Terrorists

People in the anti-war movement have gotten used to being called terrorist sympathizers, if not outright traitors by our good friends in the Right Wing Wurlitzer. Well, now even Republican presidential candidates are having that baseless charge flung at them, as Ron Paul discovered Wednesday during the Republican debate:

Paul said the Iraq was was making the US “less safe, and he called for a “new foreign policy that says we should mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our security,” prompting Wallace’s question.

“So, Congressman Paul … you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?” Fox host Chris Wallace asked. “If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?”

Welcome to the club, Congressman. It seems you can’t utter any discouraging words regarding President Bush’s Big Adventure in Iraq without being charged with treason by some right wing mouthpiece these days. And it’s been a somewhat successful tactic, as once prominent members of the antiwar movement, such as Cindy Sheehan, are now shunned by the Democrats in Congress. Not so long ago I remember Congressional representatives speaking at large protest rallies in Washington, DC were proud to stand by Cindy Sheehan’s side. Now they (and to their discredit many so-called progressives in the netroots) have disowned her.

This is the power that comes from controlling the media agenda, a power which the right still wields, even at a time when a majority of Americans want our troops out of Iraq, Democrats have regained control of Congress and President Bush is mired in the worst approval ratings of his tenure in office. When you control the mouthpiece, you control the conversation. You can label your political adversaries as traitors, as people who “take their marching orders from al Qaeda” and there will be no outcry against the use of such lies and slanders because too many will refuse to speak out against you. They will be intimidated by your power, because they know there is no voice, and no respect, given to those who deviate from the dominant media narrative. It’s why Rudy Giuliani can dress up in drag and flirt with Donald Trump but not have his “manliness” questioned, while John Edwards will be called a “faggot” and a “Breck Girl” when he gets a haircut or combs his hair.

It’s also why a deeply conservative libertarian Republican such as Congressman Paul (not a politician I admire, by the way, despite his opposition to the war) will be lumped in with rest of us traitorous scum on the left. And no one in the mainstream media will bat an eye, or lift a finger to question whether such behavior by a television “journalist” is appropriate for a debate among Presidential candidates, regardless of party affiliation. This is just how debased our discourse has become in the age of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and all the other mainstream media mavens of right wing hatred, demagoguery and propaganda.

And until progressive voices are accorded equal status and equal representation on television that is how it will remain. Because television is still the overwhelming news source of choice for most Americans. Progressives and liberals can dominate the internet all we like, but until there is one Keith Olbermann on TV for every Bill O’Reilly, one Phil Donahue for every Glenn Beck or Tucker Carleson, we will remain on the defensive, and the politicians we support will continue to desert our agenda when the going gets tough. Because they are afraid of what right wing media might do to them. To their political careers. To their reputations. To their families.

And that my friends is how terrorists operate.

9 Comments

on September 7, 2007 at 8:20 am

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/06/binladen.video.ap/index.html
They do however put on a continuous show even as the term al-cia-duh approaches entry into the dictionary.
More people are realizing poison from China, zero jobs for their kids, the enviornment and the Nazification of America as far more pressing problems than a religion on the other side of the world.

The circus that is media is still just a circus. Lemmings arguing about the color of the water before they all get to jump off the cliff.

idredit on September 7, 2007 at 8:35 am

Professor Juan Cole leads us to this article in “The Washington Monthly:

The Myth of AQI

Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military’s estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong.

In a nutshell Read the whole thing

After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation–raw hatred between local Sunnis and Shiites–might fit the circumstances just as well. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting AQI as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq. (In July, for instance, at Charleston Air Force Base, the president gave a speech about Iraq that mentioned al-Qaeda ninety-five times.)

By now, many in Washington have learned to discount the president’s rhetorical excesses when it comes to the war. But even some of his harshest critics take at face value the estimates provided by the military about AQI’s presence. Politicians of both parties point to such figures when forming their positions on the war. All of the top three Democratic presidential candidates have argued for keeping some American forces in Iraq or the region, citing among other reasons the continued threat from al-Qaeda.

But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda’s presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.[.]

on September 7, 2007 at 9:47 am

In explanation, I have long ceased to believe an organization named al-Qaeda has ever existed and that even if the did at one time exist the entire thing was a creation of US “Intelligence” agencies, hence the popular internet slang al-CIA-duh.
- BooMan on September 7, 2007 at 10:41 am
  
  This is popular theory. It’s wrong.
  
  I don’t know why it is hard to believe that there is an indigenous resistance to the Saudi regime, made up of people that bought the religious teaching and did not buy into the private jets, ritzy Riviera yacht parties, and expensive whores that the royal family so favor.
  - on September 7, 2007 at 1:03 pm
    
    Ok, perhaps I’ll grant you that such a thing does exist however I do insist it’s damage potential to me, as an American prole, is the same as alien abduction by Draconian lizard people. It is just a natural reaction to the six year corporate media stuffing al-qaida into every sentence faster than a gangster rapper can use four letter words. It has become a meaningless word and as such I refuse to give it any creedence.
    - BooMan on September 7, 2007 at 1:26 pm
      
      I basically agree with you, although it somewhat depends on where you live. If you are living in DC or NYC and using the subways and regional rail, the risk is higher than if you are living somewhere else.
      
      There are people out there that would like to create a mass casualty event.

sidewinder on September 7, 2007 at 9:58 am

Some one should answer Chris Wallace like this:

“Chris, your question is childish. America sets America’s foreign policy & our foreign policy should NOT merely be to be in opposition to whatever goals Al Qaeda has at the moment.

You would “take your marching orders” from Al Qaeda by always marching in the opposite direction. In that way, you can be ‘steered’ just as surely as if you always march in the same direction.

You and your ilk have already “taken your marching orders” by giving way to fear, indulging in torture & sacrificing American freedoms to the GOD of ‘security’. And you continue to do so every time you ask a question such as this. Grow up & grow a pair Mr Wallace. Next question.”

eodell on September 7, 2007 at 10:55 am

“So, Congressman Paul … you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?” Fox host Chris Wallace asked. “If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?”

The irony is that is exactly what Chris Wallace is suggesting: because Al Qaeda wants us out, we can’t go. Whatever Al Qaeda wants, we must do the opposite.

It doesn’t appear that folks on the right have considered the possibility that we could just do whatever is best for us, and not give a fuck what Al Qaeda wants. See, despite the appearance that Al Qaeda is just a ragtag bunch of crazy Islamic hillbillies who have carried off attacks by exploiting what was the total lack of security around embassies, naval vessels, and airports, they’re really a league of supervillians doing the bidding of Lex Luthor and Brainiac. Until Superman returns, we must through the armed might of the United States at this unstoppable menace.

Some days, I really miss the Soviets.

mikefromtexas on September 7, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Paul should have kicked Wallace in crotch and then said, ‘Excuse me, you were impling what exactly?’.

on September 7, 2007 at 8:20 am

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/06/binladen.video.ap/index.html
They do however put on a continuous show even as the term al-cia-duh approaches entry into the dictionary.
More people are realizing poison from China, zero jobs for their kids, the enviornment and the Nazification of America as far more pressing problems than a religion on the other side of the world.

The circus that is media is still just a circus. Lemmings arguing about the color of the water before they all get to jump off the cliff.
idredit on September 7, 2007 at 8:35 am

Professor Juan Cole leads us to this article in “The Washington Monthly:

The Myth of AQI

Fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq is the last big argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. But the military’s estimation of the threat is alarmingly wrong.

In a nutshell Read the whole thing

After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation–raw hatred between local Sunnis and Shiites–might fit the circumstances just as well. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting AQI as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq. (In July, for instance, at Charleston Air Force Base, the president gave a speech about Iraq that mentioned al-Qaeda ninety-five times.)

By now, many in Washington have learned to discount the president’s rhetorical excesses when it comes to the war. But even some of his harshest critics take at face value the estimates provided by the military about AQI’s presence. Politicians of both parties point to such figures when forming their positions on the war. All of the top three Democratic presidential candidates have argued for keeping some American forces in Iraq or the region, citing among other reasons the continued threat from al-Qaeda.

But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda’s presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.[.]
- on September 7, 2007 at 9:47 am
  
  In explanation, I have long ceased to believe an organization named al-Qaeda has ever existed and that even if the did at one time exist the entire thing was a creation of US “Intelligence” agencies, hence the popular internet slang al-CIA-duh.
  - BooMan on September 7, 2007 at 10:41 am
    
    This is popular theory. It’s wrong.
    
    I don’t know why it is hard to believe that there is an indigenous resistance to the Saudi regime, made up of people that bought the religious teaching and did not buy into the private jets, ritzy Riviera yacht parties, and expensive whores that the royal family so favor.
    - on September 7, 2007 at 1:03 pm
      
      Ok, perhaps I’ll grant you that such a thing does exist however I do insist it’s damage potential to me, as an American prole, is the same as alien abduction by Draconian lizard people. It is just a natural reaction to the six year corporate media stuffing al-qaida into every sentence faster than a gangster rapper can use four letter words. It has become a meaningless word and as such I refuse to give it any creedence.
      - BooMan on September 7, 2007 at 1:26 pm
        
        I basically agree with you, although it somewhat depends on where you live. If you are living in DC or NYC and using the subways and regional rail, the risk is higher than if you are living somewhere else.
        
        There are people out there that would like to create a mass casualty event.
sidewinder on September 7, 2007 at 9:58 am

Some one should answer Chris Wallace like this:

“Chris, your question is childish. America sets America’s foreign policy & our foreign policy should NOT merely be to be in opposition to whatever goals Al Qaeda has at the moment.

You would “take your marching orders” from Al Qaeda by always marching in the opposite direction. In that way, you can be ‘steered’ just as surely as if you always march in the same direction.

You and your ilk have already “taken your marching orders” by giving way to fear, indulging in torture & sacrificing American freedoms to the GOD of ‘security’. And you continue to do so every time you ask a question such as this. Grow up & grow a pair Mr Wallace. Next question.”
eodell on September 7, 2007 at 10:55 am

“So, Congressman Paul … you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?” Fox host Chris Wallace asked. “If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?”

The irony is that is exactly what Chris Wallace is suggesting: because Al Qaeda wants us out, we can’t go. Whatever Al Qaeda wants, we must do the opposite.

It doesn’t appear that folks on the right have considered the possibility that we could just do whatever is best for us, and not give a fuck what Al Qaeda wants. See, despite the appearance that Al Qaeda is just a ragtag bunch of crazy Islamic hillbillies who have carried off attacks by exploiting what was the total lack of security around embassies, naval vessels, and airports, they’re really a league of supervillians doing the bidding of Lex Luthor and Brainiac. Until Superman returns, we must through the armed might of the United States at this unstoppable menace.

Some days, I really miss the Soviets.
mikefromtexas on September 7, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Paul should have kicked Wallace in crotch and then said, ‘Excuse me, you were impling what exactly?’.

About The Author

Steven D

9 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments