“Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection into eternal life”

Carey Anthony

From: Carey Anthony
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 1:06 PM
To: Bob
Subject: Re: Michael’s Son

I’m sorry for his loss.
Even more reason we should have never gone to Iraq.  Senseless, and he
accomplished nothing.  Too bad.

Sorry, but I don’t agree with you on that, and neither would Michael.

You should thank God there are people who are willing to give
their lives so you can live the way you do.

I’m thankful we have brave men and women protecting our
country.  God has nothing to do with it.  This war is senseless, and needs to
end.  Period. 

I can see where someone without strong faith can feel
like that.  I didn’t know that you went that far over the edge or what
you do believe in anymore.

I’m sorry, but this is another reason not to read what
you write about Bush & the war.

Ignorance is not bliss Bob.

I don’t think you want to open this Pandora’s Box, but if you do, prepare
for the onslaught.

You can start by reading The
God Delusion or even watching Letting
Go of God, since I’m sure you never watched it when I sent it to you the first 2 times.  After
that we can have an intelligent, informed debate on the subject. 

Of course, if you want to continue to believe in talking snakes and other
such nonsense, we can maintain the status quo.  Just don’t try to
incite me with pitiful stories about dead soldiers, because it will only
fan the flame.  I in turn won’t point out the hypocrisy of your
poisonous Catholic beliefs and the way you have lived your life.
 
I’m quite content with maintaining our current relationship.  We can
remain civil as long as we don’t bring up politics or religion, because we
will never agree.  But the hole in my heart, for someone I once looked
up to, who refuses to even acknowledge other thoughts, will continue to
widen.

Carey, I agree that we will never agree on a lot of things. 
I’m not going to change you and you’re certainly not going to change me.

I wasn’t trying to do anything with my e-mail except let you
know a close personal friend of mine had died.

I think we’ve talked enough about this.

Fine, but one last thing.  You were NOT just trying
to let me know that your friend’s son died.  You were making a
commentary on this war, and if you deny that you’re a liar!  But I didn’t say that.

Yikes. Let me first make clear that I completely understand
how Bob’s willful ignorance and obvious lack of reason could test your
patience. It’s frustrating to try to argue facts and logic with the
President of The Flat Earth Society. Maybe that was your first mistake: you
clearly knew his position on the war in Iraq, yet you chose to engage him
anyway. That in itself is no crime. Far be it from me to dissuade anyone
from missionary work. But you did so in a deliberately provocative and
callous manner. Whatever your feelings about the war, he was obviously
deeply affected by this tragic loss–and I think we all can agree it is
indeed tragic and indeed a loss. So, tempting though it may have been,
perhaps this was not the most appropriate moment to initiate a conversation
about the relative value of this young man’s sacrifice in the service of
his country. It seems to me that Bob may have been reaching out to you for
comfort and consolation, and instead he was met with an indelicate (some
might say brutal) response that felt almost accusatory. I doubt his
recrimination surprised you. In fact, I suspect you intended as much, which
of course opened the door for a second “conversation” on an
equally sensitive topic: his “imaginary friend,” as Bill Maher
likes to say. And while most reasonable 20th century adults might deem it
fair to question the moral authority of organized religion, and might even
be inclined to agree that it’s not outrageous to ask whether or not God is
really just Santa for adults, again I must question your timing. It was
poor, to say the least.

But what really struck me was the veiled hostility and contempt betrayed by
your condescending tone from the outset, which of course devolved into open
hostility and contempt. Hardly productive if your genuine intent was to
have a civil discussion about politics and religion with the man. But that
wasn’t your goal, really. No, your goal–as you so eloquently pointed out
at the end–was to make Bob feel your pain for himself, let him know how it
feels. You desperately want him understand that he has a recurring a
pattern of behavior that hurts you. And his unwillingness to even
acknowledge that much, let alone take responsibility for it, only rubs salt
in the wound. Your pain is valid. Your feelings are valid. You deserve better,
especially from someone like Bob. But lashing out in kind, while totally
understandable, will not achieve the resolution you desire deep down. It’s
unhealthy. And it’s no excuse for your behavior. You’re bigger than this.
You can’t honestly be satisfied with the way this little exchange panned
out. My advice: apologize to Bob for not being more sensitive to his
feelings, explain why you reacted as you did, and tell him you hope someday
he will own up to the pain he causes you and make it right. If he’s not
willing to concede you at least that much, I’m afraid you’ll just have to
accept him for the complete ass he is and attempt to maintain a safe
emotional distance. It’s nothing personal, Bob, and from now on let’s keep
it that way. Nice and impersonal.

Lastly, for future reference, you can spare yourself a lot of unnecessary
aggravation by remembering that when faced with a hard fact and a strong
belief that contradict one another, people almost invariably choose the
belief.

I love you and I’m sorry Bob is a Luddite.

Your Concerned Friend

Of course you’re right about everything.  Except
for maybe one small detail. I’m quite sure that Bob sent me the
original email to just get a jab in about the war. Not to tell me about his friend’s dead son.  If that is indeed the
case, then he deserves what he got.  Luddite indeed.

Signed,

Still Bitter in Bollywood

Dear SBIB,

Although I didn’t mention it before, I admit I had the same suspicion as
you did about your Bob’s real intentions in sending you the news in the
first place. I elected not to explore that possibility because it seemed
unfair not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I’ve been trying
to temper my trademark cynicism of late. So I went with a presumption of
innocence and assumed he was genuinely saddened by this news and wanted to
share his grief with you. Still, anyone could see clearly at very specific
points throughout your exchange that he seemed to be pushing buttons. And
I’m guessing he knew just what buttons to push and what your reaction would
be (sound familiar?).

Whether or not he was consciously trying to insult you remains a matter of
speculation, but you know much credence I put in gut instinct. If your gut
tells you he sent you that e-mail as a “jab”, you may well be
right. Certainly you know him better than I and are far more qualified to
make that judgment. I do find it curious, though, that he would consider
the news that a friend’s son died in combat in Iraq as somehow an
indictment of your patriotism or moral compass, if for argument’s sake that
was his intent.

By that logic, the fact that so many Americans died in Vietnam
automatically means Vietnam was a noble cause, and not a colossal
humanitarian and foreign policy disaster. Like so many of his misguided
ilk, Bob seems to equate not supporting the policies of our civilian
political officials with not supporting our combat troops. Bizarre logic,
to be sure, but quite useful when a person is looking for a reason to clear
his conscience and avoid admitting he was dead fucking wrong on such a
grave matter. (Remember what I said about fact vs. belief.)

I would argue the reverse is true in this case: support for our troops and
support for this President’s foreign policy are mutually exclusive if you
look at the facts.

That boy’s blood — and the blood of
countless thousands of other people who have died needlessly in Iraq based
on the policies of this administration — is on Bob’s hands and the hands
of anyone else who voted for this administration and continues to support
their foreign policy. Michael’s son died serving his country. He died
honorably. He died doing his sworn duty as a United States soldier. But he
died needlessly, in vain, and he died for the ugliest of causes: money. Bob
needs to come to terms with his role in this boy’s death, because he is not
innocent.

These are indisputable facts: Iraq has no connection whatsoever with 911.
It never did. It has no connection with our invasion of Afghanistan or
Islamic fundamentalist terrorism (at least it didn’t until after we toppled
Hussein and the jihadi flooded in from neighboring countries). We did not
invade Iraq to make the world safe for Democracy or to free oppressed
people. Nor did we invade Iraq to protect ourselves from a rogue state with
weapons of mass destruction (it had none, and its capability to develop
them had been non-existent for more than a decade). All false pretenses and
lies. Well-documented, indisputable fact.

Fact: we invaded Iraq as part of a twisted foreign policy vision for
American military and economic domination called the “Project for the
New American Century” drafted during the 90s (i.e., quite pre-911) by
ultra-conservative capitalist nationalists (American neo-fascists, to be
exact), many of whom currently work at the White House. (And to a lesser
extent because the President was nursing an Oedipal grudge against the
Hussein family.)

Besides being spectacularly out of touch with reality (i.e., the love child
of a bunch of demagogue nuts wed by Judeo-Christian fundamentalism and free
market absolutism), The Project for the New American Century in practice
represents a Christmas cash cow for petrol barons and the
military-industrial complex.

Phase one: stabilize the Middle East initially by way of force, and longer
term by threat of force, thus securing our economic interests (read: oil)
in the region for generations to come. In other words, scare the piss out of
the Arabs by invading one of their neighbors and establishing a puppet
regime. And you’re next if you don’t fall into line!

Hence the Iraq invasion. Well, admittedly it didn’t work out quite the way
these geniuses planned. Apparently, the Middle East isn’t so easily
stabilized. Who knew?

But at least they achieved one of their objectives: some very special
interests got really rich (ok, really richer).

The oil companies have logged record profits. And anyone with a defense
contract is sitting pretty, too. But why stop there? We’ve even privatized
our own army! They’re called contractors (e.g., Blackwater, Titan, etc.),
but the more accurate word is mercenaries. And they are not subject to the Geneva
Convention (a quaint ole treatise, anyway, according to the former Attorney
General), nor do they answer to our own military on the ground. In fact,
for example, U.S. soldiers implicated in the torture of detainees at Abu
Ghraib were acting under the direction of private contractors. Since when
do our own soldiers take orders from for-profit corporations? Since we
invaded Iraq.

Sadly, the Iraq War is really–and has always been–about lining the
pockets of war profiteers. And they’re doing it with the blood of our young
men and women in the military (most of whom, coincidentally, come from the
lower socio-economic strata of the U.S. population). I know it’s horrifying
and almost inconceivable that our own government would perpetrate such a
heinous crime against its citizens, but these are facts. Not my personal beliefs,
mind you. Not opinions. Not conjecture. Facts. Just check out Exxon
Mobile’s financial statements. Better yet, check out the Vice-President’s
former employer, Halliburton, the poster child of corporations associated
with the Iraq War. Before the Iraq
War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army’s list of top contractors. In 2003,
it claimed the number one spot and grossed $4.2 billion from the U.S.
government. Our tax dollars.

BTW, as of 2005, according to a report issued by Sen. Frank
Lautenberg (D-NJ) at the time,
Vice-President Cheney held 433,333 Halliburton stock options which
over the course of the year prior rose 3,281% in value from $241,498 to
more than $8 million. I don’t know what came of those stock options, but
Cheney reportedly said he will give the proceeds to charity. I believe him,
don’t you? I also understand the ex-CEO continues to receive a deferred
salary in the neighborhood of $250,000 annually from the company, but this
requires a fact check.

How many lives has this administration destroyed for its blood money? For
starters, there are close to 100,000 Iraqi civilians dead. (A conservative
estimate according to the Iraq Body Count Project.) Women. Children. But
who cares about them anyway, right? They deserve to die. They hate our freedom.

And how many of our young soldiers’ lives have been wasted? More than 4,000
are dead. How many have been maimed for life? The government won’t tell us
for sure. They estimate close to 30,000. Some estimates from credible
sources are closer to 100,000. They don’t want us to think about the cost
in blood that some of us are paying while others turn a profit. They won’t even allow the media to show
us the coffins draped in our flag. Can’t do that, because then people might
start asking the wrong kinds of questions when they should be watching
American Idol.

Meanwhile, the administration cuts veterans’ benefits, denies them decent
medical treatment and closes VA hospitals.

BTW, a topic seldom mentioned in the “liberal” media: how many
living Iraq combat veterans and families of those who died in combat are
now living just above the poverty line?

And Dick Cheney, who dodged the Vietnam War but sees fit to send other
people’s children to their deaths, how much money has he really made since
we invaded Iraq?

You can bet that the answers to these questions don’t square well with most
definitions of patriotism and morality.

Who is responsible for this insanity?

Bob, God-fearing patriot
and paragon of moral virtue that he is, voted for these people, twice. And
he continues to blindly support them and their hideous little excursion in
Iraq. Blind faith seems to be what he’s best at. I say ask him, because we
certainly can’t ask Michael’s son.

By contrast, you want to get our kids out of the middle of a civil war that
our corrupt, incompetent, morally bankrupt leaders started, a conflict that
has virtually no bearing on our national security, and bring them home to
their families safe and sound before another drop of their blood is flushed
down the toilet by our President and his cronies.

Now tell me again, who supports the troops?