For much of the last decade, the Republican line about liberals has been that whenever we downplayed the urgency of the so-called terrorist threat (or dared to criticize then-President Bush for that matter) we were somehow emboldening the terrorists.
For example, during the 2004 campaign, John Kerry was annihilated by the Dick Cheney wingnut right when he said, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
Oh holy hell! Kerry said what?!
He was exactly right, of course, both strategically and rhetorically. The senator was outlining how we ought to be simultaneously destroying al-Qaeda and, in the "home of the brave," we ought to be acting like grown-ups rather than a nation of scared little pee-pants infants frightened of unseen toe monsters lurking under the bed.
Cheney and others, in response to Kerry, were very clearly implying that terrorism was always going to be a serious and existential threat to America -- that we have every right to be both terrified and terrorized -- therefore we absolutely have to torture people, undermine the rule of law, preemptively invade sovereign nations and, naturally, elect Republicans in order to be safe.
What the far-right has never grasped, however, is that the whole point of a terrorist attack isn't necessarily to kill people. The point is to terrorize. Scott Shanes in the New York Times quoted a former Homeland Security and CIA official:
"We give comfort to our enemies," said Charles E. Allen, a 40-year C.I.A. veteran who served as the top intelligence official at the Department of Homeland Security from 2007 to early last year. Exaggerated news coverage and commentary, he said, "creates an atmosphere of tension and fear, and to me that's exactly the wrong way to go."
Fareed Zakaria spelled it out even further this week:
The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction. Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorized, then the attack didn't work. Alas, this one worked very well.
In the case of the Underpants Bomber, by collectively losing our shit and inflating a minor fracas out of proportion -- by acting as though this was a major bloody attack and subsequently acquiescing to full body scans and further violations of our civil liberties, we're handing al-Qaeda a victory. The attempt was a failure, but the overreaction in its aftermath turned it into an easy win for al-Qaeda.
Good job, Republicans. Good job, Fox News.
Speaking of which, it didn't take long for Fox Nation to run a banner headline equating the failed Underpants Bomber incident with the earthquake in Haiti.
"Pres. Obama Reacts to Haiti Earthquake Faster Than Christmas Bomber"
Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh said the same thing on his Wednesday radio broadcast.
The implication of Limbaugh and the Fox Nation headline was that the President should have reacted more quickly to the relatively very minor Underpants Bomber than to the catastrophic earthquake that might've killed upwards of 500,000 people. In this case, they're amplifying a failed incendiary device to a level more significant than a massive loss of life in one of the world's most destructive natural disasters.
Of course the President is going to react more quickly to a disaster like the earthquake in Haiti than he is to a Junior Qaeda with an exploding taint (who, by the way, didn't kill anyone). Any rational observer can see that the President's reactions have been proportional to the gravity of the events.
Nevertheless, Limbaugh and Fox Nation continue to illustrate how the far-right invariably overreacts to terrorism, blowing it way out of proportion and elevating a scattered network of radicals to a fighting status equaling the mighty United States. It's been this way since September 11. "The response of the onlookers," as Zakaria wrote, has been obscene.
Rewind a few years. Limbaugh once told his audience, "Civil liberties are worthless if we are dead." In late 2005, Senator "Big John" Cornyn said, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead." Predictably enough, in a 2006 poll, Gallup reported that Republicans were more willing to give up basic liberties for the sake of preventing terrorism. This is precisely the overreaction that terrorists seek, and it's precisely what the Republicans are giving them.
Today, it's Liz Cheney and her fear-mongering commercials. It's Peter King, who's been all over cable news hyperventilating into a paper sack since Christmas. It never ceases to amaze me how a faction of allegedly tough-talking conservatives can be so easily frightened by a kid with exploding underpants who couldn't even do it right. Listening to Republicans for the last several weeks, you'd think Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a steroid-pumped, 12-foot-tall transforming robot with ICBMs strapped to his gigantic unit. In reality, this guy was the Steve-O of terrorists -- only, Steve-O was usually successful when attempting to blow up his jockeys.
But, by now, the damage is done. The Republican fear-mongering and overreaction to the Underpants Bomber has signaled that we're all too willing to give "comfort to our enemies" by handing them exactly what they seek: a national panic attack and an increased willingness to give up our liberties for the illusion of security.
Like John Kerry, I want terrorism to be nothing more than nuisance. Like President Obama, I'm not interested in knee-jerking or selling out our values, liberties and dignity whenever a terrorist tries something stupid. Ultimately, it's okay to be afraid when something awful happens, but our character as a nation is defined by how we react. I can't imagine anything more self-defeating -- anything that emboldens a terrorist more -- than allowing ourselves to acquiesce and succumb to our fears.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog
Bob Cesca on Twitter
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
We should keep the Conservatives from sh*tting on this country more than they already have. Keep our Liberties and actually make the military do something instead of invading a country for Oil.
"In the case of the Underpants Bomber, by collectively losing our shit and inflating a minor fracas out of proportion -- by acting as though this was a major bloody attack and subsequently acquiescing to full body scans and further violations of our civil liberties, we're handing al-Qaeda a victory. The attempt was a failure, but the overreaction in its aftermath turned it into an easy win for al-Qaeda."
To call the incident that happened on Christmas day a "minor fracas" is of the utmost ignorance. Just because the suicide bomber was unsuccessful (thru no accomplishment of our security system), that made it "minor"?? Ask the people on that plane how minor it was. Ask their loved ones...ask anyone who travels on a plane how minor that was.
This widespread liberal ignorance is excruciatingly perplexing. The apparent point in this article is that by not being scared.. we will win... WHAT??? I don't understand. Being scared is actually sometimes a good thing. It invokes action. And without action, in this case, it's guaranteed that more people will die.
Yeah, overreaction is bad but worse than losing more lives? There is a concept ..." better safe than sorry".. that the left doesn't seem to comprehend. And in an attempt to not be "terrorized" they've reverted back to pre 9/11 days... where terrorism was a "nuisance". A nuisance??? If we cannot learn from 9/11 that tragedy is made even more tragic. And the left hasn't learned anything it seems.
How much of a nuisance will it be when they finally acquire nuclear weapons??? Anyone who wants to categorize that as a "nuisance" should be institutionalized.
The ultimate goal of Islamic terrorists is NOT to invoke terror. It is to either convert us to their religious beliefs or kill us. To diminish their intent to "oh, they just want to scare us" is unbelievably niave and ignorant.
Every terrorist-inspired erosion of cilvil liberties in this country is a victory for terrorism. For example, European countries try terrorists in civil courts and in large cities like London and Madrid. Is our judicial system so weak that we can't do the same? Or are American just that easily frieghtened?
And now we have Dick and daughter reversing the talking point while they were in office by trying to elevate "the illusion of security" to a national theme again, knowing full well that future acts will come, just as all of us will continue to live and die.
(Bush NEVER would have been president were it not for the social class he was born into - Contrast that with Clinton and Obama and you really have food for thought)
The similarities to Liz Cheney's comments (She too is a nobody were it not for the social position she was born to, but did not earn) and the current Iran government's prosecution of desenter is striking.
9/11 turned us into a nation of children, wandering about forlornly and seeking counsel and protection. In walks Bushco, playing the fear card. (It's so easy to control children by fear); so we became accustomed to living in fear, knowing we would be protected by the President.
Now, after 8 years af childhood, we get a President who leads by example and speaks to us as if we were adults, and we can't handle it. We seek the familiar, and so we respond to the Republican fear message - because subliminally, we'd rather be afraid and let someone else look after us. That way, when they f*ck up, we'll have someone, other than ourselves, to blame.
http://www.myspace.com/virginiadem
I highly recommend Bruce Schneier's email newsletter on encryption and physical security issues.
http://www.schneier.com/
Sign up for the newsletter http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram.html
I have been saying this for quite a while now and not just here on this board. Terrorism is a nuisance. The question you have to ask yourself is: who is profiting from terrorism, who? (hint: think about the military / industrial complex).
Cummon Johnny boy, fess up and tell all. You are supposed to be a patriotic American, with holding this information is treason.
A minor inconvenience, to be sure, but it doesn't require you to strip and have someone to inspect your a**hole before you drive your car. I'm sure that would be a fine idea, too. No?
Hey! Wait! We wanna SAVE people, don't we???
If this collection of people ever coalesces under one leader (a.k.a. fuhrer), look out.
Unfortunately, that may already be the case, but we don't know who that person is for sure. IF such a situation already exists, we are already toast and don't know it.