response to the response to Mike Eisenstadt's critique

[Wayne Johnson]

Those Frenchified deGaullistas, fluer-de-lis yellow journalistic
anti-American Papists are NOT to be trusted.  Who can take any man seriously
whose name is Honore or Pierre for that matter.  Real men have at least two
MANLY names like Joe and Bob and Billy and Butch, not Jean-Paul or Lucien or
Auguste.  What a bunch of poofs!  Our British cousins no better and, after
many, many, many generations of warfare and intra-club breeding (when not
co-mingling with Germans) have come to think of the French as "Foreigners"
if not simply...frogs.   Like who wants to read a "newspaper" named for an
Italian opera?  You can't be serious.

As we here in the Old Dominion well know, only the Rev. Moon's Washington
Times kind of newspaper can be trusted to tell the Truth and the Whole Truth
just like God and Jesus and Martin Luther and Father Coughlin and Pat
Robertson intended it to be told.  I mean, come on, can you have any respect
for a culture that eats snails?  Yukk.  Real culture eat cattle testicles
and brains.  How do think the Bush Family (in all there Minionesqueness) got
to be so darn smart?  How do you think it was that Ken Lay was able to fool
all those people and run off with their money?  Not from eating slugs and
snails, I'll tell you.  Nosirree, these men ate VERTEBRATES and drank beer
(back before GWB found Jesus, he had found Bud & Coors & Lone Star & Shiner
& Falstaff and other REAL AMERICAN beers.  No St. Pauli ale for him.
Nosir!)  Only Frogs and
California-limp-wristed-quiche-sucking-commie-tree-huggers drink wine.
(Unless, of course, it is real German-American-Texican wine from New
Braunsfels.  Or  Killeen.  As in the treasured 1997 vintage Chateau du
Goethe Gewurstramminer! )

No sir.  You are better off digging out your old Fulton Lewis Jr. tapes and
listening to them.

Bubba

(Life time subscriptions to the Star are available at really good rates.
There are still a couple of hundred issues with the Hubble photographs of
Heaven available at lowered cost to you, dear readers.)

-----Original Message-----
From: austin-ghetto-list-admin@pairlist.net
[mailto:austin-ghetto-list-admin@pairlist.net]On Behalf Of Joseph H. Rowe
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 11:51 AM
To: Michael Eisenstadt
Cc: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
Subject: response to Mike Eisenstadt's critique


>
>I wouldnt take what Joe Rowe forwarded very seriously. The
>Figaro is not itself a very serious newspaper and the notion
>that Osama would check in to the American Hospital in Dubai
>for a procedure last summer beggars belief. At least my belief.

>Mike Eisenstadt

        Mike, I'm not sure what your criteria for a "serious:" newspaper
are. Le Figaro is one of the top establishment dailies in France, and
whether or not you agree with its politics (which I generally don't), it is
at least as "serious" a paper as any big American daily owned by a giant
media corporation. It has a highly professional staff of international
correspondents and reporters. Major writers have occasionally written
articles for it, including Jean Paulhan, André Malraux, and others.
        Le Figaro can be criticized for many things, but it is absolutely
not a scandal-sheet or sensationalist tabloid, as you seem to insinuate.
And if you suppose for one moment that the TOTAL BLACKOUT of this story  in
the mainstream American press is due to the wise discrimination of
American editors, who agree with you that Le Figaro is "not serious" (and
their rags supposedly are!), then either you are incredibly naive --- which
I know not to be the case --- or else you are  rationalizing your own
reluctance to admit that you, too, mon cher ami, are capable of  being
misled and fooled by the American media. I say this because you curiously
had nothing at all to say about the essay's _other_  important evidence
that the CIA had ample, serious warnings about an impending suicide
airliner attack, and did nothing about it. This evidence is thoroughly
documented, and there is even more of it at the  websites mentioned. This
would support the thesis that the CIA was uninterested in going after bin
Laden until the time was "right" ----  whether or not Le Figaro's source
turns out to be reliable.
        I personally don't believe in an active conspiracy, but the
evidence seems to indicate a passive one: "OK, if those damn democrats
won't give us a proper military budget, we'll let them find out what
terrorism is really all about!" Nevertheless, such a passive conspiracy
would be almost as heinous and criminal as an active one, at least in my
system of ethics. If such a conspiracy of deliberate negligence does exist,
as the evidence suggests, then it has certainly achieved its objective, in
spades: a blank check from terrified taxpayers to the military-industrial
complex,  a devaluing of dissent and civil rights, and a very promising
replacement for the Cold War.
        I recommend that you (or any other reader of this) visit the
website http://www.copvcia.com and inform yourself, before engaing in more
polemics about a whole area of current events of which you are bound to be
ignorant, if you depend only on the likes of the New York Times, the
Washington Post, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, etc, etc..... to find out about
current events.


Joseph

Joseph Rowe
chez Arcosud
1, rue Constance, code porte 0118
75018 Paris, France

tel. (331) 42 55 18 92