Tuesday, July 18, 2006
call me obtuse if you will...
but i can't understand why many folks in this country felt that the right side is better for security- i have asked this question before and i am leaning towards the fact that their pr is better. these folks bill themselves as true patriots who love america and want to spread democracy far and wide. in reality, they are power/money grabbing imperialists who want to take the natural resources from other places to turn a profit. they have bankrupted our country and we are none the safer for it. they have eroded our civil liberties to what end? our ports and airports and water sheds and the rest of our infrastructure is still unsafe. i am beginning to think that the so-called captures of these circus clowns-cum- terrorists that they arrested was a staged job. with all of the evidence laid out on the table, is it an wonder that the percentage of americans who want them out has risen to 80%? call me obtuse but i don't think that it is a coincidence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Dressed in religious garb and wrapped in the flag, they stole into our country's business and robbed us blind of everything we hold dear. Our freedoms, reputation world wide and out country's values. Even though they call themselves religious people they okay torture and war. They truly are criminals and should be dealt with as such.
The selling of the idea of America by both parties is one of the best ad campaigns the world has ever known. The truth about America, is almost the exact opposite of what it supposedly stands for. Land of liberty and beacon of democracy or imperialist bully, who has been involved in one war or another since its inception!
Readers out there please don't start the "I hate america" comments. NO I DON'T! I just feel we, as Americans, need to take our ccountry back from the assholes who have been using us for as long as we have been a nation.
No betmo, you are not obtuse.
You got it right Betmo!!!
Why do we want Bush out? I could count the whys if we had a million days. We need a Peace president, not a war president. Well done, as usual, Betmo.
As far as I can tell, this nation has been slowly squirming its way toward a police state (anyone who's been to a decent demonstration knows this) in general (rather than specifically, if you're, take say, a Panther or member of AIM).
But aren't most people actually praying for it? Aren't most willing to trade their freedoms for "security"?
Betmo, you are one of the least obtuse bloggers I've read; open to many ideas, willing to ask questions, not reactionary, etc. You'd make a fine anarchista!
Why do Americans fall for these guys?
How about a little sales resistance!
Stop swallowing their crap.
What are they selling?
Anti-gay, anti-flag burning, anti-scientific research, anti-peace, anti-Constitution, anti-federal financial health, anti-Veteran's benefits, anti-enviroment, and on and on.
What's the common word there?
How about being pro something, like pro-people.
How about looking after the people, the country's future, and peace in the world instead of looking out for their selfish selves.
Not obtuse. Far from it.
It's really a matter of how we, as citizens, abdicate responsibility to con artists. The slicker the promotion, the better. And PNAC has the best ad campaign, because they appeal to base fears.
Betmo:
With leftist causes being attributed with groups like the ACLU, whom are willing to kill us all for the principle of civil liberties (which they readily tread on to achive their own goals), is it really any wonder why the Right is concidered strong on security?
The common problem with left politcians and national leaders is that they consistantly put intentions and ideals before results and reality. That is why they are concidered "soft", not because of some machismo sense of hard ass-ness the right reserves for itself.
Clinton and Carter are the two that have really done the left the most harm with that image. They were simply too ineffective in foriegn policy to thought of otherwise. They either undercommited, or dwadled on virtually ever foriegn policy decison presented to them.
Now, realize that they also set the bar for domestic policy, but that is a different post.
Before you go blaming all those evil "rich" guys, look at the root of the easy PR campaigns that repubs run on that issue.
g- not to be snarky- but are we living in the same country? explain to me exactly how this current regime has made america safer? oh- we haven't had another attack here- because we are fighting over in the middle east- and we arrested people who are so mentally ill and ignorant no one is taking this seriously as a threat. our infrastructure is no safer than before and there really is no plan to make homeland security a more efficient entity. now there is talk of selling airports and roadways to foreign countries because america is so broke we are on the verge of bankruptcy. the middle east has exploded and we have no one to rely on to assist us in asia at the moment because we are pissing off russia by blocking her entry into the wto. on cival rights and democracy issues no less- but china has been a member since 1997. huh- go figure. tell me again how the right is doing us regular americans a favor by being in office? barely any of the big wigs in washington at this moment have ever served in the military or seen actual combat but these are the people "leading" the supposed war on terror. i don't feel any more safe than i did since 2001- if anything i feel that it is just a matter of time before we go bankrupt or are actually attacked again. i am glad i live in new york because at least bloomburg went around the feds and developed their own security. that i feel safe with.
Betmo:
explain to me exactly how this current regime has made america safer
I didnt say we were any safer... you asked the question in your post: "why many folks in this country felt that the right side is better for security"
I was answering the "why" of that question (or at least what I think the answer is).
You asked that question, completely ignored why America is so ready to belive the PR campaign, and went into a diatribe about the right and its evil ways.
I personally think you missed another piece of the larger picture: namely ineffective foriegn policy that sacraficed results for principles, but remained blind to reality.
The say that the current administration hasn't done ENOUGH to protect us is one thing. But so say they've done NOTHING or even that they've done WORSE than the previous administration is just pure speculative fabrication.
Bottom line is that we really have not had an attack in this country since then. And we know it is not for lack of desire by terrorist orginizations. While we can probably both agree that some of the policies instituted in this endevor are "obtuse" (pun intended), it doesnt change the fact that America has not experianced a domestic attack by foriegn powers for four years of on-going war relations with them.
Not all of this is because of Bush. In fact I think most of it has to do with logistics. They are simply to too far away to quickly carrying random attacks. But, none the less, we had the Cole bombing, World Trade Center bombing, pipe bomb at Olympics in Georgia, and other's that led to Clinton signing the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act".
Yet, since Bush stood up the semi-defunct Homeland Security Dept, we've not had an attack.
So, like I said, you can most certainly complain that they've not done ENOUGH, but you'd be lying to say we're no more safe, or even LESS safe now. At least that's what I think.
ok- let's take on 'security' then. are we more secure than before? no- i don't think so. just because we haven't had another 'terrorist' attack- doesn't mean that we are secure. there are documented reports- the 9/11 commission to name only one- that has basically said that we are not any safer under homeland security. i posted about the state department document not too long ago- i'll see if i can find it again- also said that we weren't safer than pre 9/11. i am not lying- there is documented proof that we are no more secure than pre 9/11. as to the bush admin not doing anything- ok- you got me there. they instituted wiretapping and domestic spying in america, they were instrumental in getting congress to pass the patriot act and homeland security. they attempted to sell some of our major ports to a middle eastern country that may or may not have financial ties to 'terrorists.' according to a fellow blogger who leans to the right- bush is attempting to open up airlines to foreign sales- despite a congressional ban and more foreign folks are investing in our roadways and infrastructure. but gosh am i glad we are thinking about sealing our borders to mexico and building a highway system to connect the whole continent- under wraps until recently. my mistake.
Great post. You are not "obtuse" at all! And the American public is also waking up to the joke which has been the Bush administration. We are not safe, nor will we ever be. The people in power have done more to enrage the flames abroad than put them out.
However, I will give Bush credit for making people fearful. Because we live in fear, Bush and his administration has been able to get away with crushing our civil liberties and The Constitution in the name of "security."
But as the polling (FOX News polling!) stands at this moment, more people are choosing the Democratic party over the Republican party when it comes to terrorism and Congress. The tide is turning, and I give the American people credit for paying attention.
WoW!!
Seems like another one of those "wedge" issues to get some of the populace to focus on anything besides the war.
There is a War going on right now. Our country is at War. People are dying and being wounded. Our side, their side, all sides.
I believe this to be considered acceptable by this adminstration as it piles dollar after dollar upon their coffers
Security? What is it? Any American at any time can be a victim of a crime. It has no neighborhood boundaries or citywide boundaries. There is no "green zone" in Minneapolis for example.
The argument could be made that we are more secure than before 9/11 because there hasn't been a major attack. If that is the most important thing to you as an American, then you are in utopia.
If personal freedom is more important, then you have died and now live in hell, or at least close to the gates of it.
We must be peaceful ourselves for peace to conquer America. Individual by individual we must go about the business of living with peaceful thoughts and actions in our lives.
Alas, this is not possible for all because there are so many distractions that affect our lives. Distractions like poverty, discrimination of people because of race and sexual preference, the idea that a person who speaks with an accent, middle-eastern for example, is not an American but rather a terrorist, or a latin speaking worker is robbing you of a lifestyle that you are taught to believe is obtainable by depictions on TV of "reality".
Make no mistake. I won't give credit to this administration for making all this up for the promotion of their agenda, but I will give them credit for taking the ball and running with it and spinning the situation out of control in hopes that the people who are too busy to think about politics will listen to the bought-and-paid-for conglomerate news media and believe all they hear.
The Democrats do it too. It just doesn't seem so brutal to the common man.
If anyone wanted to commit a terrorist act, it would be relatively easy to do it, especially if you're white. There have been report after report on local newscasts that show the relative ease in which they can get through barriers at airports for example. I wonder how it would play out if FOX hired an Arab to read the nightly news and he or she went to the airport and tried that stunt.
Don't forget the war. People are dying every day. Our side, their side. Moms and Dads are crying at the wounding and death of their loved ones. If you think that is making you secure here in America, you are mistaken.
I agree with you completely, betmo. But recent poll numbers show Bush getting less than 50% approval even on national security. Moderates are starting to wake up to just how inept bushco is. The far right will never change. Who else have they got? And if they did finally accept reality, then they would have to acknowledge all the problems that bushco has created, and I just do not think they could take it.
As hard as it is for them to live in denial, it is still easier than the lives of 2,500 soldiers who died because bush misled us into war on their conscience. We only need two or three percent next presidential election. Actually, we only need about that amount in Ohio and a little more in Florida. As usual, whoever wins those two states will win the election. The way Santorum is looking in PA., the GOP does not have a chance there. Those are the three biggest undecideds.
What I would like to see, is the electoral college going away. Bush chides Putin for being anti-democratic, when the Supreme Court let the electoral college put Bush in his first term with less popular vote than Gore. It is way past time for that college to close.
Sorry to stray. Just sort of rambled on. While I am straying, I want to compliment you on your dedication to blogging. Even if you do not spend an enormous amount of time blogging, your work makes it seem like you do. I appreciate you taking the time to read my blog and comment. I know you have to be super busy with all your reading and posting. If you cannot make it by my neck of the net every day, I understand. Thanks for doing what you do.
p.s. To g,
I am probably not qualified to declare a winner, but since you mentioned Clinton, while I do agree he did not do enough to stop bin laden, he did have much success with Israel and Palestine. I think Bush has squandered all the progess Clinton made there. And as I mentioned in another post, the Taliban last week took control of two areas in Afghanistan. Bush is no expert on foreign policy.
Shawn;
I think it's obvious Bush isn't an expert... but that doesnt discount the fact that in the past 30 years, Dems have failed to commit or take any decisive action in matters of foriegn policy while (flawed or not) Republicans have.
And, as betmo didnt adress, THAT is why mainstream America sees the Dems as weak on national security/defense.
Kennedy and LBJ were the last DEM Presidents to act aggressivly and "actionary" rather than passive and "reactionary".
And I contend the notion that "anyone could commit a terrorist act if they wanted to".
There are more than enough people world wide that want to, and there are more than enough white people who'd take money to do it for a third party.... so then, why has it not happened?
Again, we're talking about Administrative infringments on civil liberties... but I'm sorry, to think that you can combat something as insidius as domestic or embedded terrorism without infringing on that right to privacy really is obtuse.
Realize that I am not agreeing with what goes on, but I do empathize with the authorites and the struggle to secure Americans while still repsecting rights that most concider sacred.
We, Americans, are all about complaints, and very short on solutions. We're all about screaming on the security of ourselves, our nation, or economy, our civil liberties... Yet always complain just as heavly when solutions are proposed that don't meet our liking.
Notions like "Secure the border" and "Secure our Ports" are all very well, but where does the money come from? Where does the staffing come from? Are you really ready to live in a nation that has barbed wire fences and armed troops roaming the boarders and ports?
Are you ready for supply shortages and price spikes as imported goods get bottle necked at the already over-burdened ports?
This is all stuff that the talking heads, GOP, DNC, and other society mogels ignore because they are inconvienent to the premise of simple dissagreement with the Admnistration.
i guess that i will take diplomacy over knee jerk reactions any day. carter attempted both diplomacy and aggression- as did nixon. both failed at one point. clinton used both- as part of a global world. bushco's pre-emption has destabilized the world now because of the decisions made- there really isn't any denying that. his admin has made the world far less secure and safe. no- you can't always negotiate your way out of a problem. however, what is the first thing that is done when there is a hostage situation in amercia? they call in a hostage negotiator. perhaps we should have international hostage negotiators so that countries like us and israel wouldn't have to deal with the terrorists but wouldn't have to bomb the shit out of them to no avail either.
my personal thought about security here is not a complaint. we are not secure. knee jerk legislation with no thought involved on implementation or logistics is stupid and pandering. i tell you what- i'll give it a think after my morning coffee- and i will come up with my take on the securtiy problem. that way i can hopefully move out of g's realm of complaining and into the decisive action category.
g....I don't know what your argument is. If you are answering the simple question as stated, then you've made some good points. I even agree as to the reasons stated as to why Americans may feel the Democrats are softer on security than the Republicans.
The problem remains that there are so many other issues that show a corrupt and inept leadership with this particular administration. The simple fact that this administration started a war has made a boondoggle out of National security.
And so many unanswered questions. Why the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country on 9/11 and 12 or the ties with the Saudis for example. So many caveats they are too numerous to mention. So the simple premise that there have been no new attacks since 9/11 doesn't do much for me.
Besides, in a truly free country, it is a chance you take. Anyone anywhere can take a shot. Timothy MacVeigh for example. Sure, secure our borders by taking cautious steps, but barbed wire and walls is out of the question as is armed militia watching us at airports and the like. Add to those freedoms the stalking of war protestors and the constant ongoing arrest of people like Cindy Sheehan in the name of National security. It is a lie and when you search your heart of hearts, you know it is a lie.
To buy the media, (and by that I mean most major news sources are owned by only a few wealthy conglomerated corporations), and have the news reports tell only a fraction of the truth also has a bearing on what we, as Americans, know about security. Listen to "Democracy Now" and the BBC news. They don't just tell lies. Some of it has got to be true. The bought media isn't allowed to report the other side of every coin.
This administration fired the first shot based on lies. They tried many different explanations, but the bottom line is that they attacked another country. The Dictator that we put into power was bad and we started a war to change that Dictatorship based on fear that was thrust into the minds of Americans because of a terrorist event. Now we must be more aware than ever before about National security. I believe more because we started another war.
You can't make every human being behave totally in any environment. And especially can't have human beings be peacful when we fire the first shot. I learned that in every John Wayne movie ever made. The bad guy, the guy who started the fight is the loser in the end.
I realize that there are many that want to fight America. But I also realize the main population of the world wants peace.
I want peace. I am against a war that we started. I will stand my ground against war and take my chances with security.
i guess my other observation is this: on the list in my links- almost every repub on the list did not serve in the military- some did but not in active combat. they are the ones smearing other veterens and allegedly keeping america safe by leading us in what has turned out to be disasterous war on several fronts. perhaps diplomacy comes from actually seeing people die and not wanting anyone else go through it again. perhaps knowing what true warfare is precludes not ever wanting it to happen to the people you love. perhaps seeing what war does to human beings makes it seem less like a glory fantasy. those are the people i want making wartime decisions- people like colin powell- a man with integrity who has been there and isn't afraid to make hard decisions but takes pause when making terrible ones. there was no pause in the march to war in the middle east and there was no pause in the lockstep legislation. if anyone can tell me that america is better off today than it was in 2002- i will certainly listen.
Post a Comment