Heartland Institute threatens 71-year-old veteran

75 thoughts on “Heartland Institute threatens 71-year-old veteran”

1. Ho hum so predictable a response my friend (or not). Just a thought why dont you engage in the substance of the debate rather than just insulting everybody who dares question your right to use whatever of the limited resources we all have left. I might even argue it matters not whether global warming is real as we are using our natural resources at a far too fast a rate with no thought to the future. Feel free to maintain your use of energy at current levels but find a more sustainable and (at the least) more efficient way to do it then everybody wins except those with a vested interest in the status quo.

2. "I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you."

   Would you prefer us skeptics to put on yellow stars or something like that so you won't have to protect the likes of us? Don't you realize that what you wrote is a disgrace?

3. OK this whole chain of comments is starting to do what so many comment threads do – it's becoming an irrelevant mud-slinging match between people who have opposing points of view. So here's my take on the whole thing:

   1) Col. Wamsley's original email was an expression of a PERSONAL OPINION, which in no way implied he wanted to have Mr. Bast executed. He PERSONALLY feels Mr. Bast is a traitor, and whether you agree with him or not, nobody – least of all the FBI – has any jurisdiction over personal opinion.

   2) By contrast, it CAN be implied reasonably that Col. Wamsley was being selective regard which of those American citizens he was defending during his active years of service. The phrase "I did not spend 30 years in the military to protect the likes of you," does suggest this, though I personally feel this was a rash statement made in anger, and I hope and believe that Col. Walmsley realises that defence of his nation does include all of its citizens.

   3) The cause of Col. Wamsley's original email was apparently a number of leaked documents (of which one was later claimed to be fake), detailing aspects of HI's policy and research on climate change. While I confess my knowledge and facts on that particular matter are vague at best, the overriding issue being discussed appears to be one of apportioning blame – the argument being whether climate change is wholly natural, or a man-made event. I submit that such a debate is largely irrelevant, inasmuch as the bottom line being climate change is happening. Instead, the debate should be about how we should deal with this event, and quite frankly any precaution should be considered a wise move – and as the (supposedly) most developed species on the planet, we are in the best position to shoulder the responsibility of ensuring the health of our home Earth. I'm no eco-warrior, but surely taking better care of the world upon which we live is a simple matter of common sense. Eliminating reliance on fossil fuels – which are a proven ecological hazard – in favour of more environmentally sound alternatives is but one facet of the solution, but one of the most significant.

   So, rather than engage in some urinating contest about who said what to whom about what, or playing the old trick of interpreting expressions such as "traitor" to imply far more than they really mean in context, surely the best approach is to grow up, accept the evidence of your own senses and deal with the real problem – climate change is happening.

   I welcome constructive comments.

4. OPEN LETTER TO JOSEPH BAST, THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE

   Dear Mr Bast,

   I believe that I have come across another fake document purporting to come from the Heartland Institute. It is an email supposedly written by yourself to a Col Gary Wamsley on 18 February 2012, (supposedly in response to a somewhat cross letter from Col Wamsley on 17 February) and published at http://www.berthoudrecorder.com/2012/02/19/heartland-institute-threatens-71-year-old-veteran/. It contains the (presumably satirical) statements:

   "Since your letter is threatening, I’ve forwarded it to our legal counsel, forensics team, and the FBI. It is important that you not delete the email from your sent file, or any other emails you may have exchanged with other people while preparing it, since this could be evidence in criminal and civil cases."

   I am sure you will confirm that you would not have written such inane drivel, that you will denounce it as a scurrilous fake and ask the offending website to remove the copy forthwith. If they do not do so, you should of course forward this information to your "legal counsel, forensics team, and the FBI etc etc".

   I hope this is helpful to you.

   Yours sincerely,

   John Hunter

5. Sorry but by the tone of Gary Wamsleys email leaves alot to be desired. Mr Bast's reply was quite measured perhaps except for the FBI bit was a bit over the top.

   Just the usual spin. Move along, nothing to see here.

6. Perhaps a voice of semi-sanity in the midst of the craziness:

   1) Gary, nobody suggested that YOU might be the target of a lawsuit, just that your letter and its provenance might be required as *evidence*. (I'll explain…)

   2) To me, the very fact that you were so upset by what you learned in this process… is evidence that Gleick's actions and the forger's work have contributed to your obvious bad attitude toward HI. In that sense, your statement "you are a traitor to your own country." is in some ways more threatening to the recipient's reputation, because it is a claim about Best, while your words about yourself are only claims about yourself.

   3) I have no dog in this hunt at all, but my guess is that HI is going after Gleick, and your (now public) interchange is a nice example of the impact of Gleick's actions. They can prove from timing, content and more that Col. Wamsley had a radical and public change of perspective based on the (probably illegal) release of these documents.

   Bottom line: my guess is they are not mad at you even a little. Notice they were cordial to you at every point? Notice how they say your response is "very useful"? I'm guessing: useful as they go after Gleick. You have given them very clear evidence that this event has made you supremely upset, that you don't believe them for a moment, and believe Gleick so strongly that you refuse to apologize. That's really all they needed.

   Your documents make a nice set of evidence for any future suit.

   Just another perspective on the exact same evidence

   Blessings,
   Pete

7. Mr Walmsey,

   As a veteran, I would be embarrassed to be associated with you in any way.

8. I see the disinformation shills are posting here, too! Amanda G., the majority of Americans are embarrassed that YOU are a veteran. And please, there is nothing here that can be used in a lawsuit. Grow up. At least Col Gary Wamsley has the spine to make a stand against those he feels are traitors and to give his name. KUDOS to you!

9. Thanks very much for that Colonel Wamsley: it's very, very nice to see someone like yourself sticking a finger in the eye of a self-important, mendacious, and highly moneyed organization like this. Whatever country you come from (I don't come from yours), patriotism never seems all that patriotic when serves the naked self-interest of absurdly wealthy individuals who more than anything else in the world want to stay very wealthy. People like this twist the world their way so far so often they no longer know what's real except profit, and confuse values with their own net worth: it's a shock when they find out it's not just students and vegetarians who don't like 'em. Congratulations and much appreciation from the far side of the Atlantic.

Comments are closed.