This being an election year, it is inevitable that the threat of terrorist strikes against the US will be shouted by all manner of right-wing politicians and pundits in an effort to keep the electorate scared to the point that the GOP will regain the majority, or at least stem the blue tide that has been ushering them out of office.
It is fairly common for conservatives to claim that we are "at war" with an insidious enemy that wants nothing less than to destroy the United States. Being the cynical person that I am, I am compelled to ask a very simple question to all of the conservatives who lose sleep to the fear that letting our guard down for even one second will allow the radical jihadists to turn our great nation into a theocracy guided by sharia law.
How, exactly, are radical Muslims going to destroy our country?
I ask this question because the claim seems like one of the most absurd that I've heard in recent years. I simply cannot comprehend how such a thing would happen. So please, conservatives, enlighten me.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Hey Mike, you pose an interesting question and one that I think is just as ludicrous as the answer you think you are going to get. I say that with all due respect of course. As long as America supports Israel, and as long as there are muslim extremists, there are those who do want to destroy america because then they can take over Israel a tiny country of Jews in the center of Islam, which they have been unsuccesful at doing because of US support. They will destroy us anyway they can. economically, murderously or with negative propaganda...which I think is working. This is a hatred that is taught and engrained into the children of these extremists and if you think that it is simply going away you are sadly mistaken. It has gotten slowly but steadily worse for decades. 9/11 could have crippled our economy by keeping people from travel going out, etc. It would appear that Americans are continuing to travel and move about even though we have had terrorist attacks on our soil. It doesn't seem as though a catastrophic event such as 9/11 worked but, more of them would certainly work. Hopefully they are weaker and less brazen than they were in 2001 and like I always say...thank Bush for that. We aren't a bunch of crazies that think al quaeda is going to start dropping bombs, but don't dismiss the intent and the catastrophe of 9/11 as though it is gone. :)N
btw, I am linking this for my HOT TOPIC ALERT if you don't mind...I think it will be a good discussion topic, thanks loads. :)N
Hey, Nikki. Thanks for the comment. I assure you that I ask this question in all seriousness, not just to get some new material to use against conservatives (we all know I have plenty of that on hand. Ha ha.)
And thanks for the headline link, too!
You definately don't need any more material... no problem on the link, hopefully some non-chickens will show up and give you some hell...hehe. :)N
Actually, Nikki brings up a good point... As long as America supports Israel...
Cool, let's stop supporting Israel. At least that will solve that problem and save us some tax money. ;-)
Thought this article might be of interest...
Obama on Zionism and Hamas
Ha ha, good one, db. I think if we stop supporting Israel, that would open up a whole other can of worms (to say the least).
EvilPoet, thanks for the link. Maybe we should send it to Hamas and see if they rescind their endorsement. I liked how Obama said that we don't handle nuance well in politics and then went on to explain the nuance of his position.
Hi Mike.
Despite previous comments you may have read from me, I am actually somewhat conservative (at least on immigration and fiscal issues). However, I am not a Republican because I strongly disagree with how they present their political arguments. It seems to me that Republicans need enemies in order to thrive. These enemies are necessary because they give Republicans something to drum up fear about and run against.
They fear liberals because they will raise our taxes, give our children condoms in schools, and turn the nation into a nanny state.
They fear homosexuals because they threaten the institution of marriage and will teach our children to be lesbians.
They fear illegal immigrants because they speak Spanish and have so many babies that they will eventually increase their political clout.
They fear non-Christians because they hate God, will take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and will kick God out of the public square.
And to answer your question, they fear terrorists because they will take over America and force us to convert to Islam. It would seem to me that if this is what they were concerned about, the emphasis should be on border security and energy independence, not fighting an undefined mission in Iraq. But we must keep fighting there because we fear defeat...and we fear that "they will follow us home if we don't fight them over there."
Obviously, some of what I said in this post is tongue in cheek, but I really do think fear is a major motivating factor at play here. And interestingly, "fear" is exactly what terrorists WANT us to feel. How ironic is that?
Anthony, I totally agree with your assessment of GOP fear tactics. Just on Monday, the feds released a statement that there is no credible threat to the Indianapolis 500 race, but we should all note that it is an attractive target for terrorists. So everyone should go ahead and keep spending money, but stay afraid for the elections this fall.
Khaki, in a comment on this post over at According To Nikki, you said, "The bottom line is that we are facing a terrible threat that wants to see our country destroyed." Perhaps I'm not getting it, but it sounds like you (a Republican) stated that radical Muslims want to destroy America. My question (prompted by that very comment) was: how would they do that?
It's funny I go to some conservative blogs who codemn the President for not being hawkish enough and then I come here and liberals and yes Anthony you are liberal, talk about how we are too hawkish. So tell me again how this middle of the road approach has faired well in Presidential policy when you have conservatives who want more pre-emption and libs who want less or none. Who can win? I think the idea of an exaggerated threat is naive and flat out wrong. If Bush had been even a hair less focused americans would complain that he was ignoring the threat...I think the policy for most liberals when it comes to terrorism is whatever the opposite of Bush is, that is where we stand. That has been the policy of the dems and the left for almost 8 years and quite frankly it is all smoke up the butts of George Soros and the other communists that want to lather up castro and smooch his fanny. just venting thanks for the vent space Mike...:)N
Okay. I'm a liberal. Because Nikki says so.
The fact that I didn't vote for Obama, Clinton, or Edwards in the primary this year and the fact that I didn't vote for Kerry in the 2004 general election obviously don't matter. But because I criticize conservatives and/or Bush, that obviously makes me (and the 70-80% of Americans who also are not satisfied with the way things are going) a flaming liberal. Because Nikki says so.
In case anyone's wondering, I'm actually a libertarian at my core. If you'd like me to articulate the differences between libertarianism and liberalism, I'd be happy to do so, but it appears that you would rather simply call me a liberal without backing up your claims. Fine. Mike's original question still stands, however. It's not about how to fight terrorism, nor is it about how effective Bush is at doing so. It's about how conservatives think the terrorists are going to destroy America.
One other thing.
I realize that Libertarians don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected at the national level at present, so I'm pretty much forced to choose between the Republicans and Democrats.
I am probably philosophically closer to Republicans than Democrats as a whole, but no Democrat has ever accused me of loving terrorists or hating my own country because I don't agree with the President's policies on occasion. So that's why I align myself with the Democrats, even though that's not an endorsement of their actual policies. It's more of a rejection of the way the Republicans have done business as of late.
I wonder how many of these patriotic Republicans will still rally behind their President and talk about the importance of "being united during a time of war" if the next President happens to be far more liberal than they are. That'll be interesting to watch.
Anthony you are liberal on some issues...is there something wrong with that? Should I be insulted when I am called a conservative or a partisan? I am not trying to label you but you seem to allign yourself much more with Mike who is an open and proud liberal than you ever do with me. Mike is a liberal and I don't think he finds that offensive, to the contrary he considers it a compliment. :)N
Not to continue off subject, but comment discussions are the best ;-)
But really, what is a liberal or a conservative? I find most people are in the middle, but mostly out of balance on a variety of issues. Does anyone really fit the left/right mold completely? I hardly ever see the middle personally because it is much more fun to take the extreme stance on a variety of issues on both sides than sit in the middle, but it is that balance that is the product.
I can see the negative connotations of these labels though. I have known countless people who claimed they were "conservative" simply because being liberal is bad, but their views were clearly not conservative. For fence sitters, it is easier to call yourself a conservative than a liberal. Just like religious fence sitters, it is much easier to say your are Christian than to not say it, even if that isn't true.
Nikki is totally partisan and conservative though. ;-)
The problem with political labels is that very few Americans actually buy into the full political platform of one party or the other.
Mike I am cracking up...I just realized I spelled "they're" "there" in my headline link for your post...I am an idiot, but I crack myself up at least, which I am sure most have been laughing already...hehe :)N
"You are a liberal" and "you are a liberal on some issues" are obviously not the same thing.
George Bush supports granting illegal immigrants temporary work visas and increased the size of government. Does that make him a liberal? Those might be liberal positions, but if he were an actual liberal, you would not support him. So there's a difference between "liberal" and "liberal on some issues."
The main issue that Mike and I seem to agree on happens to be Iraq. But would you say Ron Paul and Ted Kennedy have the same political philosophy?
Mike - You're very welcome.
Anthony, Ron Paul and Ted Kennedy do have the same philosophy on Iraq, yes. :)N
Ron Paul and Ted Kennedy both have the same philosophy on Iraq, but Ron Paul is not a liberal. George Bush and Ted Kennedy have the same philosophy on illegal immigration regarding granting temporary visas, but George Bush is not a liberal.
You would not identify yourself as a liberal even though you have a fairly liberal position regarding illegal immigration, for example.
My point is, people may have views on certain subjects that run all over the political spectrum. But it's the totality of their views that matters when it comes to defining someone as a "liberal" or a "conservative."
My first post over here, so be gentle!
I don't personally consider "liberal" an insult, and it's a triumph of the Republican political machine that it's become an insult in the last 10-15 years. Seriously, that's some brilliant politicking there.
I think what Anthony may be reacting to is having all of his beliefs boiled down to one word. Most people don't like being dismissed/minimized, and I don't see why he'd be an exception.
As for the original post, I've noticed that our Crayola Danger Warning system tends to get jacked up to "orange" just before elections. Coincidence? I think not!
Anthony...I know what you are saying. I know you are socially and domestically liberal, economically and fiscally conservative, foreign policy wise liberal, immigration conservative. We were talking about terrorism and I referred to you as a liberal. I don't think you are a flaming liberal...but I do think you allign yourself with left ideals a lot of the time too. total package is not straight liberal I get that...but on this particular issue it appears to me yes. And it isn't a bad thing it just makes for interesting conversation. :)N
Khaki, the Republicans haven't done anything that actually makes us safer, they simply use the threat of terrorist attacks to push through their agenda. For example, we will soon need a REAL ID to board a commercial airline. Department Of Homeland Security documents state that this will deter terrorists who would otherwise board with fake IDs, and as an example, they state that 8 of the 9/11 hijackers used fake IDs. That means that 11 of the 19 would have succeeded anyway because they didn't use fake IDs. So how are we safer? They also admit that people will still be able to board commercial airlines without a REAL ID. So how are we safer? The answer is that we're not. The Republicans are simply using scare tactics to push through their agenda.
Our country, as far as I can tell, can only be destroyed from within. If we allow the GOP to run things, we'll be there before you know it. You know the Bush Justice Department fought to overturn our Miranda rights, right? The right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, who needs that?
Shannon, welcome to the party! You're right about how the GOP has made "liberal" into a sort of curse word. During the '06 campaign season I saw a lot of local Republicans bashing their Democrat opponents as sharing Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco liberal values. Funny part is the Dems won most of the contests anyway.
The color coded threat advisory was the most ingenious thing that they could have devised. It provides them with a dumbed-down method of instilling fear into the general population. I'm sure that the elevation to orange around election times is entirely coincidental, like how it used to happen any time the Bush administration had some bad publicity to deal with.
Mike you always mention the beloved miranda rights...they weren't even offered to americans until 1966...and unless you are an enemy combatant then I wouldn't worry about Bush taking them away from you...are you using a scare tactic to scare americans into thinking their government is more dangerous than terrorists? just sayin...:)N
Nikki,
I would personally close all military bases in foreign countries. And I would remove the US from all foreign alliances. I'm a noninterventionist (not an isolationist). I don't believe in seeking the United Nations' approval before doing something, but I also don't believe the US can selfishly claim "interests" around the world and treat the whole world like its backyard when other countries aren't able to do the same. We are sending battleships to the Persian Gulf, for example, to show Iran that "we mean business." But how would you feel if the Chinese sent battleships to the Gulf of Mexico? Now there's talk about setting up permanent bases in Iraq. So would you be open to Israel and Germany setting up permanent bases in Florida? If we can do it, why can't they?
How am I socially liberal? I don't advocate gay marriage or government handouts at all. I just don't see why people shouldn't be free to marry whoever they want, as long as they are both consenting adults. I don't support federally mandated prayer in schools, but would accept it if the local governments and schools wanted to do it. These are libertarian positions, not liberal ones. I'm not a gun-grabber or an affirmative action advocate either, and being pro-Second Amendment and anti-affirmative action would definitely not make me a "social liberal" like you claim I am. I'm not as easy to peg down as it may appear and would rather articulate my views myself rather than have someone articulate them for me. I encourage you to read Shannon's comment if you haven't done so already.
Regarding my views on Iraq, I don't see why we should insist on staying even though the Iraqis do not want us to be there and do not show any signs of wanting to take over their own country. The war has no clear mission, no clear endgame, and no clear strategy for achieving victory. Our soldiers are fighting bravely, but for what? Don't tell me stuff like "so they can stop the terrorists from destroying America" because that's a slogan (not a strategy) and will take us right back to Mike's original question that nobody in this thread has been able to answer thus far. Exactly HOW would the terrorists like to "destroy" this country? The simple answer is, our own government and citizenry are doing a far better job of destroying this nation than any terrorist, bomb, or hijacked plane ever could. One look at our miserable graduation rates, our budget deficit, our obesity rates, our fragile economy, our health care system, and our culture of wastefulness and impulsivity are slowly bringing this nation to its knees.
Anthony you win. I stand corrected. No need to encourage me to read Shannon's comments. I read them. I still don't understand the uproar. your not liberal I will never say it again. I am a conservative, feel free to label me I won't be offended by it. :)N
Holy cow, look at all the comments. You hit the jackpot with this topic, Mike. There are some excellent points here made by all.
I think that some fear is good in the same way that some stress is good. If we have no stress, than we have no incentive to get up and go. If we have no fear, then we won't protect what is ours, and those few people who are evel will take advantage of us if we are vulnerable.
I do not fear terrorists because I trust our government to protect us, but what if our government turned a blind eye to terrorists? What if? Do we want to play that game, or do we want to always be vigilant and prepared for the worst, while at the same time hoping for the best.
Fear is good. Likewise, Democrats play the same fear game. They claim the world is going to end in 10 years if we don't do something about global warming. Isn't that fear mongering? They say poverty will get worse if we don't do something? Isn't that fear mongering? They say that a McCain Presidency would be a continuation of the Bush presidency. Isnt' that fear mongering?
Like stress, Fear is good. It's used by all good political movements to some extent.
Gosh, I don't care if Anthony is a liberal, conservative, libertarian or what, he's a damn good writer with a ton of brilliant ideas. Why is it when discussing politics people throw out labels, when it's really the issues that matter.
I just thought I'd throw that out.
Anthony said, "Now there's talk about setting up permanent bases in Iraq. So would you be open to Israel and Germany setting up permanent bases in Florida? If we can do it, why can't they?"
Because we are the peacekeepers of the world. Every time something bad happens anywhere, who is the first to sent relief? Who is the first to offer help to those in need? We are.
Who has freed more than 100 million people from the hands of totalitarian dictators in the lat 7 years alone, while most of the rest of the world stood idly by and complained?
Was it Germany? Was is Russia. No. It was the good old U S of A. And we ask nothing in return too.
Anthony is a good writer but he also gave about 5 conservative "labels" having to do with "fearmongering" with no consequence and when I called him liberal all hell broke loose. I don't understand the distinction. Why is he free from accountilbility in his labeling? :)N
Hi Nikki.
It's not the labels themselves that matter. It's the accuracy of the labels you use that matter, especially when you use them directly on another person. You called me a liberal based on your own impressions of me, but it is not an accurate portrayal of my views. So I refuted your statement by describing my positions on various issues, which are more conservative and libertarian than liberal.
The word "liberal" does not offend me. And labels are often necessary. But it's important to get these labels right.
Hey Anthony, I think you are splitting hairs. There is too much "sensitivity" to the discussion that is not offered on all sides, IMO. Most of my views are hyperextended to generalized conservative views quite often. example, my post on patriotism...I didn't mention anything about hating Bush as a symptom of anti-patriotism yet that was the theme of the discussion. I think your point is well taken but a bit hypocritical based on the discussions I have had on my blog and others. now about the topic barely discussed...
Mike, great job. I appreciate your post and for allowing me to link to it. I am out! :)N
This discussion has been very interesting to follow, thanks for all the food for thought one and all.
A final thought to feed your brain and then I'm gonna get my whiny Obama supporting ass outta here. :-D
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."" -John F. Kennedy, Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960
Thank you Evil Poet. Can't imagine a finer statement from a finer President regarding this issue.
Freadom, fear is not bad. Fear is one of the survival instincts that help to keep us alive. The manipulation of people's fear for personal gain is bad. Everything needed to thwart the attacks of September 11th was in place on September 10th. All of the "security" measures that the Bush administration has implemented since then have been for nothing other than to further their agenda. This method of shocking people into submission has been used time and time again by various governments around the world. The fact that conservatives have trouble seeing it happening here is, to be honest, quite puzzling to me.
RE: Iraq, if you think that we ask for nothing in return for "liberating" the Iraqis, I highly highly highly recommend that you read Baghdad Year Zero by Naomi Klein. (Or check out her book The Shock Doctrine.
EvilPoet, you always find the best quotes and information. I think if I ever go for a PhD I'll hire you to do the research. :)
Evilright: both conservatives and liberals alike care about the "welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties"
Mike says: "All of the 'security' measures that the Bush administration has implemented since then have been for nothing other than to further their agenda."
How do you know? I think the Bush administration means to accomplish the same goal as liberals: the security of this nation. The only difference being the method of doing this.
That is why I think it is foolish to completely reject the views and opinions of others. We should respect other opinions, not attack them. IMO
Again, great post, great discussion.
Freadom, with all due respect, the one thing that I can guarantee you is that on this blog, opinions will be questioned, refuted, and attacked. I don't believe in attacking people, but their actions and their words are fair game.
As for Bush and his politics of fear, can you name something he has done that has actually made us safer? People are taking their shoes off at airports, for criminy sake. Is that really helping, or is it just keeping the tension ratcheted up?
It's also difficult to believe that conservatives want to protect civil liberties when they stand idly by (or wholeheartedly cheer) while the Bush administration erodes them. The fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, the fourteenth amendment, Miranda, Habeas Corpus, Attorney-client privilege, the right to a fair and speedy trial, etc.
I do appreciate your comments, though, even if I do disagree with them.
Same here. Love a good INTELLIGENT discussion. And that's why I think we all come here, because we love an INTELLIGENT discussion. And the only way to really make progress in the world is to do this; to debate in the arena of ideas, and to occasionally compromise.
That's one of the problems with American politics the past several years is politicians are becoming almost too partisan, and therefore nothing gets accomplished but more bickering and name calling.
That aside, how many terrorist attacks have there been in the U.S. since 9-11, as compared with the 20 years prior to 9-11?
Freadom, that's specious reasoning. You may as well ask how many terrorist attacks there have been in the US since I started this blog, as compared to the 20 years prior. Just because two things are temporally linked does not mean there is a cause/effect relationship.
I respectfully disagree. A terrorist attack every year during Clintons presidency, one during the Bush presidency. That's because we are now on offense, taking the thugs seriously. Sure things aren't perfect, and never will be.
Holy shit, we had a terrorist attack in the US every year that Clinton was in office? How did I not hear about that? According to my sources, there was the WTC bombing in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Can you tell me what the 6 others were?
Also, if Bush is leading the "Global War On Terror" shouldn't we count global terrorist attacks? Isn't it rather self-centered to only consider attacks in the US?
I think there are other barometers that must be taken into consideration other than simply how many attacks have occurred in the US since 9-11 when assessing the effectiveness of the GWOT. Global instability, how diffuse terrorist networks have become, terrorist attacks against our allies, and creating conditions that make it more likely for people to become terrorists must also be taken into consideration. In some ways, perhaps the US is safer. But in other ways, perhaps not. I can tell you this much though--our military, though fighting and serving gallantly, is stretched very, very thin because of mismanagement and overcommitments. By that barometer, the US is actually more vulnerable now than before 9-11.
Let's all hope that the US is never attacked again.
Anthony, well said. We need an administration that will look beyond our borders when assessing terrorism, as well as other issues.
Just because we haven't been attacked doesn't mean we won't. If terrorists bombed another US building, would people still be singing the same tune in regards to Bush making us safer? What excuses would they make then? How about US Citizens abroad? Are they safer because of this "Global" War on Terror? Again, I see the merits in fighting this war and support many aspects of it, but I refuse to concede that one party or another is better equipped to make us safer.
Let's not be so naive to think one person, our President, is responsible for making us safer. It is a combination of showing strength in our military (Bush's tactic) and Diplomacy (Obama's). Not one or the other, rather BOTH.
woohoo! I'm 50, not years old just a comment #...:0N
Post a Comment