Harbor-ing Terrorists
I really do find the Bush-supporter philosophy amazing. From about 8:42AM, September 11, 2001, Bush supporters have told those who don’t agree with them that they are:
1). Helping terrorists
2). Hurting/hating our troops
3). America-Haters
4). Traitors
5). Treasonous
They’ve taken a triple amputee war hero and morphed his face into Osama Bin Laden's for a political ad. They’ve smeared another decorated War veteran by lying about his record to support their president who didn't fight at all. They’ve taken another decorated, life-long marine and insinuated he was a coward on the House floor. This is their discourse both at the highest levels of government, on down to the College Republican level where they can train dougy, white corporatist kids to constantly mock troops who have served their country – simply because they’re Democrat.
Take a trip around the conservative blogosphere and you’ll see instances of this all over the place. It’s disgusting, but this is the type of person you’re dealing with. This is their character, and this is how they participate in their nation’s citizenship. It’s what they do.
While in no way do I feel that one must have served in the American military to be a qualified politician, it simply blows my mind that Democrats, considering all who have served, get the America-hater label, while current Republican administration dodges this bullet consistently, considering all of them who haven’t.
Think about all of the free passes the Bush administration gets from the media and from those on the Right regarding terrorism, failure to prevent it, and ties to the governments who support it.
From Bush’s ties to Salem bin Laden, to George Bush Senior meeting with Shafig bin Laden as the planes were actually slamming into the WTC, to Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar meeting with Bush just after the attacks, to Bush refusing to release a report detailing Saudi Officials' relationship to the hijackers, to Bush fighting the 9/11 commission in terms of funding, time constraints, testifying under oath and limiting cabinet officials' ability to testify, Halliburton doing business with Iraq and Libya during their sanctions, all the way back to Reagan/Bush Sr funding the Mujahadeen, the Iranians illegally and the Iraqis openly – there are so many incredibly strong ties between the Bush family and terrorism originating from the Middle East, entire books have been written just to connect the dots.
I’m not saying every one of these links will work as credible evidence to blame our current administration for every terrorist attack around the globe, but for Christ’s sake, are there any Bush supporters out there that can admit all of these connections at least look bad?
And if Bill Clinton had these same connections? Are you fucking kidding me?
Look, I know in the minds of Republicans, lying about blowjobs in the White House totally eclipses lying about war, eating away the Constitution and getting failing grades from the 9/11 Commission after such a Commission was fought tooth and nail to begin with. I realize this.
But, could someone please explain to me, how after everything we know about this President’s ties to the Saudis, to big oil, to relatives of bin Laden, and everything else we know – how is it
that Bush supporters haven’t razor-scraped the W ’04 stickers off their SUV’s knowing that Bush will veto any legislation proposed by any member of Congress concerned that the a giant Oil-tocracy will be guarding our major ports?!?!!Even if it can be argued that the state-run company (that’s right, it’s not even a private firm within the UAE) coming from one of a small handful of nations that doesn’t legally recognize Israel but did fully recognize the Taliban when it was in power doesn’t pose a security risk, in an Administration where image and PR is literally everything, this just plain looks bad.
In case you’re not familiar with the UAE, here’s a quick primer of the nation who will be in charge, and the ports they’ll be protecting:
– Since the attacks of 9/11, one of the largest vulnerabilities of our homeland security can be traced back to our lack of port protection.
– The Coast Guard has estimated that it would cost roughly $5.4 billion dollars to improve security at our ports. Despite this estimate, last year Congress gave only $175 million in port security grants and $708 million overall, giving them a fraction of the resources they need.
– In experiments designed to test port security during 2002 and 2003, ABC News successfully shipped 15 pounds of depleted uranium into the United States two years in a row
– Even after public concern regarding port security, only 5% of our cargo is inspected when it arrives today.
– If the deal goes through as the Bush administration is hoping, the United Arab Emerits will be in charge of ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– It is one of several Middle Eastern Nations who does not recognize the state of Israel, and has a bit of history as an anti-Semitic nation.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the
UAE banking system, as the UAE is one of the wealthiest Arab nations.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Since this story broke, there have been accusations of Islamophobia from those who want to see the deal go through. These are the same people who pretend to be enraged when Civil Rights pioneers look to block nominations of officials who happen to be people of color, accusing them of racism, (i.e. equal rights pioneer Sean Hannity telling an Hispanic Civil Rights organization they’re racist for being against the Alberto Gonzalez appointed).
This isn’t about being Arab, Muslim, or anything else. Liberals have always dedicated a good part of our being toward fighting for the have-nots, so please, spare us your feigned outrage. Instead, this about state-sponsored terrorism, homeland security, and fighting against cronyism, and an entire host of Congressional Republicans and Democrats agree.
(Thanks as always to crooks and liars for the video)
posted by Jeremy at 10:03 PM
21 Comments:
Awesome dude!!
You really need to do political commentary full time. I'm assuming that you don't already, but if you don't you need to be in politics. You are a natural, totally.
I agree with MJ.
Actually - that kind of praise goes to guys like this.
Brilliant. Your best yet, Jeremy
Dude, you hit the nail right on the head. Bravo!
I agree with you. I am a Conservative also. Many, if not most, Conservatives do agree with you on this topic. Bad Idea for our country I believe. Thats been number one in most Conservatives minds concerning the War on Terrorism. The best plan for our country.Whether you believe it or not.
Now is this profiling ? Most Certainly.I use the same ideas for profiling at airports. We need to keep an eye out for our enemy.I thought Democrats were against profiling ? Not on this one though right ?
Tom –
I appreciate your comment, and yes, in this case there seems to be a lot of bipartisan concern which makes this a bit unique. And of course the Democrats are going to try and jump on it politically.
But on to the subject of profiling. To me, profiling means singling out individuals who appear to be of a certain dissent – in this case Arab – in order to more accurately target what you feel are people who look like those who are more likely to be a security risk.
I’m not 100% against profiling. For example, until elderly women start getting arrested for smuggling pipe bombs in their purses, I think searching *everyone* is a ridiculous feel-good type of move which is designed only to appease our collective sense of political correctness.
However, I do have many issues with profiling in a larger sense.
First – when you profile ethnically, you’re going to end up missing the Tim McVeighs and Eric Ruldolphs of the world. Are we currently facing a large threat of isolated white males bombing buildings? Not now, but you couldn’t say that just a handful of years ago, or throughout our nation’s history. But that’s not my main reason for being against profiling. It’s this:
Remember the discovery of Al Qaeda manuals shortly after 9/11? One of the sections in there, and one of the things that are asked of Muslim men who are connecting to infiltrating the West to purposes of violence is that they try to look as Western as possible . In other words – the guy that has the explosives belt under his clothing is not the Pakistani with the turban and the white robe on – it’s the beardless guy in the Oxford shirt and expensive laptop sitting behind you.
Part of what the Bush Administration has done is created the perfect antagonist, like a good novel, with the Muslim community. Look how many times Bush mentions very black & white, absolute terms such as “evil,” etc. With that said, I think Americans specifically aren’t in tune to the nuances enough of Muslim culture to really know what an extremist looks like. In fact, I don’t think anyone really knows. Many people would be surprised that lots of the foreign fighters pouring into Iraq are north African, not Middle Eastern, just to give an example.
Therefore, profiling does little but to draw attention to many harmless people while the ones you really do have to worry about slip by, thus not making us any safer but making us much more racially charged and aware, which is really the last thing we need.
In the case with Dubai, we’re actually concerned about an entire nation – of which may be a partner in helping to reduce terrorism – but have a really poor track record of helping us do so, at least at the private citizen level. The other concern that it’s a state run company, and this particular state doesn’t simply have “some ties” to funding terrorism, its banks play an absolute vital role due the country’s wealth. Not to mention this is a hereditary monarchy with a horrible human rights record – not security related per se, but still adds to the overall picture of this nation.
Well yeah that's the point I was trying to make as well (using way too many words as usual). Profiling is really a law enforcement "tool" used on an individual basis based on, let's face it, stereotypes.
Being concerned about a nation with terrorist ties - allbeit a friendly government to the U.S., is hardly profiling.
I wonder if you asked the American public which nation of origin did more 9/11 hijackers originate - Iraq or the UAE, that almost half would get that wrong.
IT is profiling. Heres how.
Now, I'm with you guys on this so keep that in mind.
I didn't specify it being RACIAL profiling now did I ? The country is profiled. The area in general is. With every right in doing so for the most part. Basically, we will not have any country from that region to do business with us if terror ties in some form or another is the pre cursor. Hell, to generalize all liberals, we as a country can't do business with ourselves because of our OWN ties to terrorism , right ? : )I think it is to soon to be letting an orginization from that region do business with us on this level, ecspecially while we are still ingaged in a war. It's only common sense.
Seriously, if you are opposed to this deal, you have profiled the country as being connected to Terrorism.Profiled the region, And rightfully so. (Something you couldn't do for Iraq for some reason even though much evidence is acrued, and more comes out everyday..I suggest you scan over tapes of Saddam out there talking about this very subject,but enough tangents) The connections are there that UAE is in some fashion a supporter of terrorism or has been in the past. We do see change and they are trying to be like us as a country in general.but, The profile we have on this country stands taller then anything we have on the contrary of them becoming a western ally. I think it is too soon to try to extend the hand to a ME country as a sign of good faith in the security world of any fashion.Way too early.
I don't think any country should have this power, I think it should be all ours, but thats just me I guess. Someday, which I believe we are fighting for, we can have transactions like this take place. Someday we can intrust a country like the UAE or another profiled area from that region with something of this scale. Not now though. It's outrageuos to think so at this juncture. It is also outrageous to think that we can never have a connection in this manner with a country who once had connection to terrorism. US,Canada, Brittain, Spain had connection to terrorism. It's inevitable, we will except countries who have changed. I think it's too early to tell if the UAE has.
Well your definition of profiling is widening like the gap between approve/disapprove in the President’s ratings :-)
You’re using a misnomer for what the definition of profiling is, as used by law enforcement (keeping in mind “profiling” is a relatively recent term the way we’re using it here).
I suppose anything can get stereotyped – an entire country, race of people, the human race if you really want to open the net. But profiling typically relates to the known behavior of individuals based on collective statistical data or the perception of that data being accurate. And again, we’re using “profiling” as a pejorative, and I don’t think profiling is always inherently bad.
By your definition we profiled Germany and Japan after WWII.
I think you also misunderstood my post. We agree in the that UAE deal may not be a good idea, but I think the point I wanted to raise is that the president I’m assuming you support (which, if you’re a true conservative I cannot understand how you could) constantly gets the strong counterterrorism label while you, albeit in good fun, referred to liberals as siding with terrorists.
My argument is – look at all the incidents, relationships, and favoritism that ties our oil-reared President to that which we considering terrorism stemming from the Middle East. It’s literally astounding. How you can look at the Saudi ties, the bin Laden ties, the failure to respond to a natural disaster in our own country, etc and not come to any other conclusion. You’d fry Clinton alive over the same circumstances.
Finally, you mentioned another falsehood that I’ll never, ever let another Bush supporter get away with:
It’s myths such as “Iraq had strong or even moderate ties to Islam extremism” that got us into the mess we’re in right now, and I honestly believe if those on the Right were more educated, tens of thousands of casualties would have been averted.
I can’t say it enough – Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people, but he never, ever had significant or even sub-significant ties to Islamic extremism. Did he help fund suicide bombings in Israel? Absolutely, and so did more than half of the treasuries in African and Asian nations.
Islamic militantism was NOT originating in Iraq, not when compared to Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, areas in Europe, southern areas of Russia, etc. Not even close.
Saddam’s entire dictatorship was based on a secular fear of Iran and the Shiites specifically, and of bin Laden and his extremist followers in general. His entire philosophical paranoia, strong enough to start an 8 year war killing millions on both sides with Iran was based on this fact.
How can you not crack a book or watch a PBS special and not realize this? How are you not able to compare the magnet of extremism that is Iraq post-2003 versus pre-2003?
Even the Iraqis, which by the way make up most of the insurgency, aren’t that affective in fighting U.S. troops with terror tactics. Most of these Iraqis had never used an explosive in their lives. It’s the foreign fighters, so many of the them that al-Zarqawi is actually having to turn away, who are really stirring things up.
Even many prominent conservatives are viewing this as a mistake. It was based on poor intelligence, cherry picked by officials who were begging for this war, executed without the proper equipment, troops levels, exist strategies, funding or foresight, filled with corruption, huge mistake after mistake, which has fanned exactly what we didn’t want to promote in that region. It is a catastrophic failure on ever single level.
Tom – not to beat a dead horse here but the more I think about this the more I find myself disagreeing with you and needing to explain why.
I think the best way to express the difference between profiling and why everyone is concerned with a specific nation and it’s history, and why that’s not profiling, can be summed up like this:
Profiling:Specifically targeting ethnicity (staying relevant within this conversation, Arabs or Muslims or both) based on stereotypes and assumptions rather than citing the specific history and/or behavior of the target.
Example: Most terrorist attacks around the globe are committed by Muslims, therefore I’m going to search the turban-wearing Indonesian guy boarding this plane. This is profiling.
Here’s the UAE analogy, sticking with the same theme above:
Non-Profiling: Taking action because of a specific history, rather than a perceived stereotype of that individual
Example: The Indonesian guy boarding this plane runs a charity that benefits Hamas and other terrorist groups, and a few years ago a business partner of his bombed the US Embassy in Algeria. I therefore have tangible history with evidence
The UAE issue is different in that the UAE is a closed-media, very anti-Democratic society with most liberties suspended in favor of Muslim law. Instead of lumping it with other Asian and African nations, or stereotyping through a profile, the emirates that comprise the UAE have a specific and verifiable track record and history of financing Muslim extremism, with specific citizens of the UAE having hijacked the planes on 9/11.
Bottom line – the UAE isn’t being discriminated against because it’s an Arab nation or a Muslim nation. Specific intelligence regarding the nation’s actions are what raise the questions.
Well I agree with you on some level on both points. If we are singling out the UAE because of their connections to terrorism - rather than saying, “they are Arab or Muslim therefore have terrorist connections,” then that in and of itself is not profiling per se. But yes, it’s semantics that we disagree on and we’d go on and on. Those on the left have been fighting profiling since cops have been chasing down black drivers on the Florida interstates looking for coke, so when you accuse us of doing that which we’ve been fighting against conservatives, it strikes us as a bit hypocritical.
Moving on. The UAE is hardly what I’d call a Democracy – Iran is more of a Democracy than Dubai or the rest of the UAE when you look at how leaders are chosen, as it is ruled by Sheikhs with power from the Monarchy – the hereditary Monarchy.
They are one of three nations (along with Pakistan and one other) who recognized the Taliban when they were in power. They do not recognize Israel. They are loaded with oil revenue and much of the money from the 9/11 attacks can be traced back to this nation. Their human rights record is very poor, and they have no free media. It’s not really a Democracy at all.
But let me ask you a more important question – if you’re a Bush-supporter, and by the transitive property a supporter of illegal wiretapping, politicizing 9/11, torture in many circumstances, secret prisons, wars based on faulty intelligence, etc…why wouldn’t you be in favor the Dubai Ports deal? You’re supporting Bush’s chronyism on almost every level if you support the man himself – friends appointed to positions of power, awarding complete failures like Wolfy, Condi, George Tennet, Bolton, etc…why wouldn’t you support Bush’s big oil friends in getting a lucrative contract instead of worrying about national security like the rest of us are?
Are you at ease with Michael Chertoff heading the homeland security department after the incredibly Katrina failures, demonstrating our response to a domestic disaster, yet the Dubai deal all of the sudden worries you?
Can you think back over these five years and count how many times Bush has said, “trust us,” kept the doors of government totally closed, completely fucked up whatever it was he wanted us to trust him on, then tried to obstruct the investigation as to why he fucked up? You’re ok with all of that and Dubai is what keeps you up at night? It doesn’t make sense to me. Or like, 65% of the country according to recent polls :-)
Okay, I guess I screwed up on calling UAE a democracy. I was trying to say, it's more westernized then most in the region. They strive to be more like us on many levels. They are evolving as a country I guess you could say.None of this sways me into thinking this deal is good for us.
I told you why I'm not a supporter of the Dubai deal already jeremy. I don't think it's a good idea for our country at this juncture.Me supporting the War on Terrorism does not make me someone who supports "Bush’s big oil friends in getting a lucrative contract"...I am supporting the War on Terrorism because I do " worrying about national security like the rest of us are?"...You follow ? I never said I was a "Bush supporter" , same as when I was with Clinton on Operation Desert Fox and the Bosnian conflict didn't make me a "Clinton Supporter". I wish it were that easy to polarize myself on these issues. I wish it were as easy as, Right vs. Wrong.Left vs. Right. Not everyone can fall in step with one side and run on every issue that way. At least I can't. I don't support anyone 100%. You are telling me you think it's possible for you to ? Thats great if thats true, I admire that. But I call them like I see them. Repub or Dem.
Dubai deal worries me, the disaster relief worries me, the fact that everyone relies too much on the Government and not on themselves to remove them from danger worries me , Islamic terrorism worries me, Big Business running our country worries me .Plus many more issues worry me Jeremy.
Many things keep me up at night .This Dubai deal is not one of them I must say, even though it is very disheartening. Radical islamic fascists keep me up at night.Thats my number one worry.I don't totally trust any government official. Never have. regardless of what your affiliation is. So if you're done putting words in my mouth I'll leave you with this so you don't have to stretch from now on. I believe our country is predominantly good. We strive to make things right. I don't have as much political bias when it comes to either "side". I dole that out equally. I don't hold disdain for our country. I realize mistakes were made, but all in all we do more good then harm at the end of the day.
PS.....I don't believe Democracy is good for every country either. But I do believe in Liberty and Justice for all, as cheesy as that sounds nowadays it still holds clear. So resurect any form of Government you want, I'll support it as long as everyone is getting a fair shot at being heard. If it turns out that they elect Hamas, so be it. We'll deal with it. We always do. The world isn't perfect, but we can sure try to help right ? We have the resources to make sure the world is a safer place, why not try right ? Hell, the US is responsible for helping a majority of the world on most fronts. Concentrate on that.
Tom – don’t get me wrong – I agree with you on many things you’ve said. I do believe many Muslim nations, especially Jordan and believe it or not, Iran, love most Western culture and have a majority of citizens that try to be like us. I think most people understand the “blame the government, not it’s people” philosophy that emulated from the Cold War.
And I don’t think you’re a Bush supporter because you support the “war on terrorism,” at all. Remember – I run a web site on which people I’ve never met before in my life comment, therefore assumptions and drawing conclusions is the name of the game, unfortunately. So I’m glad you spoke up.
I assumed you were a Bush supporter based on other comments. If anything, if you’re looking to combat religious extremism in any form, I would naturally assume you’re progressive or a Democrat. I’m not joking when I say that, because considering all of the misdirection, ignorance and misinformation regarding this “war on terror,” I can’t believe you’d be satisfied in the least at what you see, and I don’t understand how you could pull the lever next to Bush’s name in the voting booth (like I’ve said before – I would like to go up to all the Minivans and SUV’s I see in Maine with ‘support our troops’ ribbons next to ‘W ‘04’ stickers and say, “please remove one of these…you can’t have both).
Finally – to your last point. I find news ways to verbalize how I feel about this administration’s philosophy daily, and you’ve encouraged me to really hit on a point I’ve been thinking about lately:
When those on the left or in the middle comment on their distain for the country’s direction – they are not expressing distain for the country itself. I cannot express that enough and you sound reasonable enough to agree with that. But here’s more…
When we are expressing dissention or outrage, we’re doing so NOT just because of mistakes that were made – but because of a culture that is intentionally inept, intentionally corrupt, or their specific voluntary behavior has caused a horrible outcome.
Of course people get on Bush for mistakes – Bush crashing into Scottish police on his bike a while ago is an example that’s floating around recently. However – specific intentional decisions, lack of action, not listening to those who could see things coming, all of that stuff – it’s totally inexcusable, and it’s not just "oops, I made a mistake, let’s learn from it."
This administration isn’t just having “bad luck” Tom. They’re not even making “mistakes” most of the time, they’re choosing these paths for the most part, and then trying to cover them up and take zero accountability when they fail.
That’s what everyone is screaming about, not necessarily the things they can’t control. It’s the secrecy, the ignorance, the homophobia, the racism, the derailment of science, the cronies, the handouts, the corruption, the scandals, the impeding investigations, the arrogance, the inexperience, the lying, the smearing, the propaganda, etc etc. These my friends, are not mistakes, and that’s where the outrage comes from.
In its classic "fair and balanced" tradition, CBS slanted in favor of Democrats its poll that found Bush has a 34 percent approval rating and a 59 percent disapproval rating, an all-time high for a CBS poll.
On the bottom of the PDF version of the poll (page 18) it says how many Democrats versus Republicans were contacted.
"Total Republicans" contacted: 272 unweighted and 289 weighted.
"Total Democrats" contacted: 409 unweighted and 381 weighted.
"Total Independents" contacted: 337 unweighted and 348 weighted.
Anon - didn't your 3rd grade teacher tell you not to plagiarize?
So.. through a poll in which 60% of the pollees identified themselves as being something other than Democrat, Bush scored an approval rating of 34% and Cheney 18%.
Interesting.
Unfortunately you forgot to paste the rest of what you cut from another web site above:
"While it is absolutely true that the sample is skewed - it's probably unwise to try to spin this poll for the president.
A Rasmussen poll shows the president's approval still at 43%, but as this deal leads each news cycle that will continue to fall as well.
This is the most dangerous part of that Rasmussen poll:
Just 39% of Americans now believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That's down from 42% earlier this month and from 44% in January With just one exception; this is the lowest level of confidence ever measured by Rasmussen Reports."
thats not where I got it from though, nice try.I did copy it, OH NO. The point is, the poll was skewed. If you're claiming that his approval rating is at 32% you're wrong. not even 20% of people polled were republicans. How can you have this as proof of anything, it's tainted from the get go. Stay on topic course here and stop trying to decieve people into whats important here, not my copying standards, it's the outcome of this poll.
I was kidding with you - I cite other web sites all the time...I just usually put stuff in quotes
:-)
Anyway, yes, it looks like they oversampled Democrats. The fact is that Bush's approval rating is consistently between 36% - 43% in all surveys conducted. The only poll that consistently has him higher than the rest is GOP-run Rasmussen.
Bush consistently hovers around Nixon's ratings during his impeechment, and about 20 to 30 points below Clinton during his time in office despite the witch hunts. Clinton's world approval was even higher, and Bush's is even lower. We love him more than almost any other country in the world.
I'll post the poll of the troops in Iraq in a bit anon, and you can quote me something from the Free Republic on how that's skewed as well.
Good design!
[url=http://dergmjgo.com/kwyk/vnzy.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://dzlcsikw.com/uehi/vxht.html]Cool site[/url]
Well done!
http://dergmjgo.com/kwyk/vnzy.html | http://cekhkhuf.com/owcb/ozyx.html
Post a Comment
<< Home