Bush Selling Terrorism: Voters Must Say No Sale
By Daniel DiRito | Related entries in Afghanistan, Elections, Foreign Policy, Religion, The War On Terrorism, The World, WarWe hear an abundance of speculation about just how much of the debate about Iraq and the war on terror is motivated by political objectives or by sincere beliefs. Many of those who support the President argue that he must be sincere since he holds steady in his beliefs that we must defeat the terrorists abroad or face them here in America despite a long period of poor poll numbers. They also argue that the Democrats oppose the Iraqi effort and criticize the execution of the war on terror as a matter of political expediency.
In the last couple weeks, the President and his Party have begun a new offensive in the war on terror…one that seeks to import maximum fear into the American psyche in order to stem the tide of an apparent voter exodus away from the policies of this administration. Perhaps I’m overreaching, but it seems to me that the GOP is expanding the breadth and depth of the war on terror into an ideological clash of civilizations characterized as a battle against Islamofascism in order to buy votes. The New York Times discusses this shift away from a focus on al-Qaeda in a new article published today.
Mr. Bush has long argued that Iraq has become the “central front’’ of the war on terror and that one benefit of the war there has been to draw extremists together in one place where they can be fought far from American shores. But the strategies discussed in the report generally apply less to Iraq than to the new breed of small terror groups springing up around the world, and the report acknowledged that “the ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry.’’
While the President may be correct in his analysis that the war on terrorism is expanding to other regions, he fails to see that his approach to the issue…particularly his decision to invade Iraq and the fact that progress in the troubled country seems elusive…may well be creating the new threats. Further, as he heightens his rhetoric in order to win votes by inferring that the origin of these extremists is Islam, he foments more animosity in more countries and the terrorism equation keeps growing.
If we concede that the President is sincerely motivated…and I might be inclined to concede as much…it nonetheless doesn’t make him right. Additionally, if his approach is wrong and it is actually inciting more terrorists, then his convictions simply amplify the problem and diminish the potential for him to chart a new course. In the end, his rhetoric may well be more dangerous if it is sincere…but one cannot argue that his recent remarks aren’t political. The fact that his politics stem from his ideology is no comfort to the many Americans that simply reject his conclusions. In fact, that merely makes it all the more important to counter his politics.
To read the full article at Thought Theater…link here:
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 5th, 2006 and is filed under Afghanistan, Elections, Foreign Policy, Religion, The War On Terrorism, The World, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
I’m of the opinion that the only way the Dems are going to get elected is if they can prove that they’re strong on national security. So far they are unable to convince me that’s the case, but I’ll keep watching/hoping.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Saavy politicians avoid all association with the terms fascist or fascism. It never pays to remind people of the power of propaganda when you are using it yourself.
September 5th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
“I’m of the opinion that the only way the Dems are going to get elected is if they can prove that they’re strong on national security.”
Interesting you would put it that way – what exactly about the past three years has convinced you that the Republicans are strong on national security (other than they constantly keep claiming they are)? 9/11 took place under Republicans and, years later, Katrina was under Republicans demonstrating the Federal government was not more but less ready to handle a major national catastrophe. Republicans have managed to shut down one dictator who most definitely was not involved in 9/11 nor was a threat and have emoboldened and strengthened rogue regimes across the planet – especially those groups affiliated with 9/11. We have increased our spending but not spent it effectively, we have restricted our freedoms but not in an effective way and we have in place an administration which can only polarize the electorate not lead it. Our children and grand-children will be paying for this war while still suffering from attacks from extremists who were not properly targeted nor removed even will trillions were spent. Our ports and borders are not secure and the largest analysis of policy (the bipartisan 9/11 commission) gave this adminstration “D’s” and “F’s” for its security measures. And the wealthy got tax cuts. Thanks to Republicans. Define “strong on national security again”?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I agree with Eural, we should go back to the times when terrorists merely planned terrorist attacks against America unfettered, while waiting to execute them under Republican leadership.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that we spend so much time, effort, and money combating terrorism, when the total number of people killed by terrorists is so miniscule. More people probably die in America on the freeway each DAY than have been killed by terrorists in the past 10 years.
Note – I’m not saying we should give terrorists free reign, just that Republicans have managed to make a molehill into the Rocky Mountains with their constant fearmongering. And yet almost everything they have done to date have made us less, not more secure – sounds to me like they’re more serious about using the issue to scare us into voting for them than actually doing anything about it.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
Daniel, I agree with much of this.
I also think that global events are past “no return”.
The US, for reasons only known to themselves, have stirred the wasp nest, not once but several times.
The UN has been reduced from having some authority (mana is the word I would like to use) to a twittering heap in the corner.
There has been a very effective global division created on the basis of religion.
There has been a very effective global division made even worse on the basis of wealth.
Not all of those are the direct consequence of actions of the US, the wider “Western world” is at fault rather than just one nation, and on a global scale no one has really tried to “agree” proper and “just” settlement of the causes of global terrorism and GWOT (man I hate that acronym!).
Past the point of no return? Yep. Take away the forum (think of cafe or tea house?) where people can talk, discuss and debate; replace it with three all-in, to-the-death boxing rings; encourage supporters to act aggressively and support extreme positions; I reckon that is past “no return”.
The pity is that there will be no winner…
September 5th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Probligo I totally agree. The issue as I see it is that it does’nt have to be an all in fight to the death. We’re there for the pragmatic reason of stabilizing a major source of our country’s energy. Any other moral justification is posturing at best (too many children dying daily to believe otherwise) In terms of defense, the Dictatorship of Pakistan has as much to scare us as Iran & North Korea combined. (nukes, missles, Khan v2.0 and frankly a dictatorship)
If we can hold on to the point where we can develop a comprehensive energy plan (including nuke power) we can realistically tell them that if anything happens to us : Their back yard, front yard, house and holy garden will become glass….and they’ll believe it. Now not so much.
Energy is a significant aspect of the true power the mideast wields. Take away the money, the dependence on oil, and the power follows (although I do believe they really don’t care for us in the area).
An Apollo type program for the next 10 years to develop new/alternative/existing (sic Coal) energy to truly wean us away from our mideast dependence would make the current situation look and sound quite like whats happening in South America.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Hmm, Kilroy. Start that line of thought and I will never stop…
I am at best a cynic, and hyperopic rather than myopic.
Forget about the equate between oil and energy; the “green” sources are not going to be enough; H2 will be too expensive and inefficient to produce…
Then start thinking about how much transport is involved in bringing food to your table…
Consequences… perhaps 100 years down the track…
September 5th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Are there any DNC talking points that haven’t been posted on Donklephant over the past two weeks? Screw it, I might as well read their blog.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
“…we should go back to the times when terrorists merely planned terrorist attacks against America unfettered, while waiting to execute them under Republican leadership.”
And why would they do that? Maybe because:
With Clinton you actually got caught for terrorist attacks (see WTC, 1993) and end up sitting in jail for the rest of your life. With Bush, not so much of an issue. In fact, six years later your organization is more wide-spread and there are more terrorist attacks world-wide than before (see, “I don’t think much about him, you know? He’s just not that important.” Bush, 2003)
Tell me, Jimmy, besides being snarky (and that was a witty comment I’ll admit) do you actually have any relevant statements to support your points. I have several years of slow but steady progress under Clinton to do something effective against Bin Laden. You’ve got Bush’s record – please point to its successes against our actual enemy (not the former Reagan ally Hussein).
September 5th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Oh, wait…here’s one to get you started – apparently Pakistan may now be offering Bin Laden a safe haven as long as he leads “a peaceful life” (whatever that means). It’s part of bigger agreement between the Pakistani government and the Taliban (remeber them, the ones we had beaten in 2002 until Bush invaded Iraq to get to the man who had nothing to do with the largest terrorist attack in US history?) Here’s a link:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/bin_laden_gets_.html
Yes, this development is certainly one you’ll want to chalk up on the Bush success list.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Monica, if you keep letting Republicans tell you Democrats aren’t strong on security, you won’t ever change your mind.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:47 am
This Republican Administration and its media puppets in full scare and warmongering propaganda overdrive. Just wished they had put a similar effort in competently waging this war. The Premise of fighting terrorism is the correct one. The laying out of the strategy and the tactics to achieve this goal has been an unmitigated disaster so far. Except during election time they are stuck in “stay the course” mode. Now it is the Nazi and Hitler’s card, Al-qaida’s media war against Americans, a purported letter’s from OBL, who looks more and more like a consultant or PR man for these Republicans. We will see his video just before the election.
These Republicans are not experts, except in their own minds, in fighting terrorism, or in keeping us safe, or in fighting them there so that we won’t fight them here. They have been unable and unwilling to work within the bounds of our laws and constitution, which are fairly liberal in regard to fighting terrorism within legal limits. The rubber stamp Republican congress should be indicted and run out of office at the polls for being an enabler of an incompetent bunch of power grabbers who talk the big propaganda talk but have not walked the real mission accomplished walk.
The Bush Administrations deserves to be the lamest of lame ducks for the balance of its second term.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:42 am
Probligo, Again I agree. the bottom line is what is the net cost (lives, treasure and security) of even 25 years of status quo ?
September 6th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Hey Eural, I plan on watching that ABC miniseries on 9/10 called “The Path to 9/11″. I hear it is pretty damaging towards Clinton, so you probably will avoid it and say its a Rovian or zionist media hoax or something.
Just one question. Since you claim that Bush’s foreign policies are responsible for recruiting the terrorists we are facing today, does that mean that Clinton’s policies were responsible for recruiting the 9/11 hijackers since the plot was hatched during his administration?
(cough**Not to mention the ‘93 WTC attack, Moghadishu, Khobar Towers, Operation Bojinka, Kenya, Tanzania, USS Cole ect…**echem)
September 6th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Jimmy, we already had that discussion a few weeks back – go and read our thread again (summary – terrorist attacks have been an ongoing and increasingly serious problem for the past 30 years so every president has failed to deal effectively with the problem; Clinton was at least on the learning curve of seeing it as the serious issue it was becoming and putting administrative measures into place to deal with it; Bush removed those measures and ignored the problem until 9-11; Bush’s “solutions” have escalated the terrorist recruiting success in a very significant manner while not actually solving any of the problems. Was Clinton correct on terrorism? Hardly, a lot more could have been done – but to repeatedly ignore the basic facts is to continue with the same failed policies that will just result in our getting hit again and again and again for generations….That’s the Bush doctrine.)
September 6th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Oh, that was you who dodged the question?
Did Bush’s policies recruit the terrorists who we face today including those who plotted to blow up airliners with liquid bombs? Your answer: Yes.
Did Clinton’s policies recruit the terrorists who we faced during his administration including the 9/11 hijackers who panned the attack in the mid-90’s? Your answer: …
September 6th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Why does everything have to come back to Clinton? He’s not the one in power now, dammit. I’m so tired of people trotting out the “blame Clinton” answer to today’s mess.
September 6th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Actually from what I’ve read, Dhimmi, that fiction piece you tout was written by a right-wing idealogue, vetted only by right-wing bloggers and the (conservative) main stream media, and the only person on the 9/11 commission that was interviewed was the Republican head of the commission. Very balanced perspective.
And yes, Bush’s policies directly created the atmosphere in which many more terrorists are available for recruitment. Terrorists were (of course) around prior to that, but there are many, many more of them now, and also many more people pissed off at America enough to fund them.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:37 am
It bugs me when Dems say that talking pointing out the terrorist threat is fearmongering. I don’t see it that way. Not at all.
What I see is someone pointing out to me that this bully is going to keep poking me, and poking me, and poking me, and he’s not going to stop if I just give him my lunch money, or do nothing and tell myself, hey, it’s just poking, it’s not like it’s -really- harming me. No, he’s going to poke me HARDER. If I give him my lunch money, he’s going to demand double that tomorrow. Sure enough, I rolled over, and he did it.
And now I feel like I’m trying my best to put my fist in that face, to demonstrate to the bully in the only terms he’ll understand that that won’t fly, only to have several people hold my arm back. And the bully, seeing that, thumbs his nose at me, and keeps right on poking.
The solution is not more damn appeasement. The solution is to -pound that guy’s face into the ground-. Don’t you people get it? Have you all simply never had this experience in any social environment, anywhere?? This isn’t about the damn oil, it’s not about minimizing terrorist activity while tolerating the level that’s there, it’s not about our reputation in the stupid UN, and it’s not about us failing to understand some headchopper’s noble plight. TERRORISM IS AN AFFRONT TO RATIONAL BEHAVIOR.
What the hell has happened to this website?
September 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Hi JP -
I agree with you that Republicans do present the Democrats as weak on National Security but I also see that the Dems consistently hurt themselves on the National Security issues by playing opposition politics ALL THE TIME. Apparently being the minority party requires that one always be in opposition of the majority party – but this is a freaking war. A war! Opposition just for the sake of opposition doesn’t work for me. I guess if I hated the Repubs, it might – but I don’t hate any party.
I saw a Dem on the news yesterday saying that if they were to get in office they would focus their attention on getting OBL. I nearly screamed out of frustration. Yes getting OBL would be great – but this war is far bigger than OBL and for that to be a Dem focus is laughable.
I take the war very seriously (obviously). I think the Repubs have made a lot of bad moves and if I were asked how I thought the war was going I would say “pretty shitty” (that doesn’t mean I’ve given up), but at a minimum I at least feel like the Repubs are in the fight. The only fight I see the Dems in is against the Repubs and that just isn’t enough for me.
My hope is that Dems will figure out that if they spent half the time they currently spend on being anti-Bush/anti-Repub and spent it instead on how they intend to fight this war against Islamic terrorism then they would have a much better chance of winning in ‘06 and ‘08. I for one would be more likely to vote for them.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Paul Brinkley said “What the hell happened to this website?”
Are you familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf. Bush has been crying “Terrorist” for 6 years now. There’s only so much fearmongering most of us can take before we decide that either A – Bush & Co. don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, B – They’re doing a really crappy job of protecting us if we still have to live in constant fear, or C – Bush & Co are lying through their teeth.
I’m a fairly charitable guy, so I’m going to go with B. Bush & Co. have done a horrific job of making us safer and I’m genuinely pissed about it. So don’t waste my time telling me about Clinton or how evil terrorists are. I know all of that already. If I’m being asked to trade freedom and a stable economy for security, then I damn well want security.
It’s been 6 years and I don’t feel safer. In fact I feel less secure knowing that there are a lot more terrorists now than 6 years ago, our army is tied down in a bloody atrition in Iraq, and Iran and North Korea are pretty much free to go on building nukes.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Paul – it is not really a case of them being the bully and poking us repeatedly with a stick. A much better analogy is that the terrorists are poisonous snakes that *we* have been poking with sharp sticks for decades. Eventually they’re going to bite us, and it’ll take a while for them to get calmed down before they stop wanting to bite us again.
In addition, the groundwork for terrorism was laid by our political intrusions of various sorts throughout the middle east and the world during the past 50 years, supposedly fighting the “communist threat” or protecting our oil, so most of these countries remember the US as being an imperialistic force that continually intrudes into their sovereignty, arms and funds rebel forces, assists in the overthrow of governments, etc. They do NOT see us as a “liberating force” from the “evils of dictatorship.” In fact, many of the regimes we’re fighting now are ones we helped put into power.
I’m not saying we should resort to tactics of appeasement. I just think we need to put the stick away for a while and try the snake charmers.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
sleipner -
Just to confirm my understanding of your post – we are the ones responsible for terrorism?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
sleipner -
And what exactly is involved in charming the “snakes”?
September 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
“I’m not saying we should resort to tactics of appeasement. I just think we need to put the stick away for a while and try the snake charmers.”
Great. Just great. “I’m not saying we should try a bad thing. I just think we need to try the (synonym for bad thing).”
September 6th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I got some ideas that will surely charm the snakes! First, lets get Israel to end its occupation of lebanon and gaza, then lets remove the oppressive regimes that we supported during the cold war to fight the “communist threat”(the Taliban) and protect our oil(Saddam), after that lets get rid of that big military base in Saudi Arabia. This will charm the pants off of ‘em! If that doesnt work, maybe we should give Osama bin-Laden the Sudetenland.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Of course there would still be terrorists if the US had not intervened in those troubled regions, but I believe they would have a tiny fraction of their current numbers, influence, and capital.
In addition, they would be far less focused on us as the Great Satan if we had not continually been trying to tell them how to run their lives, usually in ways antithetical to or at least foreign to their belief system. Instead, they would likely be more focused on trying to mold their own societies into the repressive fundamentalist dictatorships they desire, similar to what the neocons are trying for in America.
Perhaps snake charming was a poor extension of my analogy, a more appropriate way to phrase it is to stop poking the pissed off snake with a pointy stick and leave it alone to cool off.
The absolute best way to deal with terrorism in the long term is to move the world as quickly as possible to renewable, non-oil based energy sources so that these medieval countries no longer have access to the sole source of their influence and power – oil money. Of course with the oil companies owning 2/3 of Congress and the President that’s not likely to happen any time soon.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Bush himself has called for alternatives to oil-based energy. What’s keeping it from happening is the sheer magnitude of moving our economy in that direction. (To a lesser extent, it’s resistance to adopting nuclear power.)
As for leaving them alone – somehow, given the escalation in incidents since, ohh, say, 1970, the wars started since, ohh, say, 1967, and the boxcar loads of statements pledging death to the US and Israel, I’m not inclined to think they’re going to stop.
Meanwhile, your silly misinterpretation of neocons is hardly worth a response.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Actually Bush continually gives lip service to trying to move us away from oil-based energy, while in actuality doing anything but that. If you recall, he made a call for complete oil independence from the Middle East earlier this year, then retracted it a few days later, probably because his Saudi friends slapped him down.
A few simple questions demonstrate our lack of movement away from oil-based energy:
1. How much does the US government currently spend on tax breaks and incentives to oil companies?
2. How much does the US government currently spend on all renewable and/or green energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, wave power, etc. combined? Hell, I’ll even throw in nuclear.
How much you wanna bet #1 is WAY bigger than #2? Despite how many hundred billion in profits those companies raped from America last year?
Actually I must agree, my interpretation of neocons was a bit off. Most don’t really believe in the fundamentalist bullshit they’re pushing off on everyone else, they just use it to “appease the whackos to get votes”. Priceless, Scanlon!
September 7th, 2006 at 10:42 am
If the terrorists can be passified significantly by us leaving them alone, then why was Israel attacked from Gaza after they gave Gaza back free and clear? Why was Israel attacked from southern Lebanon after they withdrew from southern Lebanon? What evidence is there that removing ourselves from the Middle East will pacify the situation there?
Sleipnir has a good point about this having roots back over 50 years. I’d say it’s more like 1300 years, but the point is that the roots are deep and it’s going to take a long time before we can attain any assurance of peace. The question, to me, is whether we bar the doors in the meantime and accept the occasional losses or whether we take the fight to the enemy. I happen to believe it’s better (in simplistic terms) for our troops to bear the brunt of the fight “over there” rather than our civilians “over here.” Given that the situation isn’t quite so simple as “over here” vs. “over there”, though, I can see how others would disagree.
September 21st, 2006 at 7:21 am
Some time back in DC there was a prostitute named Teresa Howell who worked under the name Summer Breeze.  She died in 2003 and the coroner said it was because she was drunk and fell down her stairs.
John Berlau, a hack journalist with Reason and Insight got fascinated with this and for all anyone knows maybe he had already been fascinated with her, hard to say at this point in time.
No matter why, he did his own investigation of a sort.  He went after people who knew her and posted on various prostitution related web sites.  I don’t know where this got him but it may have been the beginning of his association with the so called sex trade.
John Berlau has worked with the police at least once and maybe more.  He did this in the DC area.  He helped set up both prostitutes and their customers. ÂÂÂ
When you got busted the way it worked was that if you would work with John on some book or project he is doing, the police would let you go, but, if you would not work with Berlau, you would be arrested on a prostitution or soliciting charge.
So this is just some friendly advice and stay away from anything that seems to be tied up to this guy Berlau or any of a number of conservative projects.  Some of them are REASON magazine and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. At least once he’s worked with a woman posing as a prostitute. Two likely ones are Solveig Singleton and Julie DeFalco, both at CEI right now. But both are brunettes and the rumor is that the woman was a blond but that’s what wigs are for I suppose!