As his Iraq adventure disintegrates before his eyes, and as more and more Americans are unwilling to give him any benefit of the doubt, George W. Bush is once again pulling out the let’s scare’em with terrorism card.
And while there is no doubt that this despicable ploy is just that, we should not fall into the trap of only accusing him of crying wolf. Because, putting aside the lies that our government dishes out everyday, there is no question that at this point, there are indeed terrorists who would love nothing more than to launch an attack in The United States.
If a successful attack should happen, and all we’ve been doing is accusing Bush of raising the level of fear, then we’ll immediately find ourselves on the defensive with many Americans rallying around the President once again as the only one to “keep us safe”.
Instead, our message should be unequivocal and clear. There WILL undoubtedly be another terrorist attack, and if it is successful, it will be because this President has ignored crucial border security in order to provide for his military adventure in Iraq.
The Democrats’ message is stuck in reaction mode. Bush makes a grandly idiotic policy decision, or makes some statement framing the debate just as Karl Rove has instructed him, and all the Democrats simply respond by disagreeing in vague and tentative tones, making sure that they never stray from the very framework that Bush has articulated.
We need to go after this criminal administration in the same way that we would go after any public enemy or scourge. We need to be pointing out relentlessly that Bush is not keeping America safe; he’s creating enemies faster than we can possibly apprehend them, and he has neglected this vaunted “Homeland” that he has suddenly thrust into our lexicon. The only action that this administration can take to improve our security is to get out of Iraq and change their approach to diplomacy in the region. Bush is creating the conditions for another terror attack by his policies. This should be our outcry.
If we simply express skepticism about his fear mongering, we will be rewarded with another terror event, either through the administration’s incompetence or complicity. Either way, we will once again find ourselves watching in amazement as Americans decide that they can’t risk going against the President in a time a crisis.
And the next attack will doubtlessly usher in the new era of facism for which Bush and Company have been patiently been laying the groundwork. It must be the citizens of this nation who say “I told you so” in the event of anther attack. If George Bush is saying it instead, then it will be too late for Democracy in America.
Dan Dewalt is a musician/woodworker/teacher who authored the Newfane impeachment resolution passed at March 2006 town meetings.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
I see two major threads of thinking (with some variations) on this. One is wolf, and the other is either an attack by Al Qaeda (Sunni extremists) -- assuiming it is real -- to knock down the Shia Persians in Iraq by goading (like they need goading...) the US (or maybe Israel?) to attack Iran; the other is that Qaeda is a US asset which do their terrorist thing so the neocons can move on to the next levelof their EMPIRE video game.
Al-Qaeda threatens war against Iran The leader of an al-Qaeda umbrella group in Iraq, who was thought to have beeen killed by US forces, has threatened to wage war against Iran unless it stops supporting Shias in Iraq within two months. [...]
In any case, if there is a terrorist-type event, the proper reaction of the people is anger at Bush for not preventing it, as well as at congress for dragging their heels. Any fear needs to be transformed into anger, so that 'fearless leader' can experience fear himself and run for (or ride on a rail to) the hills.
(By the way, be a bit more careful of what Al Jazeera reports now: Trailblazing Aljazeera loses its edge Nov 4, 2003 By Iason Athanasiadis
Aljazeera is coming in for increasing criticism in the Arab world after a spate of embarrassing revelations that suggest it has capitulated to United States pressure and tamed its news coverage.
The recent appointment of new boss Waddah Khanfar at the Qatar headquarters comes amid mounting revelations that Aljazeera's top management chose not to air several Osama bin Laden tapes; pulled from its news websites caricatures the White House deemed offensive; and removed its former general manager following US complaints to the Emir of Qatar about the channel's coverage of the war in Iraq.
The channel's new attitude follows a sustained US campaign against the broadcast of allegedly inflammatory material in the aftermath of September 11 and comes at a time when Aljazeera is losing viewers to Saudi and United Arab Emirate-backed competitors al-Arabiyyah and Abu Dhabi TV. [...]
but more recently: June 25 2007 Al-Jazeera Director General Waddah Khanfar removed from board of directors An amiri decision issued by Heir Apparent Shayk Tamim Bin-Hamad Al Thani has led to the removal of Al-Jazeera?s Director General Waddah Khanfar, who heads the networks television channels, its website and research centers, as well as the anticipated international printed newspaper. Khanfar?s removal from the Al-Jazeera board of directors is seen by some as ?the first step towards removing him from his position as director general of the network.?
Well-informed media sources claim that Khanfar?s removal is the result of ?outside US and Palestinian pressure,? perhaps including dossiers underlining his pro-Hamas sympathies and association with The Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, Khanfar had recently been at odds with Qatari newspapers accusing him of ignoring Qataris in key Al-Jazeera posts. [...]
and last month about June 9th:
Is There a 'Foxification' Underway at Al Jazeera Television?
By Danny Schechter.
MediaChannel?s Danny Schechter investigates:
Sources inside Al Jazeera who are in a position to know what is going on now confirm to MediaChannel.org that there is an internal struggle underway that may dilute Al Jazeera?s independence and steer it in a more pro-western, pro-US direction.
?There is already a change of tone and focus in the news,? a veteran insider reveals. He blames the shift on a reorganization of the network?s governing structure a month ago that has put a former Ambassador from Qatar to the USA in a commanding position.
Al Jazeera broadcasts from a state of the art facility in Doha, the capital of Qatar, a wealthy independent state run by an Emir who has, until this point, remained close friends with the US while allowing Al Jazeera its independence.
?Nobody is talking about it publicly and nothing is quite clear yet but it looks like there is new pressure from the government of Qatar [the oil and natural gas rich Gulf state that bankrolled Al Jazeera], as well as a political battle over how to manage the channel inside its government with the US and its supporters, including the editor of the Arabic edition of Newsweek, lobbying in the shadows.?
by
Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 24, 2007 at 11:58:49 PM
(0+)
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
