Ray Robison not a Heavy Hitter

I'm a newly minted Ron Paul fan, and like most Ron Paul fans, finding any media exposure is almost next to impossible without resorting to constantly reading the same three free market blogs 50 times a day.

Imagine my surprise when I ran across an article by noted pseudo-intellectual hawk Ray Robison. Being the naive reader that I am, I thought, perhaps, that Robison had gone the way of Andrew Sullivan in backtracking hugely after Ron Paul gave him a backbone. Some of you may note that Robison has been referenced by Christopher Hitchens, former Trotskyite turned savior of the Western world. Others may additionally note that Robison actually doesn't know anything.

In his article, Robison continued his flair for disseminating obfuscations. Robison compares Paul's analysis that US policy contributes to "blowback" with the late Jerry Falwell's contention that our tolerance of homosexuality contributed to 9/11.

Did Falwell blame gays because of blowback? Or was he just intolerant of gay people? In the same way, other people's prejudices can metastasize as hatred and aggression towards us, as long as we fail to abide by their theocracy, ideology, philosophy, politics, etc. Is the hatred of gay people by Islamic extremists a case of blowback caused by US foreign policy? Of course not, they just hate gay people and the societies that foster homosexuality by allowing free people to be gay. This is why it is absolutely correct to say they hate us because of our freedom... So Paul and Falwell were correct in noting that we contribute to our own fate, an unfortunate smattering of truthfulness that scintillates the American liberal senses.

Naturally, in addition to this, I found several misconceptions in his review. Since he had contact information, I thought I would kindly point out some of his mistakes. It went something like this:

I read your article, and you are correct that there are many details missing from the Ron Paul's position of which he has only 30 seconds to explain during the 2nd Republican Presidential debate.

But those are details you haven't bothered to research, since the argument is full of polemics. Allow me to innumerate:

1. Claiming that Falwell blaming gays for 9/11 is somehow similar in any way to Paul's assertion that US foreign policy contributed to events leading to 9/11 is, at best, fallacious. Falwell's claim has no backing whatsoever, and I challenge you to find documented evidence that suggests that our tolerance of homosexuality contributed to 9/11. Paul assertion is well documented and confirmed by more state officials and policy makers than you care to learn about, not the least of whom are, Chalmers Johnson, CIA Chief Michael Sheuer, and the esteemed war architect Paul Wolfowitz. Not to mention that such assertions are within the 9/11 Commission reports.

2. If you care to look outside of a 30 second rebuttal, you might discover that Paul is not simply linking 10 years of bombing of Iraq under Bush I and Clinton. The list is myriad and Paul is well aware of them: Including a decade of bombing of Iraq, sanctions against Iraq, though ultimately Hussein's fault, were instrumental is the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi civilians through lack of resources and medicines, support for dictators, including Saddam Hussein, the Taliban (in March 2001 Bush II gave the Taliban 4 million dollars), the Saudi Family (who are, unlike your insinuations, an oppressive theocratic regime), the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran, to name a few. Osama bin Laden himself was once an ally of the United States. Details, details, details...

Does any of that excuse killing 3000 Americans in cold blood? Should we allow extremism to fester? No. Obviously not. Neither should we circumvent the Constitution and our principles to defeat an enemy. If we compromise on the principles that make us uniquely American, then the enemy has already won.

An informed criticism of US policies and it real consequences is the domain of citizenry. Stifling that criticism wishful platitudes is irresponsible and undemocratic.

That seemed like a fair assessment of the article. I didn't browbeat him or anything. This was his response, which I copy and paste here:

bush gave the people of afghanistan aid money, not the fucking Taliban.
spread your lies somewhere else you sick fuck...

and in conclusion fuck you you fucking pussy ass fucking cunt

Robison is the man that the Right proudly flaunts as an expert analyst of secret documents and a commentator. He is probably most noted for being wrong, as YourPlanetisDoomed points out:

James Ray Robison, a former Army officer from Alabama. He was contracted to work with the Iraqi Survey Group at the Combined Media Processing Center in Qatar, though only as an administrator working alongside others to triage/gist/digitise captured documents and other related media. He is neither a linguist nor a professional intelligence analyst. Indeed, it seems Ray has been rebuked by his seniors more than once for getting ideas way above his station.

Needless to say, I felt justified in offering this rebuttal:

Wow. I'm the pussy. You don't seem to deal well with people.

After your Ritalin kicks in, you might be able to calm down enough to go to a therapist and then maybe get your GED once you learn to read. Then maybe you'll be able to struggle through difficult reading material like the 9/11 Commission Report. Its riveting. Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, Mmmm. Book taste good. Make happy. Brain more big.

In conclusion, Bush didn't give the Afghan people 4 million dollars. He gave the Taliban 4 million dollars as a reward for fighting their own personal war on drugs. Specifically, destroying opium crops.

Thanks for poking the hole into my response, even though it was wrong. Next time, let your mother check your homework first.

We'll see if he has anything further to say.