Posted: 11 Aug 2004
"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.'" (Full article here)
Yes, you read that right. The not-so-subtle implication is that if you believe anybody would be better to lead this country than Bush, then, gosh, you have something in common with the terrorists! Hell, you could even be a terrorist! But you're not, are you? You don't hate America enough to vote for John Kerry, do you?
Bush is a heroic leader, something akin to Alexander the Great, and his righteous wrath will squash these terrorist cells wherever they may be. No one can hide from George W. Bush --
Oh, this just in from that same article: ...several al Qaeda terrorists already in the United States are part of the plot, although their identities and locations are not known.
Yes! Bush certainly has these diabolical motherfuckers over a barrel! Terrorists: you can not run, and you cannot hide. You know, unless you're hiding within our borders.
It seems every news release regarding new al Qaeda information always must include an overt plug for George W. Bush's re-election. On the day the threats to financial centers were announced, I recall Tom Ridge saying something to the effect that we need to remember that President Bush's strong leadership scares the terrorists, which is why they want to attack us. This is why Bush is able to proclaim in his stump speeches, ad infinitum, that "the American people are safer," while simultaneously Tom Ridge can tell us about imminent threats, and we can constantly read news articles like the ones listed above.
If there's a better example of doublespeak in this country right now, I'd like to know what it is. We can't have it both ways. Either we're safer, as the President claims, or we're in greater danger than ever before, as, uh, the President claims.
But here's what really gets me: the terrorists can't stand Bush because he's kicking their asses, right? Well, what was the rationale for 9/11, then? Bush ran on a platform practically of isolationism. He was against nation building, and against going around the world telling people how things were going to be done. He said these things more than once. And then we were attacked.
Hardline Muslim terrorists don't hate the United States because of our "freedom," and they don't hate us because we fought back after 9/11. Believe it or not, the root cause of their hatred isn't even the invasion of Iraq (though that was like throwing kerosene on the fire). It's our support for Israel. Pure and simple. This is not new. Go back to OPEC cutting off the oil supply in the 1970s because of US support for Israel. Go back to the marine barracks bombing in Beirut in the 1980s. Go back to the attacks while Clinton was President: the first WTC bombing and the attack of the USS Cole. It's all about Israel.
I'm not suggesting we should stop supporting Israel because lunatics with bombs want us to. (There are plenty of reasons to stop supporting Israel, but I won't go into them here.) But we need to stop kidding ourselves about their aims. More importantly, our intelligence agencies and government figures need to stop using this in such blatantly political ways. If Bush gets results, he can use that in his campaign. If he doesn't, Kerry can use that in his campaign. But intelligence officials and spokesmen have only one job, and that's stopping these people. Stumping for Bush is not a part of their job descriptions, and that it's happening makes me sick.
This is also why Bush's nomination for head of the CIA, Congressman Porter Goss, is a bad choice. Someone entrenched in partisan politics is not a good fit in a position like that. I don't care what political party the man belongs to -- I care that he's in politics. Politics has no place in our national security, but you wouldn't know it by paying even the slightest attention to the news.
Someone hose me down.
(originally published at http://www.livejournal.com/users/shotfrog/140204.html)