HELP w/this RW e-mail...

[Jeebo]

My mother forwarded to me a right wing e-mail that is apparently making the rounds. I just spent a lot more time than I can afford trying to refute it, and that's just off the top of my head, without trying to look up any facts and figures or do any other research. Most of y'all here on DU are a lot smarter than I am. I haven't yet sent this response to her and all the other people she sent it to; I thought I would wait and see what y'all here on DU have to say about it. I looked at Snopes.com and there was nothing there about this specific e-mail, although there was some stuff there about some of the issues raised here. Well, anyway, here it is, starting with the introductory paragraph I wrote to my mother and the other people she sent the e-mail to:

<<<>>>

Hey y'all, I'm going to type my responses in ALL CAPITAL letters. This is not because I'm screaming, but because that's the only kind of local formatting that I'm sure will not be lost in the transition from my computer across cyberspace and into yours. If I were sure that boldface or italics or a different color or size of type would work, I would do that instead. There needs to be some kind of contrast in the typography between the original e-mail points and my responses to them. Also, even though I'm going to respond to every single point, I am NOT going to take the time to do research and dig up facts and figures. I don't have the time to do that, so instead I'm going to respond just with what I know or can remember off the top of my head. Which I admit isn't very much, but it is the way I would have to respond if we were just having a face-to-face conversation about this stuff. So here goes:

In a message dated 10/9/04 9:06:05 AM, (my mother's email address) writes:

<< This was passed to me, but I can't understand it. Maybe you can,

I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe. Lemme see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad... >>

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANY BUSINESS DEALINGS HALLIBURTON HAD DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, BUT I DO KNOW THAT DICK CHENEY WAS THE CEO OF HALLIBURTON THEN. AND I KNOW THAT AS VICE-PRESIDENT HE IS STILL ON THEIR PAYROLL. SO IS IT JUST A COINCIDENCE THAT HIS OLD COMPANY IS MAKING MONEY HAND-OVER-FIST OFF THE INVASION, CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ?

<< Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad... >>

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLINTON SPENT ON SERBIA, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY SPENT A HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN $87 BILLION ON THE INVASION, CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ. AND THAT'S JUST SO FAR...

<< Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... >>

REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME. VOTE DEMOCRATIC ON NOV. 2. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL, IS UNHAPPY THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS GONE. THE DISAGREEMENT IS OVER THE MIND-BOGGLING COST OF ACCOMPLISHING THAT. ISN'T IT A CASE OF THE CURE BEING WORSE THAN THE DISEASE?

<< Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... >>

AS I RECALL, THOSE ALBANIAN MUSLIMS WERE THE VICTIMS OF GENOCIDE AND THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WAS ATTEMPTING TO STOP THAT GENOCIDE. I ADMIT MY MEMORY OF THE BALKANS CONFLICT IS HAZY, AND I DIDN'T PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO IT WHILE IT WAS HAPPENING, SO SOMEBODY PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THAT. HOWEVER, I WOULD NOT CALL WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN IRAQ AN ACT OF "LIBERATION." IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE SITUATION IN IRAQ NOW IS ONE HELL OF A MESS AND THE IRAQIS HAVE JUST HAD ONE DICTATOR REPLACED WITH ANOTHER. AND LOOKING AT THE MESS OVER THERE NOW, I THINK IF I WERE AN IRAQI I WOULD PREFER THE ORIGINAL DICTATOR TO THE ONE THAT REPLACED HIM.

<< Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad... >>

WASN'T THAT CHINESE EMBASSY BOMBING AN ACCIDENT? AND WHO EVER CLAIMED THAT IT WAS "GOOD"? AS FOR THE TERRORIST CAMPS IN AFGHANISTAN, THEY WERE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ATTACKED US ON 09/11/01 AND I'M NOT SURE IT WAS "BAD" OR INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO GO AFTER THEM IN RESPONSE TO THAT. THERE MIGHT BE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING IT WAS "BAD" BUT I THINK THERE ARE A LOT MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING IT WAS "BAD" NOT TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT AND INSTEAD INVADE IRAQ, WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 09/11/01 ATTACKS.

<< Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad... >>

WHAT "FELONIES" DID CLINTON COMMIT WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE? NOBODY BUT THE CLINTON-BASHERS BELIEVES THOSE "FELONIES" EVEN EXISTED, AND WHO AMONG THEM EVER CLAIMED THEY WERE "GOOD"? THE CLINTON-BASHERS SPENT SEVEN YEARS AND $75 MILLION OF TAXPAYER MONEY TRYING DESPERATELY TO FIND THOSE "FELONIES," AND THAT "INVESTIGATION" PROVED BY NOT FINDING ANY "FELONIES" THAT THEY DID NOT EXIST, AND SO THEN WHAT DID THE CLINTON-BASHERS HAVE TO TRY TO GET CLINTON FOR? HE HAD A GIRLFRIEND WHO HAD A BLUE DRESS! AS FOR BUSH'S AIRCRAFT CARRIER PHOTO-OP, IT WASN'T "BAD," JUST SILLY AND PATHETIC.

<< No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad... >>

AGAIN, MY MEMORY OF THE BALKANS CONFLICT IS HAZY, BECAUSE IT WAS CLOSE TO A DECADE AGO, AND BECAUSE I DIDN'T PAY THAT MUCH ATTENTION TO IT AT THE TIME. BUT NOBODY NOW IS CLAIMING THAT IT IS "BAD" THAT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE NOT FOUND IN IRAQ. WHAT THE IRAQ WAR'S CRITICS ARE CLAIMING IS THAT IT IS BAD THAT BUSH DIDN'T LET THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS DO THEIR JOB, THAT WE INVADED IRAQ WITHOUT U.N. APPROVAL, THAT SEVERAL TENS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS AND AMERICANS HAVE BEEN MAIMED OR KILLED BECAUSE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE THAT THOSE WMD'S WERE NOT THERE OR EVEN WAIT FOR ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE TO BE GATHERED -- OH, I COULD GO ON AND ON, BUT NEVER MIND...

<< Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad... >>

I DON'T REMEMBER A STOCK MARKET "CRASH" IN 2000! AND I SURE AS HELL DON'T BELIEVE THE ECONOMY IS ON ANY "UPSWING" NOW! WOULD YOU WANT TO BE INVOLUNTARILY UNEMPLOYED AND LOOKING FOR A JOB RIGHT NOW?

<< Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad... >>

THIS IS A RIGHT-WING MYTH THAT CLINTON "REFUSED" TO TAKE CUSTODY OF BIN LADEN! WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT IN 1998 THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION BOMBED THE AL-QAIDA CAMPS IN AFGHANISTAN AND ALMOST KILLED BIN LADEN! AND THEN HOW DID REPUBLICANS RESPOND TO THIS? THEY COMPLAINED THAT CLINTON WAS TRYING TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE IMPEACHMENT CAMPAIGN AGAINST HIM FOR HAVING A GIRLFRIEND ON THE SIDE! REMEMBER "WAG THE DOG"? AND "NO BLOOD FOR MONICA"?

AND ON WHOSE WATCH DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TWIN TOWERS FALL? WHICH PRESIDENT IGNORED THE 08/06/01 PRESIDENTIAL DAILY BRIEFING PAPER WARNING THAT AL-QAEDA WAS PLOTTING TO HIJACK PLANES AND FLY THEM INTO BUILDINGS IN THE U.S.? AND WHICH PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD HIS UNDERLINGS THAT HE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO BOTHER HIM ANY MORE WITH WARNINGS ABOUT AL-QAEDA?

<< Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad... >>

WHEN DID CLINTON EVER SAY THAT IT WAS "GOOD" THAT SADDAM HAD NUKES? AND WHEN DID SADDAM EVER HAVE NUKES? IF HE EVER DID, IT WAS BEFORE THE FIRST GULF WAR.

<< Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad... >>

REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME. VOTE DEMOCRATIC ON NOV. 2. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL, IS UNHAPPY THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN IS GONE. THE DISAGREEMENT IS OVER THE MIND-BOGGLING COST OF ACCOMPLISHING THAT. ISN'T IT A CASE OF THE CURE BEING WORSE THAN THE DISEASE? ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S OPEN TO DEBATE WHETHER THE NEW REGIME IS ANY BETTER THAN THE OLD ONE.

<< Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad... >>

CLINTON TRIED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE AL-QAEDA CAMPS IN AFGHANISTAN, AND REPUBLICANS SCREAMED "WAG THE DOG" AND "NO BLOOD FOR MONICA". AND THEN DURING THE TRANSITION THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO WARN THE BUSHIES ABOUT AL-QAEDA AND BIN LADEN AND THEY IGNORED HIM. THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF 09/11/01 WERE THE RESULT OF THAT. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT HAVE INVADED AFGHANISTAN AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS, BUT THERE WAS CERTAINLY MUCH MORE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT THAN FOR THE INVASION, CONQUEST AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE ATTACKS.

<< Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad... >>

WHO IS CLAIMING THAT IT IS "GOOD" THAT MILOSEVIC HAS NOT YET BEEN CONVICTED? LET THAT TRIAL RUN ITS COURSE. AND WHO BESIDES SADDAM LOYALISTS IN IRAQ IS CLAIMING THAT IT IS "BAD" THAT SADDAM HAS BEEN APPREHENDED AND APPARENTLY IS GOING TO BE TRIED? I ACTUALLY THINK SADDAM SHOULD BE TRIED ALONGSIDE MILOSEVIC IN FRONT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE HAGUE. BUT THE BUSHIES DON'T RECOGNIZE THE AUTHORITY OF THAT COURT.

<< Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. Its latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates? >>

THE APRIL 11/MAY 2 DATES ARE AVERAGES FOR ALL TAXPAYERS -- POOR PEOPLE, RICH PEOPLE, MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE. SOMEBODY CALCULATE THE "TAX FREEDOM DAY" FOR POOR PEOPLE, AND FOR MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE.

<< Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim. >>

GO TO JOHN KERRY'S WEB SITE AND READ WHAT HE HAS TO SAY ABOUT THIS. IF YOU FIGURE NOT JUST INCOME TAXES, BUT ALL TAXES -- PROPERTY TAXES, SALES TAXES, STATE INCOME TAXES, ETC., ETC. -- AND ALSO ALL OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES THAT ARE FUNDED BY TAXES AND THAT ALL OF US, BUT ESPECIALLY THOSE OF US WHO ARE MIDDLE-CLASS AND POOR, LIKELY WILL SOMEDAY BE WANTING TO USE -- I'D BE WILLING TO BET THE MORTGAGE THAT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND THE POOR ARE PAYING MORE NOW THAN THEY WERE FOUR YEARS AGO.

<< Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame). >>

NOW THIS IS JUST PLAIN SILLY. WE SHOULDN'T BE ELECTING A PRESIDENT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT KIND OF HOUSE HE LIVES IN. BUT IT'S NOT TRUE THAT KERRY OWNS FOUR "MANSIONS" -- HIS WIFE OWNS SEVERAL HOMES BUT SNOPES.COM SAYS THAT ONLY ONE OF THOSE HOUSES IS KERRY'S.

<< Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own. >>

THIS TOO IS JUST PLAIN SILLY. WE SHOULDN'T BE ELECTING A PRESIDENT ON THE BASIS OF HOW MUCH TAXES HE PAYS. WE SHOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MUCH TAXES WE WILL HAVE TO PAY. AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THOSE TAXES WILL BE SPENT. NOW, A HUGE PORTION OF OUR TAX MONEY IS GOING TO FUND HALLIBURTON'S WAR PROFITEERING IN IRAQ. AND A HUGE PORTION OF IT IS GOING TO PAY FOR HUGE TAX CUTS FOR RICH PEOPLE. DID BUSH MAKE MORE MONEY THAN KERRY LAST YEAR? AND DID YOU KNOW THAT 60% OF U.S. CORPORATIONS PAID ZERO TAXES LAST YEAR?

[madmom]

1. ya might want to add...

when talking about average taxes of all Americans you might want to show that if one person makes $1000 and another only makes $1 the average is $500. (oh and $.50)but they probably can't understand basic arithmetic.

[n2mark]

2. Response

Just tell Karl go suck an egg until Nov. 3. He needs to do some searches on the "internets."

[Abid Hamid]

5. Go suck an egg?

That should do it.

[Diana52]

3. Clinton?

I applaud your effort, but I think I might reply that this must be a really delayed email, because this election is Senator Kerry vs President George W. Bush. President Clinton is not running. I know that is a complicated concept to process, but it is the truth.

[GinaMaria]

6. Excellent point

Maybe include in your response that it is time to go forward. No matter what you thought of Clinton, he will never be president again. The choice for the future is Bush vs. Kerry, not Bush vs. Clinton.

[GinaMaria]

4. My thoughts

Your response is very calm and sincere. No anger comes across in your message. Excellent job.

My only addition is below. Keep in mind I'm not as well versed as most here about politics.


<< Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad... >>
Clinton had an exit strategy --- that's good

Bush has/had no plan to win the peace --- that's really bad for us and Iraq

Bush rushed to war when it wasn't neccessary to rush. We had some time. SH was looking for a way out of sanctions, so sanctions were working for the time being, which meant we had a little more time to plan especially plan an exit strategy and a plan for peace. Iraq now teeters on the brink of civil war. We may have been able to better equip our military and humvees and save some lives.

Peace,
GinaMaria

[skygazer]

7. This e-mail has been around for a long time

And it's really nonsense. Your replies are okay but all you do when you reply to these things is perpetuate them, IMO. My way of dealing with all these mass e-mails is to tell whoever sent them to me that I'd rather hear THEIR opinion in THEIR words than a partisan-generated bulk e-mail that is riddled with exagerrations and outright falsities.

Rather than reply to that particular e-mail, why not write one of your own that addresses the real issues and how Bush has failed to resolve any of them?

This whole good/bad things is no different than his idiotic insistence that the world can be reduced to simple black and white terms. Personally, I refuse to be drawn into this swill.