Letters from a Wingnut

This is pretty funny. I belong to a listserv called prefectunion. It's a small list: I think there may be 20 of us subscribed, and discourse can get rowdy. That's what happens when you get a bunch of smart liberals, libertarians, conservatives and other free-thinkers together. The list has been fun for a long time, but in the past nine months has gotten awfully quiet. I've attributed this to the listowner moving to Seattle and establishing himself. Hard work, as Dear Leader might say. These days, perfectunion posts are few and far between.

Yesterday, I opened my email to find this (unlike Daniel Okrent at the Times, I'm going to make an effort to excise email addresses)


From:
"Jim Matthews"
Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:59:14 -0500
Subject:
[perfectunion] What the Democrats would like you to forget


"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. (Member of Senate Intelligence Committee)

Perfectunion is nothing if not a place to challenge assumptions, so I sent along the following reply:


Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 07:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Brendan Skwire" Subject:
[perfectunion] What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

Ignorance (i.e., FOX) fuels Bush support.
See summary (pp. 3-4) of this report:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf
[This report, in case you haven't seen it or don't have time to slog through the executive summary, demonstrates that on a variety of topics, hardcore Bush supporters are incredibly misinformed.]

That got Jim's goat:


From:
"Jim Matthews"
Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:57:25 -0500
Subject:
[perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

The premise of this study, so generously provided by mr. Skwire from the University of Maryland, is that Bush supporters are stupid. This conclusion is reached because they think that because there was no 'smoking gun' in Hussain's hands, we are to hold him to the same standards as a criminal trial. When you are talking about WMD, no one can afford to take that chance.
Mr. Hussain bears much of the responsibility for this war. He was warned, and he knew we were gearing up for invasion. He could have come clean and shown the world that there was no WMD. Instead, he "gamed" the inspectors at every turn and stuck his finger in the eye of the world. (See Res. 1441).
Analogy:
I see gang members leaning over into cars and putting money in their pockets. I have no concrete evidence that would stand up in court that they are dealing drugs. However, in my heart of hearts, I realize the probablity of drug dealing is far greater than any other explanation.
Now imagine that my son is spending a lot of time with these gang members. I have no concrete evidence, so am I to simply throw up my hands and let events take their course? Is it any surprise that the Republicans, with an arguably better educated constiuancy overall, would still cling to the notion that this bad boy STILL probably had WMD? They were documented, he used them in war, he stiffs the inspectors and we just walk away?

Many prominent Democrats felt the same way as well and voted for this war. Kerry was on the intelligence committee and saw the same things as Daschle, Bush, Levin, etc. They, too, were on board until the political winds shifted and it was more to their political advantage to say otherwise. Even Kerry has stated that even if he had known that no large caches of
WMD would be found, he still would have voted for the war. How do you explain this apparent anomoly?
When I got near the end of this study, I was appalled that world opinion and in particular, Islamic world opinion was held out as some factor in the decision making process at all. Why would anyone care about this when making defense decisions?

However, and interesting study, just take it with a grain of salt unless you
worship Europe.

I'll point out that right away, Jim starts making assumptions about me. You'll notice that he uses a number of Bush's phrases like "He gamed the system". Anyway, a response was due:


Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Brendan Skwire"
Re: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

The premise of this study, so generously provided by mr. Skwire from the University of Maryland, is that Bush supporters are stupid.

yes. that is my point exactly. And I stand by it.
especially since you think I'm writing from the
University of Maryland.

Then, feeling a bit puckish I escalated a bit:

Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Brendan Skwire"
Subject:
Re: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

But hey, don't forget Poland!
"Of course I feel a certain discomfort that we were
misled about weapons of mass destruction." Polish
President Aleksander Kwasniewski

Jim replied:

From:
"Jim Matthews"
Subject:
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know
Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:27:58 -0500

Brendan,
If you wish to genuinely discuss the issues, we can. If you wish to point out that in my haste, I neglected to check my punctuation, that is another matter. Do you wish to "score points" or minutia, or do you wish to hear both side of the story?
The study was, indeed, from the U of Md.

I replied:

Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Brendan Skwire"
Subject:
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

#1 you said that I was writing from the University of
Maryland.
#2: I long ago lost interest in just about ANYTHING
republicans have to say. There's this tendency to
make things up out of whole cloth. So no, I'm not at
all interested in hearing "both sides of the story"
yet again. really what you want to do is tell me the
republican side of the story, as your initial
perfectunion email demonstrated.
I've already heard the republican side more times than
I needed to, and it has not proven to be
"reality-based."
If I want to visit the neighborhood of make believe,
I'll watch reruns of "Mr. Rogers".
Now stop bothering me.

Unfortunately, Jim had trouble grasping that concept, and sent me in essence the same email he'd sent me previously:

Jim Matthews wrote:
Brendan,
If you wish to genuinely discuss the issues, we can.
If you wish to point out that in my haste, I neglected to check my punctuation, that is another matter. The study was, indeed, from the U of Md.

It keeps going:

Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Brendan Skwire" Subject:
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

In your haste, you also missed point number 2 of my
reply, as well as the request I made in closing.

So now I've told him to leave me alone twice. And although I've deleted email addresses, by this time the emails weren't coming from perfectunion: they were coming directly to me from Jim.
And thus I received this one (I will try to recreate Jim's colored text):


From:
"Jim Matthews"
Subject:
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know
Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:41:00 -0500


Har..har...har !!!

Was the United Nations Security Council "misled" when they unanimously passed Res. 1441 which, among other things stated:"Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,..." http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Who here could say with a straight face that China, Germany, France, Great Britian and the other 11 major powers that make up the Security Council were somehow "hoodwinked" by someone that the left believes doesn't have the I.Q. of a turnip? Does anyone here beliveve that the UN Security Council has no other resources and they just take our word for it? We are talking about the major Western powers here.
Even Senator Kerry is not trotting out the "Bush lied" tripe and here's why:

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Correct me, please, if I'm wrong, but Senator Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time he made these statements. He was privvy to the same intelligence, both domestic and foreign, that the president sees.
Now we turn to David Kay, the head UN weapons inspector for guidence:
That weapons stockpiles have not yet been found in Iraq should not so clearly indicate that Bush knowingly lied about their existence as it should point out that he -- not to mention Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and the United Nations Security Council -- fell victim to the same inaccurate intelligence information as did Mr. Kay. In fact, last Monday (January 26) David Kay told Tom Brokaw, "I think if anyone was abused by the intelligence, it was the president of the United States rather than the other way around."
I realize these statments are not convenient when the radical left websites are feeding you soundbites for simpletons, but "facts is facts".

I am a sucker for colored text: it makes a person's positions that much stronger. I wanted Jim to know I appreciated that, but also needed to let him know that his story had grown tiresome

Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Brendan Skwire"
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

so now, even though I've asked you to stop bothering
me, you send me more stuff (in fancy red letters, I
quite like that, very impressive) and call me a
"simpleton." Is that what republicans call "civilized
debate"?
calling names give people who don't want to listen to
you an excuse not to.
More proof that republicans aren't very bright.
Stop bothering me. I'm not interested. Go away.

-sigh- It just keeps coming:


From:
"Jim Matthews"
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know
Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:00:42 -0500

I am posting to the mailing list and not to you. If you don't want to read what is sent to the list, I suggest you get off the list.

BTW, I didn't really expect a rebuttle.....what I wrote is irrefutable.
But thanks for playing!!

[At this point, has anyone else realized what a poor speller Jim is? "rebuttle"? "beliveve"?]
The listowner weighed in at some point:

----- Original Message -----

Subject: Re: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

The premise of this study, so generously provided by mr. Skwire from the University of Maryland, is that Bush supporters are stupid.
yes. that is my point exactly. And I stand by it.
especially since you think I'm writing from the University of Maryland.

jim's a little touchy about bush supporters being called stupid? i seem to recall .....

"Is it any surprise that the Republicans, with an arguably better educated constiuancy overall, would still cling to the notion that this bad boy STILL probably had WMD?"

at least brendan had a study to present. jim is just using arguable digs.

Jim had a reply:

From:
"Jim Matthews"
Subject:
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know
Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:51:09 -0500

Hi, Eric,
I would have thought anyone with an exposure to simple statistics would understand that it is unreasonable to dismiss roughly half of the voters as simply 'stupid'. It is, at best, a weak and ill thought-out explanaion. Mr. Skwire is looking for simple partisan answers. If they rhyme, all the better. Ya' know like "Bush lied, people died". If it rhymes, it must be true, eh?

That is what you will find on Salon.com, democraticunderground.com, moveon.org and truthout.com. To be fair, the Conservatives have their share of ignorant websites. However, it is unwise to rely on these extremists of either persuasion for real news and facts.

Mr. Skywire would be wise to find his news somewhere else.......
Jim

Now I was tired of Jim. Also, I didn't like being called a simpleton. Furthermore, as much as I like arguing, debating with wingnuts is like trying to drive a sedan in the desert. Your tires spin and you get nowhere. Anyone who's listened for five minutes to RushO'ReillyIngrahamCoulter knows this is so. Also, my name is "Skwire" not "skywire" and that was just about the last straw. So I had to put a stop to Jim's emails:


Date:
Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Brendan Skwire"
Subject:
RE: [perfectunion] RE: What Republicans Don't Want You to Know

It is, at best, a weak and ill thought-out explanaion. Mr. Skwire is looking for simple partisan answers. If they rhyme, all the better. Ya' know like "Bush lied, people died". If it rhymes, it must be true, eh?

Jim says this about me, but in none of our exchange do i resort to "simple partisan answers". And anyone who knows me, as you do Eric, knows that I'm not interested in "simple partisan answers". Like Mr. Bush's myriad mischaracterizations of Mr. Kerry as "flip-flopper" then "the most consistently liberal senator", Jim is throwing mud at me and hoping some of it sticks.

Jim and I have never, to my knowledge, met (though I am bad with names and better with faces). Jim is angry with me for having the gall to respond to his inital post in a manner that he did not agree with. Then he began writing to me directly, although he claims each post was through perfectunion, which is a lie. When you reply to a perfectunion post it gets sent to the entire list, not just the poster, and the past few emails I came specifically from Jim, not the
listserv. I know because I've saved them, and I will happily forward them to the list.

In these emails, Jim keeps asking me if I want to hear the other side of the story and I keep telling him A) "no I'm not interested" and B) stop bothering me. I have asked him to stop bothering me THREE TIMES.

Let me point out, that while the results of the UMaryland study pointing to a higher level of stupidity in republicans may be arguable, a man who doesn't know what "leave me alone" means is CLEARLY a stupid person. Instead of leaving me alone, as I asked him to THREE TIMES, Jim has sent me more pro-republican stuff that I am not interested in, saying "I realize these statments are not convenient when the radical left websites are feeding you soundbites for simpletons." You all didn't see that comment previously because, contrary to Jim's assertions, he sent that to me directly, and not the list. Any simpleton can look at the headers to realize that.

Jim has no idea who I am or where my politics lie, but claims that I get my news from "radical left websites". Not only that, these radical lefties are "feeding me" this information, as if I'm in a
straitjacket with my eyes held open a la "Clockwork Orange." this implies that Jim believes that I am too stupid to consider opposing arguments and draw my own conclusions.

For the record, when it comes to Iraq, I have heard many sides. From the email Jim sent out this morning, I got a pretty good idea what his side was, and i rejected that side a long time ago. I don't need to talk about it anymore. I certainly don't need people like Jim yapping in my ear like a chihuahua on crystal meth.

Jim, you don't know me. You don't know ANYTHING about me. But i know something about you: you're a liar, you're a bully, and you are so fucking stupid, you probably wipe your ass with your hand and then eat Triscuits.

Pardon me for sinking to your level, but for the last time, you ignorant stupid dishonest right-wing republican bully: leave me alone. I'm not interested in talking to you and I'm not interested in your opinion about ANYTHING.

3 words, 4 syllables: Leave. Me. Alone. Is that too hard a concept to grasp?

And at long last, the emails stopped.
The End.