Before I moved to the Western Washington area, I believed that San Francisco had the most stupid, reflexively liberal newspaper readers in the country. After reading the letters to the editor to the two local papers (particularly the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the liberal paper run by the big corporation), I think that Seattle has them beat. Consider the following three letters to the editor in today's PI (names have been removed, although they can be found at the bottom of this page.
George W. Bush has called for a democratic Palestinian state, even though no other Arab state in the Middle East is a democracy. Is Bush stupid or is he simply setting the Palestinians up to fail?
Democracy is an unfair burden? This sounds more like a shortcoming of Arabic statesmen rather than Bush. It's not a shortcoming of Islam, since Turkey is a democracy (although they are not Arabic), as is Malaysia (also not Arabic).
In his latest proclamation, President Bush says to gain U.S. support for a "provisional" state, Palestinians must democratically elect new leadership without ties to terrorism. It's sad that he didn't call for replacement of Ariel Sharon, the leader of this century's most flagrant state-sponsored terrorism.
While neglecting the security and prosperity needs of his own people, Bush has spent his time trying to demonize the leaders of countries he dislikes and attempting to destabilize them, including supporting the temporary overthrow of Hugo Chavez the elected president of Venezuela.
The recent revelation that Bush and his arrogant cronies in Washington, D.C., have hatched a plot and given the CIA authority to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq comes as no surprise.
Bush repeatedly has threatened to depose Saddam. The rest of the world realizes it is necessary for all countries to make a good-faith effort to get along, respect the borders and rights of others and not meddle in their internal affairs.
Bush is not so enlightened. Although I don't approve of the conduct of many of the world leaders toward their neighbors and their own citizens, I do recognize that the Golden Rule is a universal law by which we all are judged. Bush would do well to learn the meaning of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," or expect to meet the same fate himself.
It is time to replace Bush with a democratically elected president, one who supports immediate emancipation of the enslaved Palestinian majority from their minority Zionist masters by implementing the original U.N. resolutions calling for separate Palestinian and Israeli states with the borders defined in those resolutions.
Sharon is a source of "state-sponsored terrorism" only if you believe that defending one's country—against people who shoot 5 year olds, blow themselves up in pizzerias, and use ambulances to transport explosives—is "state-sponsored terrorism". The moral equivalence in that passage repulses me; it is utterly wrong.
The US did not attempt to destabilize Venezuela; the Venezuelans were able to accomplish that all by themselves. As for demonizing leaders Bush does not like, I don't recall warm greetings from Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or Sudan any time recently. It's called politics.
The alleged CIA plot is hearsay. I can say that Thailand is going to invade Burma tomorrow, and get a cite as an "unnamed source", but that does not mean it is true. I could be cited as an "Unnamed military source", which would lend an air of authenticity to my claims, but it still doesn't make it true. Here's a tip: sometimes sources have an agenda of their own.
Bush is castigated for deciding that Saddam is hopeless, and that the rest of the world needs to get along, recognize internal borders, and not meddle in internal affairs of other countries.
Hmmm, the way Iraq is universally loved by its neighbors, and how they respected Kuwait's borders? How countries such as Pakistan, China, Vietnam, and Cuba have refrained from meddling in the affairs of other nations?
The last sentence lets the cat out of the bag. The writer manages to compress the contested election, anti-semitism, and a breathtaking ignorance of history into one tiny paragraph. Perhaps he failed to notice that the original partition plan was accepted only by the Jews; the Arabs rejected it. Since the original plan called for Jerusalem to be an international city, not a part of either nation, I doubt that the Arabs would accept it now.
King George has pronounced temporary provisional independence for the colonies provided that the rebel leader is expelled and new, less rebellious leaders are elected. The king prescribed leaders who are not tainted with the blood of rebellion who will be more cooperative and tolerant of foreign occupation. The king said in return he would eventually allow some independence and even provisional nationhood; that is, provided everything he wanted is done fully by the colonists as prescribed and for a really long time.
The colonists greeted this with incredulity. For a moment they just looked at one another and then they burst into a riot of laughter, followed by a withering fusillade directed at the king's messenger. Unfortunately, the messenger died of his wounds.
Another smug idiot who tries to equate terrorism with a struggle for independence. Dumping tea into a harbor is not the same as blowing up a bus full of teenagers; declaring independence is not the same as glorifying martyrdom; shooting at an army is not the same as infiltrating a settlement and slitting the throat of a 4 year old girl. If our nation's forefathers had employed the tactics used by the Palestinians, we would not have received support from France and Spain; they would have been repulsed by the savagery. Why should the current situation be any different?
posted on June 27, 2002 05:21 PM
