Astonished and speechless - email from an old H.S. friend

[Morgana LaFey]

What would YOU say to him?

Jack was an Army brat and I was a loner and the kind of outsider only the very different can be. He was brilliant and I was -- eh, bright enough. We had some classes together and enjoyed bantering playfully back and forth, sometimes about politics (as we understood it then, which wasn't much at all). I had very pleasant memories of those days of bantering -- they brought such a smile to my face. We were so young, and so damn innocent.

Recently he and I caught up with each other after a LOT of years. He was conservatve way back then, and in spades now. He became a multiple star general and for the last decade-plus has been working for the govt in D.C. pretty high up in an agency I won't name. He knows people like Joe LIeberman, Janet Reno, Patsy Schroeder, et. al. and I think he expected me to be more awed than I was by this. (Hey! They put their pants on the same way I do, and I know I know more about some things than they do.)

From the get go in our email correspondence I was a little put off by his eagerness to characterize liberals as caricatures or cartoon characters, using standard, decades-old, one-dimensional rightwing talking point descriptions -- I think I told him on one occasion that what he'd said was simplistic and more like a comedy routine than a thoughtful analysis of liberal policies and agenda. I mean, really! It wasn't worthy of someone with his intelligence at all, I thought. Further, how does that make ME feel to know that he thinks of liberals quite so inaccurately, insultingly (and again) one-dimensionally?

Anyway, the subject of torture and Abu Ghraib came up a while back and he insisted that there'd been no torture and that in fact it was the military who'd revealed what went on at Abu Ghraib to the media. :wtf: I wrote back saying, "Jack, objectively that is just not true." He didn't respond.

The subject came up again recently in a meta-discussion in which I pointed out that I'd asked him pointed questions that he'd simply ignored, and named the torture issue as one of a couple of examples. He reiterated his previous position thusly:

HIM: If we’re going to talk about “torture,” then we need to start with definitions and the source of the definitions. I know how the law (including international law) defines it, and Abu Ghraib did not come close in either case. I also note that what did happen there violated military rules and that it is the military – not journalists – who first identified it, started the judicial wheels turning, and let the “media” know about it.

To which I replied:

ME: Are you saying that rape, attaching electrical wires to genitals, dog bites and threats of dog bites, and death due to techniques used during or in preparation for interrogation are not torture? This is a yes or no question (for now) -- I just want to understand whether these fit into your definition, and then if we need to we can discuss the definition. It's not as if I haven't seen both the Geneva Conventions and new U.S. definitions in the recent past.

Second, you keep saying that it was the military who first let the media know. That just doesn't fit my understanding, so please provide details -- who, what, when, where. And link(s) if possible.]

And this is his response to THAT:

There were no charges in the Abu Ghraib trial of rape, attaching wires to genitals, dog bites or death, so I don’t know k you are talking about. There were violations of the Army’s rules and snow whato several were court-martialed and convicted. If you’re suggesting that some soldiers, somewhere, may have committed offenses, I expect they will have been charged, tried and – if there is evidence – convicted. With some 160,000 mostly young soldiers, I would expect some crimes to be committed (that’s why we have a military justice system), but I would also suggest that there will be fewer crimes committed by that population than a similar population in any civilian community. Not sure why you thought the charges came from somewhere else, but I’ve seen no suggestion that the story was broken in any other way.

Never heard of Sy Hersch, I take it.

I'm just speechless, mostly because I can't figure out what's going on here. Is he really CLUELESS? Did this multiple PhD holder actually drink THAT much koolaid? Is he just being a good bureaucrat? A loyalist for the administration or the Army he probably still loves? I mean, you'd think the man had never heard of My Lai, or the recently reealed friendly fire incident of a few years ago which killed a Brit -- the one which the Army refused to release the video for, or the fact that the real story behind Pat Tillman's death has never been fully explained, or any number of other things the Pentagon has tried to hush up and keep hidden forever.

I really am just thunderstruck.

This exchange, btw, came in that meta-discussion in which I said, I'm a news junkie and I think you're misinformed or ill-informed on some things, and I spend a lot of time online learning what's REALLY going on and all about the deep politics.... to which he replied all about how many publications he reads every day and, in so many words (implied), that I couldn't possibly know anything he doesn't, or anything important. Soooo, there'll be precious little actual "discussion" of anything, and it'll be difficult to impossible to change his mind on anything. So I've been toying with the idea of just pumping him for varous types of information. But after this exchange, sheesh -- it just may not be worth the time or aggravation.

And I'm so sad about that, about those pleasant memories of an earnest and very decent young man with a twinkle in his eye and a great sense of slighty devilish humor.

Just not worth my time, is it? So what shall I say to him? And really, there's enough going on in my life right now I can't take inordinate amounts of time and try to convert or convince anyone like this, so that's not really an option. If it were almost anyone else I'd just tell him to go take a flying leap.

Oh, other eye-popping comments from him: strong agreement with PNAC's agenda (tho honestly I'm not sure I think he's that familiar with it) and that he studied Strauss and saw nothing whatsoever wrong with it. Also, somehow I mentioned Opn Northwoods and he said he wish it'd been implemented!!! When I challenged him on the appalling false flag portion of the plan, he didn't answer at first but when he did he claimed that it was all an elaborate hoax. I told him that he should write an article to that effect for Wikipedia and gave him the link for the details on that and he just dissed wikipedia as not reliable (poisoning the well).

I'm just so disheartened and disillusioned.

OTHER than try to convert him, what would you say or do?

[Aristus]

1. Let him go. Stars, the career, his pension, military brainwashing;

all of that supersedes (to him) anything of value or substance you might bring to your discussions. In a freaky way, the military relies on people like him; people who, when ordered to shoot their mothers, obey without the slightest qualm or hesitation. As for his PhD's, fuck them; the Clown Prince himself was given the corporate world's version of a Master's Degree. Means nothing. Neither does his "brilliance". Brilliance in service to evil is just evil, nothing more.

[Drum]

2. I'd say "Goodbye."

:shrug:

[SharonAnn]

11. Yes, he's gone. He, like *, lives in a bubble that reinforces his worldview.

His worldview helps him make money, have power, and feel "important". Those things are obviously more important to him than any information that might exist outside his bubble.

He's made his choice, lived it for years, reinforced it consciously every day, and he's become this person.

Bid him good-bye. Anything you do will waste time and energy that you could be contributing to something productive. Dealing with him will be like dealing with a black hole. He'll suck you, your energy, your information, and your perspective in. Even if you survive it, it's a waste of time.

He doesn't want to know anything different. He doesn't want to change. He doesn't want to know anything about you or why you think the way you do.

He's a lot like *.

Don't be a co-dependent! Think about it.

[Morgana LaFey]

17. Ouch!

"Don't be a co-dependent!"

So true.

Oops -- just thought of something. "Codependence is going back again and again for what you never got the first time."

In this case "the first time" relates to our renewed correspondence -- the distant past is whatever it was; I may or may not have had an accurate assessment of it, but I choose to keep the pleasant memories, while recognizing that the past IS over.

However, I can easily see myself trying (or hoping) to regain something of that once upon a time comeraderie, and ya'll have knocked enough sense into my head for me to realize it ain't gonna happen. What's missing is respect (of him for me -- as a liberal, as someone who could possibly "know" anyting, and who knows, maybe as a woman as well), and I am quite sure I couldn't live long enough to fix that. '

You are SO right. You all are. Thanks.

[MadMaddie]

3. Ask him how does his thought process and this Administrations

process towards torture and murder differ from the crimes committed by the Nazi's?

We have to stop trying to be so nice and calculated in what we say...a spade is a spade.

The prisoners at Abu Gharabe were in US care and according to treaties we signed in WWII and afterwards no matter what the definition of torture is it's illegal. The military brass knew that torture was occurring and they turned a blind eye, this makes them guilty. They can claim they were following orders but one man Lt. Watada said "NO" so that argument is out the window.

When this Iraq war is done our US military personel and civilian leadership who participated in changing laws to fit their whims will be frog marched in front of the Hague and prosecuted in front of the world.

That's all...

[mzteris]

4. this may help

you to understand people like him.

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/tellmeas.htm

oops - hit post before I was done. A couple of quotes:

". . . Think how every time you tell a favorite story, you vary the details of the story. The story varies according to whom you are telling it to, how much time you have available, what events in the here now led you to tell the story, and a myriad of other factors. . .

. . .Schank tells us in some detail how people understand a new story.

. . . the understanding process involves extracting elements from the input story that are precisely those elements used to label old stories in memory. In other words, understanding is really the process of index extraction. Further, index extraction is an idiosyncratic process that depends upon what stories you have stored away and what indices you have used to label those stories. In some sense, then, no two people can really understand a story in the same way. You can't understand a story that you haven't previously understood because understanding means finding (and telling) a story that you have previously understood. Finding some familiar element causes us to activate the story that is labeled by that familiar element, and we understand the new story as if it were an exemplar of that old element. In this way, we find things to say to those who talk to us. These things differ considerably from person to person, thus accounting for the very different ways in which two people can understand the same story. "


(hmmmm - it doesn't have the exact example I was looking for . . .)

[CoffeeCat]

5. What is happening to our country is an illness...

It feels as if our country has cancer. BushCo has managed to artfully
create such disparity between "liberals" and "conservatives", and as you
mentioned--your friends' comments seem more like a comedy routine than
rational discourse.

A comedy routine...that's exactly what it is. Meaningless, deceptive
soundbytes intended to polarize this nation into "patriots" and those
who are enemies of the United States. Rush Limbaugh does this daily. He
paints liberals as unAmerican scum who love terrorism.

Conservatives/Republicans understand the lines that are being drawn. I
think many of them--like your friend--find comfort in the thought that
they are on the side that will be in control. They see the Dems being
vilified and destroyed. Plus, they've got a chorus behind them, telling
them how patriotic, moral, God-fearing and intelligent they are.

It's really sickening.

I also know someone who is incredibly high up in the Bush Administration.
He's led several Bush press conferences in the last month. I haven't spoken
to this person in a long while, but we went through college together. He
was the sweetest, most down-to-earth person--you'd ever want to meet. I
sometimes wonder how a person like that fits into the Fascist mold in BushCo
land. It's pretty frightening.

[pocoloco]

6. "studied Strauss" and it looks like he proved a good syudent!

Surely not at the U. of Chicago??

[Radical Activist]

7. Conservatives live in another world.

Talk radio is about creating another reality. You keep repeating the same lies and shield yourself from any sources or truth. Over time it has its effect. You can try giving factual information but he might just dismiss it as being part of the "liberal media." If he's a smart guy it might be worth it though.

[Cobalt-60]

8. maintain minimal contact

You may need him to spring you from the Gulag someday.
Just remember that the decent young man you knew is gone.
I've got this same situation with my dentist. He was once my room mate.
Imagine this dude lecturing you about how the Cons are a grassroots organization with a dental drill in your mouth.

[Morgana LaFey]

19. Believe me, the thought occurred

But you know what? As I contemplate this "relationship" and the person I believe I'm encountering (the person I believe he's become), I don't think there's anything in his heart that could be relied on to save me or anyone I cared about.

Imagine this dude lecturing you about how the Cons are a grassroots organization with a dental drill in your mouth.

O.M.G. No, thanks!!

[Breeze54]

9. He's been

drinking...a lot of the



and is in denial. Why even bother with the blow hard loggerhead?

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. What do you expect from somebody that works "pretty high up"

in a gov't agency? Intelligence? Please.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

12. You won't convert him. He won't convert you.

You could, I suppose, try to keep a friendship going that doesn't touch upon politics. But in the long run, you won't respect him because his political opinions will always be the elephant in the room. Unless you thrive on frustration, limit your contact to yearly Christmas cards.

Gee, with all this wisdom, I should stand in for Dr. Phil. :)

[tom_paine]

13. Wave bye-bye. The man is a kinder and gentler Nazi.

As a Jew, I have VERY damned strong feelings about ALL OF US who share some portion of guilt for allowing the monstrous Bush Family to steal our nation without a fight in 2000, but a special place in hell is reserved for your "HS friend" and I sincerely hope it is on the flaming balcony opposite all of the Good Germans who wiped the greasy soot from their windowsills every day in 1944, never wondering what the curious and different residue that now appeared daily, was.

Who knows why people do the shit they do? Who knows why you or I do some of the shit we do? Human beings are frail creatures, and we are all shot through with flaws. We have our flaws, but falling for some goddamned Bush-Limabugh-Nazi-Orwell bullshit isn't one of them.

Neither is being oblivious to an Inconvenient Truth (or several hundred of them).

Some of it is straight up brainwashing and propaganda, some of it is the natural human inclination to just let go and let Der Fuherer do the thinking and worrying.

Some of it is killing their conscience to still it's liberal voice.

Some of it is the rush of ego and power that must come with the dehumanization of one's enemies. The power of being one of the "superiors", as Strauss put it, and therefore above reality, and the law.

Just wave that retired Obersturmbanfuehrer good-bye and think no more on him. IF (and that's a big if) Judeo-Christian afterlife with a hell exists, then we shall surely answer for people we wronged or things we did in our lives.

But, if that is the case, we will not, as he will, have to explain his support of a murdering monster and coward, and the enemies of all humanity, the Tyrannical Murdering Stealing Lying Cowardly Bush Family. He will have to explain why he KNEW how and why the Nazis did what they did, then allowed their kinder and gentler spiritual descendantsto do the same to him.

Let him finish his journey to hell, if there is one. And, for his sake and the sake of justice of Bushevik monsters in the afterlife if not in this one, I certainly hope there is one.

[Morgana LaFey]

20. Tough love

Hard hitting, no nonsense, shake me til I wake up, cold water in the face advice. Thanks.

[133724]

14. Leo Strauss

As a crude measure of his importance for those readers who continue to believe that philosophical matters are of no practical importance, consider the following list of his students or students of his students: Justice Clarence Thomas; Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz; former Assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes; former Secretary of Education William Bennett; Weekly Standard editor and former Quayle Chief of Staff William Kristol; Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind; former New York Post editorials editor John Podhoretz; former National Endowment for the Humanities Deputy Chairman John T. Agresto; and, not meaning to class myself with this august company but in the interests of full disclosure, myself.

<snip>

The holy grail of Straussian scholarship has been to understand the ancient philosophers not from a modern point of view but from their own point of view. The implication is that then we become free to adopt the ancient point of view towards modern political affairs, freeing us from the narrowness of the modern perspective and enabling us to step back from the distortions and corruptions of modernity. Strauss contends that the modern view of politics is artificial and that the ancient one is direct and honest about the experience of political things.

<snip>

The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous.

<snip>

According to Strauss, Machiavelli is the key turning point that leads to modern political philosophy, and Machiavelli’s sin was to speak esoteric truths openly. He told all within hearing that there is no certain God who punishes wrongdoing; the essence of Machiavellianism is that one can get away with things. Because of this, he turned his back on the Christian virtue that the belief in a retributive God had upheld.

<snip>

Straussians talk in a kind of code to one another. When one refers to someone as a "gentleman," it means they are a morally admirable person but not capable of philosophy. They network in academia and in Washington and find one another jobs. A lot of their academic money comes from the John Olin Foundation. This is the inside dope on them; I don’t find it particularly damning, as the Left seems to.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233

[AndyTiedye]

15. It's Almost Like "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers", Isn't It?

A more-or-less rational human being is replaced with a wingnut droid.

[Colobo]

16. I do my best not to mix politics with friendships or family

because there are good people everywhere that are simply misguided. It is possible to cause or support those who cause harm unconsciously or unintentionally. In the case of your friend, however, obviously he knows what he is supporting and who he is working for... so that makes your case way more diffcult.

The answer to you dilemma lies in your heart...

[Ready4Change]

18. Information Victim

I know people who, for various reasons, live in areas where they get nothing but one side of issues. They are people who are otherwise caring, compasionate, thoughful people but, because they are soaked with Neo-Con soft-propoganda 24/7, their world view has been warped.

BTW, they think the same of me, as I live "anywhere on the East Coast."

It takes a long, long time to get any other information into them. And it's funny that when they do come around (as some have) they vehemently deny they were ever "that bad."

[Morgana LaFey]

21. 100% -- Next question

Ya'll are 100% right on.

Should I direct him to this thread? Just for kicks and grins. Nah, probably not.

[BuyingThyme]

22. I know somebody like this. Is he active in the Catholic "community"?

[Morgana LaFey]

23. Nah, I'm pretty sure not

Is yours an Opus Dei type?

[BuyingThyme]

24. Oh, yes.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Someone who engages in self-flagellation...

and wears a cilice for a couple of hours a day for "mortification of the flesh" is bound to have some rather fucked-up ideas about what constitutes "torture".

[Morgana LaFey]

26. I wanna kick this just once,

see if I can get anyone else to chime in.

I do think all of you are right, and it's interesting that you've all pretty much agreed.

[Norquist Nemesis]

27. I'd ask him to consider one question and answer it with complete

honestly to only himself..."Given all of the things that he "knows" and taking everything that has happened into consideration with one change: If the (R) and the (D) of key people were switched, would he still have the same positions?

If he says yes, he's not being honest with himself.

[Morgana LaFey]

28. This is what I just sent him

Well, Jack.

I confess I don't know quite what to say.

On the Abu Ghraib issue, your assertions are most definitely supportive of the Official Story, but they don't reflect reality at all. I could load you up with links from an incredible variety of sources to support that, but I don't get the feeling it would be worth my while to do so. You either know the truth and are spouting the Party Line or you're misinformed but not even curious about the truth. If I'm mistaken, by all means let me know.

I probably should have realized that we really didn't have much to talk about when I read your caricature of liberals a few emails back. As I told you at the time (and you ignored me), it was a caricature, worthy of some comedy routine but again, not all that reflective of reality. It was the kind of simplistic thinking I have come to expect from too many Republicans and considered unworthy of someone whose intellect I had once upon a time respected.

But worse than that: That is also be how you regard me. It must be. And it isn't very respectful, is it? Not very conducive to building trust, and not a very good foundation for discussions let alone friendship. You thought it odd that I would resist friendship with conservatives whose values are so different from mine (and whose values, attitudes and actions hurt people and the nation); I find it odd that given your incredible disdain for liberals that you would override your own good sense in order to be "friends" with any. Must be terribly superficial friendships. This may be inaccurate and unfair (and if so I apologize), but friendship with people you can't stand strikes me as hypocritical.

I could only take your long list of what you read daily as an implied slam and total dismissal of the idea that I could possibly know ANYthing you don't know more about. I see evidence quite regularly that I know more about some subjects than those in the news business and people in Washington, so if you're relying on Dems and Dem Congressional staffers or even Republicans, I'm unimpressed.

As for your seeing intelligence reports, I had to laugh: Is this the GOOD intelligence or the BAD intelligence that you're seeing? And how do you know the difference?

I wish I were a person who could just chit chat about nonsense -- small talk and such. I'm not. I have many interests, but the only one we were most likely to share is what's going on in the world, unless you have a secret passion for knitting. So I now have to come to the realization that the outlook for honest and illuminating discussions on the subject we share is nil.

Jack, it's been terrific to meet up with you again. As I've said, I'm proud of your accomplishments, and have enjoyed reading about your obvious devotion to your family. Take good care of yourself.

And oh -- when the fascist walls (finally) come tumbling down around you and you want someone to talk to about that, look me up.

With fond memories of a distant past,

MLF

[SharonAnn]

30. Great response! Courteous, kind, and very truthful. My compliments!

[mnhtnbb]

32. You handled it well. I had an old high school boyfriend

connect with me several years ago (found me on the internet).

This was a guy who had contacted me from time to time over the last
35 years--and we even got together for lunch once in the late '70's.
Despite what we had together a very long time ago, we had gone different directions.

This last time, he started sending me right-wing Catholic stuff (he converted to marry his college sweetheart) and I told him that I had different opinions.
He kept up--trying to convince me I was a horrible person for being pro-choice, that I was stupid to support anybody but George Bush--you know the drill.
I finally told him that I wasn't interested in hearing from him anymore.

You've done the right thing.

[spanone]

29. I'd say, have a nice life. Adios.

You can argue facts, you can't argue ignorance. You can only inform and this 'dude or dudette' thinks they're already informed.

[Cerridwen]

31. I would suggest he is "spouting the party line" and that given

today's atmosphere in which damaging email messages are making it into the press he is 'treading' lightly about what he (can?) will say.

I would doubt he got to where he is by being controversial. I'm not sure you can expect honesty from someone whose career and all he's worked for could be destroyed in an instant by an email. I also imagine, even speaking to him face to face won't change that much. Unless you were to develop an extremely close relationship with him, I doubt you'll have access to his true feelings; and even then perhaps not.

He may believe what he wrote you because he has to (i.e. a kind of self delusion) or he truly believes or he will say what he needs to in order to avoid controversy; again, he's not gotten to where he is by being ignorant of playing the 'game'.

If you care to continue to converse with him, my suggestion is, stay away from politically tainted topics which can be land mines to his way of life and stick to discussing the movies, 'American Idol', 'Survivor' and Anna Nicole Smith.

/my $0.02

[donsu]

33. I'd tell him he was too stupid to continue to have conversations with

nt

[Morgana LaFey]

34. Therre are really just SO many insightful, wise and witty comments

on this thread. It just makes me fall in love with DU all over again.

[roamer65]

35. I would send him this Upton Sinclair quote, and see how he reacts.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it."

-Upton Sinclair

[TorchTheWitch]

36. I'm curious

How sure are you that he actually is who he says he is? Have you followed his career at all or did he just pop out of the blue and inform you of his credentials? Multi-star Generals don't get to that point by being stupid. I have never believed that any of the brass toeing the party line actually believe what they spout... for the sake of their careers they toe the official line since the alternative is to bend over and kiss their ass goodbye.

I don't know, but something about this guy that just sounds a tad fishy to me.