Vote Bush or Die

[Black Dog]

The politics of fear.

Speaking to voters in Iowa on September 7, Cheney expressed what is now the very public message of the Bush campaign: "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again. And we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating." In other words, vote for us or you'll die.

The double talk and political opportunism by the Administration on these issues go beyond poor taste. By sending conflicting messages to the public, Administration officials create confusion about what actually poses a threat. Beyond that, each unnecessary warning produces "threat fatigue"--the tendency to ignore warnings when they are repeated--in the American public. That means Americans will become less receptive to truly urgent terrorism warnings when they arise. And if recent polling is any indication, this erosion in public confidence is already occurring. A new survey by Columbia University found that 59 percent of those polled would not evacuate their town immediately if directed to do so by the government.

This is not to imply that the threat of terrorism isn't real. There is no reason to doubt the staff statement of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are "actively striving to attack the United States and inflict mass casualties." That means the government has a solemn obligation to do whatever is required to protect the American people from this threat.

But there are now justifiable doubts about what is actually dictating our government's actions. Today critical decisions appear to be guided by political operatives instead of terrorism experts. And in the long run, that has weakened national security--the very issue Republicans want so desperately to call their own.

[easychair]

I'm an American trying to escape the relentless flaming of rabid conservatives on political discussion sites. But I suppose they're here too.

The truth is that terrorist attacks against the United States will be much much more likely under another Bush Administration because if Bush is reelected America will go to war with Iran.

I've followed the neocon movement since the late Eighties and I've watched Wolfowitz, Perle, and the rest of their cabal gradually develop their prememptive war strategy which is now known as the Bush Doctrine. They had been trying to implement it for years but shortly before 9-11 they said it wouldn't come to pass unless America suffered another "Pearl Harbor type Attack."

After 9-11 Wolfowitz and the newly created Office of Special Plans did a complete end run around the intelligence establishment and manipulated Bush into declaring a holy war against the entire Muslim world. They exploited Bush's fundamentalist world view and made him believe that he was leading a messianic mission to save the world from a demonic Islamist threat armed with WMD and hell bent on annihilating Israel and the Judeo-Christian West.

Iraq is just the starting platform for the neocon Pax Americana plan and the Pentagon and the White house have been ramping up the rhetoric about Iranian state sponsored terrorism and Iran's alleged WMD program. On the one hand you have Rumsfeld making totally false assertions about Iran's nuclear program and involvement in the Iraqi insurgency and on the other you have Bush saying we will take the war to the terrorists and strike wherever we find them. You don't have to be a political scientist to figure out what's coming.

Iran has internal terrorist elements and Iranian banks are used to conduit terrorist money but the new moderate government can't act forcefully against them until it can gain significant concessions from the West and assure the nation that American hegemony is no longer a threat to Islamic rule. They have offered international inspectors unprecedented access to their nuclear facilities and were rejected by the Bush administration and their recent pledge to help Iraq stem the flow of insurgents across borders was ignored and then called disingenuous by Secretary Rumsfeld.

Iran is our only hope for winning the war on Islamist terrorism. They have enormous influence in the Muslim world and could neutralize the radical mullahs from Saudi Arabia to Indonesisa.

America should force Israel to stand down and open its nuclear weapons program for international inspection. Then they should be made to disarm. There will be no peace in the region as long as the balance of power is so lopsided in Israel's favor.

We should normalize diplomatic relations with Iran, return their confiscated assets, allow American companies to invest in Iran's economic development, and work with Iran and other Muslim nations (particularly Palestine) on a plan of reconcilliation.

This is not appeasement. A political solution is the only option for the Middle East but if Bush is returned to power we must prepare for an all out war with a nation of sixty million people and a world wide jihad.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I still can't get over how easily Americans seem to be accepting these stinky little facts:

-GWH Bush ran the CIA

-Osama was trained by the CIA

-the Bush's are oil millionaires

-the bin Ladens are Saudi oil-service millionaires

-PNAC needed a Pearl Harbor event

-a Pearl Harbor event happened

-GW Bush called it his 'trifecta'

-Saudi's including bin Laden family were given immediate special treatment after the event

-GW Bush administration (incl. Condi and Dick, oil millionaires) launched an attack on an oil-rich country that had nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor event

-oil prices have been sky-high ever since on "fears" of supply problems.

[August1991]

Politics of fear?

In the last Canadian federal election, the Liberals essentially said that a vote for Harper and the "Alliance Conservatives" was a vote for the end of Canada.

Cheney giving a speech in Iowa is nothing like the sight of a gun firing in your face.

When the Republicans run an ad with people fleeing a New York City mushroom cloud, then you might have grounds for being upset. I'm sure the Dems will use fear too.

Incidentally, the Moore argument that "fear" motivates gun ownership seems wrong to me. I would argue that fear is the naturally Leftist argument. Fearful people are inclined to want protection from a strong state.

[Black Dog]

In the last Canadian federal election, the Liberals essentially said that a vote for Harper and the "Alliance Conservatives" was a vote for the end of Canada.

What's your point, and what does it have to do with the expolitation of the American public's fear of terrorism for political gain?

Cheney giving a speech in Iowa is nothing like the sight of a gun firing in your face.

I would posit that stating that Al Q'Aeda favours a Democrat or that "if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election" is, in fact, a far lower form of politicking than the Liberal attack ads.

When the Republicans run an ad with people fleeing a New York City mushroom cloud, then you might have grounds for being upset. I'm sure the Dems will use fear too.

You might want to actually read the article above. It has plenty of examples of how the .O.P political machine has cynically exploited thememory of 9-11 and the threat of future terror attacks to bolster their image.

Again:

The double talk and political opportunism by the Administration on these issues go beyond poor taste. By sending conflicting messages to the public, Administration officials create confusion about what actually poses a threat. Beyond that, each unnecessary warning produces "threat fatigue"--the tendency to ignore warnings when they are repeated--in the American public. That means Americans will become less receptive to truly urgent terrorism warnings when they arise. And if recent polling is any indication, this erosion in public confidence is already occurring. A new survey by Columbia University found that 59 percent of those polled would not evacuate their town immediately if directed to do so by the government.

[I miss Reagan]

This is true, the libs in Canada used fear to promote their agenda. But they had a willing and gullable population to believe them. As for Cheney's comments, the US people have real cause for fear. With the last Dem in power refusing to take OBL and cutting down the military and intelligence spending. And with Kerry's record on voting against defence spending the US people have real reason to believe that the Dems don't take the terrorism threat as seriously as the Repubs.

[Black Dog]

IMR, you'd swallow any turd the G.O.P. tells you is chocolate.

With the last Dem in power refusing to take OBL and cutting down the military and intelligence spending

And with Kerry's record on voting against defence spending

Can you actually back that up? Or are you just parroting Bush's talking points?

While Cheney was boasting of his cuts to th emilitary ("Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements. … You've directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s, and F-16s—all great systems … but we have enough of them."), Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)

It seems to me that he Republicans can campaign with doubletalk and fearmongering and get away with it because they have awilling and gullible population to believe them.

[easychair]

I still can't get over how easily Americans seem to be accepting these stinky little facts:

-GWH Bush ran the CIA

-Osama was trained by the CIA

-the Bush's are oil millionaires

-the bin Ladens are Saudi oil-service millionaires

-PNAC needed a Pearl Harbor event

-a Pearl Harbor event happened

-GW Bush called it his 'trifecta'

-Saudi's including bin Laden family were given immediate special treatment after the event

-GW Bush administration (incl. Condi and Dick, oil millionaires) launched an attack on

Can you tell me where you heard W call 9-11 his trifecta?

I don't think the Saudis who hit WTC and the Penatgon were part of a U.S. funded government conpiracy because our alphabet soup intel agencies spook each other constantly and it would have been very difficult to conceal. Not to mention the multi-level cooperation you'd have to have at all the other agencies (FAA, NORAD, NTSB, etc.) to pull it off. Someone would have blown the whistle. I do believe American policies were the catalyst for Islamist extremism and we did train terorists in Afganistan during the war with the USSR. We've trained terrorists in lots of other countries too including Columbia where we've been fighting a secret war for forty years.

However, I will say that it's a total crock that we never anticipated planes being used as missiles and there are still many unanswered questions about massive protocal and procedure failures during the 9-11 hijackings.

My mind is still open though. I'm aware of the connections you made but there's still plausible deniability.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear easychair,

I don't think the Saudis who hit WTC and the Penatgon were part of a U.S. funded government conpiracy

I would have to agree that this would be a mighty large conspiracy theory. However, I would go so far as to say that there is evidence that the US knew beforehand about the attacks, and needed to allow them to happen. How is it that a US official bragged to the press "We knew Osama called his mother right after the attacks" and they knew nothing else?

[easychair]

Dear easychair,

I don't think the Saudis who hit WTC and the Penatgon were part of a U.S. funded government conpiracy

I would have to agree that this would be a mighty large conspiracy theory. However, I would go so far as to say that there is evidence that the US knew beforehand about the attacks, and needed to allow them to happen. How is it that a US official bragged to the press "We knew Osama called his mother right after the attacks" and they knew nothing else?

I never heard that bin Laden called Saudi Arabia right after 9-11. DIA and NSA/CSS would have been monitoring the telecommunications of bin Laden's friends and associates because he was already a wanted man for his other activities and attacks.

He was probably using a satellite phone and would have left his location before they could beam him up. Still, it makes you wonder.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Can you tell me where you heard W call 9-11 his trifecta?

It was all over the news for a few days ...

Trifecta

More Trifecta

... it would have been very difficult to conceal. Not to mention the multi-level cooperation you'd have to have at all the other agencies (FAA, NORAD, NTSB, etc.) to pull it off. 

Well that argument doesn't hold. If you believe the straight story, Osama pulled it off without any multi-level cooperation, so how necessary would it be?

The interesting thing is how quick everyone was to credit the 9/11 attackers with some great logistical genius. But in fact, the attacks were childishly simple: Send out 5 teams to each get on a air flight one morning. This is the kind of 'sheer brilliance' it takes to do what?... Run a travel agency, or a courier company? Ooooo!!!

I'm aware of the connections you made but there's still plausible deniability.

I guess what I'm surprised at is that plausible deniability is enough for so many voters.

[takeanumber]

Once again, you have some posters on these boards who will justify wrong doing by some by pointing out the wrong doing by others.

Which is what I've come to expect from those posters.

So I'm not surprised, just a little dissapointed.

Cheney's comments were wrong. I don't think that he mistakenly made them. It's a pretty clear message.

It's pretty low. I'm sure more than a few bodies are spinning right now.

[Jackmoney]

Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court that means he can run a third time.

[Montgomery Burns]

Black Dog links to The Nation. Now there is a credible source. It's nothing but a Bush-bashing site. It even has a pic of the President as Alfred E. Neuman on its site. Like August 1991's thread said...why does the Left hate so much?

The Nation has Eric Alterman writing on their site. This is the same guy who wrote a book claiming that the media is not dominated by liberals, but by conservatives. I'm sure it was in the comedy section or the fiction section of the bookstores.

Weren't you the guy who link to Indymedia the other day?

[daniel]

This is true, the libs in Canada used fear to promote their agenda. But they had a willing and gullable population to believe them. As for Cheney's comments, the US people have real cause for fear. With the last Dem in power refusing to take OBL and cutting down the military and intelligence spending. And with Kerry's record on voting against defence spending the US people have real reason to believe that the Dems don't take the terrorism threat as seriously as the Repubs.

Actually, the fear the Liberals used was the return of the conservative experience that Ontarians had just experienced.

In the end, there was no way Ontarians wanted that back again.

So it wasn't gullibilty, it was the memory of recent experience.

~

So much for Kerry's record. More importantly, how about Bush's record? Before 9-11 he was the laughing stock of the world. After 9-11 he's the most feared laughing stock of the world.

And we thought Reagan was a doozy!!

Are you better off today that you were four years ago?

[Black Dog]

Black Dog links to The Nation. Now there is a credible source. It's nothing but a Bush-bashing site. It even has a pic of the President as Alfred E. Neuman on its site. Like August 1991's thread said...why does the Left hate so much?

I find it telling you never attack the substance of any of the articles you ooppose. Why? It's basic phsycholgy: people don't seek out views that are contrary to ones they hold and will resist any informatiion that challenges them, even if it entails irrational dissmissal. This is especially true in the case of doctrinaires like Mr. Burns, who wil structure their arguments around idealogically based presuppositions (ie. "the media has a liberal bias", "Reagan brought down the Soviet Union") and run from there. Does he challenge Alterman's methodology? Does he dispute how he came to the conclusions in his book? No. Because the opinion expressed does not jive with teh accepted orthodoxy, it is immediately dismissed.

For these individuals doesn't matter whether their beliefs are substansially incorrect: they believe them to be correct, which is enough. It's an almost religious faith: the Gospel according to Rush, perhaps?

If nothing else, it's an interesting look into the human psyche.

[Shakeyhands]

Now this is some great comment... I just joined this group and its nice to see the way this post reads... The last thing this world needs is another 4 years of Bush/Cheney.. God help us if they steal this one too!

[cgarrett]

i'd like to add that the bush administration is more about unwarranted fear than anything else.

lets face the facts regarding the "war on terrorism". more people die of work related accidents every year in the u.s. than have EVER fallen victim to terrorism. there is currently a plague sweeping the u.s. in the form of obesity which now affects tens of millions of americans. i don't see this administration deciding to bankrupt a nation for the cause of keeping people safe in the workplace or eating less and being healthier.

9/11 was a great excuse to create a new "perpetual war" just like the "cold war" and bush seniors "war on drugs". if the event was not created or condoned by the current administration, then it was certainly a godsend. try to imagine bush without this war... just some guy trashing the economy! no excuse to be there!

[BigDookie6]

Here's an idea that the world might like:

The world is mad at the U.S. because they think we entered Iraq illegally. So be it... We can speculate, but still no concrete evidence.

The world thinks our war on terror is misguided as well. Funny, never saw the rest of the world confront this??

Anyway, the war on terror is a touchy situation because we are not fighting any particular country. When GW is re-elected, lets just pull out all of our forces, and give Iraq to the terrorists! Let them become a "state"! They can continue "clitorechtemies" on women, torture their athletes, train more terrorists in camps, etc. Give them about three years to get this started.

In GW's last year in office... We start dropping bombs! Big bombs! "Ladies & gentlemen, it is now 750 degrees and very cloudy in Iraq.... Thank you very much!"

Then nobody could complain that it was illegal, and terrorists are wiped out!

[Black Dog]

Hey look! The trailer park has a broadband connection!

[cgarrett]

no problem dookie... really. i'm just saying that i'm glad its not coming out of my pocket!

i'm happy that the u.s. is cleaning up at their own expense...

and i know its expensive... what with an entire percentage point of the u.s. population dropping below the poverty line last year alone, more money spent on arms then all federal money spent on everything else combined, the national debt being a staggering five times gdp...

no one has ever accused the current administration of "not having direction"... if thats the direction that the voters of the u.s. really want.

[BigDookie6]

Hey look! The trailer park has a broadband connection!

Black Dog's memeber status is in "The Big League"

You post a lot in here... Trying to get to the "Majors" huh?

Must be easy when you're unemployed, milking Canada's welfare system. Anything for member status posts, huh? As I said in a previous post, you must be a women! You're too emotional Blackie... Or depressed?? Depression and discouragement usually set in when on the governments nipple too long!

[RB]

Must be easy when you're unemployed, milking Canada's welfare system. Anything for member status posts, huh? As I said in a previous post, you must be a women! You're too emotional Blackie... Or depressed?? Depression and discouragement usually set in when on the governments nipple too long!

I take offence to align women in the same breath with being unemployed, on welfare, emotional, depressed, discouragement – this is a historical pattern of keeping women deprived of social, economic or political status - it does not help the women when we wish to promote them as individuals with less dependancy.

Rita B

[BigDookie6]

I take offence to align women in the same breath with being unemployed, on welfare, emotional, depressed, discouragement – this is a historical pattern of keeping women deprived of social, economic or political status - it does not help the women when we wish to promote them as individuals with less dependancy.

Rita B

Easy Rita... Was not directed towards you or an attack on women. I'm happily married! And love her dearly! My wife even agrees with this point I will make to you....

It is a proven, scientific fact that women are more emotional than men (HELLO minstrel cycle!!) Most women are insecure (not in a dependent way) but with "how they look", clothes, hair, etc. And always gossiping about one another. Most men are naturally independent. We don't gossip or wonder who likes who in the workplace or anywhere else! Or if someone's offended or not. I will admit that women groom us, making us more sensitive and compassionate, and this is a good thing

[daniel]

BigDookie6:

Your label reads "Better to reign in America than..."

But you have people serving in Canada and Europe as well as everywhere else around the world. Make up your mind, flip-flopper