Who knows what became of ash’s original letter inspiring the rebuttal inspiring her rebuttal to it. References will furnish the background.
Maybe Ms. Ross’ letter got lost in the shuffle. Or maybe she just doesn’t “get” sarcasm. (HERE’S A CLUE. WHEN AN EXPRESSION SUCH AS ‘‘TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER’’ IS SURROUNDED BY QUOTATION MARKS, IT SIGNIFIES ‘’SO-CALLED,’’ NOT AN AGREEMENT OR STIPULATION.) In either case, I must object to her insistence on labeling me sympathetic to terrorists after my letter clearly explaining to the contrary was published.
Whatever the reason for her confusion, her points are so convoluted disputing them is almost redundant. I will say she has no idea what I think of Gore, Clinton, or Kerry, so that double standard implication won’t fly. I will note that families of soldiers in harm’s way are much more concerned with their loved ones than whether or not I sympathize, which, by the way, I do.
I will also concede that my contempt for George Bush is as earned as it is real. But I hardly hate the man for the sake of hatred. I denounce him for who he is and what he does. Who he is is the anointed king of a dynasty (consider: if Jeb were the eldest brother, would he be President?) whose father’s cronies rescued from a series of failed business ventures. What he does is promote and sign legislation further penalizing the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society.
Pity me? I don’t think so. If you must pity anyone, pity those whose quality of life hangs precariously under the Bush regime. Pray for me if you are so inclined, and while you’re praying, you might ask the good Lord for the wisdom to distinguish between benevolent, altruistic leadership and raw power-mongering.
Ms. Ross may or may not believe me. Ah, ye of little faith. Now, may we return to discussing the issues.