host

This is America. Is it appropriate for our national leaders to terrorize the public in reaction to an election or primary result that they perceive has gone against them and their agenda?

When they use the influence of their office; a "bully pulpit", to officially proclaim that by voting for a certain candidate, or by questioning or disagreeing with their policies, are our leaders acting like terrorists? Aren't terrorists anyone who engage in an agenda or conspiracy to make us fearful; to behave in ways that benefit those who terrorize us.....in ways other than how we would prefer to behave (i.e. vote), if the "terror tactics" weren't being deployed to control us?

There was a successful attempt in the last thread that I started on this subject, to "shout me down". I believe that I am asking questions about a crisis of leadership in the US. I believe that there is no more important political discussion that I can initiate and engage in, than on the issue of whether it is appropriate for the POTUS, the V.P., the White House press secretary, or candidates running for congress, or members of congress, to react to the outcome of a political contest, by reminding voters that,
White House press corps asks questions about the controversy:
When the following is considered, do the comments of Cheney and Lieberman, presumably, IMO, intended to scare (terrorize) the electorate into voting "their way".....make any fucking sense?
<b>The "War on Terror", was launched in response to the 9/11 attacks which involved the hijacking of domestic airliners by "suicide terrorists", who then flew them into prominent national landmarks and the HQ of the U.S. DOD.

The U.S. response included the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq, two "missions" which have now directly cost over $400 billion, the lives of over 2500 of our sons and daughters serving in the military,
more than 20,000 of the same, wounded, and immeasurable damage to pre-9/11 alliances with other nations, as well as to the worldwide reputation of the U.S., which was at it's zenith on 9/12/2001. I have not even described the casualty counts of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor the damage to the infrastructure in those countries. Our military is also trapped, with a strong presence in both countries, and no progress in securing those countries "from terrorists", can be credibly claimed, today. Our treasury continues to bleed money and our soldiers' blood in these two places.......

Yet.....the highest "terror alert", issued in the U.S., since 9/11, came this week, at our airports....because the effort, research, funding, and policy focus was never committed to fully minimizing the "gap" in national security that allowed the 9/11 attacks to proceed; the screening of passengers who attempt to board airliners. The risk of explosive liquids being smuggled onto airliners was known by the government for at least ten years, and there was no major funding to develop technology to screen for these substances at airports, and no policy to ban possession of liquids as "carry on" articles.

IMO, the comments above, by Cheney and Lieberman, when it is considered that their goal is to "scare out the vote", taken in the context of what actually should have happened to "fight terrorism" after 9/11....and what our government actually has done, instead.....are "terrorist like" comments, from both of them!</b>
<h3>Background:</h3>

This link has a thorough timeline, with links, concerning the timeframe of the "terror like" propaganda campaign that was disseminated by U.S. government and republican party officials after Joe Lieberman lost the Aug 8 senate primary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa...r_b_27085.html
The preceding article has it wrong.....polls have shown for several months that American opinion has shifted to trusting demcrats more to manage national security, than they trust republicans.
http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm#USA

The question of what U.S. officials who linked a vote against Lieberman, with a mindset of being "soft on the War on Terror", knew when they were making those statements, with regard to the impending "code red" terror alert release approved by president Bush, before they made those statements, is an interesting indicator of how far these officials are willing to push their own "terror campaign", which was cemented into the minds of many Americans, when the "official terrorists" used the advantage of the inside information that Bush's "red alert" would be announced while the target audience was still reading the <i>vote against Lieberman, with a mindset of being "soft on the War on Terror"</i>,......is being asked by the white house press. That never would have even happened, in the recent past.

In order to believe that Cheney's Aug. 9, comments to the press, were not part of an integral, politcal terror campaign, you have to support as fact, the scenario that Cheney did not know that Bush had authorized release of the first color code red, terror alert, in the post 9/11 period. IMO, that would be a "fringe" opinion.
<b>IMO, the now two year old, terrorize the voters campaign, is a Psy-Op waged against the Amercian people, to compensate for the deficiencies in the way that they officials who are waging the Psy-Op, have waged their "War on Terror". The lack of results these officials are able to show for their "war" efforts.....the Dubai port security fiasco, the still, fatally flawed airport screening policies, and the decent into civil war in Iraq, after the botched occupation/resconstruction, the deterioration of security in Afghanistan, aggravated by no plan to prevent the ressurgence of opium farming there, and the response to Katrina with the exposure of how FEMA was destroyed by cronyism, and the secrecy and avoidance of congressional inquiry by politcal allies, have taken a toll on the ruling party members, in the polls. This make it necessary to make the "terrorism scare message" ever more shrill......hence the first "red alert" ever issued.</b>.....and it's gonna get worse folks, until at least the mid-term election in november.

This Psy-Op would be terrorism, even if those waging it had a successful track record in their "WoT". We wouldn't experience it if that were the case, though....because then they caould win election campaigns on their accomplishments, not by fucking with the voters' emotions.....

Refusal to examine and discuss what happened here, and to "shout down" those who attempt to discuss it, is also "fringe" behavior.

Elphaba

The "fear card" has been highly successful in the past and I anticipate it's usage triplefold this election cycle. However, I don't believe political rhetoric such as Cheney's falls within the common definition of "terrorism." Our entire political history is filled with cynical manipulation of the voters. I don't like the motivation behind this tactic, but I think the First Amendment applies to sleezy politicians as well as the rest of us.

I do think that the political manipulation of the crisis level of the country is a form of "terror." We can dismiss political rhetoric if we choose, but as a people we should be able to trust the level of threat as an honest assessment of present danger. Only a minority of the populace continues to believe that the crisis level isn't politically manipulated.

I am also surprised that some members of TFP believe that the US played any part in the "liquid bomb" arrests. The talking heads and a very compliant media imply that the US was involved, but that was simply not the case. I assume that the intention is to mislead the voters into believing that this is "one for our great leader?"

Host, would it be too off topic to remind folks of Bush revealing the capture of a high level A'Q member in 2004? The consequences of that idiocy for political gain really can't be measured.

hiredgun

The answer to the question posed in the thread title depends on whether we're talking about what is true, or what ought to be. As for the latter, I can't answer because I'm still trying to work out what our common definition of the word is. As far as reality is concerned, yes, certain categories of people are, as a matter of fact, not subject to the label of 'terrorist'. It is a highly politicized word with a certain political function.

To more directly answer the OP: I very much agree that the 'security' card is a huge part of the overall Republican strategy and has been for the last several years. I'm not at all surprised that every terror-related incident is seized as an opportunity to remind us that we face a daunting enemy and that only the Republican party and American might can save us.

I don't think it's quite as cynical as the portrait you've painted, though. Politicians will be politicians; that doesn't mean they're always disingenuous (i.e. I'm sure many Republicans sincerely believe that their party's stance on security issues is better for America).

Willravel

Yes, we are victims of obvious psy-ops in the current use of the label "terrorist" and "terrorism". I can't really add anything to what Host said, but I sure do agree. Scaring the vote (and shit) out of people is the paramount policy for not only the current administration, but anyone who gets a soundbite on the news even. Christ, last night Iwas watching the news describe an african american male, approximately 5'6" to 6', who shot someone. There were no eye whitnesses. While seemingly unconnected, I do see these as parallel. The idea is simple, and it's as old as mankind: conrol through massive fear, misinformation, and deamonizing of a group.

ratbastid

The Terror Alert Levels system is the most cunning tool of terrorism ever devised. Clever manipulation of the color code (well, and the electronic voting machines) kept Bush in office in 2004.

I've got to point at this Libermanism:

And why would they do that? Once we give them what they want, they'll just attack us willy-nilly? Oh, that's right: they're not goal-oriented and politically-motivated guerilla fighters, they're Evil Nazi Stalinist Terrorists who Hate Us Because Of Our Freedom.

So our "enemy" is a cartoon character. My only question: which Evil caracture are we talking here? Are they Snidely Whiplash evil? Or Boris Badenoff evil?

Did you know that in the United States, you're vastly more likely to be hit by lightning than involved in a terrorist attack? Even in Israel, vastly more people are killed in traffic accidents than by katyusha rockets. The fact is: on an individual level, we're pretty fucking safe from terrorism doing exactly the same stuff we were on September 10th. Right after 9/11 we were told to keep living our lives--which we absolutely WOULD if these people would quit trying to terrify us.

Seaver

Rat that does not hold up. According to your theory since we're more likely to be killed in traffic accidents than being murdered we shouldn't bother with proper funding of a police force.

All I hear anymore is how terrorism is all in our minds, that it's something made up or vastly exadurated in order to keep us scared. Unfortunately that relies solely on us actually being scared. I've yet to see one person who actively fears terrorism, aside from a few women when they're preparing to fly. Realizing something is a threat and needs to be addressed does not mean you're scared into submission.

ratbastid

I didn't say that. Don't slippery-slope me.

Pardon? Our nation is in a losing two-front war because we were convinced we needed to be afraid. Go try to get on an airplane and you'll see what fear of terrorism has driven us to. I'm not saying YOU or I are afraid, but as a society, our level of fear is tweaked real REAL high.

It's the increasing gap between how afraid we are and how afraid we're being told we should be that is behind the low approval rating and cynicism about the current situation.

flstf

I think terrorism is a term usually reserved for those who actually carry out violent acts against civilians and not those who speculate what they might do.

I do think our polititians go overboard warning us about issues for political gain. This is true of almost all issues that voters are concerned with. Neither party is as bad as the other claims or as good as they claim themselves to be. Negative campaigning seems to work in our elections since so many seem to do it because we respond with our votes.

host

They will stop......as long as they are not experiencing poor polling results, during a campaign season that will culminate in an election that will determine whether they retain the advantage that comes from holding "one party rule", in the era of a long, long, war, against enemies who are identified, labeled, "rendered", interrogated, disappeared, pursued/not pursued <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=whitehouse.gov+spend+much+time+thinking+about+bin+Laden&btnG=Search">(bin Laden)</a>, or allowed to escape, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=omar+al-faruq&btnG=Google+Search">(Omar Al-Faruq)</a> exclusively according to the political agenda of the leadership of the ruling party. Here is the definition:
If you perceived the intent to be an official effort to communicate an exaggerated threat and then touting/taking credit for.....making "progress" in "combating" it, while in actuality, the threat was much less signifigant, and the "progress" was minor or irrelevant, or determination was clouded because the "progress" (capture) was revealed prematurely for political gain, I think that it is appropriate to examine the incident here......

<b>This is as much about an examination of the contradictions in what the Bush administration and congressional leaders say, compared to what it is, that they do....as it is a discussion of whether what they do is a campaign of "terror". If we as a nation are "supposed to be" responding to the "Pearl Harbor attack" of "our time", and engaged in a "war on terror", as "they" remind us, over and over....what is "with" all their fucking vacations?</b>

All recent protests aside, to the following premise; it is incomprehensible to me, and I'm sure....to many others, that president Bush, after experiencing the criticism that was meted out in the wake of the 9/11 attacks....criticism that he took a month off and went to his ranch, after just 6-1/2 months on the job, in 2001.....that he received and then later tried to block disclosure of the non-classified portions of the contents of that Aug. 6, 2001 terror attack intelligence PDB, while he was on that vacation, and then did nothing in response to that PDB, including not interrupting that vacation.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2676-2004Apr10&notFound=true">(Bush Gave No Sign of Worry In August 2001 By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 11, 2004)</a>

Just as he was "working from Wyoming, last year, when Bush was playing guitar and delivering a birthday cake to John McCain, while Katrina was destroying New Orleans, Mr. Cheney was again on vacation, at the same time that Mr. Bush was....this year, when the first "red alert" terror warning in post 9/11, US history was issued:
So....at 10:30 am., EDT, Tony Snow tells the press that Bush made the decision to issue the "red alert", "yesterday"....that would be on Aug. 9th, the day that Cheney was making a rare teleconference from his vacation location in Jackson, Wyoming, sending the message of fear against more voting, that is anything similar to the Connecticut "anti-war" vote agains Joe Lieberman.
<b>When I was writing my new TFP thread, titled, "Huh?", Cheney already knew about the red "terror" alert, but I didn't !</b>

You can read on the "Huh?" thread, the comments that republicans were making....after Bush has already authorized a "red alert", but before the world was told.....

Now, there is this:
We have a phony, domestic terror campaign, IMO, telegraphed by "terrorist",
US leaders, too lazy and disrespectful of the rest of us, to even give up enough of their own vacation time to make the "terror" seem convincing....

Locobot

Yeah no kidding, it may not be openly spoken of, but fear of terrorism is fairly prevalent. And now we have Bush and Blair taking vacations during a supposed "red alert" which they knew about well in advance.

host

I posted the following on Oct. 22, 2004:
Looking back, and after learning what I have posted on this thread, and on others, I don't know if I am more disappointed than I am angry and frustrated, or more angry and frustrated than I am scared. I fear whatever it is that our leaders, plan to impress us with....next. If their agenda was to protect us, and not to terrorize us, how can "news", like the Dubai management "deal", involving 22 US ports, or the following, ever be explained as earnest or benevolent?
....and....it's not like liquid explosives is a recent threat scenario, either:
Let's see...the US Justice Dept. has had these fuckers in custody for more than ten years.....and only this past week, after deliberately not funding research to detect the type of terrorist threat that they planned nearly 12 years ago, and killed an airline passenger as they tested their method....have US and UK passengers been banned from carrying liquids and gels onto airliners, and no technology was developed in all that time.....funding was actually blocked recently.....to bring screening machines "on line" at airports.

Well.....I take back everything positive that I posted about president Bush, back on Oct., 22, 2004! He seems more like the "terrorist" "in chief", than he does, the "commander in chief", now that we see what has transpired, in the fullness of time.

By the way....I watched Oliver Stone's new film, "The World Trade Center", at a theater, yesterday. When it was over, I was choked up; my eyes teared up, and I wanted to enlist in the US military.....the last urge passed....not because it is an inapproriate response.....but because the thugs that our are "leaders", in the US and in the UK, did the following to us, after 9/11, and they are still doing it:
I'm too old to enlist....and, thanks to the Bush administration, and their "poodle" in "Londonstan", I wouldn't know who to attack to "avenge" 9/11, because they keep throwing sand in my eyes, so I can't see the play!

samcol

Olbermann covered the politics of terror, aka-fake or over hyped terror threats.

Here's the google video on it: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ocidfeed&hl=en

In the light of the information in this thread, I think it's safe to question how real these terror threats are.

host

fear....Fear....<b>FEAR</b>....<h3>FEAR !!!!!</h3>
Isn't the allowance of "discretion" by a "security or law enforcement officer", a contradiction to the <b>"even accidentally"</b> terrorizing of innocent vacation and business travelers? Who would fly or own airline stocks, if they could possibly avoid doing so? Oh....that's right.....all of the US airlines have already filed for, or reorganized from bankruptcy, since 9-11....

If there were a "real" terrorist threat of explosives made from combined "seeminlgly harmless" liquid or gel components, detonated by electronic devices, would the TSA post the following to advise, everyone, including the "fascist islamists", that such "ingredients" are not actually banned....right down to the ounce and to the depth of the screening?

Would it be beyond the "homcide bombers' " abilities....to obtain a prescription or transfer a bomb making liquid to a container that meets the following TSA criteria? We are told that the bogeymen that our government sets us up to fear, are willing to kill themselves, so if this threat is legitimate, wouldn't the risk that some of them would attempt a simultaneous, coordinated boarding of several airliners with their explosive components properly packed, labeled, and prescribed, along with their electronic detonation source, per the TSA guidelines, preclude the publicizing of such trivial, but precise, exemptions? Shouldn't everyone of us be carrying the "KY", all of the time time that we cede control to these domestic terorrists that we've left in charge?
Even the sheeple should find the bullshit revision above, a tad curious.....
In a GWOT, the TSA backpedaling seems like a cave-in to "whining", at the least, or an exposure of a absurd farce of a domestic terror "Op", brought to you by your own "protectors". In a real "war", everyone would be called upon to sacrifice...fly without lens wetting solution, breast milk, prescribed liquids, gel filled wheel chair cushions, I-pods and laptops, and.....all of us would demand to be taxed at a higher rate to support the long war, and keep the government from wasting precious revenue on interest payments to support the $2 trillion in new treasury debt!

host

Paranoia Strikes Deep, into Your Heart it Will Creep - <i>Stephen Stills -1966</i>

The only thing we have to fear is [Bush & Cheney] fear itself...<i>FDR - 1941</i>
So....what say you? Do we "throw the book" at these guerilla marketers? Do we ban freedom of speech and free expression because we have been brainwashed into being too paranoid to "enjoy our freedom", anymore?

Who is terrorizing us in a more alarming fashion? If the choice is between those who Mr. Bush has labelled "islamic facists", and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, I am much more concerned about the damage to our psyche and society, wrought by our "leaders" than I am about foreign originated threats.

We get "hit", again and again, but the biggest "hit", is and will continue to be, to our US constitutional guarantees that our "leaders" are focussed on removing permanently.
Calm down, America, "dear leader" isn't worried, why should you be?:
<b>Even the reliable conservative, misinformation organ, "newsmax", could not put enough lipstick on this "pig" of a story to make Mr. Bush look "in charge"...riding his bicycle during a "red alert", in the middle of a week day....</b>
<b>I find it a paradox, that, with all of the fear mongering rhetoric eminating from the mouth of our "war time" president, he's still the ever vigilant, "on point", watchdog he was before 9/11 "changed everything". I predict that someday, the chidren of the folks in Boston, and around America will wonder of their parents, "what were they thinking"?</b>

In Feb., 2001, on day 18 of the new Bush presidency, we are informed that the president was in the private residence area of the white house, at least since 11:22 am, on a weekday, "working out", while the vice president was reported as "working"....
Good people of Boston, and of the rest of America....take heed of Ari Flesicher's 2001 comments. You were <h3>never in any danger</h3>....it's just your "leaders", continuing to make you think that you are, as they pick your pocket of your bill of rights....

loquitur

My advice is, always be wary of people who believe their own bullshit.

host

yeah....you got it !!
....or....were you referring to me ???

loquitur

I have cautioned my partners who aren't litigators that there are plenty of things I say in court papers that I have a perfectly good basis for and are worth saying, even though I don't think they are going to win - and I do it because you never know what might persuade a judge, and as long it's not frivolous or ridiculous, the argument is worth making.

Knowing when an argument is weighty and when it's just filler is a pretty good judgment to know how to make in most cases. Not being able to make that judgment is called "believing your own bullshit." Even worse than that one is persuading yourself of frivolous arguments. That one is deadly.

Telluride

I normally don't like making up my own definitions for terms, but I don't think any person or group should be classified as "terrorists" unless there is the use of violence or destruction of property - or at least the threat of violence or destruction of property - in order to achieve some social, political or economic goal. If we don't do this, then even political organizations could be considered "terrorist" since many of them use fear of a possible law/policy to gain new members and/or encourage current members to get politically active.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek