Fear itself

We have five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot, so yesterday's fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was regarded as a bigger deal than last year's fourth or next year's sixth.

The occasion was marked by ceremonies in towns and cities across America, and by a media blitz from newspapers, TV networks and, of course, from al-Qaida itself, which despicably marked the occasion with yet another video release.

This last was predictable because our remembering 9/11 -- and staying scared -- is one of al-Qaida's major goals. This is what terrorists do: they terror-ize. Here, again, is the legal definition of "terrorism":

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were intended to kill a lot of innocent people, and they did, but all that hideous death was meant to serve a larger intention -- "to influence an audience." Specifically, they were meant to scare us and to keep us scared.

This was a gamble on al-Qaida's part. They were gambling that the America of the early 21st century, George W. Bush's America, was populated by a much weaker breed than was the America of the 20th century, FDR's America. Bin Laden surely remembered that Imperial Japan had tried this same gambit -- the devastating sneak attack meant to demoralize -- back in 1941, and that it hadn't worked out very well. But he was gambling that Americans nowadays were made of flimsier stuff.

And for the past five years, our so-called leaders have been tripping over themselves to prove bin Laden was right. From color-coded "terror alerts," to duct-tape panics, to the fetishizing of "security," to the idea that the Constitution, due process, legal warrants and the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" relics unsuited to these insecure times, our leaders have been working hand in hand with al-Qaida to make us scared and keep us scared.

John Rogers summed this up nicely:

I cast my eyes back on the last century ...

FDR: Oh, I'm sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we're coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How's that going to feel?

CHURCHILL: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We'll be in the pub, flipping you off. I'm slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.

US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike ... NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!

... and I'm just a little tired of being on the wrong side of that historical arc.

One place where FDR's spirit -- "nothing to fear but fear itself" -- seems to live on is in New York City, home to ground zero itself. New Yorkers -- those actually, personally, physically affected by the Sept. 11 attacks -- haven't confused vigilance with fear, they've simply gotten back to the business of being New Yorkers. ("There are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade ...") They've had to endure the president's reluctance to fulfill his promise of financial aid. They've had to endure the lies from their government about the safety of the poisoned air they breathe. And they've had to endure five years of lectures from red-staters thousands of miles removed from ground zero about how their refusal to vote for George W. Bush demonstrates that they don't "get" the "meaning" of 9/11 as deeply as do the terrified masses in middle America.

Al-Qaida hit New York City with its very best shot and New York is still standing. For those keeping score at home that's NY, 1; AQ, 0. Game over.

But the score reads differently in the rest of the country, in places far from the destruction of ground zero al-Qaida scored big and continues to score. Credit the Bush administration with the assist.

Both intend to influence an audience. Both want to keep us so scared we can't think straight. But neither has the power to take that which we refuse to willingly surrender. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Comments

[bellatrys]

They wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. They still do.

They're vastly inferior to homegrown American-killers then. They need to take lessons from Detroit and the tobacco industry.

[Hagsrus]

"but will you acknowlegde we havent been hit in 5 yrs?"

The terrorists have a long attention span. Look at the time between the attacks on the WTC.

Who knows what plots may be in the works for five or ten years down the road? Those chemical plants, for instance...

[Jeff]

As soon as the CDC reported (and wouldn't back down in the face of immense government pressure) that the anthrax was home-grown, quite possibly in Georgie-Boy's home state, the FBI dropped the investigation like a hot potato. The only person they even talked to pretty patently had nothing to do with the attacks.

I have a friend on another board who worked in a Florida office that received an anthrax packet (I believe a co-worker was one of the fatalities). Imagine how he feels about "no attacks since 9/11"!

[bulbul]

but will you acknowlegde we havent been hit in 5 yrs
'Tis funny, because WE (European Union) have been hit twice - big time - since 9/11 and yet the only people going around screaming "We're fucked!!! We're fucked!!! The hajis are going to get us!!!" is the British government White House subsidiary. And of course all the think-tanks founded and funded by neocon think-tanks.

Kristy: the template for an html link is [a href="theaddressofthelink.html"]the text you want to link to[/a]. Replace [ by the "less than" sign and ] by the "greater than" sign.
And please enter(Lecture_mode).now ;o)

[Beth]

will you acknowlegde we havent been hit in 5 yrs?

Not until Lee Boyd Malvo's conviction is overturned.

[J]

I remember, as a New Yorker during 9/11, my entire family back in Louisiana begging me to come home. my response was, in a nutshell, the quote above. i have no control of whether a terrorist chooses to attack where i am. furthermore, neither can i control getting into a car accident, or being diagnosed with cancer, or any other tragic fate that could easily befall me anywhere in the country. i'd rather enjoy the time i have than live in fear.

Right-o. Maybe, most elementally, what Republicans and their "Security Mom" and "Nascar Dad" enablers need to understand is that there absolutely are fates worse than death. Even violent death. To live in fear is not to fully live at all.

We're constantly lectured by these people that "Freedom isn't free" and yet they themselves seem willing to sacrifice freedom--and lots of other values like compassion, justice, fairness, aesthetics--on the altar of Safety. The folk who mantrically repeat, "Freedom isn't free" always strike me as the sort who wouldn't know what to do with freedom if it bit them in the ass. Their own actions totally prove the maxim: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

1. Sorry, I am "anon." forgot to sign off, woops. I'll now try to address everyone's barbs in order.

2. First, many have made the point that there is no use in walking around being paranoid about terrorism. I agree, and quite frankly don’t know anybody who is that freaked out. If you think that the remaining, like thousand or so of us who still support President Bush (in matters such as this) do so because we are all quivering daily, you're wrong. Rather, on the tactics that repulse you, like surveillance of foreign bank records, warrant less phone tapping of foreign originated calls, guantanamo etc, we (or at least I) don’t support these things because we are "scared," but because we don’t think there is anything improper or illegal about them. Pick a tactic/method/issue and let’s debate it. There is a good faith, legitimate argument on both sides of all these methods re their legality. Not siding with the ACLU does not a wussy make.

3. Jesurgislac: no response warranted.

4. Wintermute: You’ve lobbed nothing but non-sequiters.
a.) “Lashing out at any target you can find, even though it has nothing to do with the people you claim want to capture and kill (Iraq, Iran, The New York Times), while simultaniously capitulating to the terrorists demands (withdrawl of US troops from Saudi Arabia) makes you a fraidy cat.”

Saying that Iraq had and has nothing to do with the people we are after is an overstatement. See pp.58-61, 66, 125, 128, 134, 334-335, among others, of the 9/11 commission report. Whether that’s sufficient justification for war is certainly another debate. Also, how have we “lashed out at” Iran? Seems to me that the Clinton-like empty threats the Administration has made would be right up your alley, no? Finally, the NYT, which has printed demonstrably false stories, proactively peddled the now discredited Valerie Plame “scandal”, and on multiple occasions has published classified intelligence programs (that have actually worked), despite the begging of members of both parties, does not deserve to be merely “lashed out at.” The NYT deserves to be prosecuted.

As to removing troops from Saudi Arabia- we had anywhere between 5 and 10 thousand troops there to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq up until we invaded. We now occupy Iraq. Why again should we have kept our troops in Saudi Arabia after we occupied Iraq?

b. ) “More than that, being prepared to put up with stupid fearmongering ("No toothpaste on airplanes! It might be C4 in disguise! And no more prescription medicine than you need for the flight itself, so you better hope your luggage doesn't get lost, but don't worry because I totally pinky-swear that this'll keep you safe from terrorists who don't have any more imagination than we do!")
For three days after the US and British governments thwarted a plot to blow up between 10 and 20 airliners by using innocuous, chemically based, every- day type products, and while these governments were not yet sure that they caught and arrested all the bad guys, fliers were told to hold off on bringing these types of products onto planes. This is “stupid fear mongering?” Please. Thank God you’re not in charge.

c.) “allowing the government to take away your rights”

Yeah you people have been slinging this one around for the last 3 or 4 years. Still waiting to find out which rights I don’t have anymore. Please advise.

5. Duane: ha-ha.

6. Angelika: With due respect, I’m not sure I can offer a meaningful response to these generalizations. I don’t agree that President Bush has a “corrupt agenda” that has been “pushed through” because the “opposition” has been “kept quiet.” I think we can all acknowledge that this is a pretty divisive time in American politics, no? You don’t get to that point with some poor, downtrodden, censored “opposition.” Examples, please.

7. pharoute: Re the anthrax attacks. Granted. That’s a good point. I note though that I’m not sure what the Bush Admin. (or any other one for that matter) could have done to prevent them. I suppose they could have used even more intrusive methods to investigate, detect, and prevent. Would you have supported that?

8. NonyNony: “We really need to keep some perspective about these things.” Agreed. That’s why, for the life of me, I cannot understand why everything this Administration does to prevent attacks is automatically bad in the eyes of those on the left. I agree that there is no reason to allow fear to overrun our lives, but, for cripes sake, the government is responsible for protecting us from, among other things, getting attacked. In all the bitching and moaning I hear from the left I never hear anyone actually suggest anything.

9. BrooklynRaider: Yet another useless point. Do we really need to list all the terrorists that have been captured or killed? Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed, etc. And what does it mean to you that even though OBL is at large, his (or his proxies’) attempts at attacks have been repeatedly foiled? Is that just dumb luck, or is the Administration doing something right?

10. New Anon: I don’t agree that “hunting down those directly responsible” for attacks is sufficient. Fundamental disagreement there. I will agree to respectfully disagree with you.

11. Pharoute: Ok, again, what would you like the government to do to thwart right wing religious crazies from bombing abortion clinics? Should we modify the domestic eavesdropping program to include domestic to domestic calls? How is President Bush responsible for this jackass?

12. Kristy: “its time to rein in the fear.” Agreed, doing that and remaining cognizant of the threat is called “being vigilant,” which in my view the administration has done quite well. When did all the things on your list “become cool”? Well, holding enemy combatants captured on the battlefield indefinitely has been done in every war in the history of mankind until now, when the Administration has actually released hundreds of these people only for our troops (including two of my friends) to come across them with AK-47’s and rocket launchers a second time. Wiretapping and library books? Happy to debate the legality of these things if you’re interested. Rendition? I agree with you on that one, but on moral grounds, not legal grounds. There is a difference. There used to be an arguable legal justification for rendition. Alas, President Bush announced last week when unveiling the new Army Field Manual that our government will no longer engage in that practice, which in my view was precipitated by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Hamdan.

Second, I probably overstated my point re the purpose of terrorism. Of course one purpose of terrorism is to freak us all out. But we can’t myopically lull ourselves into a false sense of security just so we can mouth platitudes about not being scared. Again, this is called vigilance.

Third, I don’t agree that we’ve made a “half hearted swat” and then said “fuck it that’s good enough.” Do I need to list all the bad guy we’ve killed or captured? How do you think we’ve been able to score those captures/kills? Perhaps with the tools that the left is constantly assailing? Moreover, the article you’ve cited supports the proposition that the US has remained vigilant, not the other way around. (i.e. “Little in the hunt for al Qaeda or bin Laden is done, they say, without massive pressure from the United States.”).

Finally, re: Sadaam as an ally. See the 9/11 report, any number of house and senate intelligence reports; hell, look at what the Clinton people were saying in 1998 about his ties to al Qaeda. My understanding is that al Qaeda was not quite yet in bed with Sadaam on an “operational basis” by the time we invaded… but was well on its way with “substantial contacts” or whatever the 9/11 commission said. That’s good enough for me. We invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban not because the Taliban attacked us on 9/11, but because they harbored the bad guys. I wasn’t willing to let Iraq get to that point, were you?

13. Hagysrus: “The terrorists have a long attention span. Look at the time between the attacks on the WTC.” Yes, all the more reason to spy on them, capture and interrogate them, and plant an army in the middle of their continent to set up another shop to launch operations from to hunt and kill them.

14. Jeff: See no. 7, infra. Also, point of order, they weren’t merely “talking” to that guy- the FBI seriously ruined that guy’s life. I’m talking about the former lab worker, who was the very first “person of interest” in this investigation. Also, evidence that the investigation has been closed? Just curious, I hadn’t heard that.

15. Beth: Re LBM. Point granted, same questions as re the anthrax attacks posed to you- is the Administration responsible for not preventing him and the other guy? What should have been done? Should we start spying on black males who convert to Islam?

if anyones actually read this far, you are a geek. good nite.

[todd]

so of a friggin bi---, wouldnt you know it i posted that long ass rant and forgot to sign it again? done "trolling" now.

[bulbul]

fliers were told to hold off on bringing these types of products onto planes. This is “stupid fear mongering?” Please. Thank God you’re not in charge.
Yes, it is. It's a reaction and that's all the 'safety crowd', including police and intelligence, is all about, instead of prevention and forsight. In other words, they - and you - are always a step behind and all these 'security measures' have only one effect: they instill fear.

Iraq had and has nothing to do with the people we are after is an overstatement
Read my lips, you twit:
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.

Do we really need to list all the terrorists that have been captured or killed?
Yes please. Preferrably including the terrorist deeds they have done.
And while you're at that, compile a list of all the Guantanamo inmates who haven't been convicted of anything.

I don’t agree that “hunting down those directly responsible” for attacks is sufficient.
So what you are saying is that Bush and Co. were right to let Usama get away with it.

Well, holding enemy combatants captured on the battlefield indefinitely has been done in every war in the history of mankind until now
I submit this to our resident expert on the Geneva conventions. Jesu, you do him.

but was well on its way with “substantial contacts” or whatever the 9/11 commission said.
Or whatever. Yeah, right.

That’s good enough for me.
Of course. Anything Bush says is good enough for you, ain't it.

if anyones actually read this far, you are a geek. good nite.
If anyone has written this, you are a fucking asshole. Fuck you.

[bulbul]

I note though that I’m not sure what the Bush Admin. (or any other one for that matter) could have done to prevent them.
So you admit they can't actually do anything about certain stuff. Interesting. So if they can't deal with homegrown terrorists, how then is waging a losing war with limited resources in a far away country going to help prevent another terrorist attack from OUTSIDE?

In all the bitching and moaning I hear from the left I never hear anyone actually suggest anything.
Then you're either a| blind, b| dumb or c|both, i.e. a Republican.

I wasn’t willing to let Iraq get to that point, were you?
I have a suggestion: if you're really so concerned about America's safety, why don't you go down to the next army recruiting post and fucking enlist? Hell, I'd be even willing to put a few bucks towards some armor plating!

[wintermute]

Why again should we have kept our troops in Saudi Arabia after we occupied Iraq?

Maybe to demonstrate that we wouldn't appease terrorists?

Finally, the NYT, which has printed demonstrably false stories, proactively peddled the now discredited Valerie Plame "scandal"

Ummmm..... Are you saying that the Bush administration didn't reveal the identity of a CIA agent, endangering many intelligence operatives (including all those working at Brewster Jennings Associates, many of whom were actively under cover) in order to punish one reporter for saying that the Nigeria Yellowcake story has no substantial truth to it, or that it wasn't scandalous for them to do so? Whichever is the case, I'd love to see your reasoning...

For three days after the US and British governments thwarted a plot to blow up between 10 and 20 airliners by using innocuous, chemically based, every- day type products, and while these governments were not yet sure that they caught and arrested all the bad guys, fliers were told to hold off on bringing these types of products onto planes. This is "stupid fear mongering?" Please. Thank God you're not in charge.

A plot by people who didn't yet have passports, and so were almost certainly not going to put their plan into action within a few days. A plot that involved no-one in America, so preventing people bringing bottles of water onto aircraft within the US served absolutely no purpose. And MI6 has since said that any tiny amount of doubt that they had that there were members of the plot still on the loose came entirely from the political pressure to make early arrests, rather than waiting for them to make a practice run with dummy explosives. Even given that, though, their report said that the risk of any attackers still being on the loose was so minimal that there should be no reason to step up security by any noticable amount. And it looks like they were right. Of course, if there were still plotters on the loose, the massive, obvious, public increase in security would simply have driven them to ground to dream up new attacks, instead of being quietly arrested at the airport...

Yeah you people have been slinging this one around for the last 3 or 4 years. Still waiting to find out which rights I don't have anymore. Please advise.

The right to make phone calls without the government listening in. The right to not be held indefinately without trial.

[T]he Administration has actually released hundreds of these people only for our troops (including two of my friends) to come across them with AK-47's and rocket launchers a second time.

You claim to be friends with people shooting at US troops? I have to admit, I didn't expect that.

And, of course, the vast majority of those they've released have never done anything to suggest that they're members of a terrorist group, or any more anti-American than you'd expect someone to be after being held in Guantanomo Bay...

Still. Maybe we should adopt the same logic with domestic murder cases. "Well, we don't have any actual evidence that he did it, but we released a guy last week, and he went on to kill again, so we'll just keep him locked up forever without trial." Would you feel like that would keep you safe?

My understanding is that al Qaeda was not quite yet in bed with Sadaam on an "operational basis" by the time we invaded... but was well on its way with "substantial contacts" or whatever the 9/11 commission said. That's good enough for me.

Yes, al Qaeda was at the point of saying "We will not destroy your secular government and install a Sharia theocracy until after America has fallen"! And Hussain had reduced the number of secret police that he had commited to rooting out and killing al Qaeda operatives! They are clearly going to be BFF before you know it! Whereas, the Saudi Arabian government provided al Qaeda with money and training camps, so the US, in its attempt to destroy al Qaeda's allies... ummm... well... does nothing.

[Jesurgislac]

todd wrote: 3. Jesurgislac: no response warranted.

See? This is why it doesn't pay to feed trolls. If only everyone had responded the way I did, Todd wouldn't have bothered responding, instead of posting yet another long, long list of utter nonsense proving he's had his head in a bag since 9/11.

[Bugmaster]

I agree that, in general, the government should strive to protect American citizens; but that should not be its only goal. The current administration acts as though it is, and it is willing to sacrifice everything -- especially our liberty -- to achieve it. I think that, if we end up living in a dictatorship due to our fear of the terrorists, then we would've done much more irreparable damage than any suicide bombers ever could... and that's the way things are headed right now.

Like Fred said, it's all about the attitude. You could say, "You bombed us ? Fine. Now die while we prosper", or you could say, "OMGWTFBBQBOMB ! Quick, everyone hide inside their basements and put a sock in your mouths for safety !", which is what the current administration is doing. Attitude reflects policy, and our current policy is self-destructive.

[cjmr's husband]

I can understand spamming your illegal casino, but poker supplies? You can get poker supplies at Rite Aid. I think they might sell "OMGWTFBBQ" as well :-)

Re: Beltway Snipers: no, the government shouldn't have been invading our privacy to catch them, and they weren't. (But they should have been invading the privacy of the gun stores... Not that I want to start THAT debate up again.)

You'll note a major difference in the three terrorist problems in those six months: The beltway snipers were CAUGHT.

[Steve]

This is how I prefer to sum up Bush...
Bush: blah blah blah blah resolve blah blah blah blah blah blah blah resolve blah blah blah resolve blah blah blah resolve blah blah blah

I've never heard so much use of the word resolve. I never would have picked that word to be the most motivational statement of strength to middle America.

[A Texan in Bavaria]

Steve: I've never heard so much use of the word resolve.

"Resolve" is the brand name of a carpet cleaner, right? Scared people sometimes leave messes on the carpet.

I think there might be a connection.

[Steve]

Todd, you seem to suggest the Republican Administration is simply being vigilant, not fearmongering.

Hmmm...howabout this...
The first sign of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.

or this....
This is an enemy more dangerous than any we have faced in the 20th century. This is the fight of our time.

or, well, this...
Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction.

For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country.

Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world.

The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming.

It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.

----

Anybody want to try to count the lies (including overstatements and intentional distortions) in the above State of the Union address?

[Steve]

[Colin] Powell joins opponents of Bush tribunal plan

Looks like Powell is one of those do-thing wusses who thinks we should appease the terrorists.

[Steve]

Oops "do-thing" should have been "do-nothing"

[Beth]

Beth: Re LBM. Point granted

Thank you.

same questions as re the anthrax attacks posed to you- is the Administration responsible for not preventing him and the other guy?

What answer would satisfy you? If I say yes, that means they blood of those they killed is on Bush's hands. If I say no, it calls into question the entire War on Terror rationale and affirms Fred's point: we can never defeat terrorism altogether; the best we can do is try to minimize its impact and go on with our lives.

What should have been done? Should we start spying on black males who convert to Islam?

Again, you seem to be underlining Fred's point. If my choice is between embracing totalitarian methods or living with the threat of terrorism, I'll gladly choose the latter.

[Dave]

Bravo, Fred. Patrick Henry and FDR would weep to see what their country's come to.

[Angelika]

I agree that, in general, the government should strive to protect American citizens; but that should not be its only goal. The current administration acts as though it is, and it is willing to sacrifice everything -- especially our liberty -- to achieve it.

Well, I'm not so sure that's true. When hurricane Katrina came along last year, the administration wasn't acting at all as if their goal was to protect the safety of American citizen.

[Lucia]

From today's WaPo article on Colin Powell's refusal to go along with the Bush plan to legalize torture alternative interrogation:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who supports the administration, said he did not think the Bush plan would endanger U.S. troops because al-Qaida doesn't take prisoners. "The prisoners they do take they behead," he said.

Never mind weeping: it is to vomit. Thank you, Fred, for all you do.

[LL]

I don't know about all the points made in comments so far (some I agree with, some I don't), but I think Fred's initial point is well taken, and not tremendously overstated. I live in Texas, which is (with the possible exception of Austin) solidly pro-Bush. My mother (who lives in Oklahoma) still thinks Bush is great, that he's getting a bad rap RE the war and Katrina, etc. She is routinely frightened of some extremely remote threat (despite the fact that she's a 61-yr-old church secretary who lives in a suburb of OKC), mostly because she just watches too much TV news, which is all crisis all the time. I tell her to stop watching, but she won't. If people from the NE and west coast are sick of being lectured by Bush supporters about how we don't care about terrorism and if we would only sit back and let Bush take care of everything, unimpeded by niceties like "laws" and "logic," we'd forever be safe, imagine being surrounded by it for 5 years. I think that's many people's (mine, anyway) problem with Bush et al: despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary, we're all supposed to agree with him that he's done a great job. He genuinely seems puzzled that anybody thinks he's NOT Superpresident, and seems to believe that the only reason anybody disagrees with him and his methods is because he gets bad press. WE just don't understand the threat. We're all so simpleminded and easy to manipulate that we believe he's done a shitty job simply because Michael Moore said it or the New York Times printed bad news about Iraq or whatever. Anymore, the NYT is little better than fishwrap, but I don't need them or anybody else to tell me Bush is a shitty leader. It's like he's following the Shitty Leader Handbook, doing everything you're not supposed to do to inspire confidence in your abilities. I don't even bother paying attention to anything he or his proxies say anymore. That's how little confidence I have in the Bush govt. I wish he'd just shut the hell up for the next two years and leave the rest of us alone. Take a long vacation down in Crawford or something and try not to jack anything else up while you're at it. Please.

[Beth]

Orcinus has a piece which makes a nice companion to this one. The cartoon is particularly apt.

[bulbul]

And Tuesday' Daily Show and Colbert Report were right on the money. Colbert had an idea quite similar to the cartoon Beth linked to.

New Yorkers -- those actually, personally, physically affected by the Sept. 11 attacks
Fred, I love what you write and especially how you write. The sentence above - best. Aliteration. Ever.

[Jeff]

todd:
Rather, on the tactics that repulse you, like surveillance of foreign bank records, warrant less phone tapping of foreign originated calls, guantanamo etc, we (or at least I) don’t support these things because we are "scared," but because we don’t think there is anything improper or illegal about them.

Warrant-less phone taps are a direct violation of the FISA act, which specificly forbids them. Guantanimo violates several articles of the Geneva Convention, which the Supreme Court has stated the US must obey.

I suppose they could have used even more intrusive methods to investigate

Like, um, any?

I cannot understand why everything this Administration does to prevent attacks is automatically bad in the eyes of those on the left.

Because they are a) blatently illegal and b) serve to strengthen the Executive Branch at the expense of the other two.

In all the bitching and moaning I hear from the left I never hear anyone actually suggest anything.

WTC Attack #1 -- all perpertrators, including the ringleader, in jail. Yet when Kerry suggested "good, old-fashioned police work" (the kind that caught the London group, BTW), he was laughed at.

1998 is not 2002. Yeesh.

Isn't it time to call us traitors? That's the next line in the Republican playbook.

LL:
She is routinely frightened of some extremely remote threat (despite the fact that she's a 61-yr-old church secretary who lives in a suburb of OKC).

I can't imagine [Timothy McVeigh] why [unknown co-conspiritors] she would. Although she probably doesn't visualize her fears as white Americans.

[bulbul]

Because they are a) blatently illegal and b) serve to strengthen the Executive Branch at the expense of the other two.
not to mention c) quite ineffective.

And check this
for a few more info on the prorities of Bushco and good ideas Democrats have.

[Amy]

Todd

I don't agree with most of what you say, but I appreciate that you read this blog, and try to engage us. Thanks for the dialogue.

[Chimera]

I am really getting tired of the cons/Reps/whomever griping that the Dems are only ever criticizing but never offering solutions of their own. Why? Several reasons: When the Dems offer their own ideas (as legislation) they never see the light of day, or, alternatively, the ideas are swiped and the Reps claim they came up with them themselves. And, here's the biggie -- just who exactly is running this show, anyway, hmmmm???

[Beth]

In all the bitching and moaning I hear from the left I never hear anyone actually suggest anything.

Here are some I've heard:

1. Fully fund port security so they can inspect a reasonable percentage of containers.

2. Train airport screeners in the best methods of identifying suspicious passengers.

3. Distribute anti-terrorism funds among states based on which are the most likely targets or conduits for terrorists.

4. Work with the nations of the former Soviet Union to secure nuclear stockpiles so they don't fall into the hands of terrorists.

5. Maintain good relations with the Muslim-American community. Their willingness to share their suspicions with the authorites may help prevent future attacks.

6. Work with our allies throughout the world. Preventing international terrorism requires international cooperation.

7. Work on improving relations with Muslims throughout the world. Take every opportunity to provide disaster relief, medical aid, etc. Hold their goverments to higher standards regarding the treatment of their citizens. (And don't invade their countries unless you have a damn good reason.)

8. Do something about Pakistan before it becomes the next Afghanistan.

These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure you could find plenty more if you looked.

[Angelika]

Let me add some suggestions:

1. Invest heavily in alternative energy sources and energy saving programs - so the US isn't that depended on oil from Muslim countries.

2. Stop verbally threatening Muslim countries (heck, if an American President would call my country part of an 'Axis of Evil' I would do all I could to lay hands on nuclear weapons, too.)

3. Increase funds for development aid worldwide. Happy, prosperous people are less likely to become terrorists.

4. Treat governments/populations of other countries with respect. Being smaller, and less well armed doesn't make independent nations automatically serfdoms of the US - and the citizens of these countries don't take it well being treated like that.

5. Uphold civil rights highly in this country. It's hard to critize tyrants, if oneself tortures and keeps illegal prisions.

[Jesurgislac]

Both Angelika and Beth have made excellent posts. Todd, if you come back and respond to them sensibly, I'll apologize for calling you a donkey.

[wintermute]

Bugmaster: I agree that, in general, the government should strive to protect American citizens; but that should not be its only goal. The current administration acts as though it is, and it is willing to sacrifice everything -- especially our liberty -- to achieve it.

Angelika: Well, I'm not so sure that's true. When hurricane Katrina came along last year, the administration wasn't acting at all as if their goal was to protect the safety of American citizen.

Argument 1: Ah, you forget that Katrina was sent by God to punish those wicked sinners in NOLA - surely it's more than coincidence that it hit one of the major centres of the shrimping industries, which (as we all know) is an abomnation in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, any attempt to stop people dying would have brought down God's wrath on the federal government, possibly costing Republicans the election...

Argument 2: The government is only interested in protecting us from those nasty brown people with the funny accents and odd hats. Natural disasters don't count towards the death toll, in just the same way as the Unabomber wouldn't be considered a terrorist, if he struck today. In fact, all the people who died in the hurricane are 100% certain not to be the victims of a terrorist attack, so the government protected them successfully!

Argument 3: The operative phrase is "the American citizen". There's only one person who Bush really considers an American citizen, and whose life he feels the need to protect. And that person (the son of the previous Republican president) had been successfully evacuated from NOLA months before Katrina hit, and was safely in Washignton at the time.

[J]

Angelika: Let me add some suggestions:

Right on. I'd add a sixth:

6.) Realize that democracy is a process that may or may just as easily NOT yield the outcome of a government that acts and looks exactly like ours and is completely friendly to us (Venezuela, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, France). Accept that Natan Sharansky was wrong--that democracies often may NOT get along--and accept that while we can promote "democracy" as a general values, we cannot pick and choose from among the outcomes of democracy.

[LL]

RE "I can't imagine [Timothy McVeigh] why [unknown co-conspiritors] she would. Although she probably doesn't visualize her fears as white Americans."

I figured someone would mention that. I would say that the chances of being blown up while inside or adjacent to a federal building are still extremely remote (actually, probably more remote than they were 11 years ago). Also, few people in Oklahoma refused to enter public buildings even right after the bombing, maybe because as far as most were concerned, all/most of those directly involved were apprehended. We did look askance at large Ryder trucks for awhile, but we weren't hysterical with fear, demanding that all 20-something white guys be monitored for possible terrorist activities. Maybe if McVeigh et al had blown up a plane, we would have. I suspect Al Qaeda learned some things from observing the OKC bombing and their earlier failure to do much damage to the WTC with a car bomb. Too bad our government didn't learn anything from those incidents, apparently.

[Beth]

While we're at it, J, let's remember that democracy isn't measured in purple fingers. Holding elections to determine which group of thugs get to call themselves 'the government' is not democracy. Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Voting is simply a means to that end. A country can only attain democracy when its people are more loyal to democratic ideals than to their own group or faction. It can only maintain it if every party in power accepts that sooner or later the other guys may well take over, and so they'd better enshrine respect for out-of-power groups because they'll eventually be one of them. When we forget that, we not only mess up foreign affairs with our absurd attempts to impose democracy on others, we also put our own democracy at risk.

[ohiolibrarian]

Hear, Hear Beth!!

Makes me wonder if Todd/anon. ever took Civics or just failed the class.

IMHO, respect for the Constitution and the values of democracy is what makes someone an American. That's how we have been able to successfully integrate large numbers of immigrants.

[bulbul]

A country can only attain democracy when its people are more loyal to democratic ideals than to their own group or faction. It can only maintain it if every party in power accepts that sooner or later the other guys may well take over, and so they'd better enshrine respect for out-of-power groups because they'll eventually be one of them
Makes me wonder how the present-day United States measure up to this standard...

[Dina]

and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.

Um, that's not exactly something I find admirable.

Then again, Churchill was an asshat.

[Kristy]

There used to be an arguable legal justification for rendition. Alas, President Bush announced last week when unveiling the new Army Field Manual that our government will no longer engage in that practice, which in my view was precipitated by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Hamdan.

So... Todd, let me get this straight. Assuming you're right (and I'm not sure you are, but for the sake of argument), assuming that until recently there was some loophole that let the government circumvent our own laws regarding "cruel and unusual punishment" by farming out our dirty work to other countries while still technically being within the limits of the law... are you saying you'd be ok with that? That as long as the government keeps one toe within the letter of the law, it's okie-fine that they're tapdancing all over the spirit? (Not to mention, y'know, morals and ethics that say torture is a Bad Thing?)

I just ask to make sure we're on the same page here.

And believe it or not, I actually am familiar with how enemy combatants can and cannot be treated. I'm not speaking of "enemy combatants captured on the battlefield";
I'm talking about civilians, American civilians, taken from their homes and never charged with a crime, never being given a lawyer or a day in court, with families that don't know their status. Wee bit of a difference there.