Back in the Saddle Again
The Bush team is back at what they do best: lying to the American people in an attempt to scare them into licensing the Bush team to 4 more years of running our country amok.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, John Kerry said this:
''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. . .
''As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
Bush campaign Chairman Marc Racicot, in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition," interpreted Kerry's remarks as saying "that the war on terrorism is like a nuisance. He equated it to prostitution and gambling, a nuisance activity. You know, quite frankly, I just don't think he has the right view of the world. It's a pre-9/11 view of the world."
(CNN.com)
What is the right view Marc? Is it the old let's kill them until they stop hating us view?-- 'Cause I think that one's going around in circles. Oh yes, Marc, could you also tell me when the War on Terror, under George W. Bush is going to end? Funny, he hasn't really given a very concrete answer. I guess the War on Terror will be going on long enough to keep scaring the people into voting Republican.
I have some bad news everybody:
TERRORISM WILL ALWAYS EXIST
I'm sorry I had to be the one to tell you, but that's that. Terrorism has existed as long as political opposition has. It's been around since organized crime (it is organized crime), gambling, and even prostitution-- and it's not likely to end soon.
We can reduce it. And that was the clear spirit of Kerry's statements.
Bush's policy of destruction, which increases the very root causes of terrorism--Hate and Poverty-- is no way to do it. Hate and Poverty must be decreased in order to stop terrorism in the long term, and that means we can only solve terrorism in the long term with Democracy, Education, and Jobs.
Where there's war, Democracy, Education, and Jobs have no chance.
The longer we're warring (we'll never stop fighting terrorism) the bigger chance we have of losing. WE MUST WIN NOW. Peace is needed for Democracy, Education, and Jobs to survive.
This is not a battle that the U.S. can fight alone. It needs the whole world behind it. Terrorism is a global problem, that can only be solved with global solutions.
We will never think of terrorism as a nuisance that is a mere trifle to be dealt with. But it was, and can be again, something that happens rarely. Do you think Bush's belligerent policies will make that happen? Do you know how? He hasn't told us.
My friends, I'm afraid if Bush is reelected, the War on Terrorism will be far longer than any of us now imagine.
And maybe I was wrong. Maybe we can eliminate Terrorism. Maybe some day in the future if we come to our senses and mix Peace, Democracy, Education, and Jobs.
The Truth would be nice too.
my feed
5 Comments:
Gustav, I'm not convinced that poverty is the root of terrorism. It may be a contributing factor to providing some of the"foot soldiers" who do most of the dirty work, but the leadership comes from wealth. For example, bin Laden comes from extreme wealth in Saudi Arabia and al Zaqari (sp?) was a doctor with wealth from Egypt. Without this leadership, the terrorist movement is a "nuisance." Why do you think well-educated and wealthy people are so much against the U.S.? And what is the way to stop them? - Chuck
With all the fact checking that is happening almost immediately these days, do you think that such a comment by Racicot is really going to have some affect? - Chuck
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm glad you brought up the Osama/wealth issue. I wanted to write something about it on the posting, but I find the more I write the less I tend to sleep.
Firstly, please note that I didn't mention poverty as the sole root of terrorism. I also mentioned hate.
Hate can come from a lot of different places-- poverty being one of them. But hate also comes from the extreme type of Islam that bin Laden and Zarqawi follow.
Radical religious beliefs have led to terrorism from fundamentalists of EVERY religion. That's why I listed "Education" as one of the solutions.
But in no way am I arguing that if only Osama had been educated in a democratic, free society, would not have become a terrorist. But perhaps many of his followers wouldn't have. No, poverty is certainly not the only root.
A wide income gap also seems to be a root, where money buys you power, and that power buys you influence over the desperate masses (who are living in poverty).
The hunger for power is also one root-- and that, I believe, is the particular root feeding bin Laden. The U.S. will always have enemies that attack it in an attempt to gain power. For that reason we must always be vigilant; and protecting ourselves from terrorism will always mean law enforcement and a level of violence.
Good intelligence helps too. We've got to follow the trails of the wealthy donors to "Islamic charities" and other money laundromats that fund terror. This path will lead us to many of our rich, well educated enemies.
But continual heavy violence, such as that directed by the Bush administration and advocated by most neo-cons only enflames the roots of terror.
But this is where I disagree with you:
Without this [wealthy and well-educated]leadership, the terrorist movement is a "nuisance." I believe exactly the inverse. Without the "foot soldiers" the wealthy and well-educated leadership who lead the terrorist movement will become much easier to control.
I don't know how to make a bomb, but I could find the info easily, and probably build one pretty cheaply. Between the Palace of Culture's (Warsaw's most famous building) entrance and coatroom there are no metal detectors. There are 1 or 2 security guards. I could leave my backpack (full of explosive material) there in the coatroom and walk back out of the building. At home, I could detonate the bomb by cell phone. As you know Chuck, I'm no millionaire, yet I probably have enough money to commit this atrocity in my bank account right now-- But I won't do this because my values don't allow it.
Poorly funded Polish insurgents over many years created havoc for both Nazis and Communists.
You don't need a lot of dough to make more than a nuisance.
You do need a lot to commit the atrocities of September 11th though. But you also need the bodies.
Without the volunteers, all of bin Laden's money funds flight training for no-shows.
If I have a job at the bank or bakery and a family to support, I'm less likely to join your army.
If I have a bright future, I'm less likely to become your suicide bomber even if you promise to pay my family when I'm gone.
Chuck, you are well-educated man brought up in a religious but tolerant society. Could Osama pay you to hijack one of those planes?
Without the bodies, who's gonna carry the belt-bombs? Who's gonna fight the insurgency? Who's gonna fly the planes? Osama himself? He might have some trouble getting flight training.
When you reduce terrorism at the bottom, it's easier to focus on the top.
Obviously, we're a long ways away from irradicating poverty and religious extremism. That's why these power-hungry terror-funders will be our enemies for a long time. Bush's war brings us nowhere nearer accomplishing these goals. If he's reelected we'll have more of these types of enemies for a longer time.
Let's win, let's get out, let's start rebuilding.
The quicker we let these folks become responsible citizens, the quicker we reduce the number of terrorists bin Laden and friends have to fund. And the quicker we with this thing.
P.S.-- The Israel/Palestine conflict is also a root, but that's a whole new blog. Tonight I don't have the energy.
In an answer to the Marc Racicot question, please see the comments to the above blog here. The answer depends on whether you believe enough of the major media outlets with a Republican bias can get to the small number of undecided voters.
My personal opinion: Yes, it will have an effect. If you hear anything enough you begin to believe it.
Post a Comment
< Main