Of Wingnuts and Loose Screws

I just thought I'd share this comment with you. This is typical of the communications I receive from liberals. Judging by their faulty logic, their misinformation and their bad grammar, I think everyone who writes to me is 16 years old. Apparently, "wingnut" is some sort of operative word with liberals. You'd think, for people who so love name-calling, liberals would invent some better insults. "Homophobe" -- fear of sameness? What's that all about?

So let me see if I understand this: The people in Afghanistan and Iraq would actually WANT to stay occupied, bombed, and strafed, if only us liberals would get in line and drink the wingnut Kool-aidâ„¢?

Obviously, you don't understand this. The people in Afghanistan and Iraq would actually WANT to stay occupied rather than see their children tossed into prisons, their daughters and wives raped, torture chambers operating, women being executed in soccer fields for the crime of learning or exposing their face, and relatives disappearing and turning up in mass graves. You liberals are really works of art. You can totally ignore human atrocities in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, etc. but when we do something to end it, you cry crocodile tears at the "suffering." I suggest you read Sunday's Parade Magazine that will list the world's 10 worst dictators. Then maybe you'll have an idea of what suffering really is. But why should you care? They're just brown people on the other side of the world.

If we praised you, and people like you, and all the other wingnuts, agreeing with you, (like the media does daily) the people Bush is bombing would look up and smile benevolently and say "THANK YOU!" with tears in their eyes, waiting for impact?

The people Bush is bombing are terrorists. And if you invite terrorists to dinner, as happened in Pakistan last week, you can expect a surprise for dessert. That's war. It isn't for the squeamish.

If we would get on board, singing louder all the time, civil war wouldn't be raging in Iraq right now?

Civil war? That's odd. I work in a newsroom -- just 10 feet from the Middle East desk -- and I haven't heard a word about a civil war in Iraq. Are we occupying the same dimension? Actually, you don't have to "get on board." All you have to do is sit down and shut up and let your betters fight this war. Stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy by convincing them that this country is about to cave any day.

If we kept talking about "THE SCHOOLS! THE SCHOOLS!", and gagged ourselves, and repeated only what you want us to say, the insurgents would give up?

No, the "insurgents" (foreign terrorists who have no business being in Iraq) wouldn't give up. We'd kill them. Every single one. Although I like the idea of gagging yourselves.

You mean to say that if we all were wingnuts, not a dissenting voice anywhere, Osama would say "Whoa! You guys are too patriotic and consistent for me, I'm surrendering. Here's my GPS coordinates." What's interesting is how his latest (cough-faked-cough) tape makes all of Bush's talking points. Osama is dead. Has been dead.

Now, this comment shows that liberals truly are unhinged. In order to believe what they believe, they must reject all reality. Apparently, everyone from al-Jazeera to the CIA have conspired to fake a tape from Osama. And they're all taking orders from Bush. He's really dead. Has been dead.

Nah. Iraqis don't want us to leave because I bash Bush. They want us to leave so Bush will stop killing them with death squads, bombing runs, and white phosphorus.

Death squads. Oooooh scaaarrrryy. Iraqis don't want us to leave. Terrorists do. Thugs do. Murderers do. And all so they can grab power and reestablish one of the most brutal regimes in the world. And since you have apparently never even met a military person, it is up to me to inform you that white phosphorus is a tool, not a weapon. It is used to mark targets and to provide smoke cover for our troops. There has probably been more white phosphorus laid down close to our troops than to the enemy. Bombing runs. Heh, that's really cute.

We aren't against wiretapping terrorists. We're against Bush telling us he was getting a warrant when he wasn't. That's a lie. If it was so right, so strong, so macho, so appropriate, why did he lie? Why did Bush repeatedly lie about getting warrants and protecting our rights when he was running a massive electonic sweep of anything and anyone he could snoop, and doing it without the warrants he told us he was getting?

Who do you think you are? It is none of your business what the Commander-in Chief has to do to protect us from an enemy that wants to kill us all. In the security business it's called "the need to know" and since you will never contribute anything to our struggle to survive, you obviously do not have the need to know. Do you really believe that the President, in the middle of a war on terror, wants to devote the time and resources to run a "massive electronic sweep of anything and anyone he could snoop?" You are not that interesting. Really. Exactly what rights did you have five years ago that you don't have now?

Simple. Bush lied. Doesn't matter why. What you wingnuts are saying is that you approve of being lied to, as long as Bush is doing the lying.

"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." I dumped the last paragraph because, like all liberals, this person could not resist employing profanity and personal attacks to wrap up his reasoned argument. I believe it was Eric Hoffer who said, "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." This is why I usually don't post liberal comments. It isn't because I fear disagreement, it's because they're all so scatterbrained. I just did this because it's a slow news night. There wasn't one original thought in this guy's comment. These people all talk as though they've been programmed by a central computer -- a computer with a loose wingnut.