From: Caseymac@aol.com

Subject: catchy buzzwords

Good grief!  The Bush Admin must be full of rednecks, cowboys, fatheads, and ugly Americans.

First Smirk refers to the upcoming military campaign as a "crusade," a serious faux pas, because of the likely
Muslim interpretation that the U.S. is declaring holy war against Islam.  Bin Laden must be really grateful for
the assistance we're giving him in his efforts to recruit and mobilize more anti-American soldiers.

And today I hear that they've screwed up again, calling the military campaign "Operation Infinite Justice."
Apparently they've been informed this is also a serious faux pas, because Muslims believe only Allah can
mete out "Infinite Justice."  And it's the height of hubris for America to believe that it can apply infinite justice.

Clinton never would have done something so stupid.  Clinton would have consulted leading Muslims
or Imans in the U.S. before he decided on some catchy "operation" name.  What am I saying?
Clinton wouldn't have even determined that we needed some John Wayne war movie buzzwords
for this - that's a Bush family thing...like Operation Panty Shield.

What a bunch of conceited dolts.  It's just this kind of ethno-centrism, insensitivity, and dismissive
attitude towards cultural differences that is the reason America is so hated around the world.

Kelsey

From: (withheld)

Subject: Okay, I'll debate you

I have already replied to your previous suggestion that the population of Afghanistan
"don't want" freedom because they're not prepared to fight for it.
However, I know you get swamped with mail, so no problem.

Obviously, I like your stuff. I've sent you money, and will in the future.
But I'm going to hit you hard here, because you have gone way overboard.

You say "America didn't become the world's greatest superpower by whining.
We told our oppressors to take a fucking hike (sorry, UK) and we fought and died for our freedom.
Why won't Afghanistan fight and die for their freedom?"

I have to teach you US history??!!?? So be it.

Remember that pledge of Allegiance you took at school?
That Pledge would be to the Queen of England but for one word: France.
The French, arguably the strongest power on earth at the time, supported the 13 colonies that
became the USA.   And without their help (military and diplomatic), the British would have prevailed easily,
hanging every rebel who told the King to "take a fucking hike" from the nearest fucking tree.

Do you get where I'm driving at?

You compared the people of Afghanistan (at least 15,000 of whom are right now risking their lives
in uniform fighting the Taliban) to the people of the 13 colonies in the revolutionary war.
You have done this twice, on different days, so I can't let it go.

First off, the British mostly observed the rules of decent warfare in America. Mel Gibson caught
some flak for inventing brutal acts of repression by the redcoats in "The Patriot". There were no
major massacres of civilians. Unlike in Ireland 15 years later, when we had a revolution, the British
invaded towns and flayed burned and hanged men at random.

You know perfectly well that the religio-crazy Taliban will not fight as clean as the British did in the 18th century.
They will murder every baby in a village if even one of the villagers tries to rebel. Islamic terrorists in Algeria
do this all the time, erasing whole villages with machetes. Your rebels NEVER had to deal with that.

Two, back in the late 18th century, the pinnacle of military technology was the one-shot, slow-reload
flintlock rifle. The rebels had plenty of them, so did the British. Despite the fact they were so evenly matched,
the rebels STILL needed French help to win.

Contrast with today in Afghanistan.
The population of the Taliban-controlled areas have no weapons bar farm equipment, knives and rocks.
The anti-taliban forces in the north have five attack helicopters.
The Taliban have all the machine guns, grenades, pistols they need.
They have scud missiles, MiG fighters, soviet tanks and of course machetes.

Three, the only non-pissant country helping the people of Afghanistan against the Taliban is Russia,
itself a desperately poor country. To continue your comparison, this would be like if America's
greatest revolutionary ally was not France, but Bulgaria. If that had been so, you would be
a loyal subject of Her Majesty today.

Let me say I have heard Irish people say stuff like you said to us, usually when we talk about
giving help to some poor Africans. "Hey, why can't they just get their freedom like the Irish did."
Well that's horseshit, for the reasons given above. We beat out the Brits with great amounts of help
from people in America and Britain itself. Hardly any country has ever got rid of a dictatorship
without major outside help, so it's just stupid and unfair for an American or Irishman to expect
poor Afghans, fighting against the most ruthless foes imaginable, massively outgunned, to win alone.

The forces of Northern afghanistan, which by the way are recognised by the UN as the legitimate
government of afghanistan, have pledged 15,000 troops to any effort against the Taliban or Osama bin Laden.

This is info I got from your chat section, by the way.

From: chodge96@yahoo.com

Subject: Falwell on Geraldo

BC,

Did you happen to catch the Reverend Jerry Falwell on Geraldo last night?
He lit into him pretty good.  Here are paraphrases of his questions:

"Do you believe what you said?
If not, swear to your God right now that you don't believe what you said."

"How can you go on preaching after having said those terrible things?"

"How do you think the families of those brave firefighters or office workers felt
after hearing that their loved ones were killed because of gays, the ACLU, etc."

Of course Falwell just squirmed and offered meek replies and apologies.
It was just the kind of confrontational Q&A this a-hole deserved.

Charlie Hodge

From: michaelkircher@hotmail.com

Subject: Your untitled piece for 9-20-2001

Title it this: "Bartcop Shows his Ignorance!"

You ask among other things, "Why don't they take them out?"
"Why don't they grab a kitchen knife.." "or sharp stick?"
"Why don't they fight back?"

Tell you what BC, why don't you hop on the next flight to Kabul and walk around
and ask those folks why.  Are you really that naive? That ignorant of the situation over there?
This whole tragic episode has brought out a side of you that can only be described
as reactionary and jingoistic.  You and Rush and Andrew Sullivan and all the other
right-wingnuts deserve each other.  You are not thinking.  Only reacting.

Your childish questions reveals more than I ever cared to know about your stunted intellect.
"Why don't they fight back?" you ask? Jesus, do a little research and read a little deeper than the headlines.
Maybe you'll find the answer to that and all those other inane questions.

All my for you respect is gone. (as if you care!)

M. Kircher
 

Mike,
I notice you doves don't have any problem attacking your own.
but you think making nice is the way to handle the bombers...

From: Al Smudge

Subject: Presidential Security Hypocrites

Remember how the Republicans screamed when Bill Clinton,  at the recommendation
of the Secret Service after the OKC bombing, had Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the
White House blocked off to traffic to prevent suicide bombers?

Which it still is, yet I don't see them asking Bush to remove the barriers.

They are so pathetic.
 

Al, it doesn't surprise me.  Conservative columnists (like John Derbyshire) have called
for Chelsea Clinton's death, so why should their desire to see Bill dead surprise us?

From: keleka@keleka.net

Subject: Regarding the Mayor of New York City

Are the American people finally realizing that you don't have to have
a flawless personal life to be a good leader?
Imagine that!

BTW, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has written you
to suggest that the Bush crime family is really behind the terrorist attacks.

Keleka
 

Keleka, good point.
Rudy did so good last week, I wouldn't care if he brought TWO girlfriends to church

From: ttorkildson@siouxfalls.com

Subject: CNN Poll

Dear Mr. Cop,
Check out CNN's current web poll.  It asks how long should the US wait before retaliating.

24 hours - 12%
Up to a week  - 8%
How ever long it takes - 80%

And I had lost faith in the vast majority of the American public.
I guess they get one right every once and awhile.

Terry

Subject: Proof before war

Thank Koresh, you've come to your senses!

All those people you were calling doves last week?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall
one of them saying let's do nothing, let's surrender.  You were putting those words in our mouths.

I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I suspect many were saying
exactly what I was trying to:  Let's not do nothing, but certainly let's not
go off half-cocked, compounding the injustice of these attacks, by killing
helpless and innocent Afghanis just because the Taliban don't hand over bin
Laden within some artificially imposed deadline.  Nevermind the fact that it
would have been an act of terrorism on our part to do so---why in the bloody
fuck are we so ready to believe going in, without taking even a week to
examine what's happened, that it was bin Laden and only bin Laden, just
because our stolen government is telling us so?

In all likelihood, bin Laden was involved.  In all likelihood, going after
him is what we should do.  But in the process, as so many people more
eloquent than I have pointed out over the last week, we must not play into
his hands by starting a holy war against Islam.  If anything this
administration says about him is true, that is exactly what he wants, and
that is exactly what indiscriminant attacks in retaliation would get us.

Language is very important.  The words we use and the tone behind them
altogether too often carry perceived connotations we fail to anticipate.
Linguistic blowback is not altogether different from the blowback we
experience when we fund or train an Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussien only
to find ourselves attacked by them ten years later.  Bush gained credibility
over the last week from people who would have respected him no matter what
he said, but he lost it among critical thinkers who saw through his weak and
stupid platitudes.

Your readers were right to call you to the carpet for some of the language
you used last week.  There are similarities between that and the language
Bush has been called to the carpet for, using words like 'crusade,' making
ridiculous pledges to rid the world of all evil.

You go a long way toward re-establishing your credibility with me by publishing this piece today.

You'd go a lot further in that regard by bringing it back home and
acknowledging that even beyond the water-treatment plants, you had maybe
gone a little too far with the demands for vitrification.  Yes, we depend on
you to shoot from the hip.  But more than anything, we depend on you for
uncompromising intellectual honesty, to absolutely cut through the bullshit
no matter the source.  Even if that source was you.

Whether we like it or not, terrorism against America is part of a cycle of
violence in which we ourselves have long participated.  There is no way out
of the current situation without further violence, and there is no doubt that in
this conflict as in others before it there will be collateral damage.  But if we do
not take every effort to focus our retribution on just outcome, taking care to
limit the collateral damage, the cycle of violence will only become a vortex,
spinning out of control, leading us into the kind of war that serves only one
purpose so correctly identified:  the further enrichment of the warmongering
bastards running the military industrial complex.  Follow the money.

On another note, I watched the Letterman tape last night.  While seminal
television, much of it troubled me, both of what Dave said and Rather as
well.  What concerns me about Dave's output is largely irrelevant, because I
do feel he was genuine and wholly focused on healing, on moving on.  But
much of what Rather said struck me as ignorant and inflammatory, and I was
embarrassed for him.  After years of ignoring network TV out of disgust, the
media games of the past summer had led me to a new-found respect for Rather,
since he was the only one willing to ignore the Condit spectacle, the only one to
tell us after the stem cell fraud that we were really going to have to read up on it
if we wanted to understand it.  Now I see that he really is just one more whore,
only targeting a slightly more discriminating population of Johns.

Regards,

Scott Willits
 

Scott,
I never suggested we bomb somebody before proof came in.
The change is I want to SEE the proof, instead of hearing President Gilligan say,
"The proof is clear and convincing."

I want to see the proof with my own eyes.
I don't trust this president.

From: pete.crane@windriver.com

Does everybody remember when Resident Bush gave a speech at Yale jokingly saying:
"See, even C students can become president". I'm sure many Bush supporters found that
endearing the same way people find the character Joey, on the TV show friends, endearing.

I remember during the election campaign that many saw Gore as "too small" and said
they prefer Bush because of his "down-homeiness' and commonness".

Well, this past week I think maybe it's becoming clear that sometimes a C education
doesn't really cut it for the commander in chief.

Of course, most know that George must have been absent a lot for English class for a while now,
but lately I think there might be some other classes that brought Georgey's GPA down. That's too bad.

For one thing, a firm grasp on recent World history might have helped Bush to relies that great leaders
(like Churchill) are great leaders because they know the most important thing during a crisis being there.
Being there does NOT mean hoping around on Air force one for 6 hours wondering if Uncle Dick is OK
at the White House. Perhaps a trip to the attacked area sooner then 4 days after might have shown the
people of NY that he still cares about them even though they were not a RED state back in November.

Another thing, If George studied a little bit harder in World Civ. class, he might have remembered that
the word "crusade" has a SPECIAL meaning to Muslims. It's kind of like saying to Israel that we are
going on a Holocaust to wide out terrorism if you know what I mean.

I just hope we don't find out what other classes George might have fallen asleep during.

Pete Crane

From: Frito@cwal.net

Hey BC,

I just read your article "Proof Before War".
I just have to say that you are saying exactly what I have for the past week.
I have been called a dove and even worse from those bastards that just want
blood spilled, whether they are guilty or innocent.

We have to keep a clear head right now more than ever.

I say we capture those that are responsible if possible and make them stand trial if they
fight back, then kill them. Anything else is shedding the Constitution which is exactly
what our buddies John Ashcroft, Smirky the trained chimp and his handler Uncle Dick.

Keep up the good work.

Nathan

From: cymorrow@yahoo.com

Subject: Even When Ann Coulter Has it Right, She Can't Control Herself

I saw this in Yahoo this morning:
 

I have had the same thoughts myself, that is that most of the security measures being implemented
would not have prevent the tragedy that occurred and serves only to inconvenience the airline customer.

I agree that we should to a better job of preventing potential weapons but things like no curb side
check-in and eliminating e-tickets would not do a thing to insure better security.

But at the end, Ann had to get her non-sequitur jab at a democratic foe, even though Janet Reno
had NOTHING to do with the Branch Dravidians, she had just become the Attorney General
when Louis Freeh dumped this on her lap.

Before last week, I used to read many of the progressive/democratic (as well as the freepers to
see how insane they are) web sites to get my information.  But since last week, especailly with
the Mediawhoresonline being knocked out, I have been relying on yor site for up to the minute
news and views. Now you are a regular read for me and the others less so.  Keep up the good work!

BTW, Galardon and Don Julio are great tequilas too,
although I am starting to share your passion for Chinaco.

Chuck Morrow
 

Chuck,
mediawhoresonline.com  is back up, and thanks for reading.

From: myst.l.beal@Boeing.com

From today's Roll Call:

Subject: Officials: Doomed Airliner Never Approached Capitol
                  By John Bresnahan
 

While there is broad agreement among government officials that an airliner downed in Pennsylvania
last Tuesday was targeting Washington, House and Senate officials are dismissing reports that AA Flight 77,
which slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, ever circled above or threatened the Capitol.

But there still remains some confusion over the identity of an aircraft seen in the vicinity of the Capitol
shortly after the American Airlines plane went down in Virginia.  Numerous lawmakers and U.S.
Capitol Police officers reported seeing a plane near the Capitol Building that morning, and some said
it was the doomed American Airlines jet.

Vice President Cheney even told "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert that Flight 77 circled the
White House before crashing into the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m.

"The plane obviously didn't hit the White House," Cheney said. "It turned around and, we think,
flew a circle and then hit the Pentagon. That's what the radar track looks like."

However, a senior Congressional official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, insisted that Flight 77 never
entered the prohibited airspace known as "P-56." That no-fly zone extends from the Potomac to slightly east
of the Capitol and covers the White House and Mall area, as well. P-56 spans from ground level to 18,000 feet.
"There was no violation of P-56 by the plane that hit the Pentagon," the source said.

There was, however, a plane near the Capitol shortly after Flight 77 went down. As the Capitol was being
evacuated, many lawmakers, Hill staffers and U.S. Capitol Police officers saw the aircraft, which they feared
would hit the building. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Alfonso Lenhardt told Roll Call this week that the plane
belonged to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but several FEMA officials said their agency
does not have any airplanes of its own.

"We tracked that airplane down. It was a FEMA aircraft," said Lenhardt. "The fact is, it was overhead and it
was a FEMA aircraft, Federal Emergency Management Agency aircraft, one of their command-and-control craft."
Speaker Dennis Hastert said he had been told the plane was a military airborne radar-warning plane known
as an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System), although the Illinois Republican acknowledged that
there remains confusion among federal officials as to what exactly happened in the final moments of the doomed flight.

"The best I know, and everybody has got 37 different versions of what happened, the plane that flew over
the Capitol was an AWACS plane that was scrambled in response [to the Pentagon attack]," Hastert said.
"It was a plane that was all white [and] it had four engines, so it was completely different from the [AA Flight 77]
plane that crashed into the Pentagon. That panicked people as well because they didn't know what that plane was."
Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, which has two engines.

Mysty Beal

From: Tmeers@hotmail.com

Subject: LA Times Article

Dear Mr. Bartcop,

Love your site. Read it every day!
Don't know if you saw this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-091901balzar.column?coll=la%2Dnews%2Dcolumns

 Excerpt:
They Bet Against America
A stranger walked through my neighborhood and planted American flags in the yards of every house
on my block. The feeling of our community closing ranks didn't last long, though. The next thing I
knew, these and other flags across the nation were being mocked by a loathsome group that for too
long has held esteem in our country and purported to define its national purpose.

I am speaking of Wall Street and its disciples: that grim gambler's den that rushed to bet against us.
The profiteers failed the first test of patriotism in 2001.

They short-sold their country. Cowards, they ran.
 

This article captures my feelings exactly. Everyone knows that when war is declared,
it is seldom the rich kids who fight and die for this country. It's never the wealthy who
are called on to sacrifice. In fact, the rich usually profit from war.

As if that isn't bad enough, we've given these ungrateful bastards a tax cut,
with more "tax relief" probably on the way for them in the form of a capital gains cut.

We're being screwed here people!
When is this country going to wake up?

There's an old saying: Put your money where your mouth is. I wonder how many of these
super patriots waving flags today sold their airline stocks on Monday. We could have sent
a message to the world that America was strong, and would not be intimidated by terrorists.
Instead, the message we sent was that love of money was more important than love of country.

I wish that some White House reporter would grow a pair and ask the unelected Thief
how much of stock he's sold. Oh, that's right. He doesn't answer questions.

Thanks again.
You have no idea how important your work is right now for a lot of people.

Sincerely,

Tom the Hellbound Liberal.