Mother Knows Best
The world will long wonder what took the American people so long to realise that George W Bush, the swaggering, macho, faux rancher from Texas, was an incompetent and dangerous man who threatened the democratic foundations and moral credibility of the United States.
The answer, I believe, can be summed up in one word: fear.
After 11 September 2001, Bush successfully employed a politics of fear which resulted in widespread indifference to his domestic and foreign-policy agenda. Urged to be terrified by terrorism, Americans became blinded by fear. If a policy was part of the "war against terror", most Americans figured it was probably worthwhile. As a result, they ignored the administration's "tax relief" to the wealthy, its lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, its zealous campaign to promote the religious right's vision of a Christian nation, and its determination to privatise anything and everything, including security in Iraq.
As long as they thought they had a strong masculine president who would protect them, Americans seemed willing to give up all kinds of constitutional liberties and rights. As long as they felt comforted by the illusion of safety, Americans also seemed willing to tolerate Bush's arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world.
But such hubris almost always ends in tragedy. Eventually, people began to notice that the emperor wore no clothes. When hurricane Katrina tore through New Orleans, Bush's incompetence and lack of compassion could no longer be hidden behind a strutting swagger. As people drowned, he dined. As people died, he ignored their plight. Widespread corruption and sexual scandals among conservative Republicans further undermined the illusion that Bush - the man who believed God wanted him to be president - had anyone righteous on his side.
Finally, the daily news reports of death and devastation in Iraq made Bush's daily mantra of "staying the course" seem more pathetic than protective. "Is this man capable of safeguarding my family?" Americans asked themselves. At the polls, they cast their votes and decisively answered "no".
As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd put it: "This will be known as the year macho politics failed - mainly because it was macho politics by marshmallow men. Voters were sick of phony swaggering, blustering and bellicosity, absent competency and accountability."
And so they turned to the Mommy party. Victories by fifty Democratic women in the House of Representatives helped their party gain control of both houses of Congress and catapulted Nancy Pelosi, a feminist liberal from San Francisco, to assume leadership as the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, second in line to the presidency.
Not everyone turned to the Mommy party, of course. But women gave Democrats an important edge; 55% of them voted for Democrats, but only 43% voted for Republicans. Exit polls reveal that both white men and women split their votes fairly evenly between the two parties. The female vote that really made a difference came from women who were young, poor, and from ethnic and racial minority populations. Democrats also enjoyed even larger margins from both men and women among the young, between 18 and 29 years of age (22%); low-income workers who earn less than $15,000 (37%); African Americans (79%); Latinos (39%) and the highly educated (17%).
The real "family values"
Although she won't become speaker of the House until January 2007, Nancy Pelosi has hit the ground running. During her first 100 hours as speaker, she has promised to introduce legislation that raises the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour, requires all cargo shipped into the US to be screened, cuts student-loan interest rates in half, allows the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients, and broadens the types of stem-cell research allowed with federal funds.
Pelosi has also demonstrated bold leadership by backing John Murtha in the race for majority leader in the House. One year ago, Murtha - a hawkish Democrat from Pennsylvania, and a decorated Vietnam veteran - stunned colleagues when he called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Defying the president, Murtha argued that many troops were demoralised and poorly equipped and that after more than two years of war, they were impeding Iraq's progress toward stability and self-governance.
On 13 November 2006, Pelosi wrote to all elected representatives, saluting Murtha's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq and endorsing him as Democratic majority leader. At a time when Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton still hasn't opposed the war, Pelosi has staked out a strong anti-war position by promoting Murtha to such a position of leadership.
Liberal women have been celebrating this election for many reasons, including the potential return of the nation's attention to actual "family values". Throughout the election, Pelosi, a self-described "mother of five children and grandmother of five", emphasised the necessity of health care, education, energy independence, and a dignified retirement.
Pelosi's promises have already raised expectations among women's rights advocates. Just days after the election, author Judith Warner argued in a widely-discussed New York Times op-ed that Pelosi should expand her agenda and do even more to support America's working mothers and their families: "The American family", she wrote, "needs quality after-school programs, national standards for childcare, voucher programs and tax subsidies to help pay for that care, universal, voluntary public preschool, paid family leave and incentives for businesses to make part-time and flex-time work financially viable."
Not all these things will necessarily happen, but still (as a friend of mine recently commented) at the very least we now have politicians who will discuss these vital matters.
For those who have feared the end of legal abortion in the United States, the election means that the Democrats won't have to watch helplessly as the Bush administration packs the Supreme Court with rightwing conservatives. As a result, legal abortion seems protected - for now. Even in the conservative state of South Dakota, voters defeated an initiative that would have banned all abortion, except to save the life of a pregnant woman. In California and Oregon, they also beat back initiatives that would have limited women's reproductive choices.
As the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) notes: "the change in House leadership can only bring good things for reproductive health advocates..." In particular, the organisation expects "a marked decline in anti-choice, anti-family planning legislative attacks, including the freestanding anti-choice bills that have been a centerpiece of the social conservative agenda."
The election has raised hopes, but they will almost certainly be dampened by political reality. Still, there is a palpable sense of possibility in the air, a glimpse of a brighter future, a growing confidence that the constitution will not be eviscerated, that a theocracy won't govern this nation, and that Americans just might remember, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, that Americans should pay "A decent respect to the opinions of mankind..."
One day after the election, my stepson - a properly cynical, but sensibly progressive young man with whom I've shared these years of bleakness and gloom - called me and said: "Today, I'm proud to be an American. We still live in a democracy." I couldn't remember the last time I heard anyone I respected utter those sweet and moving words.
This originally appeared on OpenDemracy.net on Nov. 14, 2006
I think you've hit on something here-- the more I think of it, the more I think Bush may have run on 9-11 at that! Good catch!
Are you really under the impression that there's a single original thought in this screed that hasn't been said by 10,000 Bush-haters before you?
Bush cowboy-- check. Bush fake Texan-- check. Bush turned America into fascist zombie nightmare-- check. (Which country are you writing from to evade his death squads?) Bush exploited fear to pass pro-life tax relief for mutant fundamentalist creationists-- check. Sneer about childlike Americans wanting big daddy to protect them--check.
I realize if your name is Molly Ivins you can write this same exact piece three times a week and make a living off it, but hey, if your name is Woody Allen you can write a script in which a 67-year-old Jewish man dates Scarlet Johansson. The rest of us, however, should try to wrestle up something original, maybe by considering what an actual alternative response to Islamic terror might be, and how it would negotiate the conflict between protecting us physically and protecting our civil liberties. And no, creating a new bureaucracy for after-school programs is NOT dealing with those issues. (As "vital" as it no doubt is.)
In case you missed it, the liberal side just got back into power a little. That means you actually have to think about such things, not just mock the guy who has been thinking and doing things about them.
November 16, 2006 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
An unhelpful rant.
10,000 conservatives have already announced liberals have no plan, so this is pretty tired stuff.
November 16, 2006 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just three more and you'll hit 10,000 kneejerk attacks on my posts, Tom!
November 16, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate Mgmax's comments. For some time, the problem with getting news coverage of things like the absence of WMDs was that it wasn't proven. Then the problem became that it was old news. Apparently, Bush's administration was a disaster in every respect, but this has passed into old news. It's nice of the conservative to say so, since that also means it's true.
Oh, I don't care for that Dowd quote. It's her retro self. If the men really were manly enough, she might like them.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
November 16, 2006 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer, I believe, can be summed up in one word: fear.
After 11 September 2001, Bush successfully employed a politics of fear which resulted in widespread indifference to his domestic and foreign-policy agenda. Urged to be terrified by terrorism, Americans became blinded by fear.
*******************************************
I have heard this so many times from people on the Left. Fear, fear, fear. I guess based on my personal experience, I have to say I haven't seen much fear anywhere.
My initial reaction on 9/11 was anger. In my interaction with people on all parts of the political spectrum I guess I've never had a conversation with anyone where I sensed or they expressed personal fear of Islamic terrorists. Most have expressed emotions similar to mine: anger, a desire for revenge, a desire to make sure it never happens again.
I've read it so much in the lack of any personal experience of it that it appears to be a hackneyed formula to me.
November 16, 2006 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
One day after the election, my stepson - a properly cynical, but sensibly progressive young man with whom I've shared these years of bleakness and gloom - called me and said: "Today, I'm proud to be an American. We still live in a democracy." I couldn't remember the last time I heard anyone I respected utter those sweet and moving words
*******************************************
I think the fact that you and your stepson would think that this country *wasn't* a democracy just because you lost a few elections says LOTS more about YOU than it does about the reality of politics in the US and the reality of the feelings of the American people.
November 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a desire to make sure it never happens again."
and thats not fear?
You can't say you're angry about an attack that hasn't happened yet. Most certainly you and most the rest of us have fear that there will be another attack. Most of us can accurately describe what we feel about it.
Afraid? Hell, you're so afraid that you're even afraid to admit that you're afraid.
-Dave Adams-
November 16, 2006 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto. And that's coming from a New Yorker originally from the upper Midwest, with lots of friends and family still there, with several family members in California, and who travels around the country enough.
Also seemed to me that the majority went along with the Bush program for a while because they thought it was not good after 9/11 for the world economy to be hostage to terror attacks and Saddam playing footsie for decades with the U.N., that it was time for the U.S. to put it's foot down. It wasn't fear, it was more like: well, we better do something, it's getting worse and no one's doing anything. Sure, there were probably a few suburban moms and NASCAR dads that cowered in their plastic-sheathed homes, but for the most part I think Americans reactions are like that of many Europeans: we better do something, with some anger when incidents occur. That sentiment in and of itself has not always promoted rational responses, but it's not fear.
But if I am honest, it's not an accurate statement to say I haven't seen a lot of fear the last few years anywhere.
Where I've seen quite a bit of irrational fear is in the left blogosphere over the last few years, total paranoia sometimes, about stuff like a total fascist takeover of our government or some such.
Matter of fact, I noticed recent comments on this website that are still pushing that fear scenario, even after the election, see here (and note the two positive ratings in agreement!) and here.
And look what happened to this guy by reading too much of that kind of irrational fearmongering in an echo chamber:
Chuck Keller's Blog, Nov. 14:
Freepers do not play the fear game for the most part if you read their commentary, they don't see plots everywhere, rather, they make unfair fun of liberals, which resonates with moderates because a minority of liberals do some very noisy fearmongering.
November 16, 2006 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOu haven't seen fear? I have. I think there a lot of New Yorkers are concerned about another attack. Bush's ineptitude only stokes the fear. Also the fear is not just that we will be attacked again, but the consequence of that attack. There is fear that the Patriot Act will seem mild in comparison to the new laws that will follow another attack. There is a fear that the walls against foreigners that populists would like to see will be small compared to the walls that will be erected. Lastly, there is a fear that Americas nuclear arsenal will just be aimed outward with the home of the terrorists obliterated and the word going out that any other country that allows an attack with be turned into glowing glass.
It is precising because people have enormous confidence in Bloomberg's and Kelly's competence that New Yorkers do not sit at home quaking waiting for the next attack. Katrina showed that counting on Bush was a waste of time anyway.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 16, 2006 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a desire to make sure it never happens again."
and thats not fear?
*******************************************
I was in a car wreck once and I have a desire to make sure it never happens again. Am I afraid each time I get in the car? No.
November 16, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't say you're angry about an attack that hasn't happened yet. Most certainly you and most the rest of us have fear that there will be another attack. Most of us can accurately describe what we feel about it.
Afraid? Hell, you're so afraid that you're even afraid to admit that you're afraid.
-Dave Adams-
*******************************************
I never said I was angry about attacks that haven't happened yet, you seem to have made that up. I can remain angry at people and movements that are hostile to this country and want to do it harm.
I am perfectly capable of accurately describing how I feel about anything. I would never make the discourtesy, Mr. Adams, of *re-interpreting* the statements of a person who I have never met. If you say you have fear, as you have, I take you at your word.
Perhaps you should go back to your mind-reading machine.
November 16, 2006 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for some confirmation. Sometimes when I read posts here I feel like I must be living on another continent, and I live in a VERY Blue university town in Southern California.
I don't travel in the Northeast, but over the last 5 years I have traveled extensively in California, the Rocky Mountain West, the Southeast, and some in the lower Midwest. I just don't see this *fear*.
November 16, 2006 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a question of who was fearful. Certainly quite a few people were fearful after 9/11 and many are that way to this day. However, except for the chance to vote, there isn't much they can do to affect policy.
On the other hand the fear mongers in the press and in government were able to cower the congress into passing all sorts of fear-inspired legislation. The recent "liquid explosive" plan has caused the most ridiculous and ineffective policies to be put in place, so the fear has not abated for many.
What drives the politicians is not so much the fear of an attack as the fear that they will be seen as "soft" and this will end their careers. This same fear is used to justify every half-baked idea the military comes up with.
The press fell down on its job of treating propaganda uncritically and the shills are always willing to push the party line whenever asked. Reasonable voices either don't get a platform or are accused of supporting the enemy and thus silenced.
The US has a long history of mass hysteria ranging from the Palmer Raids, to the Japanese-American internment, to the Red scares. With the pervasiveness and sophistication of the mass media it is easier than ever to whip up the crowds.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
November 16, 2006 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you fear a terrorist attack you probably should fear getting hit by a comet or a meteor because, over your lifetime, the odds are the same.
I wonder if Americans are as angry about our close to 3,000 military, not to mention the 30,000 injured (many permanently) in Iraq as they're angry about the 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11.
November 16, 2006 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My experience may be severly limited (it is!), but from those Americans I've been in contact with, I must say that after september 2001 the fear phase, if at all noticable, was fairly short. A long-term "fear" of the Chinese, maybe, but no, no-one I know took the talk about a Muslim threat against North America seriously (except for a few weeks of Anthrax-scare).
People may have seen U.S. commercial interests to be under threat, and Israel was, of course, but America?
Israel is an example of a country where fear dominates the people. The United States is not such a country. I have sensed less, much less, fear than pride over America's self-assertive attitude vis-a-vis crooked Russians, wimpy Europeans and dangerous Muslims.
This is not to deny that many have been clearly negative to, and even shameful over, the President's person and his clearly limited verbal and intellectual capacity, and dismissive of some of the administration's measures.
But no, I do not buy the explanation that fear has been the reason for American acceptance of this administration's policies. To me this sounds more like a myth.
- Nothing wrong with that. They can be useful too!
November 16, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you HAVE written posts of a kind that better than this above contribute to a constructive debate. This was fun but it did maybe put yourself in worse light than your victim.
November 16, 2006 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who says Bush wasn't using fear after 9/11 hasn't been paying attention. Almost everyone, particularly those of us who live in cities, were certainly fearful after 9/11. We just watched 3000 of our fellow Americans murdered, that's pretty scary. I know I was freaked out for awhile after 9/11.
What did Rice mean when she said that we don't want to wait for the smoking gun in Iraq to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. That's not fear-mongering? There was zero evidence that Saddam had a nuclear weapon, much less one that could hit the U.S. So why did she say that? She said it because she was trying to scare people into supporting the pending war in Iraq.
There are many examples of Bush administration fear-mongering. It's not even debatable.
November 16, 2006 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what is lost in all of this, the reasons terrorists attack us in the first place. Anyone that believes the attacks unprovoked has a total blindness when it comes to analysing the history of our foreign policy. THIS is what scares me, the total ignorance of Americans in general, their blind acceptance of the frightening label of terrorist, and the total lack of trying to educate themselves as to why they (the terrorists) might have done it. Without education there will always be fear and until we analize the validity of their motivations, there always will be terrorism. If you take a close look at what our actions have been in the middle east you will only be suprised that they don't attack us harder and more often. What choice does a people have, when there land is stolen, their livelyhoods destroyed, their families killed, by a superpower and its attack dog Israel, but terrorism? I garantee, if the USA were invaded or bombed or betrayed by a far superior military power, we would become the best quality terrorists the world has ever seen.
November 16, 2006 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
With a modicum curiosity and study one can readily tell that 9/11 was not simply done unto us by a band of terrorists; it is much more complex and much more ghastly. If you want to talk about fear you can talk about the fear of Americans generally and the media in particular, to say nothing of the co-opted FBI and Justice Department, for not thoroughly investigating this modern day Pearl Harbor. So the clog in the system that has cost so many lives, so much money and the integtrity of our country remains intact.
Without honesty America has no power. Americans do not really want to look at what the war really is doing in Iraq. We don't want to know what it is doing to this country so the attempt is being made as of today to return to normal which means keep nursing off the military/industrial complex. Americans made the best statement they could in the election, but Congress is bought and paid for.
November 16, 2006 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without getting into freepers fears of the UN, known as the "New World Order", and black helicopter sightings, please check out this small selection of today's freeper comments.
Based on an article in the New York Observer, the freeper headline announced that Exultant Chuck Says He’ll Veto the Next Alito (Schumer plots permanent majority).
3 from the first 14 comments out of almost 200:
Shred our Constitution.
Say you take it back, please:-)
"I don't want to say that George Bush is a lame duck, but this morning, Cheney shot him" Bill Maher
November 16, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's your comment that's knee-jerk. Say something useful. You sneer at her pointing out the obvious but you have nothing but a belittling "been there, done that" reponse.
The main post is clearly from a woman's point of view and understandably mentions women's issues. With women as half the country that's not trivial. And when the point of wars and the economy is life, family issues are hardly fluff.
November 16, 2006 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it, rdf. How many times have you heard people say they are safer by getting to the airport 4 hours early to have their shampoo bottle checked?
"I don't want to say that George Bush is a lame duck, but this morning, Cheney shot him" Bill Maher
November 16, 2006 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will forever remember 9/11/01. I was in my kitchen when the 1st plane hit. NBC broke in and I stared at the tv going "What the hell? What a horrible accident". On the way to work I turned on 1010 WINS (which I can pick-up fairly well in CT) to listen to the coverage when the reporter screamed "ANOTHER PLANE HIT THE OTHER TOWER!!!". Right then and there I knew it was no accident. I got to work and turned on the tv to watch what was happening and in horror watched both towers fall.
Was I frightened? Yep. It was a mix of fear, anger and confusion. In the days following I felt a sense of patriotism I had never felt before...and ironically very much so when Bush had his bullhorn moment. No partisan politics...no fear...just resolve, we were all Americans and we wouldn't be intimidated.
That all changed quickly as El Presidente and his Junta invoked 9/11 and the fear we all experienced that day to further a partisan political agenda...using the terror, originally used by Osama, to scare the American people into submission. The fear never gripped me again like it had on 9/11 but the anger returned. An anger that our leaders would use the memory of that day as a psychological weapon on their political opponents and fellow Americans. Bush is beyond reprehensible...
November 16, 2006 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I was in a car wreck once and I have a desire to make sure it never happens again. Am I afraid each time I get in the car? No."
Thats funny; I worry a little bit every time get in a car- especially when I'm driving. And I've never been in a car wreck.
I guess its just a coincidence.
-Dave Adams-
November 16, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear stories make news. No one is afraid doesn't make a good headline.
I live in New York and had a couple of hours of worry on 9/11 since a daughter works 100 yards from the WTC , that's her subway stop, and of course the planes hit just at the start of the work day. She was OK and that ended my anxiety.
I occasionally read about the fear that was supposedly prevalent during the Cold War. I'll have to take that on faith since I never spent a minute being afraid nor did I know anyone who did- except for one person already considered a loser who confirmed that reputation by starting work on a back yard bomb shelter.
November 16, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am perfectly capable of accurately describing how I feel about anything. I would never make the discourtesy, Mr. Adams, of *re-interpreting* the statements of a person who I have never met. If you say you have fear, as you have, I take you at your word.
Perhaps you should go back to your mind-reading machine."
I don't need a "mind reading machine" to know what a DHS "Orange Alert" is. I also don't need to be a prognosticator to see how the issuance of Orange Alerts coincided with polling showing Bush losing popularity. These could simply be attributed to coincidence if it weren't for the fact that Tom Ridge himself said that he was pressured to issue Orange Alerts.
That manipulation is, by definition, fear mongering. Perhaps you weren't paying any attention to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen and that it didn't have a political result.
-Dave Adams-
November 16, 2006 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I stay home and take care of the kids (no wonder I waste time in comments sections) and I don't think a big government bureaucracy for after-school programs is vital. Nor am I convinced that "women" do. Some women, with a statist political orientation (RIP Uncle Miltie), maybe.
But let's say all those things are vital, just vital. Does it follow that solving the issue of Islamic terrorism is not? That's what's so poorly reasoned about this piece-- the anti-Bush cliches are supposed to be all the support a completely unrelated agenda needs for justification. Uh, not exactly.
Thanks for the 1 vote, Hoppycalif2! Good to see my usual coterie of fans misusing the system as usual.
November 16, 2006 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you lock your door at night?
Fraidy cat.
I love how expecting the military to stop crazed fascist killers is "fear"-- but expecting the government to protect you from everything from losing your job due to global competition to alar on grapes is "vital."
November 16, 2006 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't need a "mind reading machine" to know what a DHS "Orange Alert" is
******************************************
But you definitely would to be able to know that "I'm so afraid I won't admit I'm afraid"
November 16, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
called me and said "Today, I'm proud to be an American. We still live in a democracy."
I said the exact same words when I saw that being a rich gigolo running on your wife's dead husband's money and the demagogic invocation of your 30-year-old war record wasn't enough to make you president.
November 16, 2006 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That assumes a constant rate of terrorist death, when in fact it's likely to spike at some near point in the future.
Anti-semitism was a constant feature of life in Europe, yet I imagine the average European Jew's chances of dying from it were quite low-- until they shot up in the 1930s.
November 16, 2006 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone a little scared or concerned by the fact that 50% of so of their fellow Americans supported not a war, but what has been described by some as a massacre, of tens of thousands of people on the other side of the planet in a country most Americans cannot find on a map and whose residents and government were no threat to America, and who did not ask us to invade their nation?
The fact is that the fear of what turned out to be lies about WMD and 'smoking guns' & 'mushroom clouds' were used in the PR campaign to sell the unjustified war, the killing and the inevitable wartime crimes of rape, murder and torture. Yet, apparently, the grisly results and lies do not affect support of Bush by a whole lot of US voters- really scary!
November 16, 2006 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Almost everyone, particularly those of us who live in cities, were certainly fearful after 9/11.
I don't know if Akron OH where I lived counts as a city, but while I was horrified, certainly, and saddened, I was not afraid. The atrocity had hapepned, it was over and it was not a threat to my personal safety (I hope that doesn't sound selfish). Rather like hearing about Katrina last year: horror, yes, but not something that was a personal threat if you didn't live there. Anyway, I was in Canada, camping on Lake Superior on 9-11-01, and I did not hear the news until the next day. The response I saw to the events was the Canadian response, which was deeply moving-- not a shred of Canada's sometimes silly anti-Americanism in any of it. When I eventually got to Toronto, that city was somber and a little on edge. Air travel of course was shut down there too. And when I got home I felt something subtly different in Akron, and everywhere, yet was not a part of it myself, though I flew my flag too and rejoiced when we went into Afghanistan. Somehow I missed the anger and fear, and went straight to mourning and the need for justice, I think.
November 16, 2006 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: That assumes a constant rate of terrorist death, when in fact it's likely to spike at some near point in the future.
Why do you think this? And even if there is another attack of the 9-11 magnitude (though I suspect that's a once in a lifetime event) that will still not alter appreciably your own risk of duffering personally.
November 16, 2006 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are quite welcome to my rating. It was an easy call.
By the way, how is "islamic terrorism" a more pressing issue than "Christian fundamentalist terrorism", or "anti-communist terrorism", or "we want our own state terrorism", etc.? Terrorism is certainly bad, and it needs to be suppressed as much as possible, but I can't see how the religious preferences of the terrorists enter into it. Not only that, but historically we have treated terrorist acts as the crimes that they are, finding the person responsible, bringing them to trial, and usually executing them. That system was pretty effective in the past, and it didn't result in the deaths of 3000 US soldiers, the horrible wounding of another 10,000+ US soldiers, and the deaths of half a million or so civilians. So, perhaps the issue of "Islamic terrorism" needs to be approached from a different tack.
Hoppy in Sacramento
November 16, 2006 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
nit-picking:
the death rates for Jews shot up
1/ in 1940 with the concentration of Jews in occupied territories to certain blocks in the cities were infectious diseases took their toll
2/ with deadly pogromes in the early 1940s which maybe the Nazis weren't directly instigating but certainly happy over
3/ with the evacuation to extermination camps from the summer of 1942
By then, the war had made escape impossible.
November 16, 2006 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're at least talking sense. I didn't feel the irritation you did at the familiar complaints, but I see how they aren't what I think lawyers would call disposative on the specific question. To many of us they do, however, feel of a piece with the whole emphasis of the past few years.
November 16, 2006 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think this?
Um... because we're liable to be looking at half a dozen or more nuclear Islamic states within a few years, not to mention current nuclear states (France, Russia) which could become Islamic over the next few decades, and that's just too damn many nukes to prevent SOMEBODY from passing one along to somebody who will set it off in a major western city in the name of Allah? Which, as I live in a major western city, means my appreciable risk is higher than I like, thank you very much.
Pretty funny to hear someone call 9-11 a once in a lifetime event when it was the second time they'd bombed that particular pair of buildings alone.
November 16, 2006 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about WTC, but if we are going to use history as a guide let's consider nukes and their past use. The only time has been by a state, against a non-nuke state.
There have been a number of close calls btw us and Russia, aborted mainly by human intervention (or inaction), and some tension btw India and Pakistan, also since reduced.
There was an apparently well-known (in the field) war exercise that saw a number of missile-silo teams fail to arm their missiles when believing it was not a drill. I am beginning to think there is a likelihood of people not ever wanting to go over that brink.
That said, there does seem to be a madness of sorts loose, at least Salman Rushdie feels that about Kashmir, so let's make sure there's no freelancing in the nuke biz. No state will give the crown jewels to a terror group, and they will only use nukes in the direst circumstances, if even then.
November 16, 2006 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the author says about Bush is, of course, completely true. It can never be said enough that he "an incompetent and dangerous man who threatened the democratic foundations and moral credibility of the United States."
But as true as that is, it is also just as true that he could never have gotten away with it without the full and knowing complicity of the nation's most powerful media institutions and without the most cowardly and pathetic failure of the leaders of the Democratic Party and all of the Democratic members of Congress who failed to vocally and openly oppose the war from day one.
I am just a regular citizen and I knew and could see plainly from the facts and my own personal observations and knowledge of history that Bushco was determined to invade and that it had nothing to do with WMD. No history of this time can be written accurately without noting the full, willing and shameful complicity of the media and those in Congress of both parties who allowed this illegal and immoral war to occur but the burden lies most heavily on the Democrats who, knowing full well the war fever was garbage, went along because they thought it was good politics for them in the 02 elections.
How wrong they were and how wonderful that it is so! The only good politics is honest politics. When it comes to life and death we have to have elected officials with enough moral fiber and courage to stand up and say loudly and unequivocally: NO! The media failed to do that. The Democrats failed to do that. The few sensible Republicans in Congress failed to do that. No, instead regular citizens by the millions came out all across the nation and across the globe in advance of the illegal and immoral war crying as loudly as possible: NO! NO! NO! and instead of paying any attention, the media minimized their coverage of this unprecedented opposition. The Democrats acted as though it wasn't happening and the Republicans acted as though the true patriots protesting the coming debacle were traitors. Let us never forget this and let us never repeat it.
And no, this wasn't the year that macho politics failed. This was the year that despite the continued minimization in the media of the most corrupt congress and administration in a hundred years and perhaps ever, despite the minimization in the media of the unmitigated disaster in Iraq, despite the timid and tepid objections raised by most Congressional Democrats
regarding the illegal/immoral war, the shredding of the Geneva Conventions by the thugs in the White House and Pentagon, the shredding of the Constitution by the Bush regime regarding the rights of citizens and the total abdication of the Congressional Republicans to check the excesses of the executive branch run amok, the people saw through it all and said, "Ya know what? Fuck these guys!" and voted the Republican out of power. Thank God for the people's ability in the end to see through all the bullshit. Now let's see if the Democrats understand their obligation not to try and be shrewd poitically but to stand for the right, for honesty, against torture, against illegal invasions, against spying on citizens, and against the vile corruption the Republicans have so lovingly embraced. My fingers are crossed, but my confidence is not high.
November 16, 2006 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, how is "islamic terrorism" a more pressing issue than "Christian fundamentalist terrorism", or "anti-communist terrorism", or "we want our own state terrorism", etc.?... I can't see how the religious preferences of the terrorists enter into it.
How can someone be so oblivious to the times he lives in?
Well, I suppose they didn't know it was the Thirty Years' War when it started, either. They won't call it the Great Islamic War until after the paintings of the Louvre have been burned in the streets of Paris and Sharia and the veil are law from Norway to Pakistan.
November 16, 2006 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ultra-nit-picking: I'd say your chances did the bulk of their shooting up on January 30, 1933.
November 16, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have far too much faith that the future will be like the past-- that it will, in short, be rational. Iran; a post-Musharraf, more Islamic Pakistan; a rogue government within the former Soviet world; North Korea-- that's four nuclear or soon to be states right there, all conceivably capable of giving one away for the express purpose of detonation in Tel Aviv, London or New York. If you believe the Twelfth Imam will return and end the world anyway, why not give one away to someone you know will put it to good use?
November 16, 2006 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I suppose they didn't know it was the Thirty Years' War when it started, either. They won't call it the Great Islamic War until after the paintings of the Louvre have been burned in the streets of Paris and Sharia and the veil are law from Norway to Pakistan.
You know what frightens me? It's not inconceivable this mindless gibberish might actually be believed by people at the highest level of the US Govt, and not just people still living at their parents'.
November 16, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, bravo sir! The old "parents' basement" gambit! And "mindless gibberish"-- splendid, that! Jolly good!
4 ratings for everyone! Well played sir!
November 16, 2006 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, where is Ben Vasquez when we need him so badly?
Hoppy in Sacramento
November 16, 2006 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was busier at the polling location in my precinct than I have ever seen it. My "blue" precinct of state workers and university types is in an old Tallahassee suburb, hard by the state office buildings and the FSU and FAMU campuses of downtown Tallahassee. It wasn't the usual crowd of middle-aged whites like myself, but young folk, black folk. "Where have they been until now?", I wondered.
Tallahassee is one of those pockets of the Deep South that even now has not abandoned the Democratic Party, though our Representative is a Blue Dog, Allen Boyd.
Did they deserve our votes? Well I have to say that they have pretty much reflected the moral fiber of the rank-and-file. We have all been busy keeping our heads down with Jeb and his lieutenants wielding their axes, hoping to keep our jobs until the wheel turns. And now, God be thanked, it has begun to turn.
November 16, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point: you were in it, you went through it, you survived. But was the car dealer, the repair shop constantly trying to warn you about how you needed this big bloated SUV in the future so that the next accident doesn't kill you? The insurance company jacking up your rates even if the other driver was clearly at fault, and constantly trying to get you to buy even more because "you never know"?
That's what the Bush administration did. Rather than try to assure and quietly repair, they descided to exploit, and worked to maintain a general sense of insecurity so that the voters could be duped into buying more of their snake oil.
Fear works on several levels. What we call fear here isn't the "cowering in terror", but the queasiness in your gut, the uncertainty. The low-level feeling that the world is less safe.
November 17, 2006 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course every statement reveals something about the author, about the way they had their doubts. Isn't that the point, that events until now had planted that seed of doubt into their minds? But why are you so irked at that closing anecdote?
I'm not too fond of comments that attack one tiny part of the post, and act as if that percieved flaw makes the entire article worthless. I especially don't like it when the critic is being disingenious, attacking a strawman. Nothing in that anecdote states that they thought America wasn't a democracy; you inferred that all on your lonesome, bucko.
November 17, 2006 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you might be missing the point a bit. The point isn't, were we all afraid, some were and were not. The point is that Bush used fear to get people support his radical policies. I think most people are unwilling to admit they were afraid because only pussies get scared. Right? Well anyway, I was a definitely fearful of an attack on my city on and immediately after 9/11.
Did you see Bush's face when he heard about the attack? It looked like he had just dropped a load in his tighty whities.
If 9/11 didn't happen, does anyone believe we would be in Iraq right now? Hell no, if it wasn't for the fear of another attack, we would not be in Iraq.
November 17, 2006 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing the results of a state-sponsored, methodical action against "unwanted" ethnic/religious groups to the actions of an ill-defined collection of stateless groups randomly attacking civilians of a certain state to spread fear is, well, Wrong with a capital W. It just doesn't add up, Sparky.
November 17, 2006 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make one mistake in the reasons you list: the perpetrators of 9/11 were mostly students, Saudi, from good families and reportedly with good job prospects. These weren't people directly affected by the policy, but kids that fell for the tirades of Osama and the fundamentalists.
The problem is the rise of death-cult sects inside Islam, and how they have been able to portray themselves as mainstream. Unlike death-cult sects in Christianity, the Islamic death-cults can take advantage of the lack of heirarchy and don't portray themselves as outside of "the church". They blend in, and work overtime to exploit the "us versus them" mentality. They exploit grievances, and encourage actions that draw more missteps from "the West" or "Christians".
It's not just the grievances that have to be solved, but how to defuse the sects. And that's an issue for Muslims to address; we cannot force a solution on them.
November 17, 2006 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
gosh it must be nice to know the motivations of the dead terrorists themselves. Another scary attitude displayed here. The young, wealthy and educated often are the ones that go to the front in supporting a cause. The scary part is an attitude that the aggressors can sit back and with their powerful intellects determine what the motivations are for other people. So this group of terorists just thought it would be fun, right? there was no motivation other than killing, right? There was no reason they picked the USA, right? We have been totally innocent, right? You can sit back and be totally secure and justified, despite the criminal actions of our government. You probably believe Pearl Harbor was unprovoked as well. When you refuse to take responsibility for your actions and refuse to investigate the facts and refuse to repect your enemy's grievences, you have already lost the battle. This is what is scary, the entire nation is headed towards more war and increasing terrorism (the only method available when the military imbalance is so great). The Democrats will do no better at taking responsibility or educating the people. The country is headed for disaster, and we are all responsible. Your encapsulation of 9/11 is certainly what the fear-mongers want you to believe. It is our responsibility as citizens to educate ourselves. You need to look back at the history of the USA and the middle east.
November 17, 2006 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't expect rationality, only typical human behavior. Nukes are the highest achievement of an industrial state, the greatest expression of its power, the ultimate threat or deterrent. Giving one to a non-state actor, especially a secret actor, to be the first use of your hard-won capability, just seems contrary to all history.
Note that we have never considered giving a nuke to any non-US actor, and from what we know, Soviet Russia would never have done so. Well, we, (and they), aren't madmen. But there is an important point there--madmen rarely get far in politics. Iran's leadershp isn't crazy, nor is NK's. Self-interest alone would restrict Kim from ever using nukes except against invasion, when he's at risk. Pakistan is the scariest, but their attention is directed against India, and if they started anything they're all toast, and know it.
The 12th Imam is not expected to bring the end of the world, but world justice. The end of the world is expected by some of our guys, Christians.
November 17, 2006 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typical human behavior should teach you that a few times each century, true believers drive their nations off cliffs.
Nevertheless, I simcerely hope you're right.
November 17, 2006 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This article is wrong on so many levels - it's disheartening.
I think that what is most discouraging is the cliched, scripted and shallow parroting of the cliched, scripted and shallow parroting of other journalists.
I don't know any voters who were so disillusioned with the "macho" republican party that they turned to the "mommy" democratic party. In fact, the only persons I remember who were so enamored of a manufactured "macho" image were Midge Dexter, Kate O'Beirne, Peggy Noonan, Chris Mathews and Maureen Dowd. There was no outcry, no clamoring by the American people for a "manly man" party to take charge - what there was, was a chattering class who spouted nonsense and other chatters who reinforced it. Now of course, through endless regurgitation, (without any research, investigation or even questioning) it's been carved upon the wall of journalists' "truth".
Sadly, we'll now have inflicted on us the trite analysis that voters, idiot children that we are, really wanted our "mommies" all along. En masse, we mounted our tricycles, went to the polls, and voted for mommy "cuz she'll know how to make it better!" (That some might know that when the fear really kicks in, kids want Mommy doesn't seem to have occurred to this writer.)
Then we're treated to the obligatory, superficial citation of the polls, which always seem to support the writers' claims and are always reliable, truthful sources of information of course, and can be cited without any study of the breakdown in real numbers or questioning the reliability of the polls.
What I find most appalling, are the pronouncements of what liberal feminists think and want from the politicians now that they've voted for Mommy to decide what to do. Apparently, we girls all want the same things and our priorities are such that the baby sitting situation should be at the top of the to-do list.
I wonder if the writer of this article has any idea of just how damaging, how condescending, how enabling this kind of cliched writing is? The goal of feminism, like any kind of equal rights movement is to be treated as fully functioning adult citizens with the same rights, obligations and responsibilities as any other citizen. Instead we're insulted by this trite, shallow analysis that concludes that all voters, especially women voters, are children who look to Mommy and Daddy to fix things.
Thanks, Ruth. Thanks for riding the Mommy/Daddy hobbyhorse of an analogy again. I'm sure we kids will be seeing it again and again.
November 17, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nuclear states does not equal nuclear terrorists. No state has any motivation for handing nukes off to terrorists (or anyone else for that matter) and historically not even the most radical of nuclearized regimes have done so. Consider Mao's China: when it comes to murderous intent and achievement old Mao makes the Iranians look like a bunch of harem girls, but though he loved to brag that China would survive a nuclear war he nonetheless kept his atomics under lock and key and did not give them out as Christmas gifts to the Vietcong, the Khmer Rouge or any other of his terrorist groupies.
The biggest danger comes not from any deliberate handing out of nukes, but rather from the risks of nukes being purloined from a failed state where security has collapsed and corruption burgeoned. In this regard we still need to watch the former Soviet arsenal very closely and shame on the Bush administration for ignoring this vital duty. And too, we need to watch Pakistan very closely. The Iranians (and Dear Leader Kim too) of course want nukes for that very reason: to give us a reason to keep them strong and safe and healthy, much as we rather pampered the Soviets and Mao rather than seeking their direct overthrow.
Re: not to mention current nuclear states (France, Russia) which could become Islamic over the next few decades
Huh? Even at current rates of demographics (which are unlikely to continue after all) and assuming zero apostacy (again, highly unlikely), it would take 300 years for France to have a Muslim majority, and Russia would require half a millennium.
Re: Pretty funny to hear someone call 9-11 a once in a lifetime event when it was the second time they'd bombed that particular pair of buildings alone.
And that first bombing was pretty much a dud (compared to what they hoped for). And the perps were speedily apprehended due to sheer stupidity on their part which should have landed them on America's Dumbest Criminals. So yes, 9-11 was a once in a lifetime event. Do you know of any other such attacks that killed over 2000 people? Closest I can think of was McVeigh's OKC atrocity (c. 900 killed). But maybe there's some foreign event that I am not aware of? You are the one making extraordinary claims here-- let's see some extraordinary proof.
November 17, 2006 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
historically not even the most radical of nuclearized regimes have done so
Some of you have great faith that the future will be just like the past. Talk about fighting the last war.
Isn't it insulting, really, to assume that our enemies do not learn from our tactics and adjust them, as we do?
The danger used to be totalitarian states. Now it is failed states and transnational terrorist groups with state sponsors. Islamic terror groups have proven very good at exploiting both failed states and state sponsors-- and at being used by the latter as proxies.
So yes, 9-11 was a once in a lifetime event.
Wishing (or selective definition) won't make it so. What's making it so is the Bush administration forcing al-Qaeda to fight on their territory, not ours; squeezing their sources of funds; using aggressive interrogation techniques to break up their plots and cells; listening in on their phone calls.
In other words, what's keeping 9-11 a once in a lifetime event is exactly what folks here want to STOP.
November 17, 2006 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you BevD. The article is also wrong (on purpose) because of cherry-picked statistics. Such as "Victories by fifty Democratic women ..."
In fact, there has been a gradual (very slow) move to more female representatives in Congress, this year as well. But it is a baby step, the House for instance is going from 67 to 70 women, hardly a large percentage of the 435 Representatives.
So I thought the election was pretty much business as usual on gender issues, rather than Ruth Rosen's triumphalism. The one exception that I saw was that the GOP seemed to be running lots of women and minorities in LOSING races this year! {I don't have the stats to know if this is really true.]
November 17, 2006 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree with Mgmax on this one, hoppy. To imagine that all terrorists are born equal, and that their "religious preferences" are just a meaningless expression of their inalienable right to be "free to be you and me" -- is pretty oblivious.
November 17, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't need a "mind reading machine" to know what a DHS "Orange Alert" is
******************************************
But you definitely would to be able to know that "I'm so afraid I won't admit I'm afraid"
Damn right.
You can't be bothered to sign your name to your posts, and you want to convince me that its not fear, but anger that motivates you.
Sure doesn't look that way.
I'm not saying you or anyone else here needs to be signing their name either. But when you post anonymously and then work yourself up in to a righteous outrage because someone points out that you and everyone else in this country have had their panic buttons pushed repeatedly over the last five years, then maybe you need to pull your head out of the sand.
-Dave Adams-
November 17, 2006 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are both right, and should not be quibbling. There is a religious angle that is rather different than wacko Christians. The Saudi men were mostly from comfortable families. And we do know at least a bit of their motivations from videos, as well as Osama's videos and tapes.
There were clear policy goals from AQ, and they do respond to our policies. They do not come out of the blue, because of a religious frenzy or drugged euphoria. There are Saudis and Saudis, with large cultural and economic gaps between the few rich families and everybody else.
Know your enemy.
November 17, 2006 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear works on several levels. What we call fear here isn't the "cowering in terror", but the queasiness in your gut, the uncertainty. The low-level feeling that the world is less safe.
******************************************
Sorry, but I'm not feeling that queasiness in my gut. Not when I get in the car - not with respect to terrorists.
November 17, 2006 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In other words, what's keeping 9-11 a once in a lifetime event is exactly what folks here want to STOP."
Not true. There is a hypothesis that fighting in Iraq leeps AQ busy--that is not a persuasive case, I'd say (see London, Madrid). There is no way to assert AQ is forced to participate in Iraq, as their base was Afghanistan, and still is.
Is this what we want to stop? Or is it illegal surveillance? Note that no Dem has said we should not eavesdrop.
Do we want to let cargo in uninspected? Note that Dems have been pressuring on this for a while.
Do we want to let Afghanistan lapse into a failed state? Note that no one is calling for us to bring home the troops from there.
Obviously we haven't succeed in countering propaganda that paints Dems as against security. Here's the deal---we feel security has been mishandled, and have a list of specific failures that need addressing. There is room for disagreement about tactics, but don't waste your time with formulas like "preventing 9/11 is what we want to stop".
November 17, 2006 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying you or anyone else here needs to be signing their name either. But when you post anonymously and then work yourself up in to a righteous outrage because someone points out that you and everyone else in this country have had their panic buttons pushed repeatedly over the last five years, then maybe you need to pull your head out of the sand.
*******************************************
Judging from the percentage breakdown of named/anonymous posters at TPM Cafe, if you have a problem with anonymous posters or attack them for doing so, you're in for a long tough ride.
I merely posted a comment that said based on how I feel and what I see in people I interact with, that I did not see much fear of terrorism in people's daily lives. So that aspect of the original post didn't ring true to me.
Some commenters here agreed with my observation and said that it reflected what they saw in their lives. Others said that they were quite disturbed by 9/11, and see that continuing effect in their family and friends. I take them all at their word. Just as I took you at your word.
You were the only person to claim to know so much about me (whom you have never met) to be able to say that I am lying or in psychological denial. It is as fallacious as it is rude.
To you sir, good DAY.
November 17, 2006 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So where did Ruth Rosen say that she was dedicated to a much more aggressive port security program, a stronger presence in Afghanistan, and fully implementing the surveillance programs once higher courts have ruled on their legality?
I will credit you with taking these things seriously, Tom, but it's WAY overstating things to say "No Dem has said..." in regards to any of these things. MoveOn published ads opposing any military response in Afghanistan days after 9-11. Plenty of Dems have opposed surveillance except under terms by which it's basically useless-- designed to drown our guys in paperwork and live under fear of reprimand and even prosecution if they guessed wrong. More to the point, plenty of Dems look at the whole business as something they wish would just go away so they can get back to the goal of an ever-expanding nanny state. (As if, God knows, they didn't get that bigger government under Bush anyway.)
November 17, 2006 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No state has any motivation for handing nukes off to terrorists (or anyone else for that matter)
I remember readings somewhere that Pakistani's nuclear program was helped immensely by North Korea. If true, there would be an example of a state handing off nukes to "anyone else"....
I would agree with you that no nukes have been handed out to terrorist groups yet, but perhaps that is just because they have not come up with enough cash.
November 17, 2006 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love that Maher quote.... hilarious....
November 17, 2006 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad that you'll give Tom "credit" for "taking these things seriously," but I'd like some credit too. I'm pretty much in agreement with Tom, and as one of the "folks here," it's pretty galling to come across a post saying that I want to "stop what's keeping 9-11 a once in a lifetime event."
It puts me in a bad mood, frankly. It makes me defensive. It makes me feel like giving you low ratings and picking a fight with you, instead of having a conversation.
Just sayin'.
November 17, 2006 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
We handed over nuclear secrets to our allies.
BTW, NK sold missile tech (which it got from China) and got nuke tech in exchange.
Relations bewteen states are different.
November 17, 2006 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it isn't oblivious at all, it is realistic. There have been terrorist attacks on various nations for as long as I can remember. Catholics used that technique against the British in Northern Ireland. Basque separatists used it against the Spanish government in Spain. American recruited and trained contras used it against the Nicaragua government. In this country right wing nuts (real ones) used it against the government in Oklahoma City and against abortion clinics several places. Terrorism is not a new, unique phenomena. The 9/11 attacks were only different in the audacity and the luck of those particular terrorists.
In Afghanistan and in Iraq it isn't terrorists that we are battling. In Afghanistan it is the Taliban and various warlords, primarily interested in regaining power in their country. In Iraq, of course, it is almost entirely local Iraqis trying to gain the upper hand in their sectarian conflicts, and as a side issue, trying to push us out of their country. While this is going on the loosely organized al Qaeda groups are continuing to target various countries for various reasons.
In my opinion, terrorism is a crime, an abomination, and a cowardly act, no matter if it is Eric Rudolph doing it or a Moslem from Saudi Arabia, and no matter if it is directed against Israel, Spain or the US.
Hoppy in Sacramento
November 17, 2006 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then refute my claim with facts, not by saying your feelings were hurt. Bush has policies, people on the Dem side oppose them, I believe they have played a significant role in fighting terror and, indeed, are why the period since 9-11 has been the longest stretch without an al-Qaeda attack on the US or not-in-combat military personnel (e.g., Khobar Towers) since al-Qaeda was founded. That's a fact-- they made some major attempt at attacking us about every 2 years, now it's been 5 and counting. If you want to free everybody in Guantanamo, end harsh interrogration of targets like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, keep the pre-cellphone-era FISA short leash on investigators, etc., then you have to deal seriously with the question of whether you're removing something that has proven effective in preventing the next attack.
It's not about your feelings.
Rate this 1 if you like, it says more about the rater than about me. It always does.
November 18, 2006 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2006 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I just said that I agree with pretty much everything that you just gave Tom "credit" for. Y'know, not wanting cargo to go uninspected, not wanting Afghanistan to be a failed state. Not wanting Iraq to be a failed state either, which is part of why I think the war in Iraq, under the circumstances in which it occurred, was a terrible idea.
My point was, if you want to have conversations with people here, instead of just getting into smackdowns, you might want to avoid making insulting statements about the views of everyone here -- particularly when everyone here doesn't hold those views.
Most of the time, the only people who will respond to that kind of stuff are people who are interested in a smackdown. But there are a lot of people here who aren't interested in a smackdown. We're interested in having respectful conversations among individuals -- not liberal and conservative "teams" -- about issues.
Personally, if I get the sense that someone isn't going to interact with me with an initial presumption that I am worthy of respect -- rather than assuming that I should be disrespected until I "prove" otherwise, and assuming that they know what my views are before I state them -- I'll avoid them. I've got better things to do with my time.
I don't think I've ever actually given you a low rating, although there are times when I think you've deserved them. In fact, I've uprated you when I saw that you had been downrated undeservedly, and suggested that you contact me directly if you had other ratings problems, since there is no longer a feature here where zero ratings all appear in one place where moderators can see them. Other people here have also offered to help you with that.
Everyone here isn't out to get you. My hope for this site is that it can be, yes, a place with an emphasis on liberal-leaning viewpoints, but also a place where people with different political viewpoints can discuss things with each other respectfully, and learn things from each other.
If you've hung out much on free-for-all political sites, of any persuasion, you know how hard it can be to create that kind of atmosphere. I think we can do it, but in order to do it, it can't be just me and some other people here who would like to have a respectful conversation with you. You have to want that too; you have to help us out.
November 18, 2006 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting to think back on Afghanistan. Absolutely agreed that once we stirred up that hornet's nest we had to keep control--which we did not.
But before we knocked over the Taliban, or rather, before they melted away seeing the oncoming assault, I was in fact in the minority position of thinking something else was appropriate. My ideas were likely unworkable--good thing Im not in charge, I guess. But the guys in charge dropped that ball anyway.
It's especially galling to hear conservatives complaining about FISA restrictions when they were arguing it gave too much power to Clinton. It is yet to be proved that unmonitored surveillance has interrupted any plots.
November 18, 2006 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
True enough. The change is why the logic guiding the War on Terror is so deeply flawed. At its heart, the doctrine is about using force as a demonstration of power and commitment to a certain end. Where this force is being used is no stranger to such a dynamic. Who in the region are we going to send to school about using force as a tool of political domination?
The authoritarian regimes in the region are balancing acts. Those who would depose the elites are fiercely suppressed but also given a future. Syria and Egypt, for example, have both put down the Muslim Brotherhood by every means imaginable but they also continue to accommodate them. The Islamists who receive funding from ISI also target Pakistan elites. Saudi Arabia is an exporter of entrepreneurial terrorists who use foreign battlegrounds to siphon off the destruction that would occur if such elements stayed in their country.
One thing the Iranian revolution has shown is that any group who would seize the power of state in the region becomes a hostage to a certain job: They must be successful brokers to the outer world. However the dominant ideology plays out in the actual cultural life inside these countries, it is the competence and political agility of their leadership that determines whether Saddam is hung or Qaddafi gets a new lease on life.
So when you suggest that we are fighting Al Qaeda on its own ground, you overlook the fact that we are in the process of dismantling the forces in the region that kept such people in check. In this respect, we have validated the logic of Al Qaeda that argued that no change would occur in the stalemate until the U.S. was attacked directly. Al Qaeda was/is a suicide attack. Their job is done.
I stood in the pile at Ground Zero, picking through the burning pile to find remains. I became angry then and I am angry now. I didn't agree with the graffiti calling upon the President to "bomb Afghanistan tonight." I wanted and still crave accuracy. I want the scalpel of Law. I want those who would do this to be precisely the losers: No One Else. That would be a true demonstration of power.
Well, it too late for that. By the time this Administration leaves office, the "facts on the ground" will make the issue of terrorist groups attacking the U.S. pale against the war where we won't know where to shoot.
November 19, 2006 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like Tom said in his reply, I'm not really trying to argue, per se, but to expand. To simply address the issues ignores that groups like Al Qaeda abuses these issues, and were allowed to grow unhindered for so many years. AQ would abuse any issue around, and we have just been stupid enough to make it easy for them.
All I'm really arguing for is that the issues of this modern aberration in the Islamic community be addressd, that these groups be marginalised. Just like exposure revealed the IRA's front men and dried up their donations from the USA, AQ needs to be exposed, their "charities" exposed as money-laundering efforts that exploit the goodwill of their donors, their Koran schools exposed as cult fronts designed to brainwash and recruit.
You overreach in comparing this to Pearl Harbor. I see the current problems more akin to Europe's problems with Marxist fanatics (the RAF in Germany, the Red Brigade in Italy, and so on). They were stopped not only by addressing the social injustices they purportedly were fighting against, but mainly by marginalising them, by turning public opinion and public support against them.
November 20, 2006 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, NK sold missile tech (which it got from China) and got nuke tech in exchange.
Oh, so was it that NK's nuclear program was immensely helped by Pakistan?
Or where did NK get its nuclear knowledge?
November 21, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the A. Q. Khan network, charged with both selling info to NK and to Libya.
As I understand it, Pakistan provided nuke info, NK traded missile tech. Mutual needs were met.
November 21, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink