On Aug 16, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
How oculd it be so? You and Dave don't even _object_ to those views. If you did, all I'm saying, is, say so.
OK. For the record. I object to simplistic explanations of our reasons for going to war with Iraq, be they "but he was a brutal dictator" or "but he might have had WMDs" or "no blood for oil" or "it was all for Israel." They're all wrong, because they're all grossly incomplete.
You've had endless opportunities to do it, and you've consistently refused. What am I supposed to think, exactly? It can't be an ad hominem attack if I'm saying you believe in things that _you appear to believe in_.
You say that Nick and I believe something, then demand that we refute it. Bullshit. Have I stopped beating my wife?
Here's, it's easy, I'll write the post for you myself. "I disagree with the war. I think it was a bad idea, and I think we should leave Iraq immediately. But, whatever the reasons were that we invaded, I don't believe that the war was fought at the behest of Jews who were loyal to Israel instead of the United States. I understand that this echoes one of the oldest tropes of anti-semitism. I don't believe it. I don't support anyone who does believe these things, and I won't choose people who do believe these things as my spokesperson."
No, but how about this: "I disagree with the war. I think and have always thought that it was a bad idea, and we should remove our troops as soon as practical. We have damaged their infrastructure and disrupted their society too much to leave them in the state in which we've put them. We have a moral obligation to help them re-establish the kind of government that *they* would choose for themselves. Whatever the reasons were for invading, I am certain that it was not solely at the behest of Jews, Arabs, oil interests, the military- industrial complex, Jesus, avenging George's Daddy, or any other single individual, group or idea. I know that Gautam is desperate to paint me as an anti-semite, but I think that even he knows that dog don't hunt, so he writes some hogwash that I wouldn't say for love or money, and I sure as hell wouldn't choose him as my spokesperson."
There, see? Not hard at all. I'm happy to believe that you and Dave weren't even _aware_ of these parts of her views. Except, now, you are...and I notice that neither of you has lifted a finger to even disavow the _views_, much less the person expressing them. So what, exactly, am I supposed to think?
You're not even reading our messages now. You're just shouting the same crap louder and louder. At 4:36 PDT, I wrote:
"If she made anti-semitic comments, then she spoke poorly in her pain and anger. I don't agree with that facet of her stand."
I not only acknowledged the possibility of the reality of your interpretation of her comments, but I denounced them. Is there some further act of contrition that I have failed to complete? Talk about self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong... Dave _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
