|Home|Guests|Testimonials|Listen Live|Doug's Columns|Audio Archives|Photos|
to "weak on terror" Democrats
I am absolutely amazed at how the Bush administration, their supporters and the media are trying to use this alleged foiled airplane plot in Great Britain to somehow validate the Bush administration's failures in a) Afghanistan, b) Iraq, and c) the war on terror. First of all, one of their stock buzz phrases to justify their multiple failures is that “We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.” Hello. This alleged foiled plot was over here.
Secondly, in yet another attempt to validate their failures, the Bush administration said yesterday that this foiled airplane plot has “an al-Qaeda foot print.” Please. These ass-clowns in the Bush administration have proven repeatedly that they absolutely have no clue (or just don’t care) when it comes to anything involving al-Qaeda and its history, motivations or grievances. The Bushites have also shown a deplorable inability to properly identify and define such things as terrorism, terror and terrorists. Quick example - Bush loves to remind us that “We’re at war!” And yet, when our soldiers go out on a mission in Iraq, and Iraqis fight back (which I do believe is standard and accepted behavior in a war, yes?) all of a sudden, they’re “terrorists?!” And we're now expected to tremble in fear and bow to the Bush administration’s wisdom and insight because they say this alleged foiled airplane plot has an al-Qaeda “foot print?” If we are that gullible, we deserve to be lied to.
And of course we know why they said that - because of the connotation and stigma attached to al-Qaeda. When most Americans hear the word al-Qaeda, they think of 9-11. They think of terror. They think of the war on terror. All three of which, the Bush administration is still desperate to link to the Iraq disaster, to reverse their unpopularity, and stop their free fall into political oblivion and hopefully, jail.
But here's the bottom line. Even if you ignore the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" canard; even if we concede that this plot didn't just have an alleged al-Qaeda foot print, but was actually a legitimate al-Qaeda plot – what the Hell does that have to do with who we're fighting “over there” in Iraq. We are not and have not been fighting Islamic Jihadists who want to blow airplanes out of the sky in Iraq. For over three years now - “over there” - we've been fighting a bunch of Iraqi citizens who don't like being occupied, raped, tortured and killed. That hardly makes them Islamic Jihadists.
Thirdly, doesn’t this foiled airplane plot prove very concisely what a failure George W. Bush’s war on terror has been? And not by just our definition, but by his as well? Consider the number of times Bush has told us that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. You and I know that’s not true, but that’s what he says. Can anyone explain to me what the Hell good having 150,000 troops in Iraq is going to do when you have 20 or so whack jobs in Britain supposedly planning on blowing up airplanes? And for any wise-ass right wing nut who might ask, “Are you saying we should send 150,000 American troops into Great Britain?”, the response should be, “Of course not, because then, instead of having 20 or so whack jobs plotting to blow up airplanes, you’d then have 20 thousand whack jobs planning to blow up planes." Put another way - the idiotic war on terror does not eliminate terror, it gives birth to terrorists, especially when you invade and occupy a country that did not allow radical Islamism to flourish, but rather did everything in its power to crush it before it had a chance to ferment and develop into a threat to Saddam Hussein’s regime.
And can anyone also explain what “staying the course” in Iraq is going to do to prevent future whack jobs in Britain or in any other country from plotting to blow up airplanes? And has anyone considered… that maybe this airplane plot in Britain, if it is legitimate, is just the predictable result and just the price you have to pay when you do have 150,000 troops in Iraq that have been killing Muslims for 3 ½ years now?
Or maybe plots like this are just the predictable result, or just the price you have to pay, for brainwashing the general public into submission and dutiful obedience by spoon feeding them more than generous doses of terror, terrorist, terrorism, and war on terror rhetoric day after day after hour after minute. And quite often, for no other reason than to a) justify an unnecessary, impeachable war that has nothing to do with an already idiotic war on terror; and b) when you want to disparage your political opponent, as in, they're soft of the war on terror; they don't get the war on terror; trust us to fight the war on terror; up next - a war on terror update. Terror this, terror that - terror, terror - all the time, wall to wall terror! Who knows - maybe the terror, terrorist, terrorism, war on terror brainwashing just worked in reverse this time, and instead of turning these British lads into fearful, subservient, mindless minions who see a terrorist behind every Bush, and think that every person who practices Islam is a terrorist; maybe this time, the brainwashing had the reverse effect and turned them into terrorists or at least, terrorist wannabees – could that be a possibility?
But the bottom line is this; the right wing massive, media, misinformation machine has already shifted into high gear to tie this alleged foiled airplane plot in Great Britain to Joe Lieberman’s loss in Connecticut and to the message they’d already planned on using in this year’s election, namely, that Democrats are weak on terror; weak on defense; cutters and runners; retreaters and defeaters; and have forgotten the lessons of 9-11. You’ve already heard what the media’s been calling this alleged foiled plot ever since the story broke yesterday… 9-11 two, or a second 9-11. They are also now saying that if the Lamont/Lieberman primary had been scheduled for next week instead of this week, Lieberman would’ve won, because he “gets” the war on terror. And of course, you and I both know Connecticut’s main beef with Joe Lieberman was not Joe’s “getting” the war on terror - it was Lieberman’s “not getting” the war in Iraq. And yes, Virginia, there is a difference. There is a huge difference.
And this huge difference now becomes the key for Democrats. The only way the right can tie the airplane plot to Joe Lieberman to their war on terror to Democrats being weak on terror is by doing what they’ve been doing since the day they decided to make their long held plans to invade Iraq public. They must continue to dishonestly fuse their generally accepted as legitimate (not by me, but by America as a whole) war on terror with their illegitimate dishonest, impeachable invasion and occupation of Iraq. And they will succeed in their goals unless Democrats mount a strong counter offensive that states very strongly that Iraq is not, and never has been part of the GOP’s war on terror. If Democrats are not yet willing to take my lead and expose the war on terror for the failed and doomed exercise it was from the beginning, they at least have to make a clear and strong distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They need to make a clear and strong distinction between Islamic terrorists and Iraqi insurgents and/or guerilla fighters.
When they’re accused of being weak on terror because of Iraq; they must respond with words to the effect of “We haven’t been fighting terrorists in Iraq. We’re fighting Iraqis who resent being invaded, occupied, raped, tortured and killed.”
And when they’re accused of being weak on defense, they must respond with words to the effect of “Excuse me? Weak on defense? How about being honest and facing reality after 3 ½ long, deadly years. The United States was never in need of defense from Iraq. In fact, the only Americans who do need defending from Iraq, are our poor soldiers in Iraq who have been caught in the middle of a civil war because of the short sightedness and ignorance of the man who sent (lied) them into the war in the first place – George W. Bush.”
The rabid right will be marching in lock step with their “weak on terror” and “weak on defense” talking points, which per usual, will be based on dishonesty. Democrats must immediately respond in kind with their own unified talking points, which as per usual, will be based in both honesty and reality.
I suggest they try the ones I’ve offered in this column.
|Home|Guests|Testimonials|Listen Live|Doug's Columns|Audio Archives|Photos|