RG) Your words appeared in print, promoting the U.S. government's war with Iraq. (RGWhen?
You can't be talking about my article in the Aug. 2007 California Freedom, because in it I said "America achieved its objectives" -- past tense. Yes, that article defended the original invasion, but it was critical of "Bush's entanglement in an Iraqi civil war". It also said: "Iraqis (and war critics in America) failed to predict that sectarian strife was to develop into a Sunni-Shia civil war and negate much of the value of achieving" the objectives I originally supported. Nothing in that article supported Bush's continuation of military operations in Iraq.
You can't be talking about the letter to the editor published in the Mar. 2009 California Freedom under the misleading title "A Case For War". That article said: "It is now time to accept our partial victory and let the Iraqi people take responsibility for their own future." Editor Tom Sipos didn't tell readers that what he printed as a "letter to the editor" was in fact a two-year-old blog posting that he never told me he would publish in that way. He deliberately associated my name with his title "A Case For War", when in fact I'd been calling for withdrawal from Iraq for at least two and half years.
I don't know what other "print" you could be talking about. Only in a kangaroo court can I be guilty of "promoting" a war in print when my article say it's well past time to end the war. I've also blogged about the righteousness of America's war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Am I guilty of "promoting" those wars too?
RG) To me that most certainly qualifies you as a pro-government operative. Too bad you don't like the title. (RGoperative n. a person who works secretly for an organization
operative n. a secret agent; a spy
operative n. an undercover or secret agent; spy
operative n. a spy, secret agent, or detective
operative n. a detective or spy
operative n. an employee or other worker with some particular function or skill
operative n. an employee of a political party who works in any behind-the-scenes capacity such as political troubleshooting or manipulation of media stories
operative n. a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest: e.g. "political operatives"
I can only find one definition of "operative" that even comes close to excusing you from the charge of smearing me. Have you no conscience or scruples? Or have you just decided that because you think I'm an evil-doer, anything is fair game? Whose morality does that remind you of?
RG) As for you challenging me to say "The U. S. military should never be used...etc". Since you could not tell from my last e-mail, I will clarify: no, I would not say "Never. " However, your attempt to say that I must therefore approve of the Iraq war (RGI never said that. "Not never" obviously doesn't mean "always". Stop making stuff up about me. I choose my words carefully. Is it too much to ask that you actually read them?
The point of my challenge was to establish that our disagreement is not on principle, but merely in our judgments about the projected consequences of various alternatives. I'm sorry if that fact doesn't resonate with your need to find an enemy in me. (Wouldn't you say it was Bush's need to find enemies that got us into this war?)
I applaud you for admitting that it might sometimes be justified for the U.S. military to depose a sufficiently evil and reckless tyrant. A lot of Libertarians might vilify you for saying that, similar to how you're trying to vilify me. You might want to think about that.
RG) You have an interesting duplicity over whether you promoted the Iraq war or some different war that you really had in mind. (RGIt's hardly "duplicity" for my positions to be determined by ME instead of YOU. You don't want to argue against my actual position -- depose Saddam but don't try to police civil wars -- so you pretend that my position is the same as Bush's. Sorry, but neither you nor George Bush get to decide what I advocate, and I reject the with-me-or-against-me enemy-creating psychology you share with Bush.
RG) You still come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was a good thing (RGFalse. I conclude that DEPOSING SADDAM was a good thing.
RG) I wish I could hear more Iraqis say that the war was a good thing. (RGWhich war? The invasion to depose and capture Saddam, or the later Sunni-Shia civil war? You're using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation to make people think I advocated Bush's Iraq policy at every turn. Why? Can't you argue against what I actually advocated?
RG) This is not a joke, Brian. People really got hurt in this war. (RGThe past, ongoing, and future crimes of Saddam and his sons were no joke either. Many lives were surely saved by snapping Saddam's neck. We'll never know how many. Do you dare say it was zero? Uday and Qusay were trapped in a house with just one bodyguard, completely surrounded by force of 200, taking fire for four hours, and chose death over surrender. Heir-apparent Qusay, head of internal Iraqi security, was just 37 years old. The family's genocidal reign could easily have lasted four more decades. These guys were no Joke, Bob. Maybe you can look the other way. Not all of us can.
RG) If you force me to those three options I will find you completely guilty. So--when are you going to pay us back for the Iraq war? (RGWhen are you going to tell each of the 61% of Iraqis who in 2004 "said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships" that you apologize for opposing their liberation? I don't often agree with Harland, but I would agree with him that it's unseemly for you to care more about your Iraq-invasion tax bill than about minimizing the deaths of innocent Iraqis. (Can you even admit that my fundamental motivation here has always been minimizing the deaths of innocent Iraqis? I doubt it. You too badly need me to be an evil-doer.)
RG) P.S. I noticed how you avoided saying that you oppose war Iran. (RGSo you're allowed to never say never, but I have to take a stand right now on all future use of military force against Iran?
Given the information I currently have about Iran's WMD capabilities and intentions, I currently oppose using military force. The case I worry more about is Pakistan, which already has nuclear explosives. Suppose that Pakistan is taken over by a militant Islamist government that is friendly to al Qaeda. Would President Goodwyn send in special forces to secure those weapons, or would he wait and hope that none of those warheads ever arrives in a U.S. city inside a shipping container?