You see how that doesn't work? You are beyond disingenuous. In the future, don't begin discussions by comparing those you disagree with to mass-murderers, which is pretty fucking hateful, if you want “maturity and civility” in those discussions.

Also, your analysis of missile defense was awful.

I do not agree with overreaching government action, no matter how good the intentions behind it may be. It always exacts a cost far greater than any supposed benefit we derive from it. I think there is almost always a trampling of personal freedom that accompanies it, and I use the analogy of 20th century totalitarianism to serve as a historical warning. For this reason I also despise the Patriot Act.

I also do not agree with this blogger's reasoning in support of the missile shield issue. No one is infallible, and I can concede that it may turn out to be the right thing to have done, but not for the reasons stated above, in my opinion.

None of these viewpoints makes me or anyone else who holds them a liar, insane or racist. You really ought to not hate everyone who disagrees with you. People who think the way you seem to be thinking are all too prevalent on both sides of our national debate. Fortunately, most of us are embarassed and repulsed by this. Maturity and civility are virtues that anyone interested in political involvement would do well to learn.

And as a point of fact, the racists and teabaggers (polls have shown considerable correlation between opposition to health care reform and racial resentments) show up because they're angry, fearful, ignorant, and hateful (far-right wingnuts, is what I'm saying) and they've been organized and galvanized by the Astroturf groups like FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, which are corporate front-groups run by Republican partisans. This is not as orchestrated as the Brooks Brothers riot or anything, though several GOP officials and operatives have gone to town halls and claimed to be concerned citizens. The employees of health insurance companies, though, show up because they are paid to and have received memos instructing them to go. The LaRouchies, well…who the fuck knows why they do anything?

I'm willing to conclude that you're a lost cause, by the way.

Unanimity among the Joint Chiefs is meaningless. They do what they're told. But let's pretend they function independently and non-politically. Are we to believe they suddenly did a unanimous about face in the space of 9 months? The technology hasn't changed that much since Bush's last term. Nor do the JCs make policy calculations the like of which you're asserting they employed here. The Eastern European Defense Shield was about so much more than Iran. And I think you know that, but you choose to ignore it. If you really think it was based on relic-level technology, you're not seeing this clearly. If it was going to be as ineffective and unnecessary as you argue, why wouldn't Russia be happy to see it built? Perhaps the powers that be in Russia are not as wise as their friends and apologists in the West? If you are correct about the supposed albatross we were going to build in Poland and the Czech Republic, why was Russia so adamantly opposed to it? Reverse psychology, maybe? It seems to me that a rational Russian response would have been to happily watch us spend ourselves into oblivion in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. By the way, you never commented on Russia's recent announcement that it would be building an even more albatross-like ABM system to defend itself against nukes from North Korea.

Whatever arguments there are against building a missile defense in Eastern Europe, I'm afraid you failed to state even one of them. Don't feel badly about this, though. Whenever a position is wrong, it will always fall to self-contradiction and its own arbitrary reasoning at some point in the debate. You just got there quicker and more obviously than most.

There is one way to settle our differerences on this issue, however, and it is foolproof. Now that Obama has made his announcement, let's all sit back and listen for the reaction from Russia and Iran. If the new direction is in fact a stronger missile defense, we should expect Putin and the nuclear power wannabe's to thrash, wail and protest with louder voices and even more desperate conviction. I think we both know that's not going to happen. And that cold, hard reality puts the lie to your position. The real world always trumps wishful thinking. This new direction is just a face-saving smoke and mirrors announcement that was made for the benefit of domestic ears. The rest of the world knows it's a shirking of our responsibilities at best, and capitulation at worst.