Tag Archive for 'terrorism'

Be wary of the consequences when riling up the base

The people “have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge– I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers.”

John Adams (1735-1826)

McCain and Palin are in attack mode; it’s all they have left.  The coveted female and undecided voters are increasingly falling line behind Democrats and supporting Obama.

The economic meltdown is spreading overseas, leaving McCain unable to “turn the page,” since the American voters want answers not dodging of the issues.

The farce of McCain’s campaign suspension is still fresh in voters’ minds as they consider the true cost of that bail out.  Sen. McCain left the trail, but left all his campaign offices open and active and left Palin to rally, to return to DC and become a leader on the bail out. And 2/3 of Republicans voted against the bill he encouraged them to support, while 2/3 of Democrats swallowed bad medicine and voted yay.   The bill that ultimate passed only did so because it was gift wrapped in the kind of pork spending McCain has spent months railing against on the campaign trail.  After voting for it, he encouraged Bush to veto it.

His path to the White House grows more improbable by the day.  Even Karl Rove admits Obama would win in a landslide if the election were held today. On the economy, McCain has been given a failing grade by voters. Realizing the American people won’t take their insurance dollars being taxed, McCain now hopes to slash Medicaid and Medicare to pay for his health care program.  (Is this new suggestion a subtle admission that McCain is pulling out of Florida as well?)

I’m reminded of that line from A Knight’s Tale when Adhemar looks down at Thatcher early in the film after besting him, saying, “You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?”

In what world could McCain beat Obama? Based on McCain-Palin campaigning stops, they’re counting on Bridge to the Yesterday filled with Racism and Fearmongering.  They seem to be taking their inspiration from Shakesville’s Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Dude Watch 2008.

In recent weeks, bloggers and journalists have interpreted what could be slight racist undertones to McCain ads, from “Advice” trying to tie Obama to non-advisor Raines to “Perverse” claiming Obama wants kindergardeners taught comprehensive sex education.

Today in New Mexico McCain asked “who is the real Barack Obama?” One member of the audience shouted “a terrorist,” much to the surprise of even McCain, who, after recovering from the surprise of that shout out, seemed quite willing to work with that conclusion as he continued speaking.

This weekend Palin pulled out the Ayers card, a link so weak it did not work when applied by Hillary Clinton, but rabid conservatives continue to shout it from the mountaintops. Ayers is an unrepentant former member of the Weather Underground (never prosecuted) and a University of Illinois professor who works on education reform. They served on the board of the same non-profit dedicated to education reform in Chicago.

“Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers,” Palin said.

“Boooo!” said the crowd.

“And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,’” she continued.

“Boooo!” the crowd repeated.

“Kill him!” proposed one man in the audience.

Palin went on to say that . . . “I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I’m afraid this is someone who sees America as ‘imperfect enough’ to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country.”

McCain and Palin are now indirectly driving home the idea that Obama is different.  He’s not like you and me.  He hangs out with terrorists, and surprise! He’s not a white dude.   Obama predicted as much. . .

“Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said. “You know, ‘He’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name,’ you know, ‘He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.’”

This same type of verbiage is now used full force by the McCain-Palin campaign daily.  The very verbiage they decried just 2 months ago.

McCain took on the role of aggrieved victim, his campaign waiting almost a day after Obama’s remarks to charge that he had injected race into the presidential campaign. “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and wrong,” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said.

Yes, that same “divisive, negative, shameful and wrong” language rallies the base, and while it also reach the few left on the fence, it’s unlikely to reverse the course of this election season.

Are they prepared to face the potentially more devestating consequences of branding the opposing candidate for President as different, an outsider, a terrorist?

In July, a man opened fire during a “children’s musical performance” at a Knoxville Unitarian church, killing 2 congregants and wounding 7 others.

Jim David Adkisson told investigators all liberals should be killed and admitted he shot people Sunday morning at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church . . .

According to the affidavit requesting to search Adkisson’s home, the suspect told investigators liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country. Adkisson also blamed Democrats for the country’s decline, according to the affidavit.

A huge uproar ensued following Jenna Kern Rugile’s column, “Does shock jock hate speech lead to violence?” in which she asked where this man might have picked up his ideas.

Might the shooter have heard talk-show host Rush Limbaugh say that “liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces” and “the Islamofascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats” and that riots at the Democratic Convention would be “the best damn thing that can happen to this country.”

Might the shooter have heard talk-show host Sean Hannity say in 2006, “There are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of them is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the speaker.”

Addison owned a number of books with anti-liberal messaging written by conservative talking heads O’Reilly, Hannity, and Savage.  Surely, those books influenced his mind set and actions before whatever break down lead him to enter a church hoping to go down in a blaze of gunfire?

And here is the Republican ticket campaigning by trying to tar Obama as a terrorist-friendly predator with his eye on our innocent children and our defenseless old ladies.  He’s the candidate with a Muslim-sounding middle name (Hussein). He’s the candidate that’s different. These are the words the conservative base, the Republican zealots, take to heart at rally after rally.

In the event of an attempt made on Obama’s life by a wing nut spewing the same yarns told day after day by McCain, Palin, and their surrogates, would they own up to their contribution in riling up a criminal?  Me thinks not.

You saw that OMG moment for McCain in New Mexico, when he realized how extreme some of his supporters are in their blind hatred of Obama.  It’s as though he just realized that the friendly, de-regulation loving Republican isn’t the only one writing checks to the McCain campaign.

Back in May, Cindy McCain swore her husband would run a clean campaign.

Mrs. McCain said that the upcoming campaign against either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton would not engage in negative tactics.

“We’d rather not win than to have to do that,” Mrs. McCain said. “That’s not worth winning for. This is about being a leader and a person that can be a good example for our children, and a good role model. There’s many, many, many more things to this job than just being the president. You are an example. You have to — you have to be better than that. You have to be.”

Sen. McCain also repeatedly called for clean campaigning.

What a difference a few months and the unbridled hunger for power make.  The campaign’s embrace of the rankest of muck and insinuation speaks volumes about the campaign’s leadership and the character of its candidates. They now stir the same kettle that the Limbaughs and Hannities of this country toil over.

At what price an American presidency?

UPDATE: For my follow up post, see McCain and Palin fueling the fires.

UPDATE 10/8: At McPalin rally today: “Off with his head.”

UPDATE 10/10: Video of Obama’s prediction in July that the current GOP tactics were inevitable


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Little room for just war, when diplomacy and police work trump bombing

photo by soundfromwayout

Several  months ago, I posted about the Bush administration’s attempt to strong arm a permanent stay in Iraq, despite Americans and, more importantly, the Iraqis not wanting such a deal to be made.  Lots of debate ensued about the Iraq war.

Conservative blogger Chris Ford asked:

. . . So your overall argument for war, if I am reading right here, is that we should not attack a country unless we are attacked? Basically the whole reactive vs. proactive right? . . . At what point, in your view, would you say the american deathtoll have to be in order for us to attack a country/dictator? This isn’t a loaded question. I’m even interested to see if you think that we should do nothing at all in the course of an attack on us.

Violence begets violence. Even after being attacked, diplomacy trumps bombing.  It’s not as though Al Qa’ida has a website with the location of its international headquarters posted under its contact information.  Even if you set out to kill terrorists, taking out civilians is unacceptable collateral. Not only are you unlikely to strike the core of a terrorist organization with bombs, you are apt to assist the terrorists in driving new recruits to their side.  Terrorists take their disapproval of American foreign policy to extremes; for the average individual, disapproval would not be expressed with violence, but take out a hospital or school yard or wedding party, and the goodwill evaporates.

In Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky discusses philospher Jean Bethke Elshtain’s 4 criteria for a just war.

First, force is justified if it ‘protects the innocent from certain harm’; her sole example is when a country has ‘certain knowledge that genocide will commence on a certain date’ and the victims have no means of self-defense.  Second, the war ‘must be openly declared or otherwise authorized by a legitimate authority.’ Third, it “must begin with the right intentions.” Fourth, it must be a last resort after other possibilities for the redress and defense of the values at stake have been explored.’ (p 203)

Few of the US’s counterterrorist acts meet these standards — our foreign policy keeps repressive regimes in power, until they no longer suit us, and then we replace that leadership.  In fact, Chomsky points out that, in the 1980s,  the US Army “defined terrorism as ‘the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. . .through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.’” (p. 188).  That definition got retired and was never replaced. Fitting, as we respond to terrorism with acts of terrorism.

We were alone in our desire to start a war after 9/11.  A late September 2001 Gallup Poll asked “In your opinion, once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorist are based or should the American government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?” (p.199)  Of 36 foreign countries surveyed, India and Israel were the only two nations to support a military attack, the other 34 weighed heavily in favor of court proceedings.   Here are a few examples.

Country / Percent Favoring  Judicial Response /  Military Response
France    67    29
Germany    77    17
Israel    19    77
Italy    71    21
Peru    89    8
Spain    86    12
Switzerland    87    8
United Kingdom    75    18
United States    30    54
Mexico    94    2
Ukraine    84    8
Venezuela    86    11

(Random aside, though we came to dub France a nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys, it was the Western European nation most supportive of military action.  Merci mille fois!)

The US is out of touch with a realization accepted by the rest of the world.  Violent retribution isn’t easy to tightly control, so diplomacy and solid police work should take the lead.  RAND, a well-respected social issues think tank released their latest report on terrorism: How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida (Full Report / Summary Only). Their researchers examined 648 terrorist groups active between 1968 to 2006 and found:

All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. . . The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa’ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa’ida.

Military solutions dismantled terrorist agendas just 7% of the time.  In the case of Al Qa’ida, the group stepped up its terrorist attacks AFTER 9/11 suggesting that military action further energized the hydra-esque group.

So when Chris asks how many Americans have to die before we can strike back with impunity . . . There is no magic number.  In response to any attack, I’d want to know the serious and vigorous attempts to use law enforcement, court proceedings, and negotiation had failed.  Tit for tat is just going to lead to World War III.

And for a portion of our population, WWIII is the desired outcome.  The problem with turning to police work and open discussion is that it cuts of the profits flowing to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, who rake in huge government contracts with little accountability for getting results or providing quality goods and services.  Blowing up countries yields more profit to corporations with the opportunity to destroy and then reconstruct societal infrastructure than tense negotiations that yield limited violent outbursts.

For more on retribution and American foreign policy, check out Chapters 8 (Terrorism and Justice: Some Useful Truisms) and 9 (A Passing Nightmare?) of Noam Chomsky’s  Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.

Update 8/10: NYTimes Columnist Nicholas Kristoff covers the RAND study today in his column, “Make Diplomacy, Not War.”

AddThis Social Bookmark Button