Terror is our friend

February 22nd, 2008 10:36 am · 13 comments

Excellent post by Matt Yglesias on the fearmongering of the right, especially in the wake of the FISA business, and the apparent Republican belief that a terrorist attack would help the GOP politically:

In essence, the Republicans are placing a heavy political bet on the idea of a terrorist attack happening some time while their “danger” clock is running. If Americans die, they’ll be in a position to clean up. Conversely, if we still have some semblance of legal protections against government surveillance months from now and that clock’s still ticking even though al-Qaeda hasn’t slaughtered any innocents here in the U.S., they’re going to look mighty silly.

That’s the dynamics of this specific fight but, of course, it’s also a microcosm for 21st century politics as a whole. And it’s part of what makes the Republican Party, as currently conceived, so incredibly dangerous. …

<snip>

Their political meal ticket is a population terrified of terrorism, and nothing whips that terror up quite like actual terrorism in London, Madrid, wherever. The result is a political party that simply can’t adopt policies designed to ratchet-down the level of danger and anxiety.

But again, let’s take it beyond this: If terrorism is good for the Republican Party in a political sense, tell me how it is that Republicans aren’t at least subconsciously hoping to be proven right, hoping for an actual terrorist attack in this country that would “prove” that we need to gut the Constitution in order to attain this ephemeral “safey?”

And if indeed such a latent desire exists - tell me again how it’s the Democrats who hate America?

Update: Kevin Drum chimes in:

One of the ironies of this is that conservatives have spent years accusing Democrats of, for example, not really wanting to do anything about racism because they get too much mileage out of making fiery speeches about it to the Urban League every four years. Whether there was ever anything to that or not, there’s not much question that this is exactly the GOP’s attitude toward terror. Their eagerness for another attack as a way of proving Democratic fecklessness is so palpable you can almost taste it.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  13 comments  Tags: Terrorism

There are currently 13 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
hahaha
2/22/08
10:19 AM
WTF? I am sure Republicans are just hoping for another terrorist attack! Absurd.

If the Dems are so worried about that, then why would they not have extended the listening? The Repubs have claimed it has been a major asset against terror.

Only in media land.........
mnepats52
2/22/08
11:07 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Feb 22 2008, 10:40 AM) [snapback]360025[/snapback]

MATT Y:Their political meal ticket is a population terrified of terrorism, and nothing whips that terror up quite like actual terrorism in London, Madrid, wherever. The result is a political party that simply can't adopt policies designed to ratchet-down the level of danger and anxiety.


Days the color-coded federal terror alert system has been in place: 2,171
Days spent at terror alert level Blue or Green: 0

nothing says safe like

never green

never blue

QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Feb 22 2008, 10:40 AM) [snapback]360025[/snapback]
But again, let's take it beyond this: If terrorism is good for the Republican Party in a political sense, tell me how it is that Republicans aren't at least subconsciously hoping to be proven right, hoping for an actual terrorist attack in this country that would "prove" that we need to gut the Constitution in order to attain this ephemeral "safey?"And if indeed such a latent desire exists - tell me again how it's the Democrats who hate America?


"The American people should be frightened and remember full well what happened on 9/11."

- Senate GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell 1/28/08

fear has been very good for the gop...if you dont count the dead americans or the billions spent...how's that going?

Intelligence Chief Cites Qaeda Threat to U.S.

2/6/08....Mark Mazetti

WASHINGTONAl Qaeda is gaining in strength from its refuge in Pakistan and is steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and position operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States, the director of national intelligence told a Senate panel on Tuesday.

The director, Mike McConnell, told lawmakers that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, remained in control of the terrorist group and had promoted a new generation of lieutenants. He said Al Qaeda was also improving what he called "the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S." — producing militants, including new Western recruits, capable of blending into American society and attacking domestic targets.



imagine if they weren't a rag tag bunch working out of caves...





Pericles
2/22/08
1:55 PM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Feb 22 2008, 10:40 AM) [snapback]360025[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.


But again, let’s take it beyond this: If terrorism is good for the Republican Party in a political sense, tell me how it is that Republicans aren’t at least subconsciously hoping to be proven right, hoping for an actual terrorist attack in this country that would “prove” that we need to gut the Constitution in order to attain this ephemeral “safey?”


So politicians who wish to strengthen laws against child molesters are secretly hoping that more children are molested so they'll be proven right? Is that your logic Gil?

You assign the absolute worst motives to the other side, but rail against conservatives when they do that to the Left.

Why can't someone be concerned about preventing another terrorist attack for the sake of that reason alone?

If Republicans are wrong about the potential for a terrorist attack, then we all give up a little. Just like seat belt laws. But if you are wrong Gil, my grandchildren may be the victims.

You seem to be taking a lot of liberties with the things that are most precious to me.


QUOTE(hahaha @ Feb 22 2008, 11:19 AM) [snapback]360036[/snapback]

If the Dems are so worried about that, then why would they not have extended the listening? The Repubs have claimed it has been a major asset against terror.



Senate Democrats supported the bill, or it wouldn't have passed in the Senate. Are they immune for the insinuation by Gil that just Republicans are secretly hoping for another terrorist attack.

I'd also like to know which Republicans in particular secretly want to see another terrrorist attack. Why not provide some names Gil? Who are they?
justplainjoe
2/22/08
2:00 PM
the saudis are our friends as well, allright they aren't americas friends or britains apparently but these scumbags are best pals with the bush criminals...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade



"Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday."









bigstew
2/22/08
2:13 PM
QUOTE(mnepats52 @ Feb 22 2008, 11:07 AM) [snapback]360063[/snapback]


Days the color-coded federal terror alert system has been in place: 2,171
Days spent at terror alert level Blue or Green: 0

nothing says safe like

never green

never blue



"The American people should be frightened and remember full well what happened on 9/11."

- Senate GOP Minority Leader Mitch McConnell 1/28/08

fear has been very good for the gop...if you dont count the dead americans or the billions spent...how's that going?

Intelligence Chief Cites Qaeda Threat to U.S.

2/6/08....Mark Mazetti

WASHINGTONAl Qaeda is gaining in strength from its refuge in Pakistan and is steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and position operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States, the director of national intelligence told a Senate panel on Tuesday.

The director, Mike McConnell, told lawmakers that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, remained in control of the terrorist group and had promoted a new generation of lieutenants. He said Al Qaeda was also improving what he called "the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S." — producing militants, including new Western recruits, capable of blending into American society and attacking domestic targets.



imagine if they weren't a rag tag bunch working out of caves...





Oh the hypocrisy. Anyone one remember the lefty outrage when it was suggested that they were secretly rooting against our troops in Iraq? Or the hoping for a high body count?
lee41
2/22/08
3:00 PM
QUOTE(bigstew @ Feb 22 2008, 02:13 PM) [snapback]360150[/snapback]
Oh the hypocrisy. Anyone one remember the lefty outrage when it was suggested that they were secretly rooting against our troops in Iraq? Or the hoping for a high body count?


Anyone remember the righties saying Clinton's anti-terror proposals were asking for too much?

Here is a refresher:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
Pericles
2/22/08
3:09 PM
QUOTE(lee41 @ Feb 22 2008, 04:00 PM) [snapback]360172[/snapback]


Anyone remember the righties saying Clinton's anti-terror proposals were asking for too much?

Here is a refresher:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/


I read the first article and it appears that the bill was passed by a wide margin with a Republican Congress.

How does that relate to Gil's assertion that Republicans secretly want to see my grandchildren murdered because Republicans would be proven right?
lee41
2/22/08
3:30 PM
QUOTE(Pericles @ Feb 22 2008, 03:09 PM) [snapback]360179[/snapback]


I read the first article and it appears that the bill was passed by a wide margin with a Republican Congress.

How does that relate to Gil's assertion that Republican's secretly want to see my grandchildren murdered because Republicans would be proven right?



First, it was a reply to BigStew. Second, the Republican Senate watered-down Clinton's proposals. Third, they also opposed additional wire-tapping authority, specifically 'multi-point' tapping which allowed taps on the communication used by a person, not just a single number that can change if the subject frequently changed phone numbers.

To answer your question, Gil's assertion is nothing new (3rd paragraph from the bottom):

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942/
Pericles
2/22/08
3:42 PM
QUOTE(lee41 @ Feb 22 2008, 04:30 PM) [snapback]360186[/snapback]


First, it was a reply to BigStew. Second, the Republican Senate watered-down Clinton's proposals. Third, they also opposed additional wire-tapping authority, specifically 'multi-point' tapping which allowed taps on the communication used by a person, not just a single number that can change if the subject frequently changed phone numbers.

To answer your question, Gil's assertion is nothing new (3rd paragraph from the bottom):

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/191942/

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.


Where in that paragraph does the person say that they secretly want another terrorist attack?

It seems to be a statement of fact. Or do you deny that there were measures taken after 9/11 that would have been unpalatable beforehand? If so, why would that be untrue if we were to experience another terrorist attack?

It seems to me that we started checking passengers' shoes after Richard Reed.

In the end, liberals want the right to object to some security measures, but no one is allowed to state the obvious.
lee41
2/22/08
4:10 PM
The gist of the article is how to re-build the Republican Party. I guess it actually was not a secret. He plainly said another terrorist attack would bring renewed support for Bush.

If national security was really the top concern for Republicans and Bush, they would have passed the PAA without telecom immunity, then offered telecom immunity as a separate bill.

Please also remember: the warantless wiretapping originated one month after Bush took office and 7 months before 9/11.

This wiretapping violated FISA, which automatically provides immunity for a legal government request. Otherwise, there would be no need for special immunity for the telecoms.

This is about protecting Bush and the telecoms, not the country.
bigstew
2/22/08
5:18 PM
QUOTE(lee41 @ Feb 22 2008, 03:00 PM) [snapback]360172[/snapback]


Anyone remember the righties saying Clinton's anti-terror proposals were asking for too much?

Here is a refresher:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
What's one have to do with the other?
jetscott
2/22/08
7:19 PM
the only good thing i ever hear anyone say about this administration is, we haven't been attacked. so fear isn't the crutch they lean on? what else can they say is good? take your time, think about it,lol
usedmeat
2/22/08
11:53 PM
The terror alert system worked very well as we all know, it kept the Monkey in office. Every time John Kerry got ahead in the polls we had an uptick in the alert system.

As to the premise that republicans relish another attack because it would sink the Democratic party nominee and elevate Madman McCain, I think that is just wrong.
St. George the Lesser's halo slipped after Hurricane Katrina and FEMA's FUBARed response that killed more people than the storm itself.
Here we are, what is it, six and a half years after September 11? If there is an attack now it will be because Bush and the republicans failed miserably again, just as they did with Katrina.
If there is an attack the republicans will have to barricade themselves in their men's room love shacks from the angry mobs.
View Topic | Comment on this blog