My response to a pro-war counter-protester/Ft. Bragg Army wife

[Sapphocrat]

The email I received today is very short, and my response (which I haven't sent yet) is very long. Maybe I'm going overboard here, but as I imply below, it's not often I hear from someone who fulfills no less than THREE criteria of being a complete War-Bot (pro-war, military wife, AND a counter-protester), and doesn't just tell me to go straight to hell.

And, as I've mentioned before, the very fact that I do receive challenges like this (almost on a regular basis now, and usually more shrill than this one) tells me that the * lovers are getting more frightened and more desperate... as well as the fact that something I've done or said has really hit a nerve.

I mean, come on, what's the point in confronting an insignificant little pissant like me? It's about as productive as scraping a Kerry-Edwards sticker off a car, or torching a lawn sign.

Nevertheless, I felt compelled to write a long reply -- if I've struck a nerve with this woman, then perhaps I can strike another. And I know, with people like this, I have only one shot.

So, I'd very much appreciate any feedback on my response, which I'm going to mull over for a while today before sending.

Original message:

Amy P------
[e-mail]

Well, I counter protest war protesters in my military town. We DO support the military and my husband DID enlist. He helped liberate Iraqis with his 82nd ABN DIV.

To take your logic to it's opposite extreme, if all folks who support the troops should enlist, shouldn't all pacifists be peaceful? The worst violent bunch of protesters I see are always the war-protesters. "Peace! Or I'll beat you up!" Good.

My (draft) response:

Dear Amy,

I hope you'll read this in full, and with an open mind. It's not a form letter (which is what I usually send out when someone on "the other side" takes issue with my work); since you felt moved to question me, and to reveal yourself as a counter-protester, I felt it only right to respond to you with sincere thought and effort.

Too, I seldom get the chance to communicate with my political counterparts. Oh, I hear from plenty of people who disagree with me, but seldom in a way that invites civil discourse. I might share some of these sentiments with you, if I myself weren't so shocked by the hostility (and profanity) in nearly every one. (And believe me, very little shocks me anymore.)

That said...

My first reaction to your message was simply bemusement: If whatever it is that's bothering you (my blog? my bumper stickers?) doesn't apply to your husband, then why are you upset?

I am very surprised by your claim of "Peace! Or I'll beat you up!" I find such a scenario extremely difficult to fathom. I'd be most interested in seeing some verifiable news reports of war protesters getting violent. If you mean "verbally offensive," that's not violence -- that's just free speech.

On the other hand, if you'd like to see some of the damage inflicted _on_ war protesters, I have plenty of news reports to share with you -- and I can introduce you to numerous living, breathing human beings who would be more than happy to share their stories with you.

I'm not sure why you're upset by those of us who believe this war immoral, unjust, and unjustified. I do understand that pro-war military families are often unable to understand that people like me do NOT want to see people like your husband die for a lie (or a thousand lies).

I love my country, and I would fight to the death to _defend_ her. I understand that you probably believe this war in Iraq does have something to do with defending our nation. I don't believe it does, simply because every claim that Iraq presented an "imminent threat" has been debunked. (Of course, now we are very much in danger, moreso than we were on September 10, 2001.)

You also need to understand that my allegiance is to the United States of America, and to the principles on which she was founded -- not to any individual, nor any corporate interest. And it is the corporate interests of individuals upon which this war is based.

The title of an essay I just read today says it all: "Casey Sheehan: He volunteered to serve America, not a President".

I expect that you would brand me "unpatriotic" and "anti-military." If you did, you'd be wrong. I'm not even "anti-war" in what I expect your definition of "anti-war" may be: I do recognize the fact that sometimes war is necessary, and when it is necessary, I will support it. Unfortunately, the U.S. has engaged in only two "necessary" wars in the past 60 years: World War II and Gulf War I. All the rest -- Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo (yes, I do criticize President Clinton for that and many other things, loudly and frequently -- I'm no mindless Clinton-worshipper), and all the undeclared "skirmishes" and illegal actions (can you say "Iran-Contra"?) -- were for naught.

Speaking of Gulf War I, even the first President Bush recognized the sheer insanity of attempting to "liberate" Iraq, when we were already right in Saddam's backyard, and had more than enough troops -- and more than enough "political capital" to spend on such an undertaking.

Read the book, "A World Transformed," written in 1998, in which Bush Sr. explained why, after the liberation of Kuwait, he didn't send the troops straight into Baghdad:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."

Aside from an "immediate" collapse of the coalition (it's been a slow, steady degradation), have you ever read a more accurate description of the current state of U.S.-occupied Iraq?

Bush Sr. wasn't psychic -- but in this instance, he was _wise_. If only George Jr. had listened to his father.

Furthermore, "liberating the Iraqis" was not the reason we were given for the invasion of Iraq. Attacking Iraq (and Iran, and Syria, and a laundry list of other sovereign Middle East nations) has been in the playbook for decades (Google "Project for the New American Century" if you don't believe me); 9/11 was simply the catalyst -- and in some crazy way that still astounds me, the American public was eager to believe that attacking a bad guy in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (and killing 100,000 or so civilians in the process) would somehow avenge the actions of another bad guy in a different country.

Explain _that_ logic to me.

And today, a startling number of Americans still believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Has everyone forgotten about Osama bin Laden? You know, the guy who was in Afghanistan at the time (where is he now, anyway?), leading a gang of Saudis -- not Iraqis.

Avenging 9/11 by going after Saddam in Iraq instead of Osama in Afghanistan is like the old joke: "If you lost your keys in the bedroom, why are you looking for them in the kitchen?" "Because the light's better in the kitchen."

So what _are_ we doing in Iraq? If we're so set on stopping world terror, why aren't we interested in Third World countries that offer the perfect climate for breeding terrorists -- Sudan, Somalia, Uganda, etc.? (Simple: Because they have nothing we want.)

If we care about human rights, why aren't we concerned about the horrific abuses in Saudi Arabia? (Simple: Because S.A. has too great a financial interest in the U.S., and could cripple our economy instantly.) Or China? (Simple: because China could -- and would -- destroy us militarily.)

If we're so worried about weapons of mass destruction (which aren't in Iraq), why aren't we demanding inspections inside Israel? (Simple: Israel is the permanent U.S. "outpost" in the ME, so we pretend Israel doesn't have the bomb -- which it does.) And why haven't we dealt with North Korea? (Simple: NK has nothing we want, _and_ it could already destroy us militarily.)

And if we want to liberate an oppressed people, there was (and is) a long, long list of countries where we could have served a much greater good than Iraq. Pick up an atlas, point to Africa, and pick a country at random -- almost any country will do.

Me, I would have chosen Rwanda. But, like every other First World country, the United States barely acknowledged the slaughter of more than a million Tutsis -- and absolutely refused to intervene as the world watched men, women, and children literally macheted to death as they tried to hide in their churches.

So why didn't we act in Rwanda? The need was urgent, and we were _begged_ to intervene -- and it's not like it took us by surprise, or happened overnight; the massacre went on for more than three months.

Simple: There's nothing political, strategic, or financial to be gained from Rwanda.

So until a country has oil or some other commodity we want, we're going to ignore the poverty, the disease, the unlawful executions, the brutal tactics of fascist dictators and militant rebels... We're going to pretend nothing and no one was ever as evil as Saddam and his imaginary threats.

I don't know what the Reason of the Moment is for invading Iraq -- it changes so often, it's hard to keep track. It's gone from avenging 9/11 (wrong guy, wrong country) to finding WMDs (that were never there) to spreading democracy throughout the Middle East (as if democracy can be forced upon a people at gunpoint) to the nonexistent "imminent threat" of a "mushroom cloud" (which would be quite a trick for a country with no nuclear capabilities) to "Saddam gassed his own people" (gee, has nobody ever heard of Project SHAD, or the Tuskegee Airmen experiment, or Operation Crossroads?) to... Well, I'm sure you've heard them all.

Don't you realize that it was we -- the United States -- who armed and funded Saddam (and OBL, for that matter) in the first place? We created a monster, just as we did with Manuel Noriega, and -- as with Noriega -- when he was of no further use to us, we deposed him.

Don't you realize, too, that we turned Iraq from a merely antagonistic yet fully functioning society into what Bob Herbert so aptly described as "a world-class recruiting tool for terrorist groups"?

By 1) blocking food and medicine to Iraq for 12 years (killing some half-million civilians, mostly children) and 2) wiping out an entire society for spurious and ever-shifting reasons, _we_ have now created the very breeding ground for terrorism that our leaders claim to be fighting. Or rather, for which they claim to send people like your husband to fight _for_ them.

My fight is not against our troops -- my fight is against the leaders who _misuse_ our troops. As Will Durst wrote recently in a fine, short piece well worth reading ( http://www.buzzflash.com/durst/05/06/dur05007.html ):

"Okay, get this and get this straight. Criticizing our Government is not the same as criticizing our armed forces. Okay? The same way that criticizing our Government is not the same as criticizing our postal workers. ...

"(Furthermore,) I'll tell you what endangers our troops: Greedy, cretinous toad leaders who send them 12,000 miles away to a desert to fight a war based on lies. Lies about the threat, and lies about a phantom desire to negotiate. That's who is responsible for putting our troops in harm's way. ...

"What bowling ball cajones (House Speaker Dennis Hastert) must have to scream at Senator Durbin, the anti-torture dude, instead of the idiots who keep sending our troops over there without the proper equipment. You should be screaming at the over-inflated egos trying to take away benefits from those very same troops you're so protective of. It's like teaching the 9/11 terrorists a lesson by invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with it. Oh, okay, I see. It's a pattern."

What Durst failed to mention about the "majority leadership" is that the men who are sending our troops to their deaths (or dismemberment, or lifelong emotional trauma) managed to weasel _their_ way out of fighting and dying. What do think the Army would have done to your husband if had just walked off the job for 18 months (like Bush) -- and during wartime, at that? Or just decided not to go to Iraq because he had "other priorities" (like Cheney)? At least Rumsfeld served -- if you call spending the Korean War in the ROTC at Princeton "serving." (Oh yes, he did fly Navy jets for a while -- during peacetime.)

Regarding trauma: I know Fort Bragg is the HQ of the 82nd -- and I also remember all too well what happened to four Army wives there in the summer of 2002. The murders made one thing clear to me: We are NOT taking care of our returning soldiers any better than we did during Vietnam. That is a travesty, and it is avoidable -- but only if our leaders stop thinking of our troops as disposable, expendable fodder.

And there's the difference between George W. Bush and me: To me, your husband is a human being -- not "collateral."

Someone once said: "Old men start wars; young men die in them." What no one wants to admit is that the current crop of "old men" are chickenhawks. I wonder how hell-bent they'd be on war if any of them had ever had to face what your husband did?

Is it any wonder that Colin Powell was so reluctant to attack Iraq? And is it any wonder that Powell is no longer in the picture? He's the only one of the bunch who had any idea what a misguided, crazy idea this war was.

Yes, there is evil in this world. Yes, Saddam Hussein is evil. Yes, I'm glad he's out of power. But at what price? Our very souls?

And what good has it all done? Are we any safer? No, there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 -- but the people we are killing right now are NOT the ones who attacked us on 9/11.

I've heard the tired old line, "We need to fight the terrorists over there, so we won't have to fight them here," a thousand times. I don't think the people of London are buying that line anymore, do you? I know the families of the Australians who died in Bali aren't buying it. I'm guessing the survivors of the Madrid train bombing aren't buying it either.

Is it lost on you that our three most powerful allies in the original "Coalition of the Willing" have all been attacked either on their own soil (or, in the Bali bombing, in their immediate backyard) _since_ 9/11?

I don't know about you, but none of this makes me feel any safer. Neither does the steady glow of a yellow "terror alert." Or is it orange today? No, wait, we're back to yellow...

In the end (and here I use the word "you" in a general sense, not you specifically), I guess if YOU die for a cause YOU believe is just, then YOU have not died in vain.

In this case, however, I do not believe this cause is just -- and so I do believe that if you die for it, your death _is_ in vain. It's not that I don't recognize or appreciate your devotion to duty; it's that I believe that devotion, no matter how noble, is the result of... well, being hoodwinked.

It must be nearly impossible to accept the fact that you were lied to, and are still being manipulated on a daily basis. It must be incomprehensible and downright frightening to see that maybe, just maybe, the entire "mission" was phony.

Even I have a hard time accepting that sometimes. Coming to grips with it, facing the reality of it, makes us feel like fools. Nobody wants to feel that way, and so most people reject the hard facts that are right in front of them. It's called "cognitive dissonance" -- and that's exactly what half the United States is suffering from, right this minute.

But once you're open to listening to new information (without shooting the messenger), perhaps you will understand how I, too, support the troops -- which is _why_ I cannot support sending them to slaughter for a pack of lies.

I write this in all sincerity, Amy. I don't expect to change your mind -- but I do hope it will make you understand that we're not so far apart as you might think. Ideologically, yes, we are -- and I have little hope that will ever change. But we both want the same bottom line: a free, safe, democratic America, that still stands for truth and justice.

I'm still waiting for the return of "truth and justice."

By the way, did I mention I have a cousin in Baghdad right this minute? I do what I do partly for him. And if he ends up dead, I'll do it for the next cousin -- or son, or brother, or husband, or friend.

As Senator Kerry once said: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Sincerely,
JR

P.S. I'll leave you with something I just read today, which summarizes my own pro-troops/anti-war stance perfectly. I hope you'll read the whole piece:

"(The men and women of our military) honor our country and we citizens by their great service and sacrifice. We should respect and honor them. They go into the military and train to protect our country and our freedoms and understand they may have to sacrifice their lives. They trust our government to be in the right and don't question it. We should do what we can to ensure they aren't misused, abused or cast aside by our own government. ...

"We Americans have sat by while this administration and top Pentagon officials have gone against the Geneva Convention, which will put our troops in harm's way for years to come. ... We Americans have sat by and allowed the low-level military personnel become scapegoats...

"I am not antiwar. As long as it is possible for people like Adolph Hitler to come to power and persecute people, then there is a possibility for a need of military action. ...

"I am antiwar in Iraq because we were lied to about why we are in Iraq, our troops still don't have enough protective equipment, there were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq wasn't responsible for the bombing of the World Trade Center. The first report I saw on CNN was that Marines had successfully secured 20 oil sites. It hasn't been about taking democracy to the Iraqi people. The Downing Street memos, the massive number of soldiers returning wounded and with missing limbs and more than 1,841 American soldiers' deaths, those are some of the reasons I am against the war in Iraq.

"We Americans should make sure we elect officials who will send our boys to war only when absolutely necessary. I do not intend to be partisan as I am very disappointed in the leadership in both parties. I am disappointed in 'we Americans,' too, as many of us have sat quietly by and let this happen and that includes me. I pray that our troops will be home by Thanksgiving. I don't care which side of the aisle in Congress can get it done. But I don't think it will happen unless we Americans start letting our voices be heard. Peace."

Link:
http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050818/OPINION/508180319/1014

Comments?

[deadparrot]

1. Wow...

that was awesome. You summed up my stance (and, I'm guessing, the stance of many DUers) perfectly. I know I have a tendency to get emotional when dealing with issues like the war, or anything BushCo related. You summed up the points perfectly, and reasonably. Great job. Nominated.

[Sapphocrat]

24. Something about the timing was right...

Thanks, deadparrot, for your very kind words. :)

I tend to get hugely emotional with every issue I'm passionate about (I nearly wince at some of my earliest, over-the-top posts from a few years ago)... I'm not sure why I didn't just shoot from the hip on this one. I think the timing was somehow right. And I think if I had received this email even a day earlier, I wouldn't have been moved to plot it all out like this, point by point.

The war issue is, of course, the most convoluted, and for me has been extremely difficult to summarize, as the sheer amount of information is overwhelming. But something just gelled today, and it felt right, almost automatic. Due in no small part to DU, naturally. :) You just keep reading and debating and reading some more, and you wake up one day and -- other than looking up a few links (already knowing exactly which sources you want to quote) -- you suddenly realize you no longer need crib notes to say what's been burned into your brain.

I was unsure about what I wrote, until I started reading the comments here -- which are going to take a while to respond to in full -- but which make me feel utterly fan-flipping-tastically GOOD for the first time in a long while. :)

[AuntPatsy]

2. A must read for all here even those unwelcome gnats that

refuse to leave.

[Sapphocrat]

25. I hope they stay. :)

I hope they stop trolling, but I hope they stay. If "rehabilitation" fails, there's always "punishment." LOL

Thanks, AuntPatsy. :)

[electropop]

51. "cognitive dissonance" ... what half the United States suffers from

I agree with every point of your well researched and logically clear piece, except this one. According to the latest polls, about 35% still suffer from cognitive dissonance. The rest are opposed to the war.

[Sapphocrat]

63. Ooo! Excellent point, electropop!

Quoting the current number would let me allude to *'s plummeting approval, without having to add or change anything but the percentage itself.

That's a valuable change, IMO. Thank you! :)

[ailsagirl]

82. The cognitive dissonance thing is so frightening...

That so many people could be infected with it is downright
bizarre. I don't know how that happened but it's been a real
boon for the neocons.

If someone had told me, 4 1/2 years ago, that all this would
be happening, I would NOT have believed. I'd have thought
"our country would NEVER stand for it."

Well, needless to say... :(

[Kerrytravelers]

3. Well said.

Bravo! Don't edit out a single word. She'll never be able to respond because you've covered everything. Things I bet she's never even thought of... or been told to ssay on the daily rw talking points.

[Sapphocrat]

26. Thanks, Kerrytravelers :)

Even if she attacks (really attacks), I hope she replies. I'd love to know exactly what it was that set her off.

In which case, I'll know what to keep doing more of. ;)

[Quakerfriend]

4. Excellent response, and I bet you may

just end up getting her to THINK a bit!!

[Sapphocrat]

28. I hope so...

If nothing else, perhaps the idea that a left-wing peacenik at least tried to communicate respectfully with her might help her understand we're not a bunch of America-hatin' terra-ists cheering on the daily slaughter of our fellow citizens.

Scary to think how polluted their thinking has become that we even need to try to get that point across, isn't it?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. General critique: seems rather too long. Your 'target audience' here

is likely to stop reading after a few paragraphs. VERY well written but perhaps could have benefitted from some editing down? (not meaning to sound harsh)

[mcscajun]

12. Agreed...I'm on the same side as the OP, and even *I* stopped reading

about halfway down.

It's just TOO long to be persuasive to a reluctant audience.

[Sapphocrat]

31. LOL...

Now THAT is definitely an argument in favor of editing for brevity.

When I start to bore the "choir"... LOL

[zann725]

33. Agreed too. A lot of good points; but the anger your friend showed

...and the likes of others like her (who recently scraped my Kery/Edwards bumper sticker off 'aggressively')...will (at most) give you a nanno-second of their time to half-heartedly "hear" your position.

Make it short. Sometimes an "action" proves move. Maybe email her some footage from last night's many vigils...which consistently showed PEACEFUL, average everyday families, complete with kids and grandparents. No one in all the pictures I saw (or saw in person) displayed anger, but instead peace and true humaneness and respect for the fallen soldiers.

Or perhaps DARE to invite your friend to a future peace vigial, and dare her to point out the anger of any "peace" activists. What she sees in person, instead of on MSM, might actually astound her.

[Sapphocrat]

35. Now, there's an idea you've planted...

I doubt she'd ever attend a peace vigil without the backing of her "comrades in arms"... but wouldn't it be something to ask her for a personal invitation to her group's next counter-protest? As in, "Show me the violence against you, from your (literal) perspective."

Too bad I haven't the means to cross the country to Ft. Bragg. (On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing -- I'd probably be mowed down by an SUV with one of those magnetic decals. LOL)

I'll give some thought to video links for her... You're right about showing as opposed to telling. And the Faux News brigade does like their "information" in pictures.

[Sapphocrat]

30. Not harsh at all, MM...

I really do want constructive criticism -- and I know how unbearably longwinded I can be. :)

I already see a few paragraphs I can consolidate...

Thanks for confirming that -- and for the compliment, too. :)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

81. I'm an wordy writer too. Consider your target audience here... they are

probably used to reading emails that are no longer than a full screen or page.

Now the fact you started out very sincere and civil, ought to grab their attention, and if they are interested in ANY exchange at all, other than vitriol, "buys" you maybe another half page worth of reading or attention at best.

Remember, this is someone who is probably convinced that they disagree with you. You have a small window, maybe a page or 2, to pique their interest in corresponding or exchanging ideas further with you. That is your opportunity to get your foot in the door. If your foot is in, then maybe they will open the door further and you can discuss your other ideas or anecdotes. But in an initial exchange like this, I would think, one or two ideas or anecdotes at most, very carefully chosen for maximum effect, would be ideal. If they see 10 pages of verbiage from someone they're pretty sure they disagree with, how likely do you think they are to read it?

If YOU got a 10 page email from a freeper, would you be committed to reading the whole thing? If so, you are a better person than I.

[uppityperson]

6. wow, good writing

Why does someone enlisting voluntarily remove Mr.bush from the need to be held accountable for lying about the reasons to send us to war?

[Sapphocrat]

32. Thanks, uppityperson :)

As for your question, I think it all goes back to "cognitive dissonance." I guess being proven wrong (or even gravely mistaken) when one is soooooooo bloody sure God's on their side is just too much for some psyches to handle.

But then, * himself can't digest the possibility that he's ever made a single mistake either. I hate to broad-brush, but I believe we're dealing with a specific "type" here... and the sheep can't absorb the fact that the shepherd is leading them right over a cliff.

(I wish I could remember who started a brilliant thread on cognitive dissonance here, maybe two, three years ago.)

[neuvocat]

7. Dear Amy: how many Iraqis did your husband torture?

If she can't come up with an answer for that one, she could at least try to explain where peace protestors have been so violent.

[Sapphocrat]

34. The torture question crossed my mind...

...but was thrown out the moment I started typing it. LOL

Still, I'm dying to know about those "violent" anti-war demonstrators myself -- not that she'll ever respond to that challenge. But at least her bluff will be called.

And if she wants to go further, I'm already armed with pictures of the bodily damage done by the Oakland police and their wooden bullets. For starters.

[neuvocat]

58. I admit now that I was a bit harsh in saying that.

I probably wouldn't have said it to her either.

[Child_Of_Isis]

8. "He helped liberate Iraqis"

Good luck with this one.

[Sapphocrat]

53. Yep, that's real thin-ice territory...

It's not easy to stop oneself from screaming back, "If you think he 'liberated' anyone, you're as delusional as a Hale-Bopp comet rider -- unless you mean he 'liberated' Iraqis from such pesky nuisances as their own arms... legs ... families... homes..."

But I didn't say that -- this time. ;)

[nosmokes]

9. nominated.

i can't improve on it. it is a bit long but that's preferrable to some jingoistic talking points being strung together. this is genuine and it shows.

[Sapphocrat]

54. Thank you, nosmokes :)

I think the reason it's been difficult for me until now to write something like that (and actually finish it) is that the Left doesn't have a ready list of "jingoistic talking points" to string together.

On one hand, that's a healthy sign of our diversity, individualism, and refusal to parrot what we hear without thinking (and talking every subject to death).

On the other, I often wish we did have a few handy memes to repeat ad nauseum for the benefit of our adversaries.

Then again, we're not "catapulting the propaganda." :)

[OnionPatch]

10. Great response but sadly

I have a feeling this person will not read it all and if she does, she will not understand what you're talking about or believe it if she does understand. It's my experience that most right-wingers cannot be bothered to read much. They get their news from television and Rush Limbaugh. She won't have read enough of the info you presented to find it credible. She won't be bothered to research your claims. If she does, she'll do her research at Newsmax or somewhere like that.

That said, your response was great. One of the most pointed explanations of the views of many of us on the left. Bravo!
:applause:

[Sapphocrat]

55. That's my concern, too...

On the other hand, if she feels strongly enough to actually get out from behind her computer, go outside, and counter peace demonstrators (that is, if she really does it, and isn't just saying she does), then she may be a notch above the 101st Keyboard Brigade. Maybe.

I'm hoping for two things to work in my favor: 1) the opening plea to just read the thing, and 2) her curiosity to get the better of her.

I have this vision of her pouncing on it with the idea of finding something in it to use against us -- which would force her to read it. Call me optimistic... but if I received something that long from somebody on the Dark Side, that's what I'd do -- with the immediate intention of posting the whole thing to DU. (Come to think of it, I'm surprised this thread hasn't already become Target of the Day at FR. LOL)

Thanks for the kind words, OnionPatch. :)

[Mnemosyne]

11. It is good, hopefully her attention span

can hold out to read your good words!

I'd like to hear her reply, if you get one! Think this will shoot her down on any reply though.

[Sapphocrat]

57. Will do, vickiss...

I wouldn't dream of not sharing... if she replies. :)

[Mnemosyne]

77. Maybe it will be best if we don't

hold our breath!:hi:


Almost forgot. LOVE your sig pic!:rofl:

[Rude Horner]

13. Another WOW

I wish I could put all my thoughts down like you did. Amazing. This is somethig I'll have to save, if you don't mind.

[Sapphocrat]

59. Feel free, Rude Horner...

If it can be of any use to you, save it, forward it, quote it -- you have my blessing. And thank you for the "wow," too. :)

[ronnykmarshall]

14. It's excellent .... but

It is VERY long. I don't think she'll read much of it.

My suggestions:

Leave in the part about Bush SR. That really hits home.

My fight is not against our troops -- my fight is against the leaders who _misuse_ our troops. EXCELLENT !!!

Cut out the Will Durst part. Maybe if she responds you might suggest that in another e-mail.

Delete the entire PS.

Leave in the parts about your cousin being in Iraq.

This is the best line:

And there's the difference between George W. Bush and me: To me, your husband is a human being -- not "collateral."

Over all shorten the e-mail.

Did I also tell you that:

:yourock:

[Sapphocrat]

60. Check and doublecheck, Ronny...

Thanks for the specifics -- that helps a lot. I'm definitely cutting the Durst quote, and killing the P.S., except for (possibly) leaving the link to the Muskogee op/ed (if she gets curious enough to click it, she may tune in to the simple, folksy, but pointed tone of it).

Performing major surgery as we speak...

Thank you, Ronny. And you always make me smile. :)

[ronnykmarshall]

78. and I love ya too.

That sig line is a SCREAM!!!

It's sooooooo true too.

[sunnystarr]

15. I like long and read every excellent word. But most people are

so used to sound bites that they have ADD. It's really a shame.

[Sapphocrat]

66. I think what we need...

...is to start studying cult-deprogramming methods. (You know, I'm only half-joking!)

Then, if we can reprogram them to believe that, say, Faux News causes cancer (or better yet, erectile dysfunction), we might have a shot. ;)

[I Have A Dream]

16. You are my hero! Amazing post!

I'm bookmarking it for use later.

Absolutely belongs on Greatest Page, so I'm nominating it.

[alcuno]

17. She managed to make her point in two brief paragraphs.

You ought to do the same. Overwhelming people with information may be cathartic but it's not really helpful. Wouldn't you rather engage this person in an ongoing dialogue?

You are protesting government policy and she is protesting you. Isn't that odd? Her first paragraph is fine and that's the way she feels, but the second paragraph is full of holes. How about telling her you laughed when you read the "Peace or I'll beat you up" comment. She needs to turn off the AM radio and give examples.

[Sapphocrat]

62. As much as I'd welcome an ongoing dialogue...

...I'm not sure it's an option. Most such emails I get are hit-and-run -- I picture Mr. or Ms. Outraged War-Bot muttering, "I'll show that Commie!" while tapping out the message, hitting send, and then, satisfied that s/he's taught me a thing or two, forgetting all about it on the way to pick up the kids from soccer practice.

That's why I think I have only one shot at this -- I'm assuming the last thing she wants is an ongoing exchange, because then she runs the risk of being forced to think -- at least twice.

You are protesting government policy and she is protesting you. Isn't that odd?

I used to think it was odd, until it started happening all the time. LOL But seriously? It makes sense, in a sad way: I'm the easiest target. It's much easier to blame me (and all the rest of us flag-burnin', moral-values-hatin', baby-killin', pinko hippie commie hom-a-sex-shuls) for destroying the country than to wake up to the fact that it's her Glorious and Respected Leader at fault.

Maybe someday, if she does want to continue the dialogue, I'll explain the meaning of "transference" to her. :)

Btw, I did laugh at "Peace! Or I'll beat you up!" but I'm not telling her that. LOL

[Lugnut]

18. Nominated

Gladly I might add. Bravo!

[Daphne08]

19. "The worst violent bunch of protesters I see are always the

war-protesters," says the crazy lady! :rofl:

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all day! Has she even looked at the protest pictures? There's a sea of gray out there! :rofl:

[foreigncorrespondent]

20. Bravo!!!!

Very well said!

:headbang: :yourock: :applause:

[lostinacause]

21. Wow! ... And a few suggestions:

First of all I would strongly suggest you take out words of other individuals. Your words are much stronger and sound much more sincere then the others. Doing that would also reduce the length a little (as it feels a little long) without weakening the letter.

Another thing you might want to do is leave out the war for oil argument. Many people will disagree with me on this, but I believe it would be better to let her dwell on why Iraq instead of giving her the answer. Even if she didn't come to the same conclusion she would though it would be the difference between being told something and discovering something.

There are a few other things that you can do that are a little more subtle. If you've found what I say valuable I go over it in a word file if you message me. There are a few places where you may start to put here on the defensive which is good to do to win an argument but is a barrier to communication and learning.

[Sapphocrat]

64. Points well taken...

Yes, I'm definitely cutting down or out the quotes, except for the Bush Sr. book quote (which seems to bowl over everyone, Left and Right alike, who's reading it for the first time).

I think the oil reference is OK, as I mentioned it just once, and almost in passing. I understand exactly what you're saying; I didn't want to belabor that point, because something tells me we've pushed the oil argument to death, and they're flat-out rejecting it. (Which makes me crazy, since -- power lust aside -- that's the sole reason for this whole mess.)

I think I recognize several spots where I do indeed put her on the defensive (e.g., "Don't you realize..." and "Is it lost on you..."). I'm going to try to shift the focus away from the accusatory "you" without losing impact.

Great food for thought, lostinacause, thank you! :)

[lostinacause]

79. Yes, the Bush quote was good. Likely the strongest argument you had.

I was talking about the other quotes and forgot to mention that it should stay.

Hopefully at the very least there will be an understanding. If that, and that alone, happens you have succeeded.

[Burried News]

22. I would just send her this. If she answers send a little more.

The rest is very good and would make several excellent letters to the editor.

"I'm not sure why you're upset by those of us who believe this war immoral, unjust, and unjustified.

I love my country, and I would fight to the death to _defend_ her. I understand that you probably believe this war in Iraq does have something to do with defending our nation. I don't believe it does."

Add? I sincerely appreciate both your husband's service and the sacrifice your whole family makes on our behalf.

[Sapphocrat]

65. Good add, Burried News...

I'll lift your "appreciation" line directly, if you don't mind. Very well put!

[HootieMcBoob]

23. absolutely beautiful

One of the best things I've ever read on DU. Personal, heartfelt and hits every point. I don't see how anyone could not be moved by this.

[donco6]

27. Stupendous.

I copied and saved it to use in responses to people I know - if that's OK? I just can't possibly phrase things as well or as clearly.

[Sapphocrat]

67. I'm honored, donco6

If it can help in any way, use it as much as you like. :)

[B Calm]

29. Damn Sapphocrat, that was a great response!

[BattyDem]

36. Great response!

:applause:

[rateyes]

37. Damn. You should be travelling the country

giving that speech. When the hell are you running for congress? You sure have your shit together. I'll bet that "Amy" and most of the other Army spouses in Fayettenam (Fort Bragg) haven't even heard of some of the stuff you just "educated" them about. I hope she does read it with an open mind. If she does, she's a convert.

Thank you. Kicked, nominated, bookmarked, printing and sharing with others. Wow, just wow.

[Sapphocrat]

70. You flatter me, rateyes...

Not that I'm complaining or anything. LOL

I'd be happy to travel the world giving speeches if 1) somebody paid my expenses, 2) anybody showed up to listen, and 3) I could get a security team like *'s to protect me.

I'll never run for public office, I'm afraid. I've thought about it, but I wouldn't last one minute under the hot lights of public scrutiny. My record's squeaky clean, but I wouldn't relish my personal life being dragged out and dissected. I am child of the '60s & '70s, which should explain all. LOL

On the other hand, foreigncorrespondent would look so good in a black evening gown at all those state dinners... ;)

[rateyes]

80. That's the biggest problem we have with

Congress...can't get enough good people to run. Reconsider?

Child of the 60's and 70's myself. "Just an old hippie and don't know what to do. Should I hang on to the old, should I grab on to the new?" haha.

[Stand and Fight]

38. I happily give you the 23rd Greatest vote!

Rock on!

[Top Lizard]

39. Nicely Said, But Probably Too Long

As others have noted, you should probably keep your reply short and sweet. Most people, this lady included, can only take differing points of view in small doses. Overall, though, I agree with what you said and think it's well stated.

Even if you edit the "Tuskeegee Airmen experiment" reference out, you should be aware that it's actually called the "Tuskeegee experiment" and had nothing to do with WW II-era black fliers. I understand your reference to Operation Crossroads, but it's not clearly explained in this context and besides, the inadequate radiation precautions during that test series are more understandable than those of the 1950s continental tests. (I recognize that your basic theme here is, "Don't trust the authorities, because they don't often reveal the truth or look out for your own best interests.")

By the way, I like your Nixon graphic. What a role model! As I think about it, Bush may actually be equalling or surpassing "Tricky Dick" in the dirty domestic tricks department, but the Iraq War has thankfully not yet reached the casualty levels of Vietnam (and God willing, never will).

[Sapphocrat]

72. Tuskeegee...

That I'm going to keep, because (like SHAD) it's one of those things that completely short-circuit even the most hard-wired RW brain once the details are known. I don't expect to educate her about the specifics, but I do want to stick the phrase in her head, so it rings a bell the next time she hears it.

Speaking of phrasing, I received a PM referring to it as the "Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment." I'll do some Googling, but I'm getting the idea that "Tuskeegee Airmen experiment" is the wrong phrase to use.

You're right re Operation Crossroads; it's clearly out of context. I'd like to keep three examples, however; any suggestions as to a third (in addition to Tuskeegee & SHAD)?

I was thinking about an incident I'd read about some years ago, in which "we" (the govt? the military?) sprayed something or other over the San Francisco Bay Area to see what effect, if any, it would have on the residents... but I am completely blanking out on the details. I believe it took place in the 1940s or 50s.

That probably won't work as my third example of "gassing our own," either (if I can't remember the details, she certainly won't know what I'm referring to).

Maybe I'll go with insufficient radiation protection after all.

You certainly have me thinking, Top Lizard. :)

And thanks for the kudos! At the risk of defending Tricky Dick, he did inherit Vietnam... but any credit he earned for bringing the troops home is completely negated by Cambodia -- lying about it, bombing it, lying about it some more, and then leaving two million people to be slaughtered under Pol Pot.

Cambodia's one of my big issues -- could you guess? LOL

(Click my sticker to see the rest of the captions I put to Laughing Dick. I'm not done designing this series, either. LOL)

[dutchdoctor]

40. Great letter, but too long, as others have said

What makes it especially great is the fact that you put in so many references to this womans own personal circumstances.

My suggestion would be that you cut it into 5 separate pieces and send one every day for a week. That way she still gets all the facts, but it doesn't look so long when she opens her email...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. It depends what you're looking for

As an anti-war thesis intended to be read by people who already agree with you on the general point and are interested in specific arguments against it it's fine, and I don't think there's any point in editing it's down, but anyone who currently supports the war will ignore it, I fear.

I'd suggest picking your two or three best points, editing them down to a short paragraph each and just sending that.

I'm also slightly worried that the tone is slightly too confrontational - "I hope you'll read this with an open mind" implies that you think she won't, for example. If you want to influence her, you need to be not merely formally polite but actively friendly, and refrain not merely from saying anything offensive, but from anything that could cause offence.

[ngGale]

42. It's a great letter, but a little long ...

they think in sound bytes and are very controlled. She is as military as her husband, I've been in that place during Vietnam. LOVE the part quoting Bush the Elder - his reasoning, I'm not sure she could ignore that. She can't bend or she will break, the stress is too great. Just remember 2002, I'm sure she remembers and has her own fears. She's coping the only way she can at the moment, gosh I hope this comes to and end soon. I can excuse a military wife, just not the rest of the Repug sheeple.

Don't think I helped you a lot, it's a great letter.

[VOX]

73. Self-delete. Wrong spot to post. n/t

[annabanana]

43. WAY more than she deserved. . . . n/t

[Caretha]

44. Don't edit it down.

I've read all the replies so far to your letter (btw, nominate to the greatest page) and many think it's too long. I don't.

You said to Dead Parrott "But something just gelled today, and it felt right, almost automatic." Go with your feelings on this one. Sometimes there is just no explaining it, and we're able to rise above ourselves and produce something we had no idea was inside ourselves or we were capable of doing. That's a clue. It means "the universe" is talking to us.

As I read your letter, every word, every sentence and every paragraph shouted to me....This is exactly how I feel! I also thought to myself....this isn't just to Amy, it's to all those who have been brainwashed, mislead, drunk the Koolaide, whatever you want to call it, and needs to be dispersed as widely as possible in response to anyone who doesn't understand why this war is wrong.

Those who think it is too long, IMHO have also been mislead and believe everything needs to be edited down to a sound bite. In that case why even bother with communicating? Isn't this what'swrong with the US now?

As a wonderful poet once said, "I gotta use words when I talk to you"....

[cbear70]

45. Incredibly put

I wish this could be published all over America so that the other side could clearly see where we are coming from. It was extremely well written and on point. Thank you for sharing.

[derby378]

46. A bit too defensive, but great content

Always make the FReepers play your game, not the other way around.

[Mairead]

47. Gulf War One was not necessary either -- google 'April Glaspie'

if you're not familiar with the story: Hussein was suckered into attacking Kuwait so that Bush One could have a nice neat war on his record. As Reagan demonstrated with Grenada, there's nothing better for sagging poll numbers than a nice, neat little war. Clinton also tried wagging that dog, though with less success.

(This is just a quick, immediate reaction to that one point in your response)

[Sapphocrat]

75. I hear you, Mairead...

...and agree. But I think it would be impossible to get that point across -- and even if my little penpal had any idea who Glaspie was, the jury is so out on Glaspie's complicity, even the mention of her name would open up debate bordering dangerously on conspiracy-theory territory.

(Not that I dismiss it at all -- Glaspie may as well have just come out with it and said, "INVADE, damn you! My boss needs a war!")

So, yeah, I think GWI was a set-up -- but once SH did invade, saving Kuwait became "necessary"... no matter how underhanded the lead-up to it may have been.

So I have to present GWI (and WWII) in black-and-white terms for a black-and-white thinker. (Plus, she probably actually remembers GWI -- and no doubt she's met more than a few GWI vets, so painting GWI "good" and Iraq War "bad" may de-fang her a bit.)

But I do hear you. And I'm glad you pointed that out, since I'm sure you've inspired a lot of DUers to Google Glaspie and get the rest of the story.

[moc]

48. I can only say this

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Inspired]

49. Ditto on the accolades!

This was very profound. Please fill us in on Amy's reply....if she is able be pick her jaw off the floor.

[berni_mccoy]

50. AWESOME Response!!!

My Favorite Line:

"I love my country, and I would fight to the death to _defend_ her."

:kick:

Nominating!

[Shredr]

52. A powerful response

I have a cousin who's husband is also in Iraq and her stance is very much the same as Amy's. I hope you don't mind if I send her a link to this, I could never hope to put into words what you have here. Thank you.

Nominated.

[theHandpuppet]

56. Fabulous letter!

Nominating!

[leftchick]

61. wow! This is a DU classic

Very well done. I hope this rattles Amy's critical thinking skills and she finishes it.

[bertha katzenengel]

68. WTF? she wrote """Peace! Or I'll beat you up!"" where do they get this

bs?

Good for you for asking for info about that claim. I can't now but later I will read the whole letter.

[Mr Rabble]

69. Well done. Will it fall on deaf ears?

[Catherine Vincent]

71. Wow! That was some email.

But I doubt the little bushbot read past the second or third paragraph.:-)

[VOX]

74. Some good editing comments upthread, and also thank her husband...

for his service with the 82nd. It's been their lives and livelihood, and, unlike the PNAC boys, he voluntarily put everything on the line. His service should be acknowledged in a positive way.

Super job, Sapphocrat! :thumbsup:

[devinsgram]

76. I am going to print this out, so I remember all the great points

you have made, so the next time I am prepared. This post was awesome.

[Sapphocrat]

83. UPDATE: Final changes

First, THANK YOU, DUers, for your overwhelming response, your VERY kind words, your encouragement, and your invaluable help in crafting this response.

Next, my apologies for being unable to reply to everyone in this thread -- I intended to, but time and thread size caught up with me. So if I didn't address your comments directly, that doesn't mean I didn't read, heed, or appreciate them.

I'm only going to post the major changes I made here, so that I don't use up any more bandwidth with a reprint of the entire letter. If you'd like a copy of the final reply, PM me and I'll be happy to send it to you.

I'm leaving in a few minutes for an overnight jaunt, so I won't be able to reply at all until sometime Sunday night.

In the meantime, here are the major changes, emphasized in bold:

...

I don't know what the Reason of the Moment is for invading Iraq -- it changes so often, it's hard to keep track. It's gone from avenging 9/11 (wrong guy, wrong country) to finding WMDs (that were never there) to spreading democracy throughout the Middle East (as if democracy can be forced upon a people at gunpoint) to the nonexistent "imminent threat" of a "mushroom cloud" (which would be quite a trick for a country with no nuclear capabilities) to "Saddam gassed his own people" (gee, has nobody ever heard of Project SHAD, or the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or the 60,000 U.S. servicemen intentionally exposed to mustard gas and other nerve agents during World War II?) to... Well, I'm sure you've heard them all.

What many Americans forget (or don't want to remember) is that it was we -- the United States -- who armed and funded Saddam (and OBL, for that matter) in the first place. We created a monster, just as we did with Manuel Noriega, and -- as with Noriega -- when he was of no further use to us, we deposed him.

What many Americans don't want to admit is that we turned Iraq from a merely antagonistic yet fully functioning society into what Bob Herbert so aptly described as "a world-class recruiting tool for terrorist groups."

...

My fight is not against our troops -- my fight is against the leaders who _misuse_ our troops.

What's more, these very leaders who are sending our troops to their deaths (or dismemberment, or lifelong emotional trauma), managed to weasel _their_ way out of fighting and dying. What do think the Army would have done to your husband if had just walked off the job for 18 months (like Bush) -- and during wartime, at that? Or just decided not to go to Iraq because he had "other priorities" (like Cheney)? At least Rumsfeld served -- if you call spending the Korean War in the ROTC at Princeton "serving." (Oh yes, he did fly Navy jets for a while -- during peacetime.)

...

Is it not lost on me that our three most powerful allies in the original "Coalition of the Willing" have all been attacked either on their own soil, or (in the Bali bombing) in their immediate backyards _since_ 9/11.

...

Even I have a hard time accepting that sometimes. Coming to grips with it, facing the reality of it, makes us feel like fools. Nobody wants to feel that way, and so most people reject the hard facts that are right in front of them. It's called "cognitive dissonance" -- and that's exactly what 38% of the United States is still suffering from, right this minute.

But once you're open to listening to new information (without shooting the messenger), perhaps you will understand that my constant scrutiny, criticism, and protest of the way our government is mishandling its military really _is_ "supporting our troops."

To me, supporting the troops means:

- recognizing and honoring their sacrifices, and the often unsung sacrifices of their families;

- welcoming them home and helping them readjust and reassimilate into the society they've worked so hard to protect;

- providing them the best possible physical and mental care in the world -- cost be damned;

- for those who don't return, ensuring they go to their rest secure in the knowledge that their families will be cared for;

- understanding the difference between the man and his mission, never allowing myself to view "the military" as some faceless mass of machinery, and never forgetting that each and every soldier is a real and unqiue individual who experiences the same feelings of joy, fear, grief, anger, love, and hate that I do;

- protesting long and loud against cuts to veterans' benefits, unexpected stop-loss orders that sap endurance and morale, lack of equipment, lack of care, and every other unfairness on behalf of our soldiers who either cannot speak for themselves, or are simply not allowed to;

- demanding that they are fully equipped, trained, and mentally prepared for every mission they make on our behalf;

- insisting that every mission is clearly defined, has a sound exit strategy, and leaves no question as to whether or not that mission has been accomplished;

- accepting no less than every mission they undertake be sound, sane, and just.

Our troops are expected to serve without question or consideration for their own safety in the mission to preserve _our_ safety.

Let's just make sure that's what we're really asking them to do.

So, Amy, I hope you understand that I genuinely appreciate both your husband's service and the sacrifice your whole family makes on our behalf. I just don't want you, or anyone else, to make any sacrifices for the wrong reasons.

...

And I left just a link to the Muskogee op/ed as the P.S.

Thank you again, each and every one of you. DUers ARE the best!
:yourock:

[Sapphocrat]

84. Self-kick

And could y'all keep it kicked for a short while today? I'm headed out the door, and I want to be sure folks see the final changes I just posted -- and this thread is sinking fast on a busy Saturday. Muchas gracias, amigos y amigas!
:kick:

[TankLV]

85. That was incredibly eloquent.

You said it all perfectly.

I can never even hope to come as close.

[foreigncorrespondent]

86. Giving a kick...

...as Sapph requested. So others can see the final result of the letter she sent out. :)

:kick: