Dueling Editors: Superiority and Peace

Stephen Wiley, Comfusion Editor

J. Patrick Brown, Comfusion Editor

Below is an example of Comfusion's commitment to supporting multi-perspectives. The following is a transcript of a volley of emails between two Comfusion editors. Sometimes it gets personal and heated, but we are commited to our motto: Difference Is not Division. Peace.

**********************************

James Brown wrote (the first email):

The "President" speaks and the terror alert jumps to high. I feel safer already, don't you?

**

On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 09:42 PM, Wiley wrote:

absolutely, 'cause we're going to finally go and kick some totalitarian ass.

**

At 10:15 PM 3/17/2003 -0800, James Brown wrote:

Wiley, your response is a non-response. But I'm not surprised, because other than "oh it's a fight, it's a fight" high school rhetoric, there is no reason to do this. You go put your own ass on the line, and then we'll talk about what a good idea this is.

**

At 10:23 PM 3/17/03 -0800, James Brown wrote:

I mean, seriously, doesn't your little "I'm conservative just because the world around me seems so liberal" game get old? I understand how very cool it must seem to rebel against "rebellion," in terms of grooming your self-image and whatnot, but is your bunkass persona really worth somebody else's blood. I suppose you must think it's that important to pose dissent against real dissent. And the ironic and really pathetic thing about it is that you're not going to benefit personally one iota from any conservative agenda. It hasn't made you richer, but you're an economic conservative. Do you realize how little sense that makes? It's like you're saying: "Rape me, oh great libertarian pricks. Then go rape those people too." It's sad, actually. And it's just not really cool any more.

**

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 11:29 AM, Stephen Wiley wrote:

Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? You shouldn't be so quick to strut your ignorance. Do you honestly believe that my personal convictions run so shallow as to be adolescent posturing? Rebelling against rebellion? Pull your head out of the sand and look around at the gravity of the situation. What's "cool" and what's not is a fucking juvenile approach and doesn't enter the scene. You seem to be mistaking me for one of those fools who doesn't take the time to understand the situation as a whole, but rather stands around with a placard, regurgitating the rhetoric.

What's sad and pathetic is that you think the conviction of liberating the Iraqi people from a tyrant -- people who are tortured, killed, imprisoned, women raped, and working toward stabilizing a region in turmoil -- could even be confused with posturing. Do you know what this dissent is that you think I'm dissenting against? It's called coddling to dictators. It's called putting your tail between your legs instead of standing up for what's right. Pretending someone isn't a murderous dictator and looking the other way doesn't make it so. But, of course, you and your kind want to sit back and pretend that those ugly conservatives are only doing this for greed and oil. Open your eyes and look around. Those countries that want us to stay out -- France, Russia, China, Germany -- have you asked yourself why? They're the ones who want to maintain the status quo so their oil contracts aren't disrupted. They're not raising opposition for moral or humanitarian reasons. They're afraid for their economies if the flow of oil is disrupted.

Do you know what sad and pathetic is? Not having the personal conviction to stand up for something because it's the right thing to do, even in the face of opposition. Sad and pathetic is following along behind the dissent organized by an organization like International ANSWER, who have to use that name as a front to the World Worker's Party. Sad are all the little sheep who march with signs supporting the murderous actions of a tyrant and think leaving him in power to torture and kill his people is a better option.

Yeah, you're right, there will be blood spilt and lives lost. My ass on the line or not is beside the point. The difference between us is that I would put my ass on the line for something I believe in, whereas I don't believe you would. No one thinks this is a "good idea" as you put it, but a horrible thing that needs to be done. No one is making any excuses, saying that war is going to be anything but the brutal practice that it is.

But what really grinds on me is that you felt it okay to make a personal attack. All you've shown is that you don't know a thing about me, my economic standing, or my personal beliefs. You can't understand, and don't seem to take the time to try to understand, how someone could think differently than you. And yet you want to press your self-serving, elitist liberalism on me. You should read this, it'll be educational, and you might learn something:

Bush Wages Peace

**

At 12:11 PM 3/18/03 -0800, James Brown:

Listen, the number of facts you want to either suppress or ignore are too numerous to list. Like: who put Saddam in power, who coddled Saddam for over a decade with direct financial support, who has the most to gain economically from attacking Iraq, who has the most to lose economically (you guessed it, "elite" liberals who are currently, directly behind my house, dumpster diving for $50 day), who completely contradicts himself to justify murdering, once again, thousands of Iraqis? Not only that, but you completely ignored the point that every time Bush opens his mouth to suck off Rumsfeld and Co, the terror alert jumps up (safer world ... whose kidding who?).

So, did I jump to personal conclusions because your "position" (Presidential 69) is untenable, irrational, unethical, illegal, immoral, contradictory, and murderous. I suppose I did. What did you expect? Prove to me that the world will be safer using factual observations, proof that the inspections weren't working for the last month, evidence that Saddam (like Saudi Arabia) supported 9-11. You're not going to find this evidence. Do you know why? Because, like McCarthy's suitcase full of evidence against Communists, it doesn't exist. If you think the world is going to be safer because of another Middle East slaughter, you're either posing or seriously lacking in the ability to observe, weigh, integrate, and understand large bits of complex information. It's up to you. I thought the posing comments were letting you off easy.

Seriously, though, you really need to drop the cliche "liberal elite," since it's both unfacutal (most liberals are brokeass, like me, and grew up that way), and completely opposed to common sense and basic observation.

All right, I should apologize for

**

Response from Steve Wiley:

Elitism isn't necessarily monetary. It also suggests an air of superiority, so in that sense what I said isn't cliche as you seem to have substantiated it.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that U.S. interests put Saddam in power because it was necessary at the time. And now with the benefit of hindsight, U.S. interests will take him out of power. But, you see, nothing about that argument means we should turn our backs. Since we put him in power we should leave him there against out better judgment? What exactly is the broad scope of that argument? Asking who brought him into power doesn't offer a solution to the problem. It runs up more debate, which is all well and good, but it doesn't address the issue at hand. And tell me, who is it that you think has the most to gain economically by us taking out Saddam? Us? The United States? Or Bush’s cronies? If it was either one of those, lifting the sanctions, sending in Halliburton, and getting the oil fields flowing would be a better economic model, don't you think? As it stands, Iraqi oil accounts for little more than 2-3% of what Americans use. That's correct, 2-3%. Now tell me, who is it that stands to gain?

Now, as for it being a safer place, let's pull out our history books and analyze the large bits of complex information. Think back to WWII. There was a Pacific Theatre and the European Theatre. There was Militaristic Japan, Hitler's Germany, and Mussolini's Italy. Each acting independently against a common enemy: the Allied forces. All of the singular battles were brought under the scope of the larger war. Many of which had nothing to do with the other, yet history allows us the benefit to see the roles each played in the larger whole. So now, as we "observe, weigh, and integrate," let's step back and use history as a model for today's conflict.

First, as Hans Blix has stated, the only reason there has been any progress in the inspections has been due to the threat of force. We also know that there are still 30,000+ liters each of Mustard Gas, VX Gas, Anthrax, and other nasty bits, that haven't been accounted for. The inspections are a cat and mouse game. The whole intent was for Saddam to prove he had nothing, which he hasn't, rather than the inspectors proving he does, which we already know he does. Evidence that Saddam supported 9-11. Well, we do know that he supports terrorist organizations, giving $25,000 dollars to each of the families of Hamas suicide bombers. We know he has run training camps, or allowed training camps to be run in Iraq. We know that al-Qaeda operatives have been in and out of Iraq. We know that terrorist organizations, after 9-11, have expressed solidarity against the West, much in the same manner as Japan, Germany, Italy during WWII. The current war isn't about seeking revenge for 9-11. It's about seeing to it that something like that never happens again. What was initially al-Qaeda, has evolved to include those who now express solidarity with, and support the terrorist efforts now.

The evidence does indeed exist if you want to see it and acknowledge it. Much like documents since released from the old Soviet Union and KGB that have confirmed many of McCarthy's claims about Communist infiltration, though the means with which he chose to deliver them will overshadow the truth, were indeed correct. The information is out there if you look for it.

But the arrogance with which you think I need to be "let off easy," that my opinions and ideas pale in comparison to your righteousness, that I am somehow mentally deficient because I can't see this supposed light that shines, and have no common sense for basic observations, is exactly what I mean by elitism. It's a bullshit holier than thou attitude.

**

At 03:55 PM 3/18/2003 -0800, James Brown:

So, by "air of superiority," I'm assuming you're talking about things like Rumsfeld's appearance on David Letterman when, off air but on camera, as a stagehand was working behind him, he took off his glasses, reached around, and without asking, looking at her, or saying a word, wiped his glasses on her blouse. Is that what you mean? Or do you just mean people who have studied logic and language and, for this reason, are capable of noticing contradiction. I'm just curious. I don't believe, as the Bush family does, that I'm of a superior race who deserves all my power. I just think I have a brain and that it's trained to work rationally because I wanted it to be. If that's what you mean by elitist, your definition is certainly a stretch.

(Who am I? 0.001 percent of the population making multi billions of dollars, and not only willing to kill, lie, cheat, and steal for it, but also convinced that I have a right (see Ann Rand) to do so? No, Ms. Rand, I don't know how to break the news to you, but mediocrity does rule in capitalism. Of course, Ms. Rand, you wouldn't be surprised to hear this since, against your better judgment, the markets are indeed, still today, fixed in favor of inferior intellects, as you claimed. Wow, wasn't she one elitist bitch? If it weren't for that whole no-taxes thing, based on your point of view on elitism, I'm sure she would have been kicked out of the Republican party's intellectual history long ago. But of course, she wasn't, for precisely the reason that she espoused unabashedly elitist opinions. When Ann Rand's books and the Rand institute no longer play a role in conservative politics, I'll consider believing that your definition of elitism is sincere and sensible. As it is, your use of the word is just empty rhetoric, learned, of course, from other people's empty rhetoric.)

Back in the Cold War days, which it seems you're keen on reliving, the ability to notice irony (according to one classic dictionary of Cold War education) used to be considered one the central signs of intelligence. I kid you not! So, my question is, do you want the Cold War world view back in its entirety, or just the dumbed down Fox version of it? Because, Steve, quite frankly, if you're not fit to see ironies and contradictions, you're opinion is simply not intelligent or rational. And the relevancy of enlightenment logic and rationality is exactly what the first legal (read lawyerly) documents of this nation are founded on.

Back to the notion of elitism. Sorry to harp on it so much, but your delusions about what it means are really central to your argument. I'd suggest that you've got to consider thinking back beyond WWII, if that's possible for you, to see how that war started in the first place. Did you know (I bet you didn't) that during the last half of the Nineteenth Century, the production of arms in Europe, America, and Japan increased between 50-200%, depending on the country. Why? Because that was how certain cats made money. Okay, so WWII doesn't begin with America entering the war in a flood of bravado and jazz. It starts right here, with the elite-sponsored (remember, this was the Gilded age, the age of the Robber Baron) production of arms for personal gain and profit. Was there a reason? Was there a threat? There was no threat. There was no Hitler. There was no Saddam. There were only mills, factories, isolated conflicts, and the will of a few to rape and pillage the majority. You don't want to believe this, of course, but then again you didn't even know about the arms buildup in the Gilded age until I told you, did you? I, of course, already know all about the Hitler argument because I can hear it on The Factor any night of the week.

So there you have it: arms for no reason, and a great international need to do something with them, fear between countries, and general mistrust. Everyone on their high horse asking: "Why do you have so many weapons?" Voila: WWI. Of course, we know that Hitler rose from the ashes of WWI and a shamed Germany, and of course it was just and necessary for us to help take him out. The question I ask you, though, is this: did WWI and the unjustified arms buildup that led to it make the world safer? You know the answer to this question. What you're completely ignoring is the fact that elites caused the mess. Hitler, after all, was a politician with elitist aspirations. The threat, in the first place, was the production of arms itself, and the personal power that it gave to a very small portion of the population. A sense of justice and compassion didn't create our involvement in the WWII: elite hubris did. Your view of history, as you can see, is quite limited to the convenient points, and completely avoids the contradictions and ironies that created history and the present as we know it (see above). From WWII we had the Cold War, from the Cold War, al-Qaeda and Saddam. All beginning with what? Unnecessary, wasteful munitions spending that starved most of us here at home and abroad, and gave us the Great Depression.

You're also completely ignoring another fact: that the breakdown of authority in the League of Nations was the great overture to the WWII. It's convenient, of course, to ignore that, because you actually believe (for no reason, and really, I have to emphasize reason in the classical / Enlightenment sense of the word, so it's funny how I'm ending up more conservative than you in this argument, isn't it?), because you actually believe that flying in the face of an international peacekeeping body in order to make war is going to create safety. You can't just have the historical facts that are convenient to you, basing your whole argument just now on the romance of the jazz age. The world wars sucked, and elites caused them. And elites are right now seriously threatening to cause more.

The war of the elites created Hitler, created Stalin, created Saddam, and created Bush. It's that kind of war that needs to go. And it's your pathetic delusion that that kind of war is good for you that justifies these monsters.

Check your definitions, next time.

-JB

**

Response: Steve Wiley:.

I am going to pull myself out of this "discussion" and call it quits. We disagree and that's fine. Our history books also focused on different root causes for the starts of wars and the depression. I seem to remember the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire being the start of WWI, not too many people sitting around with extra weapons. And my recollection of the Great Depression is rooted in there being no economic safe-guards in place to keep banks from investing in the stock market, so when it collapsed, the banks collapsed, all the money dried up.

I no longer feel the need to sit back and have someone insult and condescend me over the perceived elitism of others (speaking of incongruities). But I will agree with you on one point: I too have always thought Ayn (I'll check my definitions if you check your spelling) Rand's writing and ideas to be a load of shit.

You are studied up on the Age of Wit, so with that I'll tip my hat, leave you to your ideas and bid you good day.

**

At 07:44 PM 3/18/03 -0800, James Brown:

Just so you know, I'm not condescending you, just your support of the Bush policy, which just, in my opinion, isn't grounded because Bush has not been able to ground it in facts. After all, what are you supposed to argue with?

Seriously, I apologize for my tone. I'm pissed off, had some assumptions about the personal reasons for your point of view, and shouldn't have made them. But, really, you can call me a snob, but not an elite. That really needs to be made clear. The Republican use of the word "elite" really is a red herring.

But if people start dying here, I just might start bitching at you again. Be prepared.

**

On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 03:19 PM, Wiley wrote:

Fair enough. I will refrain from referring to you as "elitist."

I know you don't agree with this, but I'm going to say it because it drives me nuts. The blood is not going to be on my hands. The blood and the blame should be placed directly on the shoulders of Saddam. He has been given 12 years to comply. It isn't the U.S. that has flown in the face of the U.N., it's been Saddam and his defiance of disarming. For 12 years he has snubbed his nose at the world community. And for 12 years he is the one who has spent the money allotted in the sanctions from oil sales on his palaces and weapons, and let his people starve. "It is Saddam Hussein who harbors terrorists and hosts training camps for them; it is Saddam Hussein who has orchestrated the deaths of and disappearances of hundreds of thousands of people; it is Saddam Hussein who cuts out the tongues of Iraqi citizens who speak poorly of him; and it is Saddam Hussein who orders the rape of women in front of their children just to get political leverage with their husbands."

The facts have been presented ad infinitum. Worldwide human rights organizations have documented all of his atrocities. Why is it that Saddam suddenly gets a free pass because the world has said that 12 years is long enough to comply? The most common concern right now, as we make a move toward war, is will Saddam use his chemical weapons. Suddenly all the countries that have refused to admit he has them, are suddenly concerned he'll use them. Let's look at what we do have to be concerned with and why we are disarming him: Anthrax, VX nerve agent, mustard gas, missiles, chemical and biological munitions and warheads, drones, and Scud missiles. Those are all the things he's been spending money on while he let's his people starve. Plus all of the stuff we'll find after we've ousted him.

Bush isn't just suddenly making all this stuff up. This is a process that started 12 years ago, but with the higher stakes of inaction, the world community can't afford to stick it's head in the sand and wait for something awful and atrocious to occur before we do something to eliminate a threat that we know already exists.

If those aren't facts, then I don't know what are. You don't like Bush. You don't like Republicans. I know that and that's your prerogative. I don't deny you that. I know that you also think these reasons are null and void because we put Saddam in power in the first place. I don't want to force this discussion into circles, but there is a very dangerous situation at hand, right now. Not in the past, but here, right now. The actual point I was trying to make with my historical assessment yesterday, is that with so many terrorist groups suddenly finding solidarity (and it doesn't matter if they act as one or separately if they all want to destroy Western civilization and kill Westerners in general and Americans in particular. That'll still be an issue whether or not we go to war against Iraq) we cannot sit back and pretend the threat doesn't exist. We can't sit back and hope that all the unaccounted for chemical and biological weapons that are hidden in Iraq aren't being passed to other groups who will use them.

You may be willing to take that chance in the name of peace. But I'm not. In my view there is the potential for far more death and atrocity if we stand pat and do nothing. No one is advocating the death of civilians or military personnel. I do know that there will be far more death later if we do nothing now. That's something I can't live with. That's something that keeps me awake at night and pisses me off. The plots to kill Americans on American soil is still going on regardless of whether we go after Saddam. The plots won't stop just because we ask them to be nice, or if we give them enough bribe money, or pull out our troops, or disarm. There would be more danger of lives lost here if we backed down now. Look back over the last 10 years of terrorist activity directed at Americans, starting with the first WTC bombing in 93. We did nothing. Kenya. Nothing. The Cole. Nothing. Countless others. Nothing. What did we get for inaction? 9-11. That's what inaction gets us. That's what being perceived as weak gets us. The longer we go without retaliating or making a move to eradicate it, the more bold those terrorist become and up the ante with each attack. Are you willing to take that risk? I'm not.

You can hate Bush, Republicans, and me for that matter all you want. But the action now is what keeps people from dying later.

I'm more than happy to have this discussion and debate with you, but do me a favor and I'll do likewise, don't make the attacks personal. That cheapens the discussion.

**

At 08:02 AM 3/20/03 -0800, James Brown:

I realize that, and I apologize again, seriously. At first, I was just being an asshole, and then it was my age of wit mentality taking over my better judgment. I guess we'll just see. Even the White House is predicting more terrorist attacks on the United States, which seems to undermine the whole argument that we'll be safer. Of course, I'm also suspicious that the White House spin doctors are using the terror alert system as a form of social conditioning.

There's enough blood and blame to go around. The blood and blame goes to those who put Saddam in power as well. We can't just let them off the hook because they want to do what they perceive as the right thing now. They ARE Saddam, part and parcel, players in the same competition.

I think we really need to step back and ask what this country wants to be in the future. The goal is obviously global empire. There's just no question about that, since it's been explicitly stated. The means of attaining that empire is simply going to create more terror. What we saw on 9-11 was a horrific backlash against that empire. You said it yourself, undermining the key point of Bush's policy: the plots are going on regardless of whether we get Saddam. I question whether global empire is really a Republican value. Is that what it means to live in a Republic, in a Republican Democracy (to put the parties on the same level, which they are)?

All I'm asking you to do is get outside the rhetoric. What concerns me about your arguments were that I've heard them all before, and I know that you haven't heard mine before, not in the specifics. It's the whole problem with partisan politics: everyone's argument and evidence becomes predictable. This is the whole reason we need more than two parties: America has more than two voices. It's not hate for you, or hate for the parties. Hell, it's not even hate. It's just frustration that all the arguments on both sides have been limited to a very short and uninformed view of history and the people who control it.

Clinton should have put more pressure on Saddam, no question. Kennedy would have. But is this the kind of pressure we need? I have my doubts. Time will tell.

I think today deserves some serious reflection about America's identity going into this century. It's clear to me that the American Century is over. It's this kind of thing that killed the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, and every empire. We'll have power and influence, of course, but the time when the people of the world look to us as a beacon of democracy is coming to a close. Maybe this sounds melodramatic. Maybe it is. But it's clear that we have no respect on (or for) the world stage, either for the right or for the wrong reasons. The long run is that our moral authority is going to be perceived as dead. That's perhaps the biggest loss.

My mom is praying that God guides our bombs to the right targets. I think that's a damn good prayer.

-James

**

Response Steve Wiley:

Your apology is fully accepted. Absolutely. I apologize too for anything that I might have said to push buttons and attack back on a personal level.

You made a comment early on about the White House not listening to the voices of dissent. Today, protesters staged a "vomit in" on the steps of the San Francisco Federal Building to show that the war makes them sick. There are also reports of protesters defecating and urinating on the steps. The UPS driver here at work told us that a FedEx driver was jumped and beaten and that a member of the S.W.A.T. team was also jumped and beaten while putting on his gear. Perhaps the problem is they are being heard, but how can those sorts of antics be taken seriously. It's shameful, actually. It gives open and honest dissent a bad name. And make no bones, I don't want to lump all the anti-war protesters into that camp as a whole. It just grates on me that our soldiers risk their lives so that these up-to-no-good-niks can puke and piss and shit on the Federal Building. What else drives me nuts, is that they are the same that complain about the budget cutbacks, the money that is spent on the war, yet they give no thought to the local resources drained as they pull this kind of destructive crap. I doubt they give a thought to the money they themselves are taking from the schools so that hazardous waste teams can clean up their feces.

To get on with this, make no mistake, I've heard all the arguments your making. I read. I scour the news. I turn the pages of The Nation as well as National Review. I read the Weekly Standard and the Village Voice. As well as all the smaller underground presses and weblogs. I hit the mainstream and the "alternative." As Bush said to the protesters, "I respectfully disagree." As many times as I hear the claim of American empirical ambitions I just don't get where that comes from. Are we like the French and their recent skirmish on the Ivory Coast to beat back a colonial uprising (which they forgot to get U.N. approval for, ya know, as a side note)? What empire is it that we are building? Sure, we go in, oust a tyrannical regime, maintain a presence while we spend our resources to rebuild the country, it's infra-structure, and government, then leave and continue to send foreign aid, maybe ask our troops to risk their lives to help said country protect itself from outside aggressors. We just have different terms for it, I guess. You call it empire, I call it American generosity. We don't stay and tell the people to swear their allegiance to an American King. The current war to ferret out terrorism shouldn't be mistaken for some modern day Alexandrian campaign. Yes, we have influence in the world. We're the only country to which people will risk their lives to immigrate. The people of other countries berate us, but at the same time want what we take for granted. That sort of influence shouldn't be taken for empire. They're two and separate phenomenon.

Now as far as the world stage is concerned, no, we aren't given any respect these days. Yet every single one of those countries and leaders will turn to us when they need something. And even though they have all been vocal in their distaste for us, have mocked and criticized Bush, we as a people will still extend our resources to them. I'd say that gives a better sense of our moral authority than listening to the insults of international leaders and officials, like the Canadians who've called Bush a "moron" and Americans in general "bastards."

We've known there is the potential for more and serious attacks on our soil for the last year and a half. I think that rather than criticize we should be thankful for every day that's passed since where we haven't seen other. The day may come where we have to live through that sort of atrocity all over again, or it may happen on that scale overseas. Or, if we continue to fight and round up those little rats, we may not. But I do know that if we ease up at all, even the slightest, on the pressure we're putting on them, we will lose ground.

It is a new century, but it is not an imperial one. But the actions started at first light this morning in Iraq will go a long way toward writing what sort of century it shall be.

I'm getting worn out though. That much I do know.

-peace.

**

At 09:50 AM 3/20/03 -0800, James Brown wrote:

Seriously, we have to pay attention to the White House's language right now.

45 seconds ago.

Reporter: What is the objective of this campaign at this point.

Ari Fleischer: The objective of this campaign remains the same, as the president has made clear. The disarmament of the Iraqi regime.

Reporter: What are the benchmarks of success for this objective?

Ari Fleischer: Uh, you will be informed of the progress of the military action as the events unfold.

(In other words, it's not really relevant, and we have no plan for determining this. Interestingly, all the recent UN resolutions had benchmarks for success.)

**

Response: Steve Wiley:

At the same time, are you expecting the White House to give the press corps detailed military planning? Perhaps highlight all the projected targets, how the military plans to go about it's mission, so that it could be posted on CNN.com for, oh I don't know, the people we're fighting to see and react to?

I think the assumption that there is not plan is a little premature, don't you? I mean, it's not like the military planners have been sitting in the desert making cookies while the U.N. bickered for the last six weeks about whose piece of the pie will be most damaged as a result of fighting.

And, yes, the U.N. did have benchmarks for success. And now military forces are going to do what the U.N. couldn't in 12 years of doing their best Inspector Clouseau impersonation.

**