Dear Larry…

As promised, here is my response to Larry Beinhart who emailed me last week following a blog posting about his HuffPo blog…

---

Dear Larry,
First, thanks very much for the email. I appreciate that you took the time out of your day to reply when I’m sure you’ve got plenty of other things going on. Seeing as you were kind enough to reply, I will certainly return the favor.
I feel I must apologize for the delay in my reply to you. Working full-time in I.T. (and then some) has its disadvantages at times. There are nights lately where the last thing I want to do in the world is fire up my computer when I get home. As someone who writes for a living, I’m sure you can appreciate getting away from the keyboard at times.
Thanks for the offer for a reviewer’s copy of your book. I’d take you up on it, but I feel I have to decline at present. I say that not because I think it would inspire me to hold a book burning, but because I’ve got a TON of books that I’ve yet to read. I might actually go out and buy a copy at some point when my nightstand is a little lighter on reading material, but for now please accept my “thanks, but no.” (Believe it or not, I really do *buy* books.)
Additionally, I wish you great success with the book. We may have ideas that are polar opposites of one another, but I still believe firmly in both Freedom of Speech and capitalism. People can make up their own minds and I think we’re all the better for having a rich marketplace of ideas.
In my own defense, I feel I have to point out that I *didn’t* call you a moron. I know this may seem like nitpicking, but I said you *sounded* like a moron. While one might think that’s parsing things a little too finely, I think there’s quite a large difference between the two statements. Certainly neither statement is complimentary, but saying someone “sounds like a moron” says that the words they’ve chosen are far beneath the level of what they are capable of.
I could have done what Penn and Teller do and said you were “full of bullsh*t,” but those were the words I chose. I suppose I could have chosen something different but, honestly? It made me damned good and mad and that emotion made it into the blog.
…and people say conservatives are without passion.
For the record, I do not think you’re a moron, but I did think your blog posting was born out of the same Bush hatred I hear from the left on a daily basis. I think that the whole Bush is evil/Bush is corrupt/Bush is an idiot/Bush lied argument is one that cheapens the position of liberals/progressives and prevents them from advancing any real ideas. Put simply, it makes some pretty smart people sound like…well…morons.
With regard to name calling, I agree with you. It happens all too much on both sides, although I think that the more vicious attacks come from the other side of the aisle. Sure, that may be my perception, but I get called things like “Nazi,” “racist,” “homophobe,” “facist” and a whole lot more colorful phrases. I find that, more often than not, the average liberal can’t do anything but call names and hide behind a fake name when they email me. While you attribute it to a “Right Wing tick,” I find that the truly vicious and spiteful stuff is clearly left wing, thanks.
Saying that Republicans are bad on national security, though, just isn’t accurate. C’mon, Larry. You know that the Democrats have done far, far worse. It’s closer to accurate to say that none of these rocket scientists in Washington is good at national security. Period. If they were, we wouldn’t have millions of illegal aliens streaming across our still unsecured borders five years after 9/11. Trying to paint the Dems as better for national security just isn’t going to fly with the independents and undecideds. They know better.
My response to items 1, 2, 6 and 7 was *not* “Clinton was worse.” My response was truly “Clinton is also responsible” and it is VERY relevant. The foreign policy–or, significant lack thereof–is absolutely a huge factor in everything that led up to 9/11. Al Qaeda didn’t just become a problem on January 20, 2001 and Bill Clinton’s inability and unwillingness to deal with Osama bin Laden provided him the opportunity to plan, stage and ultimately carry out terrorist attacks on our soil. Clinton had the opportunity to remove Osama as a treat and he *chose* to take a pass. At the very least, he’s guilty of “contributory negligence” in some sense. It’s relevant and it does, in fact, matter. We’ll never know if it all could have been prevented, obviously. However, wouldn’t it have made sense to take someone who had already attacked America and American interests “out of play?” Yes, of course it would.
Yes, Bush did not take the threat of Osama “seriously” when he took office but, honestly, did any of us? Did any of us think that there would ever be attacks on our own soil? No, we were over confident and arrogant—and I do mean *we.* Even after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, we ignored the warning signs overseas and figured it couldn’t touch us here. While that’s not an excuse for the President–I mean it’s his JOB to do things like protect us–I am not shocked that this was labeled a “B” or “C” priority by the Administration. I’m just heartbroken that over 3,000 of our American brothers and sisters had to perish. They deserved more and they deserved better from the Administration. It was a tragic, tragic decision. I will not classify it as inept, but I will classify it as more of the same blunders and mistakes that characterized the previous eight years. (People say that Bill Clinton took Osama seriously and, if he *really* had, he’d have done more than send a couple of cruise missiles after him.)
You say it’s not relevant, but it really, truly is. There is plenty of blame to be spread around and it *should* be spread around.
Sure people blame the guy sitting in the chair when it comes to the economy or housing starts. To say that 9/11 is his fault because he was the President, though, is grossly naive.
Bush I may have put troops in Saudi Arabia, but he did it with their *permission.* I also didn’t hear any Kuwaitis complaining that troops were coming to their defense. Both nations are predominantly Muslim and we didn’t offend those people. They were happy to have our assistance and they didn’t declare a jihad based on our presence.
In 1998, Osama bin Laden signed a fatwa pledging to “kill Americans everywhere.” They’ve declared jihad on the West and America in particular. The fact that they killed 3,000 Americans on one day–most of whom had absolutely no involvement with U.S. foreign policy–gives us empirical data that they will, in fact, kill innocent Americans. The quotes and actions of operatives like al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi have had one central theme: the death of Americans.
How can I say that Osama and al Qaeda want to kill Americans everywhere? I can say that because the evidence is everywhere. I ask you, how can you deny it? What will it take for you to believe it? I don’t want to sound trite or cliched, but will it take more dead Americans?
The difference between quagmire and instability is this that “quagmire” is the word off the DNC’s talking points to equate Iraq to Vietnam. “Instability” is what the insurgents terrorists in Iraq are trying to create. Our troops and this Administration are not the ones causing the instability. The terrorists are. The presence of our troops is what’s keeping the situation in Iraq from descending into “sheer chaos.” (And, keep in mind, that I don’t want them in Iraq anymore, either.)
I thoroughly disagree that Saddam was stable. Saddam might have indeed kept order in Iraq but dictators who rule out of fear and violence are rarely ever stable. Order imposed by dictatorial or tyrannical rule is not stability. Engaging in torture is not stability. Engaging in murder and genocide is not stability. Tony Blair is stable. Saddam is a madman. To classify him otherwise serves no other purpose than to try and humanize a man who is guilty of heinous violations of basic human rights.
With regard to the Mujahadeen and al Qaeda: you mentioned in your blog that “[Osama] wanted our troops tied down in an Islamic country so that an insurgency could do to them what the Afghanis did to the Russians and to the British before them.” I think that’s a bit of comparing an apple to an orange, in a sense, because the Mujahadeen were largely painted as freedom fighters trying to expel the Soviets from their homeland and they were not conducting a jihad to kill as many Soviets as possible. I don’t think that al Qaeda’s goals are anywhere near what the Afghans were trying to do. I don’t think it is close at all.
OK…cowardice and al Qaeda. Where to start? Well, let me ask the questions you posed first.
“Would you, if you had the chance to kill an al Qaeda associate hijack and airplane and fly it into him with the certainty it would cost you your life?”
Kill him…instead of me being killed? Yes, I sure would! You bet. If it’s him or me, you can be damned sure it’s going to be me coming out on top—and I don’t even like guns. I can tell you what I wouldn’t do, though, and that’s to hijack a plane and kill innocents that had nothing to do with it.
I say “cowardly” because they will kidnap innocent Americans and behead them while covering their faces to hide their identities. I say “cowardly” because they will hijack airplanes and use them as guided missiles to kill thousands of civilians. I say “cowardly” because they don’t have the courage to accept that others have different ideals–they’d rather destroy their society and way of life.
There is no honor, no bravery and no courage in being a “homicide bomber.”
TRUE bravery is in standing up to people like that and telling them we won’t be intimidated and they won’t destroy our way of life and they won’t murder our citizens. That’s bravery, sir. *That’s* courage.
That’s *not* al Qaeda and it never could be.
Now it is I who must thank you if you’ve gotten this far. I’ve sent this to you in email, but I’ve also posted it as an open reply on my blog so if you see it on the web or someone else forwards it to you, you’ll know why.
Thanks for reading.
Best wishes,
William Smith