May 25, 2004
The Politics of Terror
Could terrorists influence the elections? Theoretically they could. Question is, what do they want? Tough question. Maybe it’s not the election they want at all, but the political controversy. They might even want to encourage us to elect reactionary leaders, so they can use them as a foil for their political ambitions.
Whatever the case is, the politics of terror are more complicated than just a mandate on one candidate or another.
This is the story that's come out of the FBI and Homeland security.
CNN
CBS News
Fox News
We have maybe a number of terrorist we're looking at, but no real dates places, and methods of attack. My brother might dismiss this as a CYA exercise, with bureacrats fielding a possible terrorist attack putting out a facts-light warning just to say they did. I myself would recall that a similar warning, minus a lot of real information showed up during a similar summer three years ago.
Still, given that something did happen at the end summer three years ago, scoffing at this warning seems a bit incautious. Still, I'd much rather be hearing about terrorist arrests and the breakup of cells within our borders than just more white noise, similar to the alerts that have peppered the months after 9/11, only to never fan out in public view.
Whatever claims this administration has had about it's terrorism prevention, we have yet to see a major operation foiled within our borders, and the participants prosecuted for the world to see. Your average American has not been given educational material by their government on how to deal with terrorist threats and attacks, nor have they been issued a call to arms of any kind with initiatives to strengthen our public health, first responders, and security in certain crucial industrial and technological areas of the country. An accident at the Union Carbide Bhopal plant twenty years ago asphyxiated tens of thousands of people with Hydrogen Cyanide and other toxic gases. An intention leak of such could prove very devastating in one of our industrial communities.
But our administration's priorities have been shifted towards military operations. Well and good, if the right targets are getting hit, and the operations are making progress. Not well and good if the terrorist nonetheless succeed in attacking the homeland. All the while we at home are told that we need not sacrifice, that in fact we should enjoy tax cut windfalls (not worrying about the debt taken out to pay for them) and simply act as if things are still normal.
If this administration has successes, they may largely be covert. Problem with that, of course is that that the failures are just as secret as the victories. Beautiful, ain't it? There's just no way to guage where we are in this fight until the next attempt comes.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars only complicate things. One war seems to have only become a war on terrorists since we supposedly won it. The other seems incomplete, the enemy we wanted to capture in the beginning neither caught dead nor alive.
Some would say Bush is great on the war in terror, and many people might agree just because they've heard others say it enough. But many also thing Bush pretty useless on the subject or worse than useless.
Back to the original question: Could Terrorists influence the elections? And if we know they're trying to influence our elections, what should we do?
The answers, best as I can tell, in my opinion? To the first, yes. To the second: Absolutely nothing.
Let me be clear: If the terrorists are trying to throw the elections to whoever, we should do nothing about the election in the light of whatever atrocity they plan or carry out, unless gross negligence by one of the candidates is involved. In which case, it would have been an issue regardless of whether influence of elections was their goal.
This is a democracy, not a terrorist occupied state. We are not going to make decision one way or another dependent on how the terrorists want us to think. That way lies confusion, recrimination and the kind of political turmoil I'm sure the terrorists are more interested in than whether the candidate is a diplomatic or gung-ho. They are more concerned about getting our country to be dysfunctional than making it functional according to their wishes.
Let me remind all of you that want Al Quaeda wishes to do, first and foremost: degrade American influence as a great power, as a superpower.
If we spend our way into an economic slump that saps our will and our ability to project power, they couldn't be happier. If they inspire one party in this country to abuse it's power over another and make the war on terror a casualty of discontent over such abuses, I'm sure they're thanking Allah for it. If my own party becomes so enthralled in opposing the Republicans that it starts treating counterterrorism too lightly, similar things will happen.
All in all, I don't think Al Quaeda gives a crap how we screw up this country, just as long as it gets screwed up, and we're out of the way of their dreams of Puritanical Islamic revolution. What's important no matter who's in office is that things be done well. If Bush is screwing up the fight against terror, whatever sentimental feelings we may have for guy, and whatever sincere desire he may have to fight the war, He should be there, shouldn't be reelected. If Bush is doing things right in your eyes, and whatever happens (or doesn't) isn't enough to sway your opinion against him, vote as you would have voted.
My opinions on Madrid still stand. I believe the political hijinks the Popular Party pulled were more damaging to them than the bombings themselves. People will forgive mistakes, but they will crucify those who cover up those mistakes. That is how a bare victory turns into a landslide loss: disillusionment.
If we predicate our opinions of the political course of this nation on what the terrorists think, whether it is for Bush, or against them, then they have the power, and they will have won.
If we make our decision the way we feel best, and we tell the terrorists they can go to hell, then maybe the terrorists will delude themselves into thinking they've won.
History, though, will vindicate our response over time. As always A democracy is an institution of making up your own damn mind. Whoever gets elected in November will be our choice, and Osama Bin Laden cannot take that away from us, no matter what influence he might claim.
P.S. The claim that terrorists are trying to influence the elections better be more factually motivated than politically. The last thing any of Bush's people need is to follow in the Popular Party's footsteps of alienating people by cynically using the danger of terrorism to appeal to the fears of voters. If there's one thing voters hate more than a cover up, it's coverups that uses fear to manipulate public opinion. people don't like to be had.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at May 25, 2004 11:07 PMSTEPHEN,
First of all those terrorist jabrones over there don’t have the sense to effect our elections. And secondly, if they were to somehow have the ability to come to such a level in darwinian evolution it would get the opposite reaction than the one they want, to see Bush gone. They aren’t fans of Kerry, you or I or anything remotely western they just love a good theocratic dictatorship. And that’s why they do it, because they are horror loving sociopathic apes.
See It would be entirely fruitless, Kerry also is going to stay the course in Iraq and is prepared to undertake that course towards democratization minus ofcourse the throwing monies out the window as Bush has done. He’ll probably do something sane like ask what that money is going for. Which could lead to detailed spending and even itemization and audits in contrast to current spending.
Yeah I know republicans hate spending,or something, but when they do it ‘they’ don’t call it spending.
Spending is when you know what you just bought, throwing money into a pit as repubs are constantly doing is called oh um what’s the word, oh yes, being a moron!
“Penny-wise pound foolish republicanism”, have I hit the nail on the head?
So back to terror, effecting the elections would be futile, the war on terror is on. Okay agreed Iraq is a bad place to start fighting it, but the war on terror is on!(none the less). Kerry and Bush are going to persue the same measures against Al Qaida.
WHY the hell aren’t we going after Saudi Arabia? Why not Iranian Shia imams, Ayatollahs and terror funding clerics? The war on terror could be fought on much better fronts. Why not Syria? or more to the point why Iraq? Because republicans are stupid in the persuit of doing the right thing. Penny wise pound foolish and lookin’ for scuds in all the wrong places.
Last Comment Deleted for Content Issues- Keep it safe for work.
I’ll tell you why we aren’t going after those targets you listed last: Because we’re not sure military force is the best option. Our war isn’t against Islam. It’s against a particular brand of it that believes that forced political revolution is necessary to revive the strength of the Islamic world, and bring it back to glory. Osama and those like him believe they are the ones to lead this revolution.
Our best bet isn’t the Ann Coulter Method, our best bet is to successfully persuade muslims across the world that Osama and his like are dangerous deviants. And as long as we are practicing the Ann Coulter Method, we can’t really portray them as the greater danger.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2004 10:17 AMInfluencing American elections is not, and cannot be one of the goals of OBL and his cohorts. If the majority of eligible voters in America can’t influence the elections one way or another, how could terrorists possibly hope to? (Remember, only half of eligible voters vote, and only half of those chose a President. So only 1/4 + or - a bit of eligible voters select the American president.
No, Terrorists targeting the U.S. have two primary goals. One is to garner headlines and audience for themselves and their message. Second in to evoke retaliatory responses from the U.S. that will be viewed as wrong, heavy handed, indiscriminate, and morally bankrupt in the eyes of the rest of the world - thus reducing the U.S.’s cooperative influence with other nations of the world.
So far, it would appear the OBL and his group have been quite successful with Bush as Commander in Chief. No question, we should keep Bush on another 4 years so he can learn his job and shed his training wheels. Hell, he might even learn to read a few newspapers and take some advice from someone who knows what they are talking about, like Collin Powell.
Posted by: David R. Remer at May 26, 2004 03:27 PMWell, David, I think you’re half-right. My position is that they would love to disrupt elections, and crank up the dial on political tensions a little bit. Who knows, they may be able to provoke one faction or another into something so arbitrarily senseless that it achieves that disruptive effect. My sense, immediately after those buildings were hit on 9/11, was that the aftermath would test this nation’s ability to remain the great democracy and power it was before. You look in history and incidents like 9/11 have a way of permanently souring the political discourse in a place. I mean, look at how bad it’s got already. I’m sure Osama would love to sow political disruption in our elections. Anything to wear us down, to encourage us to withdraw from international affairs.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 26, 2004 09:01 PMSteven,
I completely concur that the “Coulter method” is not at all the best course. My querry was as to the usefulness of going insurgeantly into a country with actually little, if any, verifiable ties to terrorist funding. My point, if any,is the futility of the place of the Iraq war in the greater war on terror. As is evidenciary that Iraq is scarcely a cog in the terror network while others play more of an active role such as noted. I mean if we are to fight a terror war by these colonialistic methods are there not more useful targets?
…And yes I rant like a drunken baglady.
Posted by: skunkbud at May 26, 2004 09:16 PMDon’t worry Skunkbud, you should see me when I get going! If you’ve looked over my posts for the past half-year, you’ll find my opinion of us getting into this war is fairly low. I once described it, I believe, as somewhere between open cesspits and seventies casual wear.
*Bush winces.*
Seriously, though, I am not a big fan of this war. That said, I am also not a big fan of people not deal with the situation they’re in. We are in Iraq, for better or worse. We owe it, as the ones who made the mistake to make things better, and then, once we’re out of here, learn our lesson and not be so quick to preemptively strike unless such a thing is called for.
In the end, the Republicans have to realize that the best thing for this country is a cultivated unity, not a forced one. The attacks on our country created an organic sense of unity, but that was destroyed as the inevitable divisions sprung from people’s different interests and theories, and of course, good old fashion vested interests.
Everybody mourned that breakup of unity, but some people’s response was to demand it as a moral necessity, to try and make it mandatory for one’s honor as a citizen. Reality is, people disagreed on these things for reasons they considered moral necessity, either in response to the attacks, or in response other people’s reactions.
Truth is, from here on out, the peace made will have to be negotiated one. Perhaps in time it will become a more natural peace, but for now, we will have to settle for an end to intentional divisiveness. No more of this Us and them B.S. between one American and other.
I guess my point is, we cannot afford to do the terrorist work for them.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2004 10:29 AMIf there is a successful terrorist attack in the United States after all this administration has done in the name of counter-terrorism (attacks on our civil liberties, a war of aggression, tax cuts for the rich, for crying out loud), I predict a blowout for Kerry.
Let’s face it. A successful terrorist attack will influence the election. Period. It’s a fact.
It will focus our attention on how well the President has protected this country. He’s had three years to secure the homeland. If it turns out the terrorists, believed to be already in this country, got through the fingerprint scanners, the federalized airport security, and even the shoe check, people will be asking how. Heads will roll.
I used to believe that a terrorist attack would rally Americans behind the President and ensure his election. I now think it will have the opposite effect. Bush had better do his damndest to make sure nothing happens, so he can continue to play the fear card going into the election.
> Bush had better do his damndest to make sure
> nothing happens
I sure hope so.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at May 27, 2004 07:18 PMI always believed that Bush’s popularity, while high at the time, would be dependent on how competently he’d oppose the terrorist attacks.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 28, 2004 06:46 PMPundit, which attacks on our civil liberties were you referring to? I think Bush has done quite a reasonable job of implementing safeguards for our citizens. I wish he would do more, like tighter border controls. I think it is safe to say that the Wahabbis out there would love to see “W” have to pack his bags, after what he did to them in Afganistan. He put them out of office as you might recall. obl would most likely want to return the favor. That is one theory anyway.
Posted by: black hole at June 2, 2004 01:16 AMblack hole, I’m talking about Bush’s siezure of an American citizen who is being held incommunicado without any charges being brought against him. The Supreme Court is now finally reviewing Rumsfeld v. Padilla.
I’m talking about parts of the USA PATRIOT Act which allow for very broad interpretations of who is a terrorist and allows actions by the executive branch without any judicial oversight.
Personally, I have the biggest problem with flying: the disrespectful federal baggage screeners, having to empty my pockets of everything including non-metallic objects like my wallet, having my luggage searched when I’m not present (they leave a nice note and the broken lock inside the bag, though), and having to take my shoes off at every checkpoint while carrying a baby and a big backpack.
And US businesses are complaining that they’ve lost tens of billions of dollars in business because of inefficient and just plain bad visa and passport policies.
I think it is safe to say that the Wahabbis out there would love to see “W” have to pack his bags, after what he did to them in Afganistan.
Everyone agrees the Afghan war was good. That was a no-brainenr. I don’t know why you guys even bother bringing it up. And from what I hear, obl wants Bush to stay right where he is. Bush is the best thing to happen to Islamic jihad since the Godless Soviets.
“It is not possible to find a leader more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.” - Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades
