Bush would have you believe that "terrorism" is the greatest threat of the 21st century but that's according to Bush, Blair and the regime du jour in Israel. The fact is your chances of being killed by terrorists are tiny; your chances of getting killed while crossing any big city street in America is much higher. According to a United Nations report by Peter Heinlein, political violence has been dropping since the end of the cold war.A report by the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center concedes that international terrorism has increased somewhat recently -but most of those incidents are linked to Kashmir. Has Bush ever proposed that we go to war with Kashmir? The Center's report concludes that terrorism is not the grave security threat that Bush and his GOP hangers-on would have you believe.
In America the biggest beneficiaries of terrorism have been incumbent regimes, primarily Reagan, Bush Sr. and now Bush Jr. Is this co-incidental? If you believe pigs fly.The Truth About Terrorism
0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.
0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.
0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.
0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.
0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.
0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.
2,752: in USA killed by terrorism in 2001 (all on 9/11).
Waging "War" on nations said to be supporting or nurturing "terrorists" is counterproductive -unless it is the purpose of demagogues (Bush and Reagan) to exploit terrorism for political purposes. James I of England used "terrorism" to rally Protestants following the gun powder plot. Guy Fawkes was executed for high treason but not until James I denounced the act of terrorism, declaring "We dinna need the Papists now!" In fact, the gun powder that was found in the Houses of Parliament was traced to the government's own stores of armaments. Inside job? Fawkes' alleged attempt to blow up Parliament came at a time of great disillusionment with the reign of James I, Elizabeth's successor.
A grasp on power based on war and/or terror will prove to be fleeting, fading when the danger is seen to have passed. Ronald Reagan, like Bush now, waged a great "war on terrorism". "You can run but you can't hide", Reagan boasted. But after two years there was absolutely nothing to show for this great GOP war! When the Marine Barracks in Lebanon was blown up, Reagan simply withdrew. In fact, FBI Stats compiled and published by the Brookings Institute prove conclusively that over the two years that Reagan waged his great war, terrorism increased very nearly exponentially. At the end of this counter-productive war, so called terrorist attacks on U.S interests decreased.
More recently, Bush Sr's attack on Saddam Hussein following the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait came a time when Senior's approval ratings were probably even lower than Junior's are now. See Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States".
Like Junior now, Bush Sr lied about his war against Iraq. Bush told the world that Hussein had developed a nuke. Where are those nukes? Where are those WMD? Where is a single truth told by any Bush at any time about anything?
At least one poll this week has Bush plunging into the 20's. What the polls don't measure is the level of outrage among those disapproving of Bush's performance. That will require a different methodology.
The recent polls may point to a sea change in American thinking, a major re-alignment that threatens what the GOP had hoped would be a permanent majority. Bush Sr was in the 20's ratings-wise when he decided to attack Iraq. John Sununnu boasted that Senior Bush's victory in Iraq would insure his re-election. But, it was not the war —as Carville would prove —it was the economy!
Bush Sr pioneered every tactic now employed by Shrub. It was not enough to get Pappa re-elected but it may very well be enough to get Junior indicted.
One would hope that at this point the nation will wake up! As I've said before: we would call a doctor an idiot who tells you to keep on doing whatever it is that's making you sick. Pappa's Bush and Ronald Reagan's failed experiments with fascism should have awakened this nation to the dangers. The back to back failures of these criminal administrations should have been warning enough. The GOP should already have been consigned to an ignominious history. What this nation needs is a party of the loyal opposition —not a party that schemes to set up a right wing, theocratic dictatorship.
'Toons by Dante Lee; use only with permission
3 comments:
I find it interesting that in the recent Gallup Poll, when asked an open ended question about the most important problem facing the country, only 6% cited terrorism.
The editor of the poll, Frank Newport, cited the lack of discussion about terrorism as the reason for the low numbers. I guess that means Dubya needs to start talking about terrorism more. Need to get them numbers up if they want to beat the Dems come November.
fuzzflash, great point about the demonstrations in Paris. If at any time in our history, Americans should have taken to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, it should be now. Washington is a small town; real "peace" could bring that place to a grinding halt.
I was not aware of Swift's comment about Fawkes. That is a great example of what used to be called "wit". And, sadly, it's a lost art. Americans have not only pissed away their freedom, they've screwed up the language. but —Swift lives.
Neil Young is right. Impeachment alone falls far short. Reclaiming the Constitution against years of callous, Machievellian disregard is the real challenge.
Xsociate23, that poll number could be cited in favor of the proposition that Bush may find it hard to exploit terrorism for political purposes. But, as you have suggested, it might simply mean that Bush has neglected it of late. But that's the danger. If those numbers are correct, it'll take another attack on U.S. soil to bring terrorism to the forefront of issues again. As both numbers drop, the danger posed by Bush increases.
I think another conclusion that might be drawn from those polls numbers is that it could mean that more people are seeing thru the hype. I don't think it is for a lack of trying on the part of the Bush administration to scare us. Think about it. Has there been any speech made by Bush since September 11th were he hasn't uttered 'terror' is some form or another? You can probably count them on one hand.
These numbers could mean that more people are taking a realistic view of terrorism rather than the "long war" approach favored by the Bushies.
Post a Comment