Thursday, 18 August 2005 - 5:27 PM CDT

Memo: check with your vet first thing tomorrow to make sure your rabies vaccination is current. I don't want to alarm you, but there could be a problem.

In calling her a Jew-baiter you are perpetuating a lie. She is nothing of the kind. Or, if she is by your definition, so are a good number of the members of the Knesset. If you had lost a son fighting in a proxy-war for Israel for which he did not enlist, perhaps your own perspective might be different.

No, TP, you are under no obligation to be decent to her because of her loss, though perhaps a larger man might feel so compelled. It seems to me you do have an obligation to her son, on the other hand, to feign some respect for his mother or at least to check your disgust. Her son is after all an American soldier who gave his life in the service of the country and is not here to defend his mother from such vicious attacks. I would never have believed I would have to explain that to another American, but there it is. You should be ashamed. I know you're not. More's the pity. Any claim on your part to be a supporter of our troops from this point has zero credibility. If this is not spitting on a soldier - and a dead one - I don't know what is.

Friday, 19 August 2005 - 1:24 AM CDT

I am interested to see how much of a given it is with you to take the War for Iraq as a proxy war on behalf of Israel. If that's what this war is, it is also any or all of another dozen things ---all of which are bound to benefit us in the end.

Don't you suppose that the stirrings in Lebanon and the growing feebleness (and vulnerability, I am happy to add) of the Ba'athists in Syria and the chastening of Mubarak in Egypt and Khadaffi in Libya and many other movements in the Middle East are at least partly attributable to our military presence in Iraq?

If what we are set to do in that part of the world isn't achieved as suddenly as the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself were, it won't be any less momentous.

America and her allies have a moral and Historical obligation to convert these heathens to democracy, whisky, and sexy. It is a huge undertaking, but that's the prerogative of empire.

Friday, 19 August 2005 - 1:28 AM CDT

Oh! I almost forgot to respond to the rest of your comment for all my grandiosity: you sum up exactly the sort of immunity to criticism that the anti-Bush Left was seeking when they put their money where Cindy Sheehan's mouth is.

Note to [patriotic] Americans: when the stuff you're saying is indistinguishable from something that al-Zarqwai or al-Jazeera might say, it's time to stop digging.

Saturday, 20 August 2005 - 6:06 PM CDT

Bush's supporters have already dug themselves a hole too deep. Not only has he not seen fit to speak (again - so what? he's too busy biking and clearing brush?) with Cindy, he has yet to repudiate the jerk that ran over the memorial crosses. Is Karl Rove still working for the President? I can't imagine why he has let Bush's self-destructive temper tantrum continue and leave him so open. This falls on Bush as well as Mr. Northern:

You Mowed Down His Cross
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082005A.shtml

Saturday, 20 August 2005 - 6:20 PM CDT

"Don't you suppose that the stirrings in Lebanon and the growing feebleness (and vulnerability, I am happy to add) of the Ba'athists in Syria and the chastening of Mubarak in Egypt and Khadaffi in Libya and many other movements in the Middle East are at least partly attributable to our military presence in Iraq?"

No. None whatsoever. The evidence is otherwise. All of the things you name are the result of unrelated developments which have been in progress for years.

Bush is like the rooster crowing because he thinks he is causing the sun to rise.

One result of our invasion and occupation that I would point to is the rush to develop nuclear weapons by countries who feel threatened. Another of course is the strengthening of radicalism as the counter-productive result of our presence.

Why are we alienating the entire Middle East at this particular juncture, do you think? Is that in the national interest of the United States?

Saturday, 20 August 2005 - 8:35 PM CDT

"America and her allies have a moral and Historical obligation to convert these heathens to democracy, whisky, and sexy. It is a huge undertaking, but that's the prerogative of empire."

What a total load of crap. Says who? Did somebody tell you that, or did you make it up all by yourself? Manifest destiny. Might makes right. The neocon mantra. What the hell is the difference?

We're not an empire. The American people are not interested in imperium. Our military is not an army of empire and occupation. The neocons lied us into an utter debacle in Iraq. Their idiocy has screwed our military force structure and our international credibility for years to come. They should have the decency to sit down now and shut up. (That they do not shut up is further evidence that they are not concerned about any harm to America as long as the policy helps Israel).

We have a moral and historical obligation to leave everybody the hell alone to the extent they are not attacking us. We all have an obligation to try to make better human beings of ourselves. That is the purpose of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As far as I can tell, we ALL have more than enough to do in that regard without ever getting around to "improving" other people or their religion.