Holy crap on a stick. Bill Kristol -- who has been so wrong so often that he was somehow rewarded with a job at the New York Times -- might have actually been right about something political. For once. Back on February 17 on the self-satirical FOX News Sunday program, Kristol made a prediction:
KRISTOL: ...at the end of the day it'll be McCain against Obama in a national security election. The Democrats can say Nancy Pelosi's fond of quoting Franklin Roosevelt, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." We do have something to fear but fear itself. We have terrorists to fear and we have people who want to kill Americans to fear. And people who totally want to destabilize the Middle East to fear. And I think that's a pretty good argument for McCain to make against Obama.
In addition to being one of the most grotesque examples of a far-right feargasm, and also ignoring the fact that the Bush administration has destabilized the Middle East, Kristol had the audacity to both poo-poo the anti-fear message of President Roosevelt, while also managing, in that process, to suggest that terrorism is more worthy of our collective fear than was the Great Depression. To that argument, thanks to Kristol and the policies of the Bush administration, we might yet be able to form an accurate, modern comparison between these "threats" as we grow dangerously close to revisiting the Depression while simultaneously fighting terrorism. Heckuva job!
And so, remarkably enough, Kristol appears to have been exactly right with his prediction that the general election would revolve around fear. But how can this be? He was wrong on Iraq; he was wrong about the surge; he was wrong about the success of the Bush administration. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The secret behind this magic trick is that it wasn't a prediction at all, but rather a recommendation to the Republicans and the McBush campaign, and they simply and inexplicably chose to accept Kristol's twisted advice. (Shh! Evidently, the McBushes don't know about Kristol's spotless record of wrongness. So let's keep this between us.)
"Fear... [is] a pretty good argument for McCain to make against Obama," Kristol said back in February. Four months later, that's the argument from the McCain campaign: the tired, inaccurate message that only McCain and the He-Man Republicans are capable of keeping Americans safe from the evildoers. But it's not just the Republicans who are taking this "fear argument" advice. It's also some of the very serious villagers in the corporate media. More on that later.
This week's political news, meanwhile, was dominated by the fear mongering remarks of Senator McCain's chief strategist, the Washington lobbyist Charlie Black. For the record:
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us." As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.
Irrespective of his subsequent apology, Black most certainly appears to agree with Kristol that both fear and terrorism are good for the Republicans. Well sure. I would imagine that the Republicans will take what they can get at this point. So until their calculation about the political advantages of a terrorist attack on American soil comes to fruition or not, they're using the next best thing: the constant warnings that Senator McCain, who didn't know that al-Qaeda is composed of Sunnis, is the only candidate who can keep us safe from the evildoers.
Senator McCain's non-rejection rejection was typically baffling.
"I cannot imagine why [Black] would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America."
The corporate media, by-in-large, passed this off as a rejection of Black's suggestion that terrorism was good for the campaign. Wrong. Senator McCain didn't appear to be outraged by the context of Black's remarks at all. Instead, the Senator was more appalled at the notion that there could ever possibly be another attack given the awesome McBush anti-terrorism record.
"It's not true," Senator McCain said, implying "it's not true" that there will be another attack. Did you catch that? Senator McCain predicted that there won't be any more attacks on American soil. The terrorist threat is over! Awesome. So can we bring our soldiers home and stop wasting trillions on an overblown and misguided war on terrorism, Senator?
Nah, unfortunately this isn't what Senator McCain meant to imply at all. In reality, it was another hamfisted and abbreviated version of the classic McBush Republican Mobius Loop: "if we stay on the offense, the terrorists lose, but if we stop the war, then the terrorists win so we have to keep fighting forever and ever."
In other words, Senator McCain denounced Black's fear mongering by employing more fear mongering. I've been fighting the terrorists, so vote for me or else.
"We have terrorists to fear... And I think that's a pretty good argument for McCain," Kristol said. Advice submitted; advice taken. And even though Senator McCain didn't truly denounce Black and, instead, basically supported the lobbyist's awful statements, the very serious cable news people are giving Senator McCain a pass on this thing.
Why?
Because the very serious commentariat agrees with all of it. All week long we've been hearing on television that what Black said was the truth. That Black's statement made sense. A terrorist attack would help Senator McCain win in November. All true, including the more dangerous subtext of Black's statement that terrorists might have the ability to influence our elections. The lobbyist's only mistake, they said, was that he actually said it out loud.
Not surprising, though, from a realm in which professional broadcasters repeatedly mix up the names "Senator Barack Obama" and "Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden." Not surprising when an on-going topic of televised political conversation revolves around how Senator Obama is "exotic" and "foreign." Both areas only serve to incite fear among racists, dittoheads and the easily-influenced simple folk who believe every forwarded e-mail they receive. (I'm seriously going into business selling robot insurance and monorails to some of these hooples.)
Each of these smears feed the national security issue -- in other words, the notion that if Senator Obama is somehow similar to the scary, exotic Muslim types, then he's going to be weak on terrorism. And as long as there is terrorism, the Republicans win. That's the so-called "truth" of Kristol, McCain, Black and the corporate media at large.
The truth is that the McBush Republicans have only incited more terrorism. For argument's sake, put aside the evaluations of the liberally biased intelligence community. By the accounting of the racist, far-right website Islam: The Religion of Peace, there have been 11,326 deadly terrorist attacks since September 11. 11,326 deadly attacks on the McBush watch, which seems to indicate...hmm... that the policy of invasion, occupation, torture and destabilization has only incited more attacks. I can't imagine how this national security argument helps the McCain campaign in the slightest -- especially if the actual truth is told about the disastrous McBush war on terror.
So... Mr. Kristol? This "good argument" thing? Wrong again, chief.
Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! Go!
Pre-order Bob's forthcoming book: One Nation Under Fear: Scaredy-Cats and Fear Mongers in the Home of the Brave.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Looking forward (not so much) to months of Republican scary tales.....
"Hi. I'm John McCain. Look at all the neo-con losers who support me. That's not good, is it?"
PRESIDENT BUSH WE ARE ANXIOUSLY WAITING FOR YOUR "WAGON TRAIN" TO COME THROUGH SAN ANTONIO ON YOUR WAY TO CRAWFORD ,TEXAS. THERE WILL BE GREAT JOY AND DANCING IN THE STREETS OF SAN ANTONIO.
WE WILL STOP FOR A MINUTE OR TWO TO HONOR ALL THE FINE MEN AND WOMEN THAT DIED IN YOUR WAR.
A WAR THAT WAS NOT NECSSARY.
it worked with communism it will work with terrorists
americans are not the brightest bulbs on the planet
ike warned us but no one listened
please note neither obama or mc cain plan on reducing military budget
it will and has bankrupted and corrupted this country
we are now considered in this world a corrupt imperialist country
oh the price of super power status
self destruct time in america
and we blame our politicans for imperialism
time to look into a mirror for most americans
hardest thing in the world to do
The only thing missing here is an observation that while it is true AS OF RIGHT NOW that a terrorist attack would be advantageous for the Republicans, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY. However, in the absence of strong, principled leadership from the Democrats (I'm looking at you, Obama), it will continue to be that way.
If the Democrats seized the initiative in denouncing the failures of Bush's policies and pointing out how, in fact, they have made us LESS SAFE, we would not have to listen to this ridiculous gasbag making a mental trade-off between the lives and blood of Americans and the political fortunes of the Republican party. If there WERE another attack on America, it SHOULD be bad for Republicans; they're the ones who've been shredding the constitution, saying, "we have to do this because it will keep us safe from the terrorists." Well, in that case, we shredded the constitution and it didn't. So what now? Would the Dems jump up and say, "Hey, let's try something different"? I highly doubt it. Instead, they too have bought into the narrative that curtailing our civil liberties (the very freedoms the terrorists are alleged to hate us for) will bring us security. And it is that fact that makes these sick pronouncements by Charlie Black and Newt "We'll lose a city" Gingrich.
Yes, I am angry about this.
Kristol better stop being soooooooooo afraid of "terrorists" and start being afraid for himself.
His time is almost up.
What's scarier The Great Depression or the Terrorists, I don't know but I have a feeling we're going to find out. Anybody else see the article about the ice at the North Pole breaking up. We could be afraid of that but I don't think there's anything in it for the oil companies.
Is that news? Kristol and Lieberman practically run McCain's campaign and him from its start. The old man has outsourced his jaw movements long time ago.
Kristol's own words :" we have to fear people that destabilize the Middle East"......negate all the rest of his emptyheaded blather......HELLOOOooo.,where were you these disastrous last 7+ years Billyboy...?..??,.....G.W.Bush and his goons in the White House destabilized the Middle East more than any Hammas or Palestinian terrorist could have done in a lifetime, and they did it all within a span of 7+ years.....and now.....America is to vote into office McBush for a third term of the same failed policies...??WAKE UP.....WHat does Kristol have on his bosses at the NYTimes that enable him to still have a job puting vacuaous words on paper..??
Bush and his pals are OIL men and there is lots of OIL in the ground in the middle east. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Ah, Bob, this whole scenerio was planned. Black implants the idea into the American psychi and McCain comes out like a reasonable politician. This whole thing was staged!
Someone remind me, what is it Benjamin Franklin said about loving security more than freedom?
Neocons like Kristol want people to love security so much that they give up their freedom. Other countries have reacted a lot more rationally to terrorism. Lets get over it. There is no such thing as absolute security.
Kristol, so tired. So depleted. Who gives these fossils a platform?
I think something like this from Franklin, but cannot locate an exact quote/source.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Using fear as a tactic to influence the outcome of an election is a form of terrorism, is it not?
Using fear as a tactic to influence the outcome of "anything" is a form of terrorism ... good post.
We don't need to fear terrorists. I gas my car once a week, and every Saturday for the last couple of weeks, every time I gas up, the price is up by at least 6 to 10 cents a gallon. All of my money is in the stock market. Every time the market opens, I watch my financial status become less and less secure. Who needs terrorists? This mess, after eight years of Bush, is destroying this country in far deeper ways than a terrorist attack could.
I'm struggling to come to grips with the conventional wisdom (echoed by the MSM) that somehow a terrorist attack would benefit the republican brand. To me, a terrorist attack would be direct evidence that the "efforts" on behalf of the Bush administration have NOT MADE US SAFER--demonstrably so. Especially if the circumstances surrounding such an attack could, in any way, be tied to the Iraq war having fanned the flames.
If anything, a terrorist attack would provide Obama with an excellent way to pivot and say "look, we've done it your way, and this is where it's gotten us...it's time to try something else..."
WTF? Am I crazy?
Here's how it works.
We all know that the September 11 attacks, which happened only a scant ten months into Bush's first term, were Bill Clinton's fault; so was the first attack on the World Trade Center, when Clinton had been President a whole month.
Likewise, if we get a major terrorist attack between now and November, it will prove that we still need the protection of the Imperial Republican Guard, and anyway it will be the fault of the Democrats, because they have had majorities in the House and Senate for almost a year and a half. If we don't have an attack, that proves the Emperor and his Heimatssicherheitsamt have protected us, in spite of the treasonous liberal fifth columnists and their shadowy crypto-Muslim associates. See?
You said:
"To me, a terrorist attack would be direct evidence that the "efforts" on behalf of the Bush administration have NOT MADE US SAFER--demonstrably so."
This is because you are thinking critically, logically. Those who were in lock-step with BushCo were reacting......emotionally, without much thought and definitely without critical analysis.
Christopher Hitchens, nothwithstanding.
America is crazy. We have bought the Republican propaganda for so long we've lost all good sense.
No ... good analysis ... I think should as you say "pivot and say "look, we've done it your way, and this is where it's gotten us...it's time to try something else..." even without another terrorist attack.
Sorry the post should read
No ... good analysis ... I think "Obama" should as you say "pivot and say "look, we've done it your way, and this is where it's gotten us...it's time to try something else..." even without another terrorist attack.
The War on Terror is a masterpiece of propaganda. The true threat of terrorism to the USA has always been minimal. Compare it with "mutually assured destruction" of the nuclear standoff of the Cold War. The real goal of the terrorist leadership is psychological--and they have succeeded beyond their most ambitious hopes. They have catalyzed the self-destruction of America. Terrorism is defined as military violence against civilians for political purposes, something WE perfected during WWII with the aerial bombardment of Germany and Japan. Hiroshima anyone?
No sane country would nowadays supply terrorists with WMD's because of the risks to themselves. Nukes in the hands of terrorists represent a phony threat as such weapons could be traced back to a nation-state of origin upon whom extreme vengeance would be exacted. So what then is the true threat of (Islamic) terorism? Only that it threatens the "stability" of the middle east, a region in which we have imperial pretensions and loyal allies. That's it. Yet we have bankrupted ourselves and nearly destroyed our military waging metaphorical war on a tactic (terrorism) and an emotion (terror).
This phenomenon says all too much about the American character at the Millennium. We have become an arrogant, greedy nation, incapable of correcting our errors (torture, bloated military spending, invading the wrong country, etc.). Instead we gladly risk accomplishing Bin Ladin's goals for him by destroying ourselves.
Great post. Good analysis. I've read your profile and your posts all seem to be intelligent and well-thought out. I especially like your line about waging "metaphorical war on a tactic...and an emotion." Spot on.
I do believe that many Americans are not simply greedy and arrogant, but truly under-educated and myopic. Children are inculcated to be so, in our society. I think in part, this stems from the fact that we live on a vast continent. In Europe, other countries are sometimes as close as the nearest county in the U.S. Different cultures abound, different customs, languages etc. which makes for a different world view and self image.
Add to that, the TV culture which reflects and reinforces our insular status and "Americanism"; we are a "market" of consumers, not a citizenry. (When did we become consumers, instead of citizens anyway?)
Those in our society who wish to expand their vision must be very motivated to do so. It's generally the more educated among us who choose this path. That is why the "warrenterra" works for those who are less intellectually rigorous; and why Black IS correct in his assessment that another terrorist attack WOULD be good for McCain (the assumption being he wants to appeal to those voters who had a favorable opinion of Bush just following 9/11).
I DOUBT EUROPEANS ARE ANY SMARTER THAN AMERICANS...
Or even better educated, on average. In fact, if anything, college-level education is far more available in the U.S. (basically available to anyone who can afford it or get financial assistance) where, in most European countries, there is a rather severe system of tests that "weeds out" most people from obtaining a higher education even as early as the intermediate level of school. And there are few second chances in this system. Additionally, I've never seen multiculturalism do much for people's critical thinking capabilities.
No, I think the difference is this. In Europe, even uneducated people at least respect people with an education, so that, by and large, European POLITICIANS tend to be not only better educated than their American counterparts but much more capable of genuine critical thinking, given that European universities still stress the humanities instead of the strictly pragmatic subjects that are the focus now of most American higher ed. I mean, consider the fact that George W. Bush went to Yale and Harvard. I rest my case....
Well written, TRex86! I would have added "desperate economic interests" as something we have in the Middle East. Perhaps you tie that to "imperial pretensions" since with imperial power comes control over the economy and natural resources.
Good post ... I agree with most of it. I'm not so sure 9/11s goal was terrorism.
It was called a "terrorist" act by the media and thus was able to be used to gin up a made up "global" terrorist network that didn't exist and even today is struggling to live up to its billing ... and to invade Iraq ... but I really do believe the group just wanted to punch us in the nose for sticking our nose in their countries business.
Thus 9/11 was a criminal act and should have been handled as such.
Understand I don't doubt 9/11 caused some to be afraid ... I just don't think it was meant to be a terrorist act. I am 100 percent behind bombing afghanistan and leaving it a pile of rubble ... we should never have invaded Iraq.
9/11 served two masters:
1. Al Qaeda wanted to punish us (for our tainting of the Holy Land with infidels) and threaten our smug sense of invulnerablity here at home. They succeeded big time at the cost of a few Saudi fanatics and $20 worth of box cutters. It ranks among the most successful terrorist events of all time and is a gift that keeps on giving from their viewpoint.
2. It served the neo-con quest for a second Pearl Harbor.
I have no doubts that the Bushies were incompetent in handling the lead-up. Failing to act on "Bin Ladin determined to attack in the US" should have been grounds for impeachment except everyone felt pity for our mentally-challenged president, caught reading My Pet Goat while the towers fell. Remember, this is the same "heckuva job, Brownie" bunch that brought us Katrina, however, they needed a catastrophe to cement their illegitimate power. I suspect they did a few things to assure that the attack got carried out, but then, I think the first Pearl Harbor was a set-up too.
George McCain... be afraid... be very afraid.
Loading comments…
Posted June 26, 2008 | 03:28 PM (EST)