Wednesday, February 19, 2003

 
Conversations with Conservatives V

Introduction: I have the dubious distinction of working with a host of various types of right-wing radicals. Indeed, some of the conversations I have with them are both sickening and enlightening. By "enlightening", I mean that the true beliefs of these ideologues come to the fore. There is little cover-up and little mincing of words. With that said, I think it is time that I share these conversations with the world. This is the fifth installment of "Conversations with Conservatives". For the first four installments, go here. The world should see how these people think and understand their unconcealed motives, objectives and attitudes.

In this installment of "Conversations with Conservatives", I was attacked by a gang of knuckleheads on the issue of…what else…Iraq and the first-strike policy. Since there were so many of them, I'm afraid I will have to forego the "Cons with Cons" tradition of anonymity and reveal their actual names. Their actual names are "Raging Jackass", "Brainless Bastard", "Despicable Dumb-Ass" and "Shameless Shithead ".

Now I'm not exactly sure how the conversation got started (actually, it was probably more of a yelling match). I only remember that one of these morons was reading an email that his progressive cousin sent him. It was a speech by Senator Byrd ripping apart Bush. I think he read something about Bush not properly funding Homeland Security when the first dimwit chimed in:

Raging Jackass: Well, we wouldn't have this problem if Clinton had taken action years ago.

Me: That is absolute nonsense.

Raging Jackass: Clinton never took action… unless it was with an intern. (laughs)

Me: That's garbage. Anytime he attempted to take action, Republicans cried foul or claimed he was wagging the dog. Maybe you should look to Bush who ignored every intelligence warning passed on from Clinton. While Bush was busting hookers in Louisiana, medical marijuana in California and assisted suicide in Oregon, Terrorists were planning 911. If you support Clinton being impeached for lying about an intern then I'm sure you'll agree that Bush should be impeached for ignoring Clinton's warnings….among other things.

Raging Jackass: Clinton didn't know anything. He was too busy with Monica. Now we have to go in and take care of it after 3,000 people died. Thanks Bill.

Me: Are you out of your mind. You're saying that Clinton had the power to stop 911 despite Republican obstacles, but Bush was somehow powerless to do anything? There were dozens of signs that this was going to happen and Bush didn't do one @#$% thing about it except blame Clinton. In addition to that, you imply that Saddam was responsible for 911. Where did you pick that one up. What makes you think Saddam has anything to do with 911?

Raging Jackass: It's all of them. Al Qaeda, Saddam, Hamas…

Shameless Shithead: …Clinton! Ha ha ha ha.

Raging Jackass: Thanks to Clinton 3,000 are dead.

Brainless Bastard: Listen to this. Last week, Tony Blair stood up before parliament and asked the question, "Who here does not believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?" and nobody raised their hand.

Me: So. That has nothing to do with anything. So do a dozen other "rogue" nations. The relevant question is, "Does Saddam pose an imminent threat to the US?"

Despicable Dumb-Ass: They Do.

Me: They don't. The only thing that makes them a threat is that they can deny us oil. What makes you think they're a threat?

Despicable Dumb-Ass: They used chemical weapons on Iran and their own people

Me: Yeah with our chemical weapons and our support.

Despicable Dumb-Ass: So. We want [the chemical weapons] back. That's why we're going in to kick their ass. And then we're going to kick Iran's ass, then Syria's ass…

Me: You can't just invade countries that you don't like. You can't set that precedent.

Shameless Shithead: What are you talking about. What do you want? Wait till they attack us first? Like Hell.

Me: You cannot strike without evidence that we are in imminent danger. You don't have to wait for them to strike first, but you do have to be able to show that they are about to strike. You have to have proof. If you don't have proof, you set a catastrophic precedent by invading. If we do it, then why can't China do the same with Taiwan, India with Pakistan or Russia with Georgia? It's a catastrophic precedent, and you all seem to be impervious to that fact.

Brainless Bastard: What….? Okay, so if I shoot you and then your wife shoots me, should she have waited for me to shoot you first?

Me: How does she know that you're going to shoot me?

Shameless Shithead: She knows.

Me: Like the Bush Administration "knows" Saddam is going to attack the US? What if she just thinks you were going to shoot me, when you really weren't, but she shoots you anyway? Tell you what, if she sees you point a gun at me, she can blow your head off with my approval, otherwise, you might hope she has the sense not to jump to paranoid conclusions. Nevertheless, this situation would warrant a strike, maybe even technically a preemptive strike but warranted only with the given evidence. Get it?

Shameless Shithead: Yeah and what if I pull the trigger before she has a chance to shoot me.

Me: Good point. Maybe we should take you out right now. Under your logic that’s what I should do. In fact maybe this conversation is "evidence" that you're planning to kill me. I guess that makes it warranted, under the first strike policy, to take you out. That's what you're arguing. Right.

Shameless Shithead: I'll be damned if you think I'm going to sit around here and wait to be bombed. You would have to be a Goddamn idiot, and if you don't like it, maybe you should go live with the cheese-eating surrender-monkeys in Europe.

Me: Good logic! Classic!

Several things here disturbed me but did not surprise me:

The total incoherence of their group argument. Notice that the focus on any single point was only momentary. It was like they had buck-shot in the barrel, they figured that, although any one piece of their porous, paranoid, irrational argument is unlikely to make one lick of sense, perhaps a constant and asphyxiating smattering of fear-mongering dribble would wear down their opponent to the point of concession. I think that this is exactly what has happened to them.

They seemed unable to think on a level even slightly deeper than the "Washington Times" headlines or the Fox News "Terror Ticker". You see, if pressed to think about any one point beyond the surface sound-bite, they had nothing there and were therefore forced to conjure a different arguement altogether. They argue:

"It's Clinton's fault. We can kick Syria's ass. Strike first. It's Saddam's fault. It's terrorists' fault. We Kick Ass. We can kick Iran's ass. It's Europe's fault. If you don't agree with me then get out of the country."

How do you argue with that?

In addition, they seemed completely incapable of understanding the nuances and hypocrisy of the issues. It was all black and white….again the influence of right-wing , sound-bite propaganda. For example, the first strike precedent is a means to an end. It seems to bring protection from potential enemies. And that sounds great on the surface. But what about the implications? They refuse to address the legitimacy of the precedent that would be set with such a policy. They seem to think that only the US would have that policy and no one else. What fantasy world are they living in?

In fact, they are so afraid of addressing the grayness of issues that whenever you dare bring up nuances, implications or intricacies of policy, they get extremely defensive and start spewing epithets. Once again, the obvious result of right-wing mind control (i.e. propaganda). They are taught to believe what they are told, to act as they are instructed and to feel as they are allowed. Independent thoughts come rarely and painfully, quickly cast to the overpowering tides.

So from here where do we go with a group of people who act out of fear and loathing, out of ignorance and insecurity. Well, we can start by removing their ranks from this nation's leadership and we can continue by doing the same for the media, but these are issues for other articles. Rest assured, however, that these things are not just likely but rather inevitable.

Join our mailing list!

posted by Thomas Ball 1:11 PM