WALL OF SHAME

I'm always one for a good argument. (Think Monty Python: "I'd like to buy an argument, please.") I love a good intellectual debate. Which is why I'm so disappointed by most of the mail I get from GOP'ers in response to my column. Bad grammar, poorly constructed arguments, culminating in total off the point drivel. I've decided to post some examples on this new WALL OF SHAME.

S.M. who was brave enough to send a snotty e-mail but too chicken to sign his/her name to it (but whose email address is: smcevoy70@optonline.net - next time put your name, buster!) wrote the following about Prayer is supposed to be disaster's remedy? :

"Sarah: Please read this before you pass so much blame ." He/she then proceeded to attach the following diatribe by Rabbi Aryeh Spero, who just so happens to be an ultra conservative leader of the "Caucus for America" and prides himself on being the first Rabbi to endorse Ronald Reagan.

So I write back the following:

Dear SM

Thank you for taking the time to write. It is always great to hear from readers.

However, I would ask you to take the time to read what I wrote. I didn't even mention race in my column.What I did write about is accountability and expectations of leadership in a time of crisis. There's a difference between passing blame and holding one's leaders accountable.

Remember sir (madam? you didn't provide your name) that without accountability, there is no democracy.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.

I mean, c'mon dude! At least send me something remotely related to what I wrote about, not just some crack pot right wing Rabbi mouthing off about something I didn't even MENTION!!

Here's perennial Sarah Littman critic Margaret McGirr in a letter to the editor regarding July 4th and the nature of patriotism

The charge that the current administration "fixed" the intelligence on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is still a matter of opinion, although the Downing Street memos are the opinion of experts and must be seriously considered.

It is worth remembering that, in the end, there was evidence of small-scale activity for the manufacture of biological weapons, as well as clear indications that Mr. Hussein planned to step up production of nuclear weapons as soon as international sanctions were lifted. These findings of fact in the final weapons report have been forgotten in the wake of the more colorful campaign to persuade the American people that the administration was deliberately dishonest.

Those who now accuse of the president of overzealousness, if not outright lying, in the decision to invade Iraq are the same people who criticized him for missing the signs which warned of 9/11. If columnist Sarah Littman had been charged with the responsibility for the safety of 300 million American citizens, I wonder which call she would have made on Iraq, based on the intelligence available at the time, in a post 9/11 world.

I'll say one thing for Margaret - she's at least a good letter writer, even if her logic is somewhat peculiar. If the Downing Street memos "are the opinion of experts and must seriously considered", then how does she get that it is merely a "colorful campaign" to persuade the people that the govt. was lying?

But Margaret, I'll answer that last question for you...I would I would have let the UN weapons inspectors continue to do their job. I would have kept the intelligence resources on the "war on terror" instead of diverting them to the War in Iraq. And please Mags, don't tell me you still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. What would have happened then? We wouldn't have squandered transformed goodwill the world felt for us after 9/11 into worldwide hatred. We wouldn't be spending $1B a week on the war in Ira q, running up massive deficits that our grandchildren will be stuck paying. We would be spending money on healthcare, education, and building schools in THIS country, oh, yeah, actually protecting our infrastructure, instead of fixing what we broke in Iraq.

E-mail received from David Logan 6/14/2005 in response to Bush should improve his 'parenting' skills

Sorry you couldn't find a good samaritan. Maybe the people recognized you, read your article and didn't want to help you. There are those of us in Greenwich that are not socialists like yourself.

About your article in the Greenwich Times: You say that Amnesty International Sect. General Irene Khan calls Guantanamo the gulag of our time and Sen. Joe Biden has also called for the closing of Guantanamo. Have you ever researched the record of Amnesty International or Sen Biden?

Those two are the equivalent of Sen. Ted Kennedy championing women's rights.

It seems to me that you liberals have a lot of criticism of the Bush Administration and zero on the solution side but that has been your problem since the mid 60's. In your article you blame Donald Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib and the so called torture.

I have the list of a few books you might read so you might learn the real definition of torture:

FLYBOYS by James Bradley, THE FINAL CRUCIBLE by Lee Ballenger and THE RAPE of NANKING by Iris Chang.

The venom you spew in this article against the President is pretty much the same as the NY Times and Washington Post. Nothing new. I wonder if any of you know how much damage this article does to this country and the men and women serving over seas. I'm sure our enemies are tickled to read this kind of mistruths.

I've never understood how socialists believe we should not execute a murderer or rapist but it is alright to kill an unborn child.

MY RESPONSE:

Dear Mr Logan

Thank you for writing. It's always interesting to hear from readers, even if they don't agree with my views.

FYI here is a definition of socialism:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

I have never, in any of my columns advocated these principles. If you are going to throw epithets at someone, you should make sure you have a clear understanding of what they mean.

Yours Sincerely, Sarah Littman

So THEN I get the following from the moronic Mr. Logan:

Thank you for your reply. I've always heard if you want to make a socialist mad call them a socialist. I guess I hit the nail on the head.

Yours truly,

D Logan

At this point I was tempted to write back saying: "So David. I've always heard if you want to make a moron mad, call them a moron." But I decided it wasn't worth the effort of pushing the SEND button.

I'm flattered that Mr. Logan thinks our enemies are reading my column. Frankly, I didn't realize Osama or the Iraqi insurgents got the Greenwich Time. And hey, I could do worse than being compared to the Washington Post or the New York Times.

But here's the thing: why is criticizing the government for it's torture policies damaging the troops overseas? Isn't the whole point that it is the torture itself, and the rage about such things as Koran desecration (which the Pentagon has now admitted happened) that has put the troops at risk?

And, as Mike Sweeney, my editor at the Greenwich Time, so rightly put it: "If free speech is what harms our country most, why has it continued to exist through more than 200 years of the First Amendment?"