Who Hijacked Our Country

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Are Republicans “Protecting” Us?

Republicans will be playing the Fear Card (again) this November. With their piss-poor record of “protecting” us, this seems like a suicidal approach. It’s true that Karl Rove’s successful strategies are often counterintuitive (i.e. attacking your opponent’s strengths instead of his weaknesses), but it’s hard to imagine Rove’s tactics working again this year.

During the upcoming session of Congress, Republicans are planning to leave almost all of their legislative business unfinished. They will be devoting the entire session to spinning the security issue and “proving” to us that we need to re-elect them so they can keep on “protecting” us. A budget for 2007, immigration, lobbying reform — all of these issues are being left in limbo so the Republicans can prance around and show us how tough they are. OK, how have they protected us?

The September 11th attacks happened on the Republican watch. The person responsible for 9/11 is still at large five years later. In response to the 9/11 attacks (supposedly), we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. This invasion has transformed Iraq from a brutal (but stable) dictatorship to a free-for-all killing field that’s claimed almost 3,000 American soldiers. We’ve created a record deficit that our great-grandchildren will be paying off. (Whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?)

In the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy, we’ve transformed Iraq into the terrorist haven that Bush always claimed it was. Oh, and we’ve alienated practically every country in the world except Israel. And this is the “record” that the Republicans want to run on???

Somebody who’s been divorced twelve times probably wouldn’t make much of a marriage counselor. You wouldn’t take driving lessons from someone who’s had fifteen accidents and 37 traffic tickets. But this is what the Republicans are asking us to do.

They laid the groundwork for 9/11 by repeatedly ignoring intelligence warnings that this exact type of attack would be happening. They’ve been unable or unwilling to catch the mastermind of this attack. The Bush Administration’s international blunders and fuckups have created a better terrorist recruiting tool than al Qaeda could have ever dreamed of.

And now Republicans think we should keep them in office because of their stellar performance. They’re the only ones who can protect us against terror. ROFLMAO!

If a security guard allowed a record number of robberies and assaults to happen on his watch, you’d laugh in his face if he said “I’m the only one who can protect you against criminals.” These Republican fuckups need to be laughed at and voted out this November.

And now Rumsfeld and Cheney are calling opponents of the Iraqi invasion “terrorist sympathizers” and comparing them to Nazi appeasers. Yup, that’s how you win votes — tell two thirds of America’s voters what a bunch of weak-kneed pussies they are. Way to go.

Democrats need to face the terrorism and Iraqi quagmire issues head-on. It would be a fatal mistake (again) for them to just play up the social issues where they’re favored by voters and ignore Iraq, terrorism and our shattered international reputation. Democrats need to grab the fear/terrorism issue and run with it.

When the “Swiftboat Veterans” start cranking up the slime machine, when Republicans yell “cut and run” — we need to jump in there and take them on. We need to demonstrate to voters that five and a half years of Republican “protection” has been nothing more than a pitiful smoke and mirrors show.

As this Newsweek columnist said, we need to turn the Iraqi war into a referendum on the Bush Administration. If you think the Iraqi war is a success, vote Republican. If you think it’s a failure, vote Democratic.

Sounds like a clear choice.

cross-posted at Bring It On!


Blogger BaxterWatch said...


preach it, brother.

You know, when it comes down to it, the ONLY thing that W will be remembered for is the War in Iraq. Not his repsonse to 9/11, not his tax cuts, or his "no child left behind."

His legacy in the history books that children will read is how he invaded Iraq looking for weapons he knew didn't exist.

I have to believe that history will be very cruel to him. Because if I didn't believe that, I think I would emmigrate to Europe or canada.

September 6, 2006 at 8:06 AM  
Blogger Jenn of the Jungle said...

Ya'll need a new line. The"fear" card is way, way overplayed, and is your most overrated and over used; useless, word of the year.

As a Republican, I can assure you that I feel no fear and an impromptu survey of 8 Republicans in the office, when asked if they feel "fear" when terrorism is brought up, 8 out of 8 laughed.

September 6, 2006 at 11:36 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Baxterwatch: I hope you're right about Bush's judgment by history. He deserves to known for centuries as the president who gutted the infrastructure and the safety net, turned a budget surplus into a record deficit and alienated almost every ally. High school history texts tend to whitewash everything, but hopefully some deeper historians will keep the truth known.

September 6, 2006 at 11:48 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jenn of the Jungle: You don't have a fear of terrorism? I'm sure glad you told me that. From most of the posts (and the comments) on your blog, I've pictured you cringing and cowering in a corner, scared shitless that Abu Habib al Hussein bin Ghraib is gonna sneak in and getcha.

September 6, 2006 at 12:03 PM  
Blogger Babs1 said...

Don't get me started about republicans!
RYC on the "Christian" blogs: at least I get a credit too while cursing at them.

September 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Babs: Yup, those Republicans. Hopefully they'll be on their way out soon. Good post on those Christian blogs. Seems like a lot of people are fed up with them; I was afraid it was just me.

September 6, 2006 at 3:17 PM  
Blogger Mike V. said...

Tom, Tom, you're glib. You don't even know what an Islamo-fascist is!

September 7, 2006 at 8:21 AM  
Blogger Elizabeth said...

I haven't come across any Christian blogs...I've visited some right-wing blogs, but I eventually realized that "right-wing" wasn't the best description for them. "White trash" seemed like a better description for most of them, and some I would call "fascist."

September 7, 2006 at 8:54 AM  
Blogger Jenn of the Jungle said...

Odd, I think this post would have made it pretty clear....

"Do I live in fear. No. The only time I live in fear is when I drive on the 15 at rush hour. That, my single minded little moonbats, is FEAR. (And anyone that's driven on it would know.)

Even on 9/11 I didn't feel fear. I felt many things that sunny Tuesday morning. But fear never even came close to entering the picture."


September 7, 2006 at 9:51 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Mike: Yes, I admit it, I want the terrorists to win.

Elizabeth: Yup, I'd say Fascist and White Trash are good descriptions for these blogs. But some of them seem so disarming at first glimpse, with a big smiling Jesus taking up the top of the page.

September 7, 2006 at 11:04 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jenn, Jenn, Jenn: OK, I found your post where you say you don't feel fear. Fine, but that's still the button being pushed by this inept administration. Every time Bush/Cheney/Rove get in a bind, they yell "9/11!" or "terrorists!"

And millions of gullible voters fall right in line. If that's not fear, what is it?

September 7, 2006 at 11:08 AM  
Blogger Jenn of the Jungle said...

Tom, dear, I am one of those millions of voters. I don't feel fear, as you aknowledged. Nor do any of the Republicans I know.

And I know many. I live in probably the last Republican stronghold in California.

That being said, I'd say it's more of a need to know. Plot to blow up planes in London foiled. So, it becomes a newstory. You know, people want to know. Now if they didn't report on it, many would accuse the administration of hiding even more "stuff". Dang, guys can't win.

Not to say I'm not sick of hearing about it. I'd like Bush to occasionally make a speech that doesn't contain the word "terror". Or, he could just shut up and in 2 years we could get a real Republican in office.

Now, any of you going to send Rove a "Sorry" card for all your Fitzmas crap? Bwah,ha,ha,ha,ha....

September 7, 2006 at 1:34 PM  
Blogger Elizabeth said...

I live in New York City, and on Sept. 11--and for several days afterward--I felt fear. Anyone who lives here who says they didn't feel fear those days is either lying, or is divorced from reality.

Yet, despite--or perhaps because of this? New Yorkers opposed the Bush agenda. Perhaps because, as victims, we are more in touch with the reality that war is not a video game or a football game or any excuse to chant slogans and wave flags. We prefer diplomacy and negotiations and justice and international law, because that's what's going to protect us, not wars.

September 7, 2006 at 3:49 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

"A real Republican in office." You mean like Dwight Eisenhower?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Hey, there you go. Now you're talkin'.

September 7, 2006 at 3:58 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Elizabeth: I know people in NYC and they all felt fear, plus every other negative emotion. It's pretty telling that the voters in NYC and Washington DC are unimpressed with all the flagwaving and warmongering. Like you say, they know first hand what a terrorist attack is like; it's not a video game or a soundbite.

September 7, 2006 at 4:04 PM  
Blogger Elizabeth said...

Tom I think I accidentally deleted a comment you sent to one of my blogs. You can send it again if you want.

September 7, 2006 at 4:52 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

OK, I sent it again.

September 7, 2006 at 7:02 PM  
Blogger Snave said...

Sorry about having to rant, and long-windedly. I just can't stand it.

A real Republican, like Dwight Eisenhower, would be tarred as a "liberal" by the GOP pols of today. Abraham Lincoln? Probably the same. If Jesus came back, many of today's Repbulicans would probably not know it was him and they'd call him a "hippie" or a "liberal", or maybe a "terrorist" or "traitor" for trying to kick the thieves out of the temples.

"Somebody who’s been divorced twelve times probably wouldn’t make much of a marriage counselor. You wouldn’t take driving lessons from someone who’s had fifteen accidents and 37 traffic tickets. But this is what the Republicans are asking us to do."

Rightly said, Tom.

And when somebody who has had large-scale business failures in the past wants to privatize so much of what goes on in America and run the country OF business, BY business and FOR business, I get a bit leery...

When people with bad environmental track records say they are protecting our environment, I have to get a bit leery...

When a guy who made fun of a death row inmate who was begging for her life says he is a "compassionate" conservative, I have to get a bit leery...

When the president once said "There ought to be limits to freedom", then later said running the country would be so much easier if it was a dictatorship... as long as he was dictator... and then a few short months after Sept. 11, 2001 said "All in all, it's been a great year for Laura and me"... I have to get more than a bit leery. And when he reportedly referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamned piece of paper", I didn't get leery... I got scared for our future.

When someone orders our troops to invade a country pre-emptively and says it is the only way to attain peace, I have to get a bit leery. Was Saddam Hussein really on the same scale as Hitler? I don't think Saddam was going to try and take over the Middle East. I don't think he could have if he had wanted to.

When a guy who responds correctly and quickly to 9/11/01 by sending troops to Afghanistan, but then sends the bulk of the troops to war in Iraq, a place unrelated to 9/11... I have to wonder what's going on.

I'm afraid of terrorists, because nothing is really being done to make our country safer from them. It's easy to smuggle weapons into our ports, and apparently it's easy to cross over our borders and into our country. Lobbyists are holding up the implementation of recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, all in the name of business and of profits that would be lost were some important measures to be implemented. Instead of beefing up security here at home like I think we ought to be doing, and beefing up intelligence and helping it to be more reliable, Bush spends billions of dollars for his Iraq war, with the costs of the lives lost immeasurable. If Bush actually had our military doing more to control the Taliban, to actually catch Bin Laden, to control the opium crops in Afghanistan, and to stabilize that country... I wouldn't mind him spending as much as he does. I just don't think it was necessary for the U.S. to invade Iraq. Which country is next? Iran? Venezuela? I shudder to think what would happen if we had a continuation of the current neocon mindset for another four years.

More war? Just more reasons to spend like a drunken sailor and, as a result, starve the beast of big government and end social programs, all with no strategy for what to do for the people who have come to depend on such programs, once the programs are gone.

There are some people out there who suckle at the government teat without good reason, and I believe that can and should be eliminated... but there are some who receive government help and who really do need it. I guess if you're a compassionate conservative though, it means you don't like to help out someone who really needs the help, because you're giving them a freebie... and if they haven't EARNED the help, it goes against good moral values to just give them "free" monies. You earned the money, so why should you have to give it someone who didn't do any work?

It's this lack of empathy which seems to characterize so much of our country's doings today. Not just sympathy, anyone can feel sympathy... but empathy, which can be an acquired skill for some. Until we get some politicians who can empathize with regular people, we regular people will continue to be royally screwed. And if being empathetic goes against modern Republican political ideals, so be it.

I think America is ready for something different than Bush... even if it's just another Republican, it can't be anywhere near as bad as what we have at the moment.

September 11, 2006 at 9:44 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: You're right, I think Eisenhower would be tarred as a liberal today. For that matter, Nixon and even Reagan seem pretty liberal and open-minded compared to this band of neocons. Yeah, it's pretty ironic that Bush, having failed at all of his own business ventures, is so gung ho about letting Big Business take over everything.

It's really tragic that we had such unity for those first few months after 9/11. Most Americans were united behind Bush and most of the world was united behind America. Then we just squandered everything by invading Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. The Powers That Be seem to have something up their sleeves; but God knows what.

We definitely need different people in charge. I don't even care if they're Republican or Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian. If we just get people who are honest and upfront, it would be such a breath of fresh air.

September 11, 2006 at 11:59 PM  
Blogger yellowdog granny said...

am i the only one that notices.....the closer it gets to election time the lower the price of gas gets....i think they are hoping that the voters will forget that the people that are lowering the gas were the same ones who raised it.but i doubt it..

September 14, 2006 at 11:37 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Yeah, undoubtedly a lot of dumb people will be grateful to Bush for the lower gas prices, without stopping to think that he could have lowered them before. Too many gullible voters.

September 14, 2006 at 6:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home