Emmett Dunphy accuses me of being "anti-American", and making ludicrous and laughable claims about the links between the McCain Presidential Campaign and the South Ossetia invasion - whilst not being able to rebut any of the facts contained in my letter (published 16/8/08). For the record, let me note that: 1. My letter drew attention to the close personal and financial links between the McCain presidential campaign and President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili - and said nothing, good, bad or indifferent about the US as whole. 2. My letter said nothing about Putin's intentions or whether the Russian intervention can be construed as reasonable or over-reaction 3. Given that almost all commentators, from all sides, seem to agree that a Russian response to the Georgian attack on South Ossettia was forseeable, if not inevitable, it seems reasonable to ask why Mikheil Saakashvili would engage in such an adventure. 4. Mr. Dunphy then claims that I am a beneficiary of the invasion of South Ossetia in that it enables me to spin my "anti-American" agenda and that "concern or solidarity for the ordinary civilians caught up in the conflict are conspicuous only by their absence" in my letter and that I should "cease masquerading" as anti-war. 5. I would have thought that concern for the innocent civilians caught up in this conflict was obviously the primary concern expressed in my letter together with a fear that their misfortune might have been occasioned, at least in part, by the dynamics of the US Presidential campaign. That is the nub of my letter which Emmett Dunphy dismisses as "ludicrous" and "laughable if they weren't so serious". At least he does acknowledge that it is a serious charge, yet he does not challenge any of the facts which I listed in support of my argument. Blanket accusations of anti-Americanism masquerading as anti-war activism are of course the stock in trade of militarists and apologists for the neo-con project of the "New American Century" everywhere. However I feel it is important that the causes of this conflict - and particularly any attempts to gain political/economic/personal advantage from a re-kindling of Cold War tensions needs to be highlighted and exposed before they are lost in the propaganda battles that characterise any war. As a famous American once said: "The first casualty of war is truth." Senator Hiram Warren Johnson. I urge Emmett Dunphy not to participate in the slaughter.
1. My letter drew attention to the close personal and financial links between the McCain presidential campaign and President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili - and said nothing, good, bad or indifferent about the US as whole.
2. My letter said nothing about Putin's intentions or whether the Russian intervention can be construed as reasonable or over-reaction
3. Given that almost all commentators, from all sides, seem to agree that a Russian response to the Georgian attack on South Ossettia was forseeable, if not inevitable, it seems reasonable to ask why Mikheil Saakashvili would engage in such an adventure.
4. Mr. Dunphy then claims that I am a beneficiary of the invasion of South Ossetia in that it enables me to spin my "anti-American" agenda and that "concern or solidarity for the ordinary civilians caught up in the conflict are conspicuous only by their absence" in my letter and that I should "cease masquerading" as anti-war.
5. I would have thought that concern for the innocent civilians caught up in this conflict was obviously the primary concern expressed in my letter together with a fear that their misfortune might have been occasioned, at least in part, by the dynamics of the US Presidential campaign.
That is the nub of my letter which Emmett Dunphy dismisses as "ludicrous" and "laughable if they weren't so serious". At least he does acknowledge that it is a serious charge, yet he does not challenge any of the facts which I listed in support of my argument.
Blanket accusations of anti-Americanism masquerading as anti-war activism are of course the stock in trade of militarists and apologists for the neo-con project of the "New American Century" everywhere. However I feel it is important that the causes of this conflict - and particularly any attempts to gain political/economic/personal advantage from a re-kindling of Cold War tensions needs to be highlighted and exposed before they are lost in the propaganda battles that characterise any war.
As a famous American once said: "The first casualty of war is truth." Senator Hiram Warren Johnson.
I urge Emmett Dunphy not to participate in the slaughter.
It's entire premise is emotional. It's content is innuendo. It's delivery is slander. It is completely obvious that it ignored all facts, as you point out. Anyone who remembers what you are responding to will also remember your original letter. Most people will probably scratch their heads and say "What?"
That's the point - facts are hard to remember while emotions are much easier.
What is interesting is that the paper decided to publish the response to your letter in the first place. We are for Justice and Mercy, and Truth and Peace, and true Freedom. Edward Burroughs 1659
Emmet Dunphy (Letters, 19/8/08) accuses me of being "anti-American", and making "ludicrous" and "laughable" claims about the links between the McCain Presidential Campaign and the South Ossetia invasion - whilst not being able to refute any of the facts contained in my letter (published 16/8/08). For the record, I am not anti-American nor pro-Russian, but let me note that: 1. My letter drew attention to the documented close personal and financial links between the McCain presidential campaign and the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili - and said nothing, good, bad or indifferent about the US as whole. 2. My letter said nothing about Putin's intentions or whether the Russian intervention can be construed as reasonable or opportunistic over-reaction 3. Given that almost all commentators, from all sides, seem to agree that a Russian response to the Georgian attack on South Ossettia was forseeable, if not inevitable, it seems reasonable to ask why Mikheil Saakashvili would engage in such an adventure. 4. Mr. Dunphy then claims that I am a beneficiary of the invasion of South Ossetia in that it enables me to spin my "anti-American" agenda and that "concern or solidarity for the ordinary civilians caught up in the conflict are conspicuous only by their absence" in my letter and that I should "cease masquerading" as anti-war. I would have thought that sympathy for the innocent civilians caught up in this conflict was the obvious primary concern expressed in my letter together with a fear that their misfortune might have been occasioned, at least in part, by the dynamics of the US Presidential campaign. That is the nub of my letter which Emmett Dunphy dismisses as "ludicrous" and "laughable if they weren't so serious". At least he does acknowledge that it is a serious charge, yet he does not challenge any of the facts which I listed in support of my argument. There are many more such facts contained in McCain's Senate record and Randy Scheunemann's Lobbyist record if he would care to do some research. Blanket accusations of anti-Americanism masquerading as anti-war activism are of course the stock in trade of militarists and apologists for the neo-con project of the "New American Century" everywhere. However I feel it is important that the causes of this conflict - and particularly any attempts to gain political/economic/personal advantage from a re-kindling of Cold War tensions - be highlighted and exposed before they are lost in the propaganda battles that characterise any war. As a famous American, Senator Hiram Warren Johnson, once said: "The first casualty of war is truth." I urge Emmet Dunphy and the Irish Independent not to participate in the slaughter. Kinds regards, Frank Schnittger
1. My letter drew attention to the documented close personal and financial links between the McCain presidential campaign and the President of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili - and said nothing, good, bad or indifferent about the US as whole.
2. My letter said nothing about Putin's intentions or whether the Russian intervention can be construed as reasonable or opportunistic over-reaction
I would have thought that sympathy for the innocent civilians caught up in this conflict was the obvious primary concern expressed in my letter together with a fear that their misfortune might have been occasioned, at least in part, by the dynamics of the US Presidential campaign.
That is the nub of my letter which Emmett Dunphy dismisses as "ludicrous" and "laughable if they weren't so serious". At least he does acknowledge that it is a serious charge, yet he does not challenge any of the facts which I listed in support of my argument. There are many more such facts contained in McCain's Senate record and Randy Scheunemann's Lobbyist record if he would care to do some research.
Blanket accusations of anti-Americanism masquerading as anti-war activism are of course the stock in trade of militarists and apologists for the neo-con project of the "New American Century" everywhere. However I feel it is important that the causes of this conflict - and particularly any attempts to gain political/economic/personal advantage from a re-kindling of Cold War tensions - be highlighted and exposed before they are lost in the propaganda battles that characterise any war.
As a famous American, Senator Hiram Warren Johnson, once said: "The first casualty of war is truth." I urge Emmet Dunphy and the Irish Independent not to participate in the slaughter.
Kinds regards,
Frank Schnittger
Given the lies, slander, and innuendo present in Emmet Dunphy's letter one could only assume he is a Bush supporter.
Even McCain doesn't have a monopoly on "lies, slander and innuedo"
It is ad hominem to attack someone on the basis of being an xxxx supporter. You have to address the substance (or lack of) of their argument. Being a Bush supporter, is not, of itself, a capital offence - especially as it doesn't look like the Dems are going to impeach him... Vote McCain for war without gain
