More Fun With Letters to the Editor

Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, as usual, gives us a few letters to the editor from a few very dumb writers. I won't go through all of them, but I want to focus on the ones that are particularly in need of some fisktastic attention. Check 'em out:

The best support would be to vote Bush out of office

I'm responding to Kit Kellinger's letter ("A Minuscule Number," May 18) and other "well, they did it first" letters. Whatever heinous acts Saddam Hussein or other Iraqis have committed are irrelevant to the prisoner abuse argument.

Tell that to Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy. He seems obsessed with the idea that we're as bad as Saddam.

Saddam didn't claim to be a great moral leader generously bestowing democracy on the unfortunate Iraqis. But President Bush did;

Hmmm...and President Bush actually FOLLOWED THROUGH, didn't he?

...therefore, we have a duty to be above reproach in all our actions in Iraq.

So...you're basically saying that the war is a failure if anything goes wrong? I stand in awe of your truly realistic world view.

Yes, Jessica Lynch was mistreated in Iraq. But why can't people recognize she never should have been there?

Maybe because not everybody agrees with that opinion, nimrod.

Our invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the hunt for the terrorist network responsible for 9/11.

Okay, first of all, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would Bush fight a whole new war for the specific purpose of slowing the progress of the original one? And even if he did, how do you suddenly know exactly what he was thinking? I seem to remember him saying something about weapons of mass destruction, and terrorist support, and human rights violations, and U.N. violations, and cease-fire violations...I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

(No matter how many times this administration says Iraq was involved in 9/11, it knows that's not true. It just hopes you don't.)

That's funny, because this administration has repeatedly stated that Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11, and we have no good evidence that suggests otherwise. It is possible to hear what people are actually saying, you know. Pretending that they said what you wanted to hear doesn't help anyone.

Saddam had never attacked us, and it's unlikely he would have in the future...

That may be true, but hey, remember those terrorist groups we went after in Afghanistan? He could've given weapons and money to them so they could attack us, but it wouldn't be traced directly to him. In fact, that was one of the reasons Bush gave for invading Iraq, even though you seem to remember him saying that Saddam was behind 9/11.

(retaining his position was of more interest than doing us in).

See my previous point. He could've easily given support to terrorist groups, which would make it harder to trace the attacks back to him. Two birds with one WMD.

Bush says otherwise, but as he barely bothers to read important CIA briefings...

Are you personally involved in White House activities, or are you relying on the "illiterate cowboy" stereotype?

...I won't give him credit for being able to read the future.

That's a surprise, since you seem to give yourself credit for being able to read the president's freaking mind.

If you truly support the troops, you'll make sure they aren't put in harm's way unnecessarily.

"I support the troops, as long as they don't have to get hurt!"

The best way to do that is to vote Bush out in November.

Yeah. The troops will be a lot safer after Kerry goes around the world apologizing for everything America has ever done. That won't make terrorists view us as an easy target at all. Nope.

Idiots. Let's move on to another letter. This one's slightly less complex, but a lot more ignorant:

A mirror of society

To those who "surfacely" express outrage or surprise at the inhumane treatment of Iraqi POWs...

More frickin' mind reading! What is wrong with these people?

...one must remember that the military, like other organizations, is merely a reflection of the larger society.

Um...if that were true, don't you think they'd be a bit less particular about who gets in and who doesn't?

One takes into those entities the same prejudices, racial superiority and bigotry practiced on the outside.

Here comes the moonbattery. Something tells me this person works for a university. It's just a feeling I'm getting.

America has yet to resolve its own "anti" behaviors; what would make one believe there will be a miraculous change when a uniform is donned?

Let's see...they seem to be pretty good at making people respect authority, and they're not segregated by anything but gender, so I don't understand the problem here. Apparently, American society is just full of eeeeevil bigotry.

The section of the country that most of the suspects have been reared in is and has been a center of intolerance to minorities.

I love it. I love it so much. The heroic anti-bigotry crusader is relying on stereotypes to make an argument. You can almost taste the irony. Hmmm...tastes like chicken. And tinfoil.

You don't put uniforms on people who have no respect for those without pale skins...

"Your racial attitudes are determined by your geography, and nothing else!"

...send them into a country of dark skins...

That didn't sound racist at all.

...and not expect exactly what has happened unless sensitivity training has been impacted.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You do work for a university, don't you?

This is ridiculous. How can you possibly blame the abuses on racism and society? Do you honestly think that they only mistreated the prisoners because they were a different color? If you do, I truly feel sorry for you. But it's still funny.

Remember the saying, "You can take one out of the country, but you can't take the country out of him/her."

I've seen variations of it, but not the weird, politically correct version you just whipped out.

At least not without recognizing the truth in that saying and targeting for change.

I really can't get over the fact that people are capable of blaming this whole thing on racism. I don't know about the rest of you, but when someone looks at a situation where white people abuse brown people and, without any actual evidence of bigoted activity, immediately decides that racism is the cause, I worry about the observer being a racist. After all, when skin color is the first thing you notice, you are a racist by definition. Even if you call it "diversity" or "sensitivity."

Somebody make the stupidity stop.

Posted by CD on May 22, 2004 06:35 PM
Category: