TheAgitator.com
Terror as Campaign Advantage
Monday, November 1st, 2004Two 9/11 widows respond to the bin Laden video:
We cried when we saw the tape on Friday of Osama Bin Laden. He’s tanned and healthy. He does not look desperate or scared. He does not look like a man on the run.Three years ago, President Bush promised us he would capture Osama Bin Laden–Dead or Alive. He didn’t do that.
The man that murdered our husbands, is back terrorizing our country again. The videotape of him has brought us back to 9/11. We feel threatened. We feel vulnerable. We are scared.
Our question to President Bush is: Why didn’t you catch him when you promised us you would? Why is this mass murderer–this madman– still out there making videotapes and terrorizing our country three years after you promised our country that you would make us safe from him? President Bush, why cant you keep us safe from this madman?
Kristen Breitweiser and Monica Gabrielle
You would think that the GOP would be embarassed about the fact that three years and two wars later, bin Laden’s still giving us the heebies-jeebies via videotape. You’d be wrong. They’re giddy about it.
One Republican strategist labelled the tape “a little gift” for Mr Bush for focussing voters’ minds on terrorism – the party’s strongest issue.“Anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush,” he said.
That’s pretty vile.
If terrorism is the act of “terrorizing” us — making us frightened — then tanned, rested bin Laden is continuing to terrorize us.
And since a terrorized people apparently generaly vote GOP, Republicans can barely hide their glee.
he problem is that the Bush Administration in particular and the Republican Party generally are the wrong people to bring about such a future. Structurally, the Republican Party profits from conflict, not victory. It enjoyed a huge electoral advantage during the Cold War because of its greater credibility on National Security, but it made the mistake of winning that contest and the result was the first twice-elected Democratic President since Roosevelt. Now we are in the midst of another war, one the Administration chose to fight with broad goals rather than narrow ones. I don’t think the Republican Party will make the mistake of “winning” this one. The plan is rather to “stay on the offensive” until terrorism is eliminated, which is to say, forever. I don’t think most Republican leaders consciously intend to belay victory for the sake of partisan advantage. I think that people’s self and class interests bias them in ways they may not see.
Not that I’m justifying the joy of the Bush “strategist,” but I always write off stuff like this, from either side, as politics as usual. It’s like when Mallard Fillmore roasts Democrats for hoping the economy tanks while Republicans are in charge. Maybe it’s true and sure it’s bad and wrong, but what to make of it? Only to avoid getting into that mindset oneself, but it says nothing about Dems or Repubs separately because they’re both that way, and it’s just human nature intersecting with our electoral process.
Consider it from the opposite way;
Would John Kerry benefit from W doing his job of keeping us secure, TOO WELL?
The Rotundo Moores of the world are saying ‘there is no terrorist threat’… and if W’s doing enough to keep things secure at home, who could prove them wrong?
The only thing that would convince them there’s a danger is Americans dying… at which point, the Democrats would scream how Bush isn’t doing his job….
there hasnt been one terrorist attack on u.s. soil since 9/11.
“He’s tanned and healthy”
thats fucking hilarious, and i just always thought he was just arabic.
what is he, irish?
michael,
are you not counting military installations in foreign states as “u.s. soil”?
Just wondering…
That is a weak argument Radley. These comments are from women who will play the victim card for the rest of their lives. What happened to them is tragic but how can they fail to see that there hasn’t been an attack in the US since 9/11. Good point Michael.
Come on, Radley?
You don’t really think it’s “vile” to recognize which issues and emotions tend to swing voters your way, and to be happy when events conspire to make people think about them, do you? If that’s vile, then what in electoral politcs isn’t?
I do think it’s vile to knowingly mislead people by scaring them about a draft.
And it’s even more vile to scare people about the security of their retirement accounts while having a policy of preventing the actual enhancement of the security of retirement accounts.
Sure, there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the three years since 9/11…
There also hadn’t been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the three years prior to 9/11…
How many terrorist attacks have there been in the 200+ years of this country’s history? Do a little math and tell me what the normal number of terrorist attacks on the U.S. per decade. You’ll find the number averages to be pretty close to zero.
There also hasn’t been an invasion by Martians during the entire Bush presidency… I guess he’s done an amazing job preventing Martian invasions as well…
Incredible how the Bushies will try to take credit for maintaining the likely status quo…
What does this all mean? Nothing at all… Hopefully the level of political spin will drop off a bit after tomorrow, I’m tired of the stench.
douglas,
cool, i like your logic. then bush cant be criticized for NOT making us safe then.
The media treats the 9/11 widows like they’re the Blessed Mother — yes, they lost someone in a tragic way, but it doesn’t make them experts on policy and war strategy. I’m more worried about the people who follow OBL than OBL himself. They’re the ones who do the dirty work. And Bush has wrangled a hell of a lot of them.
I think this tape was made long ago, regardless.
What a spectacular argument, michael…
Yes, for a measly couple of hundred BILLION dollars or so, Bush was able to do nothing… How comforting…
Actually, I wish it were that Bush was able to accomplish nothing. What we really need more than anything else now is a do-nothing President…
No, Bush really hasn’t done “nothing”…
–
He’s driven the deficit up to record levels…
He’s advocated one of the most massive entitlements ever implemented by the government, his Medicare drug giveaway…
He led the creation of the largest and most unaccountable police arm of the federal government, the “Department of Homeland Security”…
He’s invaded a foreign country under assumptions that turned out to be completely fabricated…
He’s encouraged the implementation of a Constitutional amendment that would, for the first time, add language to the Constitution which discriminates against a whole class of Americans…
He’s convinced the leaders of the Republican Party to completely abandon the ideologies of Goldwater and Reagan…
—
Sure, I would like to have a good president who is dedicated to fighting for small government. However that isn’t one of the two choices we have. Our choice right now is between a big government Republican that’s been effective at increasing the power and cost of government vs. a big government Democrat who’s never been effective at anything he’s done.
Therefore, I’ll vote for the inept guy that won’t be able to push anything through a legislature that hates him. And in four years, hopefully the GOP will offer a choice that is worth voting for.
My vote this year goes to Kerry.
That tape along with many other were made a long time ago.
Speak of specifics and garner attention, speak of generalities and you are the horoscope pages…
That’s my hunch.
joe sims,
since we are at war, no, i am not counting military instillatsion.
and dougles, based on your logic there is no way to determine if bush has or has not made us safe.
doing nothing is not the conclusion one can make based on your argument.
Michael:
You’re right, there’s no way to determine if Bush has done anything to make us safer.
However, it doesn’t take a lot of effort to see that he’s grown the government, brought us further into debt, eroded civil liberties, launched a war based on fradulent information, and eviscerated the small government wing of the Republican Party.
So your argument that it can’t be proven that he HASN’T helped make us safer is like saying “So, other than that one problem, Mrs. Lincoln, the play was pretty good?”
douglas,
rad’s post was about terrorism. i was merely commenting on that topic.
top·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tpk)
n.
The subject of a speech, essay, thesis, or discourse.
A subject of discussion or conversation.
A subdivision of a theme, thesis, or outline.
AS somone else stated, those who had spouses die in the attacks on the towers and the pentagon are not experts in chasing down terrorists.
For comparison purposes, they should look into how long it takes for the typical serial killer to get caught (and that is here in the USA, where it can be presumed that everyone wants the killer caught), IF they get caught at all. So someone hiding somewhere else, where there are people willing to support him, and hide him, and help his cause, and the average citizen might not want him caught, and our efforts to find him are hindered as much as they are (try to find a needle in a haystack from 100 yards away) should be caught/killed in 3 years or its “too long”? I think they greatly underestimate the difficulty of the task at hand. I mean, if we weren’t concerned about collateral damage, and if we were sure he was in a 100 mile square box, we could just nuke him ’til he glowed. But I think we’d rather be more careful and try to kill just him and his followers, rather than creating a 10,000 sq. mile radioactive glass parking lot.
Actually, the topic is terrorism as a campaign advantage. I am pointing out that there are a number of campaign issues here which overwhelm the Bush effort to keep the public terrified.
xenical online Xen-770009122-345566