Strib Letters from yesterday

Everyone's favorite topic: Letters and Feedback

Tonight I am going to focus on Letters to the Editor from the June 1, 2005 Star-Tribune. I was reading these yesterday on the bus but was too busy to respond until tonight.

First up: John E. Christensen, St. Paul.
I hate to do this, but John, you are a moronic hack with no ability to think for yourself. Within the quote in italics are my comments.

Patriotism in a democracy means that criticism of an administration's misguided policy must be made by responsible citizens but the criticims should be well-informed and not just a bunch of talking points like the left has been spouting-- even in time of war and especially if the reasons the administration gave for that war are found to be false. Which ones? The ties to terrorism (true) or the violation of scores of UN resolutions (true) or the genocide (true) or the Axis of Evil (true)? Cuz the "lies" the left claims Bush told never, NEVER came from Bush.

Beyond this, the administration has placed the majority of our military in an untenable situation -- to stay the course, the cost in lives and in fortune has been, and will be, staggering; to withdraw would cause chaos.

Thank God you were not around for WWII or the Civil War or the Revolutionary War. Death happens and if the cause is just (which it is in Afghanistan and Iraq and will be in North Korea, Syria and Iran) then the cause is higher than any death toll.

John, just out of curiosity, where the hell was your protest letter during Somalia, you hypocrite?

Next up: Dave Kapell, Minneapolis
Strike through and underlines are my corrections to the lies/errors in Dave's letter.

Thank you, from the bottom of my broken, yet still red-blooded, American heart for finally saying what other newspapers can't seem to muster the courage audacity to say perpetrate: President Bush lied, thousands (so far) have died, and it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

In soberly and resolutely setting out this hard Memorial Day truth, the editorial staff at the Star Tribune continue to show their true sense of anti-American duty sentiment and patriotism Marxist loyalties.

Again, another mindless hack with the erroneous (but oft used) talking point: Bush lied.

Brian Huser, Minneapolis kept it short and sweet. He cut out a couple of words necessary for accuracy which I added with the underline.

Thank you for the Memorial Day editorial. I have friends in the military and I do feel that they should only have to risk their lives when truly necessary such as it is now to fight for our very existance and for the life of freedom.

Maybe the Strib cut that part out seeing as how the Strib has an axe to grind against all thing non-ultra-liberal.

Tom Mullon, Eagan did the classic faux paus. He had the perfect letter regardless of his view and then blew it with more mindless hackery. Like the bad comic who keeps working a joke well beyond the punchline the otherwise would have worked.

Our very brave and dedicated forces in Iraq have sacrificed valuable years of their young lives and, in some cases, their very lives themselves. Although the purpose and reason for the war may be disputed, the individuals in Iraq who carry out this war are real heroes.

I wish I could say the same for those who led us into this mess.

The Civil War was a mess too. Based on your logic, Tom, we should have ended that as soon as it got messy. The thing is that the Civil War was messy for a lot longer and at the cost of hundred-fold lives than Iraq. So the pertinent question for you is how many lives is too many for any cause? (BTW, no liberal has answered that question...even when I ask that directly.)

Mike Borowicz, Champlin hit the nail on the head. The genius part is in boldface.

I am done reading your editorial page. On a Memorial Day, when one could focus an editorial on all of the good things being done by our forces in the Middle East, the Star Tribune chose to beat the drum for the Bush bashers. It doesn't matter whether any of the sources or facts supporting your editorial are true or not.

You got it Mike, the left does not care anymore about facts. They prefer fiction for cause over truth for right.

Mary Hamel, St. Paul...you had one line in your letter worth repeating.

There's an effort to make anyone who does not "support our troops" look unpatriotic and thereby stifle any rational discussion about this war.

OK, maybe I'm playing a bit on semantics, but protesting against the war and some of the rhetoric used by the left is akin to not "supporting our troops". (I will dig up an old article of mine on this topic in a moment.) Rational discussion is welcomed...but the left will not engage in it at all. The left instead lables anyone who disagrees as "hateful", "lying", "bigoted", "warmongering" and having our hands in the laps of oil companies. The left has intentionally avoided any rational discussion regarding Iraq. I concede that reasonable people have grounds to disagree on the policies involving Iraq. I have not heard any such arguements from the left. Instead it is locutious lynchings of all things related to George W Bush, conservativism (and moderates to a large degree), Republican, and anything that does not worship at the altar of Marx, Lenin and ultra-liberal. (President Satan is the exact avoidance of rational discussion that Mary wishes for. She needs to call her side to the carpet if she really wants rational discussion.)

Last one: Don Sikkink, Cambridge, Minn.

Thank you for the stimulating Memorial Day editorial. It made a strong point, was clearly written and contained documentation. I suspect a number of readers may now respond with insults ("traitors") or labels ("left-wing").

I would say to them that insults and labels only prove the writer is not able to provide solid evidence to refute the editorial's point.

Don, the views expressed within the Star Tribune are "left-wing". (Notice to all: see how the left is now trying to run away from the accurate label of 'left-wing'!) The views of Bush-bashers are left-wing. The anti-Iraq-liberation views are left-wing. That is not to say that left-wing views are necessarily bad. The tactics typically used by the left-wingers are bad. But again, direct your condescending tones to the likes of the previous link I gave you. For every left-wing blog you find that engages in respectful discourse (or minimally disrespectful like mine) I will show you 2 that are vehemently disrespectful, labeling and insulting. If you really want discourse then stop persecuting right-leaning administrators in colleges, stop running pro-Bush students out of classes, and stop saying that anyone who disagrees is "satan", "evil", "bigoted", "lying", "hateful", etc. If you are truly interested in the Constitution and Free Speech then stop trying to shut down talk radio, castigating bloggers, denigrating cable news and destroying conservative print publications, all while trying to make into law protections for network news and editorial boards.

The left needs to seriously examine its tactics and discourse if it is honestly interested in the founding principle of a marketplace of ideas. To those who were educated in the Minneapolis Public Schools I will explain how that works. In the marketplace of ideas all viewpoints are allowed an outlet to be given. The merits of one's views can then be weighed judiciously by all who listen. The truly bad/horrible/evil ideas will be seen for what they are and not be given support. The good ideas will be considered and given support. Those who fear their own side is poorly constructed engage in trying to shut down the other sides (often by calling the other side unfounded names like "evil", "bigot", "satan", etc). They deep down know that the merits of their own side cannot prevail and thus try to bully others into submission. In the open marketplace of ideas (which leftists try to prevent...just ask about the Minnesota Daily or read the New York Times) these bullies are seen for what they are and lose support (hence the elections of 2004).

Whew. Do you think the left has the intellectual honesty to look at the issues within themselves? I think only a very small handful of them will.