In recent weeks we have seen the emergence of two seemingly unrelated lines of attack against Senator Obama. One false rumor claims that he is Muslim (which, by the way, shouldn't matter) and tries to link him to groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda. The other falsely tries to define him as a leftist terrorist sympathizer. While these two seemingly distinct lines of attack are written off by most as products of the lunatic fringe, I beg to differ. Here's why.
Shortly after 9/11, the crowd in the Bush Administration decided the legitimate US intelligence community was made up of liberal idiots and took it upon themselves to take corrective action. The result? A complete rewrite of the history of terrorism. The end product? Judeo-Christian/Conservative world good, Islamic/Liberal world bad.
How could something like this happen?
The Bush Administration began by creating a body of terrorism data that would support its world view. In other words, the correct answer according to the Bush administration came first; the outsourced, multi-million dollar custom-designed data to support the Bush Administration's world view came second.
And thus, the Bush Administration in its definition of terrorism excluded over 90 percent of the data on terrorism incidents pulled together by previous US governments. The Bush government divided up the world ideologically into Left (anarchist, anti-globalization, communist/socialist, environmentalist); Radical Religious (mostly Muslim); Nationalist/Separatist (mostly ungrateful folk who object to our exploitation of their natural resources); Right (right-wing conservative, right-wing reactionary, racist); and Religious (three guesses which religion gets top billing), and
The result?
According to this piece of high-priced fiction, the most dangerous ideology in the world is that of the radical Left (37 percent of all terrorist groups, and 38 percent of all terrorist incidents worldwide, 1968 to the present), closely followed by radical religious groups (22 percent of all terrorist groups, and 20 percent of all terrorist incidents worldwide, 1968 to the present).
And the least dangerous?
Funny you should ask this. According to the Bush Administration's pet database, the least dangerous ideology in the world is that of the radical right. And, no, I am not joking. The ideological beliefs that spawned Hitler; provided the rationalization for the murder of civil rights activists, liberal politicians, abortion clinic providers, and environmentalists; that inspired the Oklahoma City bombing, and thousands of hate crimes was credited with having produced only 8 percent of all terrorist groups and 1 percent of all terrorist incidents (1968 to the present) worldwide.
In other words, the Bush Administration, with the stroke of a pen (or, more correctly, a computer) did what the Southern Poverty Law Center hasn't been able to do in decades: It got the number of terrorist incidents carried out by the KKK down to zero.
Criminal?
Not according to the GOP and the McCain/Palin camp. They continue to claim that the Bush Administration is 100 percent patriotic and pro-national security. Perhaps the acts that help define the Bush Administration, such as torture and terrorism, all depend on their definition.
Which brings us back to those rumors and the real nature of the fight being waged against Senator Obama and the Democrats in 2008.
Based on the data cited above, if you combine the threat of the radical Left as defined by the Bush Administration (which the McCain camp links to Senator Obama) with the threat of radical religious groups as defined by the same sector (Senator Obama as a Muslim), you get the ultimate threat as defined by the Bush camp circa 2002. Just add a Middle East dictator, a vial of anthrax, and a U.N. speech and, presto, change-o, we're headed into Baghdad (or is it Tehran? I forget which).
Coincidence? I think not.
To put it another way, it is highly improbable that these two anti-Obama myths, so perfectly in step with the Bush Administration's own world view, were generated independently of the government, let alone produced by the lunatic fringe. Add into the mix the GOP's fondness for hate politics a la Karl Rove, and it is nearly impossible not to conclude that the origin of this twin-pronged anti-Obama campaign is to be found within the ranks of the GOP itself.
So what's the bottom line?
While I would reject any suggestion that Democrats should stoop to this level, I do believe it is imperative that the party stops giving the Bush/McCain/Palin camp the benefit of the doubt when their carefully scripted, well rehearsed statements "accidentally" generate death threats. We should stop second guessing our gut instincts that something dangerous is in the air. We are not, I repeat NOT, imagining things. Not even a little bit.