Posted on 02/08/2003 8:19:06 AM PST by Richard Poe
I don't think so, amigo.
I reckon this naming of collective opponents as 'gays' or 'commie spies' just shows the paucity of some Freepers' arguments. Since when does opposing the war make you a traitor? There are many related issues conservatives should be concerned about: the cost, the censorship, the abuse of the Constitution by the security services, for instance. And Raimondo's brilliant: he's definitely one we want inside the Tent. I'll see if I can rustle up something received in an Aussie e-newsletter this week, to demonstrate. Cheers, B.
Here's that disgraceful column:
Dear Byron the Aussie:
I agree with your assessment of Raimondo's talents. But I would suggest that his gifts are being put to ill use.
Just what "Tent" are you referring to, anyway?
Another question: What underlying principle shapes your notion of acceptable discourse? Certainly not ordinary standards of fair play. Rather, your moral outrage seems to be driven by some sort of elusive double standard.
You consider it permissible to call me a "Joe McCarthy clone," yet you cry foul when others call Raimondo names. Are you a leftist, by any chance?
President Reagan's 'tent', Richard. And the analogy's never been more relevant. I mean, what is this deathwish amongst us, that we must always turn upon our own? The Gipper was especially aware of (and guarded against) it. I can look at Raimondo's writings and know (after grinding my teeth at some of the unnecessary hyperbole and theatricality) that he's one of us, for want of a better word. There has been way too much of this statist RINO groupthink in both the US and on FR, lately. If some holds a different view on one or two of innumerable issues, then why focus on it, endlessly? Why drive them out, when they have so much energy and insight to offer? We have seen it too much around here and the turnover's got too high to ignore. In the case of Raimondo, I would say to you and his other detractors, address the issues. Someone of your calibre and intellect should be doing that. Can the crap about 'Red agents', 'Justine', etc, that just demeans whoever writes it. Regards, By.
Address the issues, you say?
Under the circumstances, I cannot imagine any issue more pressing than whether or not Iraq had a hand in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing and the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. When I raised these issues with Raimondo, he dismissed me as a "kook."
Raimondo's utter lack of curiosity on these vital questions leaves me with no choice but to wonder whose side he is really on.
How about you? Do you care who masterminded the last ten years of terror attacks against our country? Or do you find that an irrelevant detail, compared with the overriding goal of keeping Raimondo in the... er, what did you call it? The Tent?
Pravda, Shmavda -- if this is the kind of "logic" involved in Richard Poe's contention that Iraq really bombed the World Trade Center (and, I guess, the Oklahoma City federal building), then I don't think "tinfoil hat" quite covers it: Poe's wacky screed is a Reynolds Wrap Special, for sure.
As for being a "traitor," and "enemy agent," or whatever, for questioning whether the invasion and indefinite occupation of Iraq is in America's national interest -- I guess we'll have to also target Brent Scowcroft, General Anthony Zinni, Norman Scharzkopf, the former commander of the Marines, and Senator John Hagel as my fellow conspirators. Good luck with that one....
Ad hominem attacks are always an indication that the writer has run out of valid arguments, and that is certainly the case with the War Party. They know perfectly well that attacking Iraq makes no sense -- none at all -- in the midst of a war against Al Qaeda, and benefits one and only one country, and that is Israel. So they try to distract us away from the real issue, in the hope that no one will notice the paucity of their own arguments.
I find it fascinating that people on this thread are saying how right I was when it came to opposing the Kosovo war -- but my reasons for opposing that war, and this one, are identical. The Kosovo war was fought for the benefit, not of the U.S., but of the Turks, and the Albanian Kosovars (really, the same entity): this current war is being fought for Turkey's main ally in the Middle East, which is Israel. I am being entirely consistent: I support wars of self-defense, not wars of conquest against nations that have never attacked us (a describtion that fits both Serbia and Iraq).
Wars of conquest are un-American. That's why I oppose this war. And, don't forget: war is the health of the State. I see Drudge is running a huge headline about "Part II" of the "Patriot" Act: now we'll see a real-life demonstration of the principle that you can't have a global empire and a constitutional republic at the same time. Hey, Iron Jack, long time, no see.
Oh, and "Hi, Veronica!" Sold any artwork lately?
And if you really, really want to push him over the edge, call him Justine Gaymundo.
"...since my stuff has been reprinted in Israel... Macedonia..."
No sense? For twelve long years Iraq violates its agreement to disarm and you think we should give them more time? How much time, Justin? A year? Five years? Fifty years? I know you're not so naive as to think Saddam will ever stop producing and using WPMs, so just why would you want to give him all eternity to do what we all know he will not do? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a confirmed pacifist like you would wink at this sort of arms build-up in such an explosive region. What, are you pro-proliferation now, Justin?
Benefits only Israel? Seems to me that it benefits quite a few others, starting with the Iraqi people themselves. But then you already know that Saddam has used chemical warfare against the inhabitants of his own country, don't you? And you're also well aware of what Saddam has deployed against the Iranians -- just as you're well acquainted with Saddam's penchant for invading our allies' countries (think: Kuwait). So why pretend otherwise?
While we're at it, perhaps you can tell me why Saddam, who has "nothing" to do with Al Qaeda, has been hosting known Al Qaeda and providing them with facilities in Northeast Iraq.
President George W. Bush
There seems to be some discrepancy between your account and Bill White's.
Pravda's former U.S. correspondent Bill White claims here and here that you were instrumental in forcing his resignation -- that you bombarded Pravda.ru's editors with angry letters and threatened to pull your columns in protest against their hiring of White.
All of this implies that you did indeed have some sort of editorial relationship with Pravda.ru.
Granted, White is not the most reliable source. But I'd like to know, for the record, whether you are calling him a liar.
Personally, I haven't the foggiest idea who or what "Al Qaeda" really is or why I should believe that this nebulous "terrorist network" is solely responsible for the 9-11 attacks -- or even capable of carrying out such an operation.
Granted, the talking hairstyles on television have been urging me to draw this conclusion ever since 9-11. But, for some reason, I am hesitant to take their word for it.
I presume you have some authoritative data to back up your "lone terrorist network" theory?
OK. Serbia has never attacked the U.S., our allies, or known national strategic interests. Iraq has. begining in 1990 (or even earlier) up until this very day. Whether Iraq was solely responsible for the first bombing of the WTC is debatable. There is no debate they had a hand (logistics, humint, etc.) in the attack.
You may not believe that OKC was related to Iraq. Fine. But the Iraqi military shoots at us, the British and others every day. Justin, one more time I'll tell you this: we are at war, since before 9-11, with an enemy which seeks our (and the western world's) total destruction. Apparently 9-11 didn't have as much impact on you as it did me and the rest of the American people.
Sorry, I wasted your time and mine.
5.56mm
It's weird. You would think that, if you're going to try to portray me as an "enemy agent," you'd at least come up with some evidence that I'm somehow tied to Bagdhad -- not Moscow. You seem to have slipped into a time warp, Richard: the cold war is over, communism is no more, and accusing someone of being an "agent of the Kremlin" is only apt to make people wonder WHY on earth you're wearing that tinfoil hat.....
"...communism is no more..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.