. I do not nor have in any way ever supported him (unlike Rumsfeld and Reagan did in the 1980s). He was a BAD GUY. Ok? But he posed no threat to us (proven since no WMDs were ever found), and a combination of sanctions and monitoring would have kept any intentions he had in check.

Now, you're other "issues" ... seriously off the deep end. Where are the massive round ups of individuals who have been corralled into prisons under wiretapping?

I never said that. But there certainly are prisoners stuck in prisons around the world, including Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq who are being held without trials or even being accused of anything, and many being tortured. It's shameful that a country that prides itself on its freedoms can treat people like that. It makes us look like some banana republic where dissidents are routinely incarcerated and tortured. Doesn't make us look like a shining example of democracy.

Also there are reasons we don't want our government wiretapping us. Has something to do with that INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY you claim to be so fond of. If you want the government prying into your personal business, go live in a dictatorship.

Funny, there haven't been any reports to suggest this is happening, have there? Can you show me evidence that people have been harmed? You can't, can you? Good timing, given yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court to toss out the ACLU's case .... why? FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE OF HARM which, last time I studied Law, is kinda an important thing to prove.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Guantanamo, secret CIA prisons, torture... it's all there in the public view. Prisoners held without legal representation; Bush telling attorneys he wants "convictions," not justice; finding loopholes in international terrorism laws...

I mentioned this in an earlier email; you seem to have a blind spot for the word "secret." Bush should certainly consult with energy experts -- but not in secret. It's public policy -- what's he got to hide? Cheney won't even release the minutes of his meetings; and he refused to meet with environmental and alternative energy groups until he was shamed into it. Even then he only allowed a half hour meeting with one such group, whereas he had many with wealthy executives of Enron etc., whose interests are not in conservation and cleaning up the environment, but in making profits.

C'mon, Mr. Right, can't you come up with at least a token rationale as to why this kind of public policymaking should be held behind closed doors, with no input from the public? We're talking about a democracy here, aren't we? Not some banana republic where the politicos make all the decisions and have no accountability. Why should the second in command of the world's biggest democracy want to be so secretive about what happened in those meetings? What's he got to hide? We all know there's government corruption, that these kinds of wink-wink handshake deals happen all the time behind closed doors. But usually public officials are not so obvious and arrogant about it. Please, tell me why that's ok, or at least admit that you have your blinders firmly in place.

Regarding global warming, I didn't actually say anything about that. But I will say you can always find a scientist to support your view. When the science doesn't match your ideology, you just get rid of the scientists and find ones that do. That's what Bush has done. [Update: note the latest news about Bush and Cheney pressuring EPA workers to remove references to greenhouse gases' harm on the environment from their reports, which would have required the government to further crack down on polluting industries.]

I'm no scientist myself but I do believe pollution causes damage to the environment. Call me crazy but I believe poisons kill humans and other living things, and cars and industry are major contributors to pollution. It's fair to want to protect the environment by legislating cars and industry. I also think there's ample evidence to suggest there is something called global warming, and again, though I'm not a scientist, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, as have most of the world's industrialized nations. Climate change is only one component of many problems that need to be addressed regarding the environment.

As a point of fact, even Bush has recently acknowledged that there is such a thing as global warming, although he's still doing everything he can to make sure nothing's done about it. And even the so-called skeptics acknowledge that global warming exists; they just disagree on its causes, juggling the data to say it's a part of a natural cycle rather than human-based. But curiously, most of them object mostly to the economic costs of trying to solve the problem -- which makes them the darlings of the industries that would have to fork up those costs. Makes me suspicious. You believe what you want to believe.

Failed economy? Oh, boy. Here we go ... let's see?

More evidence that you haven't read the news in a while. Most experts (conservative and liberal) acknowledge that we are either in or on the brink of a recession. Unemployment is on the rise now for three successive months, with Februrary 2008 the worst month yet; interest rates have been lowered in an attempt to stave off inflation. Rising wages? Don't know where that came from. Credit crisis. Mounting foreclosures. Ever heard the phrase "sub-prime mortgage"? Read the news, dude!

Since you aren't aware of these bits of recent news, you're probably also unaware that a few years back the Bush administration issed rules nullifying state predatory lending laws (over the objections of all 50 state banking superintendents). The result paved the way for an orgy of sub-prime lending and the current mortgage crisis. (Hey didn't the Republican party used to be the "states' rights" party? I guess they believe in states' rights only when it jives with their greed and ideology...)

Record low unemployement? Yes! Record Federal Treasury revenue? Check!That's no failure. Low interest rates? Check! (all this with the backdrop of the Tech Bubble Burst (Clinton), 9-11 (Clinton), Enron (Clinton) and WorldCom, etc....)

It's true the criminals at Enron were gaming the power grid and making billions off of taxpayers before Bush came to office. But I hope you're not implying that Clinton was somehow behind that? I'm no Clinton fan, but I'd be more suspicious of Cheney getting into bed with them after all that had happened. Worldcom collapsed somewhat later. You are right about the tech bubble bursting during Clinton's reign however.

"Record low unemployment?" Again, I question whether you are reading the news.

Rising wages? Check! That's no failure -- so much wealth created in the past, really 25 years since Reagan's initial lowering of broad based taxation policies. It's all there for you to see plain and simple.

I suppose all of those people whose jobs have been outsourced to India and are now working at Walmart and MacDonald's (the lucky ones anyway) are actually making more money than they admit... still looking in your description for that word "defecit"... long-term $50 trillion and counting, which equates to more than $400,000 per household in the U.S. Talk about taking money out of your pocket! As someone once said, it's easy to make the economy look good if you keep writing bad checks. The feds keep raiding social security and other programs just to pay the crippling interest on our national debt. Our grandchildren's children will probably still be paying off what we're spending now.

Can't we agree that the purpose of tax policies is to identify the best means to produce GDP wealth, provide revenues to the treasury while minimizing the negative impact to the citizens?

Yes. It's also to finance roads, sewage treatment plants, police, libraries, security and other services commonly used and needed by the public.

With this basic framework in place -- a framework that makes such obvious sense but isn't embraced by people, like you, who instead see tax systems as a means to reward and punish citizens based on social outcomes?! A social tool rather than an economic tool?

I didn't say that.

Really, that's how we should make tax policy???? Again, that's just lunacy that cuts against the grain of the ideals of the American system of freedom of economic pursuits -- think of it this way, if it helps you... what is the revenue to the the government if an individual who makes $200,000 is taxed at 10% compared to an individual who makes $100,000 but is taxed at 20%? The answer? Do the math, the federal govt gets $20,000 either way.

I think you lost me here. You're saying the person who makes less money should be paying a higher percentage of taxes? If Mr. 200K gets taxed 20% he's still got $160K, while Mr. 100K is left with $80K. Seems like the former's still got plenty more to spend on pumping up the economy. So then the guy who's making $40K a year should pay 50% of his salary to pay the same $20K in taxes?

So is not a better plan to find a way to help individuals obtain more wealth while lowering their taxable rate? The incoming revenue remains the same, but the individual then of course has more wealth, more purchasing power, leading to a rise in GDP, job creation, spending, saving, no reliance on social services for support -- isn't that why we ask people to go to school for? To be successful? Oh, sorry, in the Democrat party parlay, we don't want them to achieve, because then they'll be evil, and then we'll target them for increased taxation? Why? Because you'd rather give their money away to bureaucrats and elitists to do what THEY want rather than what the free market encourages.

Didn't know that's what I wanted. I would rather have people support themselves than be on the public dole, so I support job training programs and helping them get a leg up when they need it. But the trickle down theory you describe has never worked in decades of its application; the poor still stay poor, the middle class has been getting poorer, and the rich continue to get richer. I wish in fact it did work. At least the demos want to tax before they spend; the repubs just want to spend! Hence the aforementioned largest defecit in history.

Read this...!!!!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

Ok, I will defer on this topic, as I'm not an economics expert. There are many conflicting theories about this. I also know that the WSJ's editorial page is notoriously extreme right-wing, which makes me wonder how they juggled their numbers and why it's not in the news or business section, I would like to hear an expert response to this from another point of view. My basic problem with the "trickle down" theory is that as I said in my lifetime (and I'm no youngster) I've never seen it work. In the 1980s the Reagan policies initiated a huge shift in wealth from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy. As comedian Stephen Colbert put it, the "house that Reagan built" was done the hard way -- building the second story first (meaning the rich), supporting it with a lot of homeless people underneath it, and hoping the rest of the house would trickle down by itself. The Reagan era, if you will recall, was when the word "homeless" first became a noun rather than an adjective.

Vetoing health care? Uh, Scott... you see ... oh my god, this is embarrassing to have to spell this out for you ... there's a Federal program that already covers health insurance for needy kids.

Yes there is, but there are about 9 million uninsured children who don't qualify for it and can't afford health insurance or health care. Bush made sure that stayed the same, even over the objections of many conservatives.

Anyway I'll never understand why the largest vocal critics of national health insurance or universal health care are people that will never have to worry about it themselves. People such as Dick Cheney, who has some serious heart problems (if he has one -- just joking!), would probably be dead right now if he wasn't receiving the highest possible health care on the public dole. I doubt he's ever had to worry about paying his doctor's bill in his greedy, sorry life, yet he's one of the strongest detractors of universal health care. And although I don't know your financial situation, Mr. Right, I suspect you've never had to make the hard choice between paying rent or caring for a sick child. Fortunately neither have I, but I know the problem is real and I have compassion for those that must make that terrible choice. I don't understand why people like you get so outraged about the maybe one percent of those who are cheating the system but don't give a rat's ass about the 99 percent who really need it. Why are you not outraged that in the wealthiest country in the world so many people, young and old, can't afford decent health care?

The Democrats tried to expand that to include middle class and wealthy families with high incomes (over $80,000!!!) and for "kids" up to 25 years old. Can you tell me what needy kids are going w/o health care today -- that are being denied service?

The aforementioned 9 million.

None at all. I just want to make sure everyone has health care. Details to be worked out by experts.

What other spending "priorities" do they have -- eating out? Cable/satellite TV? Liquor? Drugs? Porn? Season tickets? parties? ..."

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. It would be great if everyone had access to all those niceties of life.

We can all agree these are lesser priorities in life than one's medical needs ... how can you truly tell me these 40 million people or whatever number you've concocted truly can't afford health care? How do you know? If I say I can't afford it, while I certainly can, will you go on TV too and prop me up as an example of how only government can solve problems (problems that they themselves often create and then exploit for their own power building objectives...)?

Um, there are things called tax returns that tell the government how much money you make. At the very least, if your income is below the poverty level you should qualify for assistance or public health care. But as I said I just want to make sure everyone has access to health care. How that happens? I'd leave that up to the experts.

Actually I wish my positions were more common; unfortunately I see many people still being duped by the lies, as they were in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. I understand people want to believe in the honesty and integrity of their elected officials, and it's tough to accept that they've been duped. Anyway I'm not sure where anything I said denies INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY. But it's funny, when I was growing up in the 60s, during the Vietnam war, the pro-war, conservative slogan was "better dead than red," meaning you'd rather die that live on your knees in fear (under the then-threat of communism). Nowadays conservatives use the terrorism threat as a political tool to keep us all living in fear, chipping away at our freedoms and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY so that we can all feel safe. It's as if the same people are now saying "I'd rather be red than dead." We can now be spied on by our own government, thrown in prison if the president "thinks" we're a threat, make decisions behind closed doors in the name of "national security," etc. It's a shame the government thinks it has to destroy democracy in order to save it.

But maybe you should define what you mean by "individual liberty." While I'm certainly a big believer in individual liberty, I believe that it comes with a responsibility, an understanding that every action I take has an impact somewhere else in the world. When I exercise my freedom to turn on a light switch, that electricity is being powered by a plant that's spewing toxins into the air, not in some toney high-priced neighborhood, but in a poor, probably non-white neighborhood with no political clout. Liberty doesn't just mean that I have the freedom to drive my gas-guzzling SUV as much as I want, and if we're getting low on gasoline, we just go to some third world country and take it, or support some dictator that lets us do so, or build another drilling rig off the coast of California or Florida; instead, I might take my bicycle or public transportation once in while so I'm not contributing so much to the problem,. My "individual" part in that is tiny, but collectively we can make big changes, fix things that are broken. That collective process of pointing out things that are wrong and working to change them is called "democracy," not "anti-Americanism." And when there's criminal activity, lies, corruption, expanding presidential powers and and a huge veil of secretiveness involved, it's called "saving democracy."

I hope you will read my above comments carefully and not filter out facts that don't fit into your belief system; and don't twist the meaning of things I've said into something I didn't say. If you really need to do that, well I can't stop you -- knock yourself out. I suppose you'll even tell your friends you've converted your eighth liberal to your cause... (Hmm, this does make me wonder about your claim to the other seven...) I must say, though, that you must live in a troubled world, seeing the evidence of this corruption all around you and desperately picking through it for the few feeble facts that support your belief system ("Al Qaeda's in chaos," "The Taliban's gone," "Saddam had WMDs," etc.). You can keep your head buried in the sand, but that won't make the corruption go away, and while the rich are getting richer, a lot of people are getting hurt in the meantime.

One final comment: I believe it's possible to love your country and not turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of its public officials. I believe turning back the course of the corruption and cancer of the Bush administration is the only patriotic choice to save our country and our democracy.

Scott

Email from Mr. Right to Scott

yawn. So much text but so little actually said. Here's some rational viewpoints and let's move on ...

First, the Democrat primaries showed the country where the home of callow bias, sexism and racism lives. The conservatives just watched you and laughed, as you put these on display for all of us. Thank you!!! Now the New Yorker jumps in (a liberal mag) to continue the drumbeat.... and somehow this is the Republican machine? Whatever ...

Your logic on the whole lies issue is misguided, as I've stated. We knew for a fact Saddam had WMD. Did you not see or read the 60 Minutes transcript in which had admitted this to his interrogator? That he had every intention of bringing them back but knew it was a losing game? Perhaps go ask the Kurds how they feel on this topic. The issue at hand though is that he was REQUIRED as terms of his cease fire agreement, signed in 1991, to allow for transparency in his programs. He did not, requiring the necessity of intelligence into the events that led up to March 2003, all supported by the French, the Russians, Bill Clinton, Robert Gates and others. If people played games with the intelligence, accepting your premise, then it is indeed a WIDE NET but, moreover, is a MOOT POINT. Don't you get that? The burden was on Saddam to DISPROVE, not the U.S. or anybody else. He failed, he got caught, he lost. The rest of your issues JUST DON'T MATTER. Why is this so difficult to understand?? Oh, I know... because you're more hell bent on pushing your vision of the U.S. as the bad guys in all this. Your liberal guilt is your own psychological problem -- please don't push this on the rest of us sane folk.

Yes, too bad Clinton perjured himself, dragging the country through a needless political and legal fight costing hundreds of millions of dollars. If only he could have not been such a skank. How many people died because of Clinton's inactions? His inactions in combating Al Qaeda and the Taliban directly led to 9-11. His administration deliberately tied the hands of the CIA and FBI from sharing information that could have helped to connect the dots. Through the liberation of the people of Iraq -- a "war' that is basically won and nearly over -- and in Afghanistan, we have given these nations new hope, freedom and opportunity that will never be found in your do nothing ideals. There is much work yet to be done, still, both to help these people and to help secure the region and indeed the free world. You would rather focus on those who died as a result of terrorists and insurgents and somehow, kookily, blame the U.S. for all of this. We are not colonizers, occupiers as your side so disgustingly projects. We have paid with our lives for the causes -- the OPPORTUNITY -- for peace and hope. That is something that you side has never given us.

Now you look forward to Obama to finish out the second term of the Carter administration. Too bad he's already moving to the right on so many issues, having already duped you in the primary into thinking he was just another liberal.

By the way, Scott, can you help me on a project? I'm trying to compile a list of all the undeniable positive outcomes of liberalism. Can you give me some examples?

* Social security?
* Fiscal responsibility?
* Foreign policy? Maybe an analysis of the positive outcomes of liberal adminstration's dealings with countries such as Iran and North Korea (oops -- it took the Bush doctrine to get us out of that Clinton/Carter/Albright mess. Sorry to needle you for that).
* Welfare
* Government intervention in energy policy
* Taxation for the purpose of revenue growth
* Promotion of individual liberties rather than the heavy hand of govt (please include a discussion of liberal's aim to usurp private property rights and to use one's land as government deems fit).

Well, that's a good start anyway.

Email from Scott to Mr. Right

I have to admit, Mr. Right, I'm ... puzzled by your response. I guess I was hoping for some back and forth about issues we disagree with; I'm always interested in understanding opposite points of view from my own -- I think it helps me better understand, define, and even sometimes reject my own point of view. Yes I do admit to being wrong sometimes, and I am capable of changing my mind. I don't think the world is a black and white place, with only good on one side and bad on the other, and a good healthy discussion can be illuminating.

But you responded to almost nothing I said, and refuted absolutely zero of my points with any facts or arguments. Instead you went off on a lot of other things I didn't even talk about (Obama, Carter, racism, your curious list of topics, etc.), and then attacked me for those. It's disappointing and it gets nowhere. It seems all you want to do is spout off your anger at liberals (which, by the way, I've never called myself, and don't much care for the term).

There's a behavior I see often with politicians and pundits: when they get backed into a corner and have no way of supporting their arguments, they lash out in all directions -- attacking the credibility or character of their opponent, bringing up an unrelated topic, whatever it takes. The core discussion never gets anywhere. It's tedious, frustrating and pointless.

This is the behavior I'm seeing in your last email, which makes me presume that you're unable to respond to anything I've said. It's too bad; if you could stay on topic we might actually have an interesting and productive discussion.

As for your list of "topics" you wish me to discuss, I'm not really sure what you're after. There are good and bad things about all of those topics, but I get the feeling you're setting traps so you can rant some more at me. If you really want to learn about those things, take a class in history or politics.

I'm really not such a bad guy, Mr. Right. I can rant with the best of them, but I find meaningful discussions much more interesting.

Reader comments

Add your own comments here for others to read.

From: ORQUESTA COLOMBIAN LIKE 2009/12/25

me gustaria ser parte de esra red de amigos y dar a conocer mas ampliamente nuestros servicios artisticos,
de nuestra orquesta internacional
COLOMBIAN LIKE

PARA MAYOR INFO www.colombianlike.blogspot.com
videos,musica,e historia musical
info 315 562 75 70